Critical Passages on Labeling theory & More Lecture Notes

As usual, I got bogged down in trying to present the theories again today, so I am going to make amends on the blog. First, I will give you the passages on labeling theory which I quoted in class. And let me add, in reference to Nick's question about research to support this theory, it has been many years since I have read some of this literature, so I can't cite any specific studies, but I do recall that some of the books published in this area made a case for this theory and cited evidence. But as the critical passages indicated, whatever evidence there is for labeling theory is weak at best and subject to question.

PASSAGES ON LABELING THEORY:

First, from Howard Becker's "Outsiders," a statement of the theory:
"One of the most crucial steps in the process of building a stable pattern of deviant behavior is likely to be the experience of being caught and publicly labeled as a deviant. Whether a person takes this step or not depends not so much on what he does as on what other people do ...being caught and branded as a deviant has important consequences for one's further social participation and self-image."

And then a couple critical comments from Prof. Akers:
"People are labeled as delinquent, criminal, homosexual, mentally ill, drug addicts, child molesters, and so on largely on the basis of overt acts they have committed. Therefore, the deviant behavior itself is prior to and forms the basis for the stigmatizing label. THE BEHAVIOR CREATES THE LABEL MORE THAN THE LABEL CREATES THE BEHAVIOR; AND SUBSEQUENT DEVIANT BEHAVIOR CONTINUES THE LABEL MORE THAN THE LABEL CONTINUES THE BEHAVIOR."

Finally, despite the strong criticism, Prof. Akers, among others, does see some promise in Braithwaite's revision (concept of "reintegrative shaming"). Akers fairly, and very broadly, identifies what he sees as the principal strength and principal weakness of labeling theory -- "The principal strength of labeling theory is that it calls attention to the unintended consequences of social control. Its principal weakness is that it essentially ignores primary deviance and seriously underestimates the influence that other variables have on behavior in the first place and continue to have on its future occurrence."


MORE LECTURE NOTES:

SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY

A. This theory originated at the University of Chicago in the 1920s and it is closely associated with a broader theoretical perspective known as URBAN ECOLOGY, that Chicago School sociologists developed around the same time. They are closely interrelated.

1. The urban ecologists developed various models to describe the city, its growth and development. They identified certain "natural areas" or zones, some of which had distinctly higher rates of criminal behavior. Why?

2. The social disorganization theorists contended that these high crime areas were characterized by a variety of indicators of social disorganization. For example, an especially crime-prone area was the so-called "zone of transition" -- an area near the commercial core which was changing from residential to commercial. Characterized by physical decay, poor housing, incomplete or broken families, high rates of illegitimate births, and an unstable, transient, heterogenous population -- all regarded as indicators of "social disroganization."

a.) Other characteristics identified in later versions of the theory (Sampson and Groves, 1989): lack of informal friendship networks, low participation in organizations, etc.

3. Basically, you have normal people trying to cope with these abnormal conditions, and in doing so tend to get involved in crime.

4. This is the first truly MACRO theory we've covered, placing the blame on such social conditions and focusing on crime rates (instead of why particular individuals may get involved in crime).

B. They also contended that rapid industrialization and urbanization caused this social disorganization which, in turn, undermined social control exercised through traditional social order and values.

C. Certainly things have changed in our cities and inner city areas since the 1920s. If anything, it could be argued that conditions have deteriorated even further, especially in inner city areas and crime rates are even higher (even if nationally they have declined in recent years). This is brought out in books such as "The Truly Disadvantaged" (1989). Yet, there is some basis to question this theory. As Prof. Akers observes:
"To what degree the relationship between inner city residents and crime is the result of social disorganization remains uncertain...."

"Often the research does not carefully measure social disorganization...."

"The very fact that crime and deviance are high within an area is itself sometimes used, tautologically, as an empirical indicator that the area is socially disorganized...." (i.e., evidence of circular reasoning)

"Furthermore, even in those areas characterized as the most disorganized, only a minority of youths and a smaller minority of adults are involved in crime." (So, how do you explain that based on this theory? You can't really.)

1. C. Wright Mills, an important American sociologist, raised the problem of potential bias in an essay entitled, "The Ideology of Social Pathologists" (social pathologists being another term for social disorganization theorists). He suggested that these social disorganization theorists had a strong anti-urban bias because of their small-town, religious upbringing which they assumed to be more in line with social order.

D. Despite the apparent bias, among other problems noted, I believe the theory makes some sense and it suggests the need to address poor social conditions in order to address the crime problem -- conditions such as you will read about in "Gang Leader for a Day."


ANOMIE/STRAIN THEORY

A. Like social disorganization theory, this is basically a STRUCTURAL (or MACRO) theory which provides an explanation of the concentration of crime in lower class urban areas and among lower class minorities, as well as the overall high crime rate in America.

B. Although the concept of "anomie" (a French term) derives from the work of a famous French sociologist by the name of Emile Durkheim, which meant a condition of "normlessness," Robert Merton gave it a different twist. He defined it as follows:
"Anomie is the form that societal malintegration takes when there is a dissociation (or disjunction) between valued cultural ends and legitimate societal means to these ends."

C. This condition of anomie (or means-ends disjunction), Merton argued, was endemic to American society. (Indeed, one could argue today that the gap is as wide as it has ever been between the so-called "haves and have-nots.")

1. We have a strong emphasis on success in a monetary or material sense, but NOT an equally strong emphasis on socially approved means -- that is, getting ahead by any means is a preoccupation. And this disjunction between means and ends is perpetuated by continuing economic and social inequality. (A good example of this can be found in a recent book by David Callahan entitled, "The Cheating Culture." Let me quote a couple relevant passages to show you what I mean:

Referring to an earlier period in American history, Callahan observes:

"Amid the rough-and-tumble business competition and lax regulation, a certain level of lawlessness became part of economic life. An 'anything goes' mentality thrived in a country where everyone supposedly had a shot at success -- and where judgments of personal worth centered heavily on net worth. As the great sociologist Robert Merton once said, putting his finger on an ugly paradox: 'A cardinal American virtue, 'ambition,' promotes a cardinal American vice, 'deviant behavior.'" (p. 15)

and Callahan refers to Merton's theory a bit later: "...economic struggle is all the more dangerous when mixed with high expectations of well-being -- that is, the expectation that one should be as happy as the shiny rich people on television and in magazines seem to be. Writing in the mid-twentieth century, the sociologist Robert Merton observed that Americans are taught that everyone can succeed if they work hard enough. America was 'a society which places a high premium on economic affluence and social ascent for all its members.' But Merton also pointed out that there is no 'corresponding emphasis upon the legitimate avenues on which to march toward this goal.' Americans worshipped financial success without being too concerned about how people got ahead. 'The moral mandate to achieve success thus exerts pressure to succeed, by fair means if possible and by foul means if necessary.' These pressures were especially poisonous, Merton said, in a nation where not everyone actually could succeed -- where there were limits on the economic opportunities that were available."

"Merton could have made these points yesterday. The pressures on Americans to make a lot of money are extremely high -- higher, maybe, than they've ever been before. To be sure, there are many legitimate opportunites to do well financially. Yet ultimately the opportunities are finite. America needs only so many skilled and well-paid professionals. In an economy where structural conditions allow only one-fifth or so of earners to really get ahead, the other four-fifths of Americans are stuck in the bind that Robert Merton identified: they live in a society with insanely high material expectations but with limited ways to meet these expectations."

"What to do in this conundrum? Whatever you can get away with." (pp. 172-173)


That's all for now. I will continue with anomie/strain theory either tomorrow on this blog or in class on Thursday. PLEASE CONSIDER SOME OF THIS AS YOU PUT THE FINISHING TOUCHES ON YOUR FIRST ESSAY.