1 / 16

Labeling Theory

Labeling Theory. Review of “Classic” Labeling Reflected Appraisals Reintegrative Shaming . The Classic Labeling Process. Formal Sanctions Degradation ceremony Stigmatizing. Change in Self-Concept looking glass self hard to resist formal label. Primary Deviance Most engage in this

nariko
Download Presentation

Labeling Theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Labeling Theory Review of “Classic” Labeling Reflected Appraisals Reintegrative Shaming

  2. The Classic Labeling Process • Formal Sanctions • Degradation ceremony • Stigmatizing • Change in Self-Concept • looking glass self • hard to resist formal label • Primary Deviance • Most engage in this • Typically sporadic, not serious • Secondary Deviance • Caused by new self-image as criminal or deviant

  3. Criticisms of Labeling 1. Typically history of antisocial behavior prior to formal labeling • Society doesn’t “identify, tag, and sanction individuals as deviant in a vacuum.” 2. Controlling initial levels of deviance, formal sanctions have little (no?) effect. 3. No “negotiation,” obsession with “formal” sanctions...

  4. Matsueda (1992) • Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency • Move from formal to informal labels (appraisals) • Back to “symbolic interactionism” roots • Much more complex, rich • Allows early deviance to play a role • Difference between actual appraisals, reflected appraisals, and self-appraisals

  5. Formation of the “self” • Transactions • Interactions between 2 or more individuals • “Role-taking” appraising from others’ shoes: • The situation • Oneself in the situation • Possible lines of action

  6. Role-taking as socialization • Early socialization • Take the role of significant others who are present in situations • Later socialization • Take the role of “generalized other,” or the whole social group

  7. Elements of the “self” • How others actually see you • Actual Appraisals • How you perceive the way others see you • Reflected Appraisals • How you see yourself • Self-Appraisals

  8. Matsueda’s Model Initial Behaviors Reflected Appraisals of Others Behavior Actual Appraisal by Others

  9. John Braithwaite • Austrailian Criminologist • Crime, Shame, and Reintegration • Pretty complex theory (Not parsimonious) • BUT, Central concepts are not that complex • Reintegrative Shaming vs. Stigmatization • Interdependency • Communitarianism

  10. What is “shaming?” • Behaviors (from others) that induce guilt, shame • snide comment, verbal confrontations • stocks/pillory, the “scarlet letter” • Naval tradition of “captains mask” • In Western society, shaming has become uncoupled from formal punishment • Offenders privately sent away to warehouses by corrections or court “officials”

  11. Braithwaite II • Interdependency • “attachment” with social others (indirect control at micro level) • Communitarianism • similar to “collective efficacy” (control at macro) • In communities that lack collective efficacy, and among people who are less bonded, stigmatizing punishment is likely.

  12. Types of “Shaming” • Reintegrative • Love the sinner, hate the sin • Spank the child, but tell them that you still love them • Stigmatizing • no effort made to reconcile the offender with the community • offender as outcast, “criminal” as master status • degradation ceremonies not followed by ceremonies to “decertify” deviance

  13. Examples of Shaming • Stigmatizing • United States • Court, prison, etc. (remove and shun from community) • Reintegrative • Japan • Ceremonies to shame and welcome back

  14. The Model Interdependency (MICRO) Communitarianism (MACRO) • Type of Punishment • Reintegrative Shaming • Stigmatizing Legitimate Opportunities Criminal Subculture High Crime

  15. Evidence for Reintegrative Shameing? • Japan vs. U.S. crime rates • Since WWII, Japan U.S.(others) • Why? • High Interdependency and Communitarianism • Reintegrative Shaming emphasized • Community has duty to shame and welcome back transgressors

  16. Implications of Braithwaite? • Restorative Justice • Emphasis on “repairing harm” • Punishment alone is not effective in changing behavior and is disruptive to community harmony and good relationships • Restitution as a means of restoring both parties; goal of reconciliation and restoration • Community involvement • Crime control the domain of the community • Community as facilitator in restorative process • Crime has social dimensions of responsibility • Victims are central to the process of resolving a crime

More Related