The Interactionist Perspective on Crime (AQA A Level Sociology): Revision Note

Labelling theory & crime

• Labelling theory belongs to the interactionist/interpretivist tradition

• Interactionists focus on how crime and deviance are socially constructed rather than based on fixed categories

• What counts as 'normal' or 'deviant' varies based on the following:

  • Context: nudity is fine in private but criminal in public

  • Time: homosexuality and suicide were crimes until the 1960s in the UK

  • Culture: drinking alcohol is banned in Saudi Arabia but normal in the UK

  • Subculture: youth subcultures may see behaviour as normal that adults label deviant

The social construction of crime

• Howard Becker (1963) argues that:

  • deviance is not the act itself but the reaction to it

  • a person becomes deviant when the label is successfully applied

• Who gets labelled depends on:

  • interactions with agencies of social control (police, courts, media)

  • the situation/circumstances of the offence

  • the offender’s appearance, class, gender, and ethnicity

• Power matters:

  • Rules and laws are created by powerful groups who define what counts as crime or deviance

  • Agents of social control (e.g., police, teachers, judges, media, medical professionals) then apply these rules, labelling those who fail to conform as 'outsiders'

• Becker argues that crime and deviance are relative and situational — what is criminal in one place or time may not be in another

Cicourel (1968): the negotiation of justice

• Cicourel found that police decisions are shaped by stereotypes of what an 'offender' looks like.

• Working-class youths are more likely to be arrested and charged than middle-class youths

• Middle-class parents can negotiate justice, persuading the police that their child is 'naïve', which results in warnings instead of prosecution

• Cicourel argued justice is negotiated, not fixed

• This has implications for crime statistics:

  • Official statistics reflect the decisions of control agencies, not the actual level of crime

  • Therefore, statistics should be treated as a topic to investigate (how they are produced), not as facts about crime

The social construction of crime statistics

• At every stage of the criminal justice system, labels shape outcomes

  • E.g., decisions about arrest, charging, prosecution, conviction, and sentencing

• Labels attached to the suspect are influenced by stereotypes held by agents of social control

• As a result, official crime statistics reflect:

  • the activities of the police, courts, and prosecutors

  • not the true amount of crime in society

• This creates the 'dark figure of crime' — the unknown amount of unreported or unrecorded crime

• Alternatives like victim surveys and self-report studies aim to uncover hidden crime, but they have limitations (e.g., forgetting, exaggerating, or concealing behaviour)

The consequences of labelling

• Labelling theorists argue that once people are labelled as criminal or deviant, this label can shape their identity and future behaviour

• In some cases, the reaction to deviance actually produces more deviance

Primary & secondary deviance

• Lemert (1951) distinguishes between primary and secondary deviance

• Primary deviance

  • Minor acts that go unnoticed or are not publicly labelled (e.g., fare-dodging)

  • Widespread, often trivial, with little effect on a person’s self-concept

  • Primary deviants do not usually see themselves as deviant

• Secondary deviance

  • Deviance that results from societal reaction and the application of a label

  • Once labelled, individuals may be stigmatised, humiliated, and excluded, leading to a master status (e.g., being known only as a 'criminal' or 'junkie)

  • This can trigger a self-fulfilling prophecy:

    • Ex-convicts may find it impossible to get legitimate work

    • They may turn to a deviant subculture, where deviance is rewarded and normalised

• Lemert and Young argue that it is not the act itself, but the hostile societal reaction to it that creates serious deviance

Deviance amplification spiral

• The deviance amplification spiral describes how attempts to control deviance can actually make it worse

• More social control leads to more deviance, leading to even stronger control in an escalating spiral

Cohen (1972): 'Mods and Rockers'

• Cohen studied the societal reaction to the 'mods and rockers' disturbances

• The media exaggerated minor seaside scuffles between youth groups

• This created a moral panic, with growing public concern and calls for a 'crackdown'

• Police responded by arresting more youths, whilst the courts gave harsher punishments

• This confirmed media stereotypes, deepened public fear, and demonised the groups as 'folk devils'

• The groups became further marginalised and turned to more deviance

• Labelling theory argues that agencies of social control can actually cause more deviance through their reaction

Mental illness & suicide

• Interactionists are interested not just in crime but also in other forms of deviant behaviour, such as mental illness and suicide

• They argue that both are socially constructed through labelling

Suicide

• Durkheim (1897)

  • Treated suicide rates as social facts that could be explained by levels of social integration and regulation

  • He aimed to show that sociology could be a science

• Douglas (1967)

  • Criticised Durkheim’s reliance on official statistics, arguing that we should study the meanings individuals attach to suicide

• Atkinson (1971)

  • Claimed suicide statistics are socially constructed

  • Coroners use common-sense knowledge (stereotypes, evidence from relatives, etc.) to decide the cause of death

  • Therefore, official suicide rates reflect labelling processes, not objective reality

Mental Illness

• Interactionists argue that mental illness is a social construction, not a straightforward fact, but a label attached by powerful groups (e.g., psychiatrists)

• Lemert (1962) argued that psychiatric labels like 'schizophrenic' can produce a self-fulfilling prophecy

• In Rosenhan's (1973) pseudopatient study, healthy volunteers were admitted as 'schizophrenic'

  • Despite acting normally, they were treated as mentally ill. The label became their master status.

• Labelling can lead to institutionalisation, where being labelled as 'mentally ill' can lead individuals to internalise the patient role, becoming dependent and unable to readjust to normal life

Evaluation of labelling theory

Strengths

• Shows the complexity of deviance

  • Demonstrates that deviance is not fixed but depends on social context, interaction, and labelling

  • Highlights that law enforcement is often discriminatory and that attempts to control deviance can actually create more deviance

• Policy implications

  • Suggests that making and enforcing fewer rules could reduce deviance (e.g., decriminalising soft drugs to reduce secondary deviance)

  • Braithwaite (1989): Societies using reintegrative shaming (condemning the act, not the person) have lower crime rates, as this avoids pushing people into deviant careers

Criticisms

• Deterministic

  • Assumes people accept their label and follow a deviant career

  • Downes & Rock (2003) suggest a deviant career is not inevitable — individuals may reject labels

• Neglects real victims

  • Focuses on the offender as a 'victim' of labelling

  • Realists argue that this ignores the actual victims of crime

• Fails to explain primary deviance

  • Cannot explain why people commit deviance before being labelled

  • Implies that deviance only exists once labelled, yet most deviants know they are breaking rules without needing a label

• Marxist critique

  • Overlooks who has the power to create and enforce labels

  • Ignores the role of the ruling class in applying labels disproportionately to groups like the working class