Labelling Theory by Becker: Summary and Evaluation

Labelling Theory by Becker: Summary and Evaluation Part of the assumption about the way policing and the law works is that punishing criminal behaviour has a deterrent effect. Whatever controversies surround the efficacy of deterrence and they are myriad it seemed hard for many early theorists to believe that punishing criminal behaviour does any actual harm to society. What labelling theorists introduced was the idea that, ironically, the singling out of those who had transgressed societys laws actually perpetuated the behaviours it was intended to curb (Lilly, Cullen Ball, 2002). The idea that the way in which crimes are socially constructed might have important consequences has, however, proved controversial and sparked considerable debate. This essay looks first at labelling theory and then moves on to examine the theory more critically and assess its reach in explaining crime and deviance. Becker (1973) clearly lays out labelling theory in his book Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. He explains that the interactionist perspective sees crime as an infraction of the rules created by society. It then seeks to find the reasons that a person infringed those rules within both their personality and in the their social and economic environment. Becker (1973) believed that this placed the wrong emphasis on where the parameters for crime are set. It is not in the quality of a persons action the deviant act or, as it were, a deviant person but rather in the imposition of the label of deviance by society. It is society that prescribes which acts are lawful and which acts are not lawful and, that act of successfully applying the label illegal or deviant to a person, has a number of important consequences. One assumption often made, once a person has been labelled a deviant, is that they fit into a homogenous category. Becker (1973) argues that this assumption is often made by researchers in criminology looking for a root cause or at least some commonality in deviance and crime. This assumption, though, is not correct. Some people may not have transgressed societys laws and yet are, through the failure of the appropriate systems, still labelled deviant. Others may have transgressed but have not been caught in their transgression these people remain unlabelled. As a result of this analysis, Becker (1973) is most interested in how people come to be labelled deviant rather than their particular social or personal circumstances. This attack on the absolutist nature of deviance or criminal behaviour highlights a number of variables within the system of labelling. What is labelled a crime varies from one time to another; at one time there is crackdown on, for example, drug offences, and the investigation and penalties are stepped up. At another time there may be much more leniency. Another variable is the nature of the person caught breaking the law. The example is drawn by Becker (1973) of the difference between a middle class person and someone from the lower classes evidence is cited to show that it is the middle class person who is more likely to avoid prosecution. Similarly, crimes committed by individuals tend to be prosecuted by the criminal law, while crimes committed by corporations prosecuted by the civil law. These distinctions emphasise the fact that criminality is not an independent quality of a person, but is intimately related to other peoples perceptions or, alternatively in the modern termin ology, to crimes social construction. After the initial instance in which a person is labelled as a criminal, Becker (1973) asserts that a number of things are naturally attendant. To understand the results of labelling it is useful to make a distinction introduced by Edwin Lemert. Lemert (1951) introduced the idea that deviance could be seen as first primary and then secondary. Primary deviancy refers to the situation where a person commits a criminal offence because of sociocultural and psychological circumstances. At this stage, however, the person does not see themselves as deviant, merely as a person who has temporarily strayed from the straight and narrow. Having been caught committing a criminal offence this person is then subjected to societys vilification and labelling through the criminal justice system. As a result of this the person then has to find a method of dealing with this clash between the way they think about themselves and the way other people now view them. This is normally dealt with by accepting t he label with all its meaning and consequences attached. Lilly, Cullen Ball (2002) explain that labelling theorists used the idea of a self-fulfilling prophecy (developed by Merton, 1968) to explain the effect of labelling. Falsely applying the label of criminal to a person leads to them being seen as morally reprehensible in themselves, even though, at that point, this is probably not true. In peoples minds, the fact that a person has committed a criminal offence leads to them being thought of as a criminal, which again leads to them being seen exclusively in this context, above any other. The police, seeing that person as more likely to transgress in the future, will be more likely to visit them to investigate further crimes. A person is socially isolated from their non-criminal friends and probably incarcerated with others who have been labelled criminals this all serves to reinforce the label. It is this constant pressure from people around them that encourages those who have committed a criminal offence to accept the label of crimin al themselves along with all that it entails. The effect is that, perversely, that crime is perpetuated because of the effectiveness of the systems of criminal justice: the label of criminal becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy (Williams, 2004). Labelling theory has been criticised on a number of grounds. Many researchers have attempted to bring empirical evidence to bear on labelling theory. Gove (1975), for example, found no evidence of the influence of negative sanctions on sustained criminal careers. Sherman Berk (1984) compared, in a field experiment, those who had been arrested for domestic violence, with those who had not. They found that those who had been arrested did, in fact, show a reduced level of violence compared to those who had not. Foster, Dinitz Reckless (1972) found that self-reports of problems amongst apprehended boys did not affect the relationship between deviance and sanctions. Other evidence, however, has supported the contentions of labelling theory. Kaplan Johnson (2001) describe some of this evidence. Palamara, Cullen Gersten (1986) found that juvenile delinquency was affected both directly and through other interactions by contact with the police, as well as mental health services. Important ly, the level of the effect was found to be different depending on the type of behaviour that was being measured. Kaplan Johnson (2001) assert that part of the explanation for the mixed empirical results may be methodological problems. For example, measuring levels of delinquency before and after intervention by the criminal justice system is extremely problematic. Kaplan Johnson (2001) argue that, in the research carried out by Foster et al. (1972), it is possible the boys were trying to protect their self-image which was why they didnt report any problems to researchers. Similarly, though, the results of Palamara et al. (1986), which relied on the opinions of mothers and teachers, might simply reflect the effects that labelling has on labelling obviously a circular argument. Gove (1975) argues that part of the problem with testing labelling theory is that it is simply untestable in many of the ways that researchers have applied. Aside from empirical evidence, researchers have also criticised labelling theory on theoretical grounds. Gove (1975) argues that there is no solid evidence that being labelled and then committing crimes is a self-fulfilling prophecy. In addition, Gove (1975) criticises labelling theory on the grounds that it is has difficulty explaining all the different types of deviant behaviour. Plummer (1979) characterises this as a problem with explaining how primary deviance occurs in the first place. Labelling theory, therefore, has a particular problem with paedophilia, for example, which is generally thought to result from abnormal psychology. For this reason it cannot be largely affected by labelling and self-fulfilling prophecies. More phenomenological problems are pointed to in labelling theory by, amongst others, Philipson Roche (1971). They point out that labelling theory makes many perhaps unwarranted assumptions. The way that society reacts to the labelling of criminals is mostly assumed by the original researchers, and hardly investigated. Theoretically, there is limited linkage between the processes that occur at an everyday level and how these translate into the societal reaction. There is too much reliance on ideas that are deemed common sense and also on anecdotal evidence. Plummer (1979) states that labelling theory tends to minimise, or not to address, the question of power and the effects this has on the criminal justice system. A more general criticism is its compatibility with social determinism, the idea that people may have no choice, or at least little choice, in their behaviour. These ideas are also linked to moral criticisms, that labelling theory excludes the moral aspects of crime choos ing to commit a criminal act is a moral choice. In defence of labelling theory, and the criticisms that have been levelled at it, Becker (1973) ascribes a more limited role to its applicability. Becker (1973) argues that labelling theory was not intended to explain why people commit crimes, but the focus of it is on the interactional elements. It is the interactional elements in explaining crime that had previously been ignored or minimised labelling theory was an attempt to highlight the fact that crime cannot be explained without considering the effects that people have on each other. It is clear that many criticisms of labelling theory are based on different conceptions. Indeed, modern theorists now often see labelling theory as split into three different parts. Davies Tanner (2003) splits it into the strain that concentrates on secondary deviance, the