Crime & Deviance (8)

Interactionist theories of crime and deviance

Interactionist theories of crime and deviance belong to the social

action or interpretivist perspective. This perspective is very
critical of the structuralist approaches of functionalism, Marxism and
feminism because they suggest deviant and criminal actions are
largely a product of the social structure. Structuralist theories of
crime and deviance strongly imply that criminal action is largely
the product of social forces – consensus, class and patriarchy
– over which the individual has little control. However, in
contrast, social action theory argues people have free will and
the choice to control their own destiny.

Interactionists are interested in looking at how criminality develops

in the social interactions between a potential deviant and
agents of social control. They are interested in how people
interpret and therefore socially construct the world around
them. In this sense, interactionism is a social action approach.

Interactionism and labelling theory

Criminologists working from an interactionist perspective are

interested in how crime and deviance are defined and how the
label of ‘deviant’ or ‘criminal’ can lead to further problems
for the individual and society. They have made a number of
observations:

 Interactionists believe that ‘normality’ and ‘deviance’ are

relative concepts because there is no universal or fixed
agreement on how to define them. What is ‘normal’
behaviour for one social group might be ‘deviant’ behaviour
for another.

 Interactionists point out that definitions of ‘right’ or

‘wrong’ behavior often differ according to social
context. For example, nudity is fine in some circumstances
(in the privacy of the bathroom or bedroom and in public

1
 places such as nudist camps or particular beaches), tolerated
and regarded as humorous at sporting events (streaking) but
as a symptom of mental illness or criminality if persistently
carried out in public (i.e. indecent exposure).

 Definitions of normality and deviance change according

to historical period, e.g. homosexuality and suicide were
defined as illegal activities until the 1960s.

 Definitions of normality and deviance are relative to cultural

or subcultural context, e.g. drinking alcohol is illegal in
Saudi Arabia and disapproved of by Muslims in the UK whilst
what is ‘normal’ for a teenager in the UK might be seen as
‘deviant’ by adult society.

The interpretation of deviance

Interactionists therefore believe that deviance is a matter of

interpretation. For example, society generally disapproves of
killing people. However, society has a number of different
interpretations of killing – murder, manslaughter, justifiable
homicide, self-defence, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment
etc. Some of these acts of killing are regarded as more justified
and/or serious than others. For example, in the context of war, we
encourage people as soldiers to kill others and often reward them
for it with medals. In 2012 the government announced that those
who kill burglars in defence of their families and property are
unlikely to be prosecuted.

The social construction of deviance –the work of

Howard Becker

Howard Becker argues that there is no such thing as a deviant

act – no act is intrinsically criminal or deviant in itself, in all
situations and at all times. Instead, it only defined as such
when others label it as ‘wrong’. In other words, it is not the
nature of the act that makes it deviant, but society’s reaction to
it. As Webb notes, deviance is in the eye of the beholder.

2
Becker argues that the social construction of deviance requires
two activities. One group –which normally lacks power – acts in
a particular way, and another group - with more power -
responds negatively to it and defines it as criminal. For
Becker, therefore, a deviant is simply someone to whom a
negative label has been successfully applied and deviant
behaviour is simply behaviour that people with more power
(e.g. parents, teachers, police officers etc) so label.

Becker is interested in why and how rules get made because it

is the breaking of those rules that creates the potential for
deviance. In this sense, interactionism is interested in how social
controls such as laws can create the potential for deviance.
Becker rejects the functionalist idea that rules and laws are the
product of value consensus or universal agreement. Rather he notes
that powerful groups create rules or laws and label those
who fail to conform to these social controls as criminals or
outlaws/outsiders.

The role of power in the social construction of crime

and deviance

 Interactionists influenced by Marxism suggest that the

economically powerful – the capitalist class that
controls wealth, income and political power – set the
rules for the working-class for ideological reasons (e.g.
to distract attention away from inequality or their own rule-
breaking).

 Interactionists influenced by feminists argue that men make

rules for women especially with regard to the double
standard of sexual behaviour (in order to retain patriarchal
control).

 Becker notes that in Western societies, those with the power

to label others as deviant are often ‘moral entrepreneurs’ –
religious leaders, politicians, editors and journalists –
who lead campaigns to change the law and label particular
types of behaviour as criminal or deviant.

The role of agents of social control

3
Becker notes that agents of social control, particularly the police
and the judiciary work on behalf of powerful groups to label
and therefore define the behaviour of less powerful groups
as problematical. They do this by paying these groups
disproportionate negative attention in terms of stop and
search, arrest, prosecution and giving them custodial
sentences etc.

