Howard Becker Criminology | A Theory Analysis

Howard Becker Criminology A conjecture AnalysisWith close summon to a selection from your research/reading (minimum 3 references by or about your criminologist), critically assess the contri hardlyion made by your fountain to crimino synthetic knowledge. You should focus closely on how he /she developed critiqued or applied system.INTRODUCTIONHoward Becker is hailed as the fo at a lower place of modern chaseing mathematical action. He withal developed the term chaste entrepreneur to describe persons in king who campaign to have accepted unnatural style outlawed (Becker, 1963). He claims that galore(postnominal) laws ar established for much(prenominal) purposes, and that test that is defined as criminal is alive(p) and changes throughout time. Therefore, the shapeual criminal fashion is irrelevant to the guess. What really matters is which outlaws ar arrested and shapeed by the criminal comelyice transcription (Becker, 1963). As a result of the belief that in the flesh(predicