Week 11

1. Week 11 Labeling and Reaction Theories Tannenbaum, Becker, Lemert and Braithwaite

2. Social Reaction Theories • Symbolic interactionism – social interactions by which a person becomes deviant • Who applies the label to whom? • What determines when the label will be assigned?

3. Tannenbaum • Self Fulfilling Prophecy • Tagging, Defining, Identifying, Segregating, Describing, Emphasizing, Making conscious, Suggesting, Stimulating – evoking the very traits that are complained of • Educational Process • Tagging • Dramatization of evil

4. Becker • Deviance is created by society • Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance • Moral entrepreneurs • Status degradation ceremonies

5. Becker (cont’d) • Official reactions to crime increase the likelihood and seriousness of future crime in 4 ways: • Master status • Criminal associations • Limits opportunities • Self-fulfilling prophecy

6. Lemert • Everyone is involved in behavior that could be labeled. • Two types of deviance: • Primary Deviance • Secondary Deviance • Process

7. Lemert (cont’d) • Primary Deviance • Behavior that is excused by society • Has only marginal implications for the status of the person concerned • Deviations have bigger impacts when they inspire societal reaction • People get stigmatized, punished, controlled and segregated

8. Lemert (cont’d) • Secondary Deviance • Now they are defined differently • Behavior can no longer be rationalized • Their life and identity are organized around the facts of deviance • Behavior now falls into a special class of socially defined responses

9. Lemert (cont’d) • One deviant act isn’t enough to be labeled…but… • Once identified as deviant, it is difficult to change • Reciprocal relationship between the deviation of the individual and the societal reaction

10. Lemert (cont’d) • Process: • Primary deviation Social penalties  Further primary deviation  stronger penalties and rejections  • Further deviation  Community stigmatizes the deviant  deviant conduct is strengthened as a reaction to the penalties  • Ultimate acceptance of deviant social status and efforts at adjustment on the basis of the associated role

11. Braithwaite Crime, Shame and Reintegration • What is shaming? • Labeling offenders makes them worse, so what should we do instead?

12. Braithwaite (cont’d) • Crime is higher when shaming is stigmatizing • Crime is lower when shaming is reintegrative • Shaming is necessary for social control • Shaming is most effective when societies are communitarian

13. Braithwaite (cont’d) • Shaming works to specifically deter the shamed offender but it also works generally, to deter others who wish to avoid shame and who participate in or become aware of the incident of shaming

14. Braithwaite (cont’d) • Interdependency • Communitarianism • Shaming • Reintegrative Shaming • Stigmatization • Criminal Subcultures

15. Braithwaite (cont’d) Macro Level vs Micro Level • Shaming doesn’t have to damaging • The victim should receive a public apology • In a perfect world, offenders are forgiven by the victims

16. Braithwaite (cont’d) • Why it works for CRIME PREVENTION