Police labelling

Studies of police officers by sociologists such as Townsley and

Marshall indicate that they operate using stereotypical
assumptions or labels about what constitutes ‘suspicious’ or
‘criminal’ in terms of social types and behaviour, i.e. the
decision to stop or arrest someone may be based on whether they
correspond to a stereotype.

Holdaway notes that there is strong evidence that suggests racial

stereotyping by some police officers may be a crucial
element governing their decision to stop black people and
their interaction with black people, especially African-
Caribbeans, i.e. some officers see all black people as potentially
criminal. Home Office statistics on police stop and search
released in March 2010 can be used to support the idea that
racial stereotyping underpins policing because they reveal that
the police stop and search black people and Asians six times
and two times respectively more than white people.

However, it is not just black people who are stereotyped by the

police. It may also be the case that young people, males and
working-class people fit a criminal stereotype and may be
more likely to be the subject of police attention than older people,
females and the middle-class respectively.

The negotiation of justice

4
Cicourel also found that other agents of social control within
the criminal justice system reinforce this bias. For example,
probation officers held the commonsense theory that juvenile
delinquency is caused by broken homes, poverty and poor
parenting. Therefore they tend to see youths from such
backgrounds as likely to offend in the future and were more likely to
support custodial sentences for them.

Cicourel concludes that justice is often not fixed but negotiable.

For example, in his study, when a middle-class youth was
arrested, he was less likely to be charged because his social
background did not fit the police’s ideas of a ‘typical
delinquent’ but also because his parents were able to
negotiate successfully on his behalf. They were more able
than working-class parents to convince agents of social
control that they would monitor him to make sure he stayed
out of trouble. As a result he was ‘counselled, warned and
released’ whilst working-class youths up for the same
offences were charged with a criminal offence.

Cicourel is particularly critical of the official crime statistics –

he argues that these tell us more about the negotiation of
justice according to social class rather than about crime and
criminality.

The effects of labelling

Labelling theorists are mainly interested in the effects of labelling

rather than why people commit crime in the first place.

Primary and secondary deviance

Lemert distinguishes between primary and secondary deviance.

Primary deviance refers to deviant acts that have not been
publicly labelled, i.e. the person committing the act has not been
observed or caught. Lemert argues that primary deviance is
widespread and often trivial in nature. Such acts have little
significance for a person’s status or identity. Those who commit
primary deviance often do not see themselves as deviant.

5
However, some deviance is spotted and punished by people
who have more power than the person committing the act.
There is therefore a societal reaction to the act. This societal
reaction and the subsequent labelling of the person as a criminal,
deviant, etc is known as ‘secondary deviance’. Both Becker and
Lemert argue that secondary deviance can have negative
consequences in that being caught and publicly labelled as a
criminal can involve being stigmatized, shunned and excluded
from normal society.

In particular, Becker argues that secondary deviance (the

application of a label such as ‘deviant’ or ‘criminal’ by the
powerful) can have a number of negative effects for both the
individual and society:

(1) The negative label may undermine the self-esteem

of the labelled individual. Labels such as ‘deviant’,
‘criminal’ ‘paedophile’, ‘ex-con’ etc are so powerful
in their effect that they over-ride all other statuses
in a person’s life – the negative label becomes a
‘master status’ which is used by society to interpret
all future behaviour by that individual. For example, if
a person is labelled a ‘sex offender’, this label mainly
shapes other people’s reactions to the individual regardless
of the other statuses, i.e. father, son, neighbour etc that
they might have. In short, the labelled individual is
regarded as an outsider by society.

(2) Secondary deviance may provoke further hostile

reactions from society and reinforce the deviant’s
‘outsider’ status. For example, prejudice and
discrimination may be practiced against those who have
been labelled, e.g. ex-cons may find it difficult to find
legitimate employment.

(3) There is the danger that prejudice and discrimination

may lead to a ‘deviant career’. The practical
consequences of treating a person as a deviant may
produce a ‘self fulfilling prophecy’ in so much that the
person labelled may begin to see themselves as

6
 deviant and act accordingly. The original prophecy
(i.e. label) is then fulfilled.

(4) Labelling may also increase the chances of re-

offending by isolating the individual from society by
encouraging friends and family to reject them – they may
consequently seek comfort, sympathy, normality and
status in a ‘subculture’ of others who have been
branded with a similar label which compensates them for
the societal reaction.

Such subcultures normally have distinct value

systems and rules of behaviour complete with their
own definitions of ‘normality’ and ‘deviance’ which
may conflict with mainstream society. In other words,
these subcultures may commit further crime and
deviance and attract more negative societal reaction
as a result.