strain that focuses on social psychological effects and, finally, the strain that examines the effect of labelling on life chances. In conclusion, what many proponent of labelling theory claim is that it attempts to demystify acts of crime and deviancy. Rather than seeing them as discrete and recognisable categories that are somehow other from the normal law-abiding citizens, it sees them as part of a fluid process within which all members of society, or a collective, exert some influence. It acknowledges a continuum and attempts to describe the processes involved in moving along that continuum. Critics of labelling theory have attacked with both theoretical arguments and empirical evidence. As can clearly be seen, though, labelling theory is difficult to test empirically and, perhaps, with the defence provided by Becker (1973) is impossible to test this way. Criticisms of theoretical aspects are somewhat muddied by different understandings of what labelling theory constitutes. Despite this, it is possible that more detailed and precise research could provide a clearer empirical result whether positive or negati ve. References References Becker, H. S. (1973) Outsiders: studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press. Davies, S., Tanner, J. (2003) The Long Arm of the Law: Effects of Labeling on Employment. The Sociological Quarterly, 44(3) 385–404. Philipson, M., Roche, M. R. (1971) Phenomenology, Sociology and the Study of Deviance. In Carson, W.G., Wiles, P. (Eds.) The Sociology of Crime and Delinquency in Britain, vol 2. Oxford: Martin Robertson. Foster, J. D., Dinitz, S., Reckless, W. C. (1972) Perceptions of stigma following  public intervention for delinquent behavior. Social Problems, 20, 202-209 Gove, W. R. (1975). The labeling of deviance: Evaluating a perspective. New York: Halsted Press. Kaplan, H. B., Johnson, R. J. (2001) Social Deviance: Testing a General Theory. New York: Springer. Plummer, K. (1979) Misunderstanding Labelling Perspectives. In Downes, D. Rock, P. (Eds.) Deviant Interpretations: problems in criminological theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press Lemert, E. (1951) Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of  sociopathic behavior. New York McGraw-Hill. Lilly, J., Cullen, F., Ball, R. (2002) Criminological theory: Context and consequences (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Merton, R. K. (1968) Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press. Palamara, F., Cullen, F. T., Gersten, J. C. (1986). The effect of police and mental  health intervention on juvenile deviance: Specifying contingencies in the impact of formal reaction. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 90-105. Sherman, L. W., Berk, R. A. (1984) The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261-272. Williams, K. S. (2004) Textbook on Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Elements of Style and Style Toward Clarity and Grace :: Teaching Writing Education Essays

Strunk and White's Elements of Style and Joseph Williams' Style Toward Clarity and Grace When I initially thought about writing style I believed that there would be some nice neat definition, and maybe a few rules that would govern writing with â€Å"style†. It turns out that I grossly underestimated this topic and while I knew that writing style would be a topic of considerable depth, I did not fully understand the degree that I would be pondering the issue of writing with â€Å"style†. The first book I encountered, The Elements of Style written by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White was a collection of numerous rules, that presumably if you followed would lead you to writing with â€Å"style†. This book is a handy reference book and one that I am sure I will continue to turn to. My favorite quality of this book is that it is short, sweet and to the point. The Elements of Style, was written is such a way that it was easy to understand which helped me paint a picture of what writing with â€Å"style† is like. This book is a collection of numerous tips and ideas that help the reader to know what it is that they need to do in order to write with â€Å"style†. The information that I found to be most useful came in the chapter entitled An Approach to Style. In this chapter the authors lay out some practical guidelines to writing with style. Some headings from this chapter are â€Å"Place yourself in the background, Write in a way that comes naturally, Work from a suitable design† (76). After I read this chapter I felt that I had a better knowledge of what writing with â€Å"style† really was. I began to understand the more abstract concept of style, it became more than following a series of set rules. Joseph Williams book Style Toward Clarity and Grace expanded the seed that was planted by the Strunk and Williams book and took my thoughts on style to a higher level. With his sometimes exhaustive examples and in depth discussions Williams paints a much more vivid picture of what writing with â€Å"style† is. Perhaps what made Williams book clearer was the way he laid out his book. Williams book is not laid out like a reference book like the Strunk and White text.

