The labelling theory proposes that deviance is not defined by certain acts themselves, but by the audience's reaction to those acts. Howard Becker believed that acts only become deviant when labelled as such by others, causing the individual to internalize that label and sometimes lead to further deviance. The labelling process involves publicly identifying someone as deviant, causing their rejection and potential loss of job, which can encourage more criminal behavior as their only option. They may then join a deviant subculture that rationalizes and supports the deviant identity and activities. However, critics argue that the theory underestimates personal choice and awareness in deviance, and downplays structural factors like inequality that influence criminal behavior.

1. 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.