Deviancy amplification

The above processes may therefore produce a deviancy

amplification spiral. This is the term that labelling theorists use to
describe the process in which the official attempt to control
deviance or crime leads to an increase in the level of
deviance. This leads to even greater attempts to control it
and, this in turn produces even higher levels of deviance.
More and more control produces more and more deviance in
an escalating spiral or snowball process. In this sense,
therefore, Lemert argues that deviance is actually caused by
social control.

For example, in the USA, Triplett (2000) notes an increasing

tendency to see young offenders as evil and to be less tolerant of
minor deviance such as truancy. The use of Anti-Social
Behaviour Orders in the UK may be having a similar effect –
studies suggest that young people may be viewing these as
‘badges of honour’.

Labelling theory has suggested that in order to reduce crime

and deviance governments need to make and enforce fewer rules.

7
For example, by de-criminalising soft drugs, we might reduce
the number of people with criminal convictions.

Fewer rules (and therefore infringements of those rules) may

result in less negative societal reaction and therefore less
‘naming and shaming’ of people. Less shaming may mean less
re-offending.

Social policy & shaming

Braithwaite (1989) suggests there are two types of shaming

available to the criminal justice system:

(1) Disintegrative shaming – involves the deviant or

criminal being labelled as bad and normally involves the
offender being excluded from society. The individual’s
previous life and status ‘disintegrates’ as a result of the
deviant/criminal master status. This is the most common
outcome of the present criminal justice system.

(2) Re-integrative shaming – labelling sociologists

believe this type of shaming should be adopted by the
criminal justice system. It involves labelling the act of
deviance rather than the person who carried it out, e.g.
as if to say ‘he has done a bad thing’ rather than ‘he is a bad
person’.

Braithwaite argues that the concept of re-integrative

shaming avoids stigmatizing or negatively labelling the
offender as ‘evil’ or ‘bad’ while at the same time making
them aware of the negative impact of their actions
upon others. This makes it easier for the victim, the offender
and the community to separate the offender from the
offence, to forgive them and to re-admit the wrongdoer
back into mainstream society. At the same time, it
avoids pushing wrongdoers into more deviance.

Braithwaite argues that crime rates tend to be lower in

societies where re-integrative rather than
disintegrative shaming is the dominant way of dealing
with offenders.

8
The strengths of labelling theory

On the positive side:

(a) Labelling theory has shown that defining deviance is

a complex rather than a simple process – that it is
socially constructed through interaction with others
and that deviance is very often a matter of
interpretation.

(b) Labelling theory has clearly shown that definitions of

deviance are relative and therefore not fixed, universal
or unchangeable. Definitions of deviance (and crime) are
constantly in a state of change.

(c) Labelling theory illustrates quite convincingly that

definitions of deviance often stem from power
differences.

(d) Labelling theory shows that the law is often

enforced selectively, i.e. in a discriminatory fashion, and
consequently crime statistics are more a record of the
activities of the police rather than criminals.

(e) Labelling theory shows that society’s attempts to

control deviance can backfire and create more deviance
rather than less.

(f) Labelling theory was the first theory to draw attention to the
social consequences of being labelled a deviant.

Criticisms of labelling theory

(1) Ackers argues that labelling theory puts too much

emphasis on societal reaction – he argues that the
act is always more important than the reaction to it,
e.g. rape, murder and child abuse are always
deviant.

9
 Critics argue that people who commit these crimes
clearly know this, i.e. they don’t need a societal
reaction to bring it to their attention. They are aware
they are going against social norms. They don’t need
to wait until a label is attached to understand that
what they are doing is wrong.

However, Plummer, in defence of labelling theory, points

out that labelling theory’s emphasis on societal
reaction is valuable because many activities are
defined as deviant or non-deviant depending on the
audience and/or the social context in which it
occurs, e.g. soft drug use is acceptable to many younger
people but is deemed deviant by the establishment.

(2) Labelling theory fails to explain the origin of deviance

– it does not explain why people commit primary
deviance in the first place before they are labelled or
why people choose to commit particular types of
crime or deviance rather than others.

(3) Marxists argue that although labelling theory

acknowledges the role of power, it does not explain the
origin of that power – Marxists, of course, argue that
power originates in class relationships and that
labelling is an ideological process which supports the
interests of the ruling class and is often used by that
class to socially control the powerless.

(4) Labelling theory tends to be deterministic – it

implies that once someone is labelled, a deviant career is
inevitable. Downes and Rock (2003) argue that we
cannot predict whether someone who has been labelled will
follow a deviant career, because they are always free to
choose not to deviate further.

(5) Left Realists argue that labelling theory’s emphasis on

the negative effects of labelling gives the offender a
kind of victim status. Labelling theory may be guilty of
over-romanticising deviance and blaming the

10
agencies of social control for causing crime. This
obviously ignores the real victims of crime.

11