Homosexuality: Disorder or Innate

Is homosexuality an innate, normal sexual orientation or something one becomes through life’s trials? Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Francis Bacon, Herman Melville and Fredrick the Great all had one thing common, other than their famous personas. Every one of these men were homosexuals. In today’s society, homosexuality has grown to be labeled as a â€Å"sin† and/or something that one chooses to be rather born with.From religious leaders to medical doctors, homosexuality is thought to be a â€Å"disease† in society. Many even believe that homosexuality is a sexual orientation caused by how one was raised. I, on the other hand, believe otherwise. I believe that sexual orientation, or more specifically homosexuality, is something one is born with and not a disorder or choice. Charles Socarides, M. D. founder of NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of homosexuality wrote: By declaring a condition [homosexuality] a ‘non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also of a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years†¦In essence, this movement within the American Psychiatric Association has accomplished what every other society, with rare exceptions, would have trembled to tamper with–a revision of a basic code and concept of life and biology; that men and women normally mate with the opposite sex and not with each other. (Socradies) More generally, Dr. Socarides believes that for the medical world to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders is astounding. He believes that there is something mentally wrong with humans that prefer same sex partner s.I, on the other hand, believe sexual orientation is something one is born with, or is innate. The APA, American Psychological Association, agrees that homosexuality is not a mental disorder and has made revisions in their way of thought and practices. The APA states on its website â€Å"Psychologists, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals agree that homosexuality is not an illness, mental disorder or an emotional problem. Over 35 years of objective, well-designed scientific research has shown that homosexuality, in and [of] itself, is not associated with mental disorders or emotional or social problems.When researchers examined data about these people who were not in therapy, the idea that homosexuality was a mental illness was quickly found to be untrue† (American Psychiatric Association). Ruling out the belief, that homosexuality is not a disorder can help by not having to seek â€Å"treatment† because it is curable. However, this leads some to think that if it homosexuality isn’t due to a disorder it must be the parents who raise them that way. The opposing viewpoint generally believes that children raised by lesbian co-parents should and do seem to grow up more open to homoerotic relationships.This may be partly due to genetic and family socialization processes. Judith Stacey, Ph. D. agrees with this notion. In a 2001 article Stacey stated, â€Å"The sexual orientation of parents appears to have a unique (although not large) effect on children in the politically sensitive domain of sexuality. The evidence, while scanty and under analyzed, hints that parental sexual orientation is positively associated with the possibility that children will be more likely to attain a similar orientation-and theory and common sense also support such a view† (Stacey PhD). I disagree with Ms. Stacey.The gender identity of preadolescent children raised by lesbian mothers has been found consistently to be in line with their biological gender. None of more than 500 children studied have shown evidence of gender-identity confusion, wished to be the other gender, or consistently engaged in cross-gender behavior. No differences have been found in the toy, game, activity, dress, or friendship preferences of boys or girls who had lesbian mothers, compared with those who had heterosexual mothers. James G. Pawelski, M. D. supports my viewpoint. Using data from a national sample of adolescents, Dr.Pawelski finds â€Å"no difference on the basis of whether the parents were the same or different genders in the proportion of adolescents who reported having had sexual intercourse, nor was a difference found in the number who reported having a ‘romantic relationship' within the past 18 months† [ (Pawelski MD) ]. Agreeing with this view and observation may bring less scrutiny about same-sex couples adopting and/or raising a child. Unfortunately, it doesn’t help with the people who believe homosexuality is a result of same-sex sexual abuse. There is no universal definition of child sexual abuse. However, a central haracteristic of any abuse is the dominant position of an adult that allows him or her to force or coerce a child into sexual activity. Child sexual abuse is not solely restricted to physical contact; such abuse could include non-contact abuse, such as exposure, voyeurism, and child pornography. Timothy J. Dailey, Ph. D. , wrote that â€Å"[M]en who sexually molest boys all too often lead their victims into homosexuality and pedophilia. The evidence indicates that a high percentage of homosexuals and pedophiles were themselves sexually abused as children† [ (Dailey PhD) ]. This situation has