The document summarizes Howard Becker's labeling theory of deviance. It explains that 1) acts are defined as deviant by social audiences, not inherent qualities of the acts themselves, 2) people become labeled based on these definitions which can encourage further deviance, and 3) deviant subcultures can form that support and rationalize the deviant identities and behaviors. The labeling process and some criticisms of the theory are also outlined.

1. CAPE 2011 - U2, Module 2
Labelling an individual as deviant leads to a self fulfilling prophecy. To what extent do you agree with this
statement? Support your response with reference to a relevant theoretical perspective on deviance.
The Labelling Theory
- Howard Becker believes that there is no such thing as a deviant act- an act is only deviant when an audience sees it as
such.
- For example: sticking a needle with drugs in one’s arm isn’t deviant – it is considered to be when a teenager injects
themselves with heroin in a park, but not when a nurse injects medicine into a patients arm.
- Becker believes that people are therefore labelled in a certain way. These labels define people e.g. people label
homosexuals which overshadows the fact that they may also be parents, teachers or neighbours.
- Label seems to colour over the other status of people
- The persons who are labelled would therefore see themselves in such labels and the negative characteristics associated
with them.
- The person would soon identify himself as that label [in this case as a deviant] if he perceives as such.
STEPS IN THE LABELLING PROCESS – BECK
1. The individual is publicly labelled as a deviant – a ‘junkie’, a ‘queer’, a ‘nutter’, - they then may become rejected by
friends and family. This could result in them loosing/performing badly in their job.
2. This encourages more deviance – i.e. a drug user turns to crime seeing as he can’t get a job – no one wants to employ a
junkie after all! Criminals sometimes have this problem when they get out of jail – no one wants to employ them, so
returning to crime is the only option.
3. The deviant career of the Individual is complete when they join an organized deviant group. Here they are with others
similar to them, and they totally accept their deviant identity.
4. Within the group, a deviant subculture develops – and this subculture will include beliefs and values, which rationalize,
justify, and support deviant identities and activities. This subculture helps the members, by finding ways to avoid getting
into trouble with conventional society – i.e. the young thief learns from his group how to avoid arrest.
- Labelling theory has tended to focus on societal reaction to deviance. In particular, they have focused on the role of
agents of social control, e.g. police and media, who they suggest label on behalf of the powerful.
- Numerous studies of the police from a labelling perspective (e.g. Cicourel, Holdaway) indicate that stereotyping or labelling
by some police may result in some groups (i.e. young and blacks) being over- proportionately represented in the criminal
statistics.
- Studies of the media by Cohen, Young etc. Indicate that media societal reaction may result in groups such as gays being
labelled folk devils (such as AIDS carriers, child molesters, etc.) and ‘moral panics’ being created around them.
- The labelled individual may seek comfort, sympathy and normality within a subculture of similarity labelled individuals.
The Strengths of the Labelling Theory
- It has shown that defining deviance is not a simple process
- It had highlighted the consequences of labelling people
- It has shown that definitions of deviance originated in power differences.
Criticism of the Labelling theory
- It argues that the act of deviance is always important than the reaction - People who commit deviant acts know full well
what they are doing- self awareness of their deviant activities does not suddenly result from having a label slapped on
them.
- It does not explain why people commit deviance in the first place
- Its view that the consequences of being labelled are further deviance underestimates the degree of choice that deviants
have.
- Ackers suggests that it places too much emphasis on societal reaction – some actions e.g. murder, child abuse, will always
be deviant and therefore societal reaction is less important than the act.
- Marxists believe that the theory neglects structural factors such as inequality of wealth and poverty. They see it as an
attempt to neglect that fact that crime is caused by Capitalism.