been occurring in the Catholic Church lately.Many male priests are molesting young children, most of them being male themselves. To hold Dr. Dailey’s theory/assumption to be truth may add more controversy to this already intense situation. It also may cause people to further assume that just being raised by a male can â€Å"turn† someone gay. However, I do not agree with Dr. Dailey’s assumption and neither does the American Psychiatric Association who stated in a May 2000 website fact sheet that â€Å"[N]o specific psychosocial or family dynamic cause for homosexuality has been identified, including histories of childhood sexual abuse.Sexual abuse does not appear to be more prevalent in children who grow up to identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual, than in children who identify as heterosexual† [ (American Psychiatric Association) ]. Just because some adults who were molested as children are gay, does not mean that the molestation was the cause of the sexual orientation. As, the American Psychiatric Association found, there are no more cases of children being gay after being molested by the same-sex then the cases of children who are heterosexual. It is incorrect to assume that homosexuality is something that life situations make o ccur.This brings us to the last major â€Å"excuse† for being homosexual which arises from various religious beliefs. Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism are all religions that have negative views on homosexuality, but the one that speaks the loudest against it is Christianity, or more specifically the Catholic Church. Many Christians believe that homosexual activity is inherently sinful, irrespective of the relationship between the two persons. Many biblical passages condemn all forms of homosexual behaviors, using inclusive terms such as â€Å"sodomite† or â€Å"homosexual. â€Å". Same-sex practices are uniquely offensive to God.After all, God destroyed Sodom and its inhabitants because of their homosexual activity. All the men in the town wanted to have homosexual sex with the visiting angels. Homosexual behavior is one of a small group of behaviors that will prevent a person from attaining salvation and going to heaven. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 says that â€Å"â € ¦ neither†¦ effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind†¦ shall inherit the kingdom of God. † Other English translators substitute the term â€Å"homosexuals† here. Christians believe and were taught to believe that homosexuality is something that is chosen; an act against God and his law.Where the Bible mentions homosexual behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether that Biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well and nowhere attacked it as unjust. Are we prepared to argue today that slavery is biblically justified? If you are a heterosexual†¦ can you explain why you are attracted to the opposite sex? Being a heterosexual, I can say that the first thing that comes to mind when asked that question is that it is just a feeling. It is hard to explain but I just have a drive towards males.However, what if the social norm was different? What if the social norm was to be homosex ual and people were scolding you for â€Å"choosing† to be heterosexual? Do you think being heterosexual is something you just â€Å"decided† to be one day? Most, if not all, heterosexuals would answer â€Å"No, I was born straight†. Well, then why is it so hard to grasp that homosexuals are born with the drive to be homosexual innately? If we can be heterosexual at birth, why can they not be homosexual at birth? Society and Religion has branded our minds to think that homosexuality is a chosen path†¦ I disagree.I did not â€Å"choose† to be â€Å"straight†; therefore, I do not and cannot believe that homosexuals â€Å"choose† to be gay. To join my belief means that one agrees that they themselves were born with their own drive for the opposite or same sex. Homosexuality is not a â€Å"disorder†. Homosexuality is not the affect of a prior incident in life. Homosexuality is not a preference that one day someone woke up and said, à ¢â‚¬Å"Hey I feel like being different so I am going to be gay. † As funny as that sounds, it is how many heterosexuals think about homosexuality; that it was something one just chose to be one day to â€Å"rebel†, like getting a tattoo or a piercing.Society and Religion have made their own assumptions about homosexuality because it is not a norm. Today’s world is afraid of anything different. People hate change and fear it. Thus, many come up with wild stories and assumptions to explain things that are different and normally they are not good ones. Being â€Å"gay† or â€Å"lesbian† is different from what society tells us to be, but why does that mean that it is something we chose to be or just become? I was born with an attraction to the opposite-sex. Many, if not all, heterosexuals can and would claim the same thing.So why is it so hard to believe that statement if the word â€Å"homosexual† replaced â€Å"heterosexual†? Does it not make sense? Do not be afraid of difference. Do not be ignorant. Be open and accepting that some people’s sexual orientation is homosexual just as you may be open to the belief that there are people that are heterosexual.

Struggles of Robert Frost - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 2 Words: 733 Downloads: 2 Date added: 2019/08/08 Category People Essay Level High school Tags: Robert Frost Essay Did you like this example? There have been many renowned American poets, but many critics say there is no one like Robert Frost. He has written numerous poems, most of which are famous all over the world. It is often said that behind success, there is some hidden disappointment or secret in persons lives. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Struggles of Robert Frost" essay for you Create order The same thing can be said from the life of this great American poet. I went over most of the poems of Robert Frost and came across a common point of depression and tragedy reflected in the poems of Frost. Even though Robert Frost had all the fame and prosperity one could achieve in his lifetime, the fact that he struggled in his life due to various reasons cannot be ignored. Through my research paper, I am going to highlight some of the tragedies and struggles Robert went over throughout his life and will point out various reasons for those depression and how he overcame those hurdles. To achieve the point of my research paper, I have organized my paper into three main sections. In the first section, I talk about the early life of Robert frost and discuss the influence of people in his childhood. In second section, I talk about his turning point in the career and how he became giant name in the literary industry. In this section, I also talk about his family life and the potential reason for entering depression. The third section is comprised of various instances from poems which point us to the fact that there was darkness stored in his mind. I end my paper with my thoughts on the lifestyle of Robert Frost and conclusion on the research I did. So, lets dive into the life of Robert Frost and I hope this paper will be interesting to you as a reader. Robert Frost (1874-1963) is widely regarded as one of the most decorated American poets of all time. He was an author who used New England as the base of his writings and used those settings to explore social and complicated subjects. Frosts subjects are extremely basic in the surface significance supplied with an effortlessly justifiable word usage with liberal style of composing. Yet, a careful study of his works reveals the misfortune and tragedy associated with his lifestyle. Frost was born and spent his first 11 years of life in San Francisco, until his father who was journalist, passed away due to tuberculosis. Born to an alcoholic father and a discouraged mother, Frost was tormented every one of his years by the impacts of psychological instability on himself and those he cherished. After the demise of his father, Frost decided to move to Lawrence, MA with his mother and sister, Jeanie. Frost found the love of his life and his future wife, Elinor White, during the days of High school. Starting in 1897, Frost attended Harvard University but had to drop out only after two years because of health issues. He returned to Lawrence to unite with his wife, who at the time was pregnant with their second child. In 1900, Frost moved with his wife and children to a homestead in New Hampshire†property that Frosts grandfather had bought for them†and they lived there for the next 12 years. Though it was a productive time for Frosts writing, it was very difficult period in his personal life. Frosts firstborn son, Elliot, passed due to cholera in 1900. After his death, Elinor gave birth to four more kids: son Carol (1902), who would commit suicide in 1940; Irma (1903), who later developed mental illness; Marjorie (1905), who died in her late 20s after giving birth; and Elinor (1907), who died just weeks after she was born. Additionally, during that time, Frost and Elinor endeavored few undertakings, including poultry cultivating, which were all unsuccessful. In spite of such difficulties, it was amid this time that Frost accustomed himself to rural life. In fact, he developed to represent it quite well, and started huge number of his poems in the countryside. But while two of these, The Tuft of Flowers and The Trial by Existence, would be distributed in 1906, he could not discover any publishers who were eager to sponsor his different poems. During his lifetime, Frost wo uld receive more than 40 honorary degrees, and in 1924, he was awarded his first of four Pulitzer Prizes, for his book New Hampshire. He would subsequently win Pulitzers for Collected Poems (1931), A Further Range (1937) and A Witness Tree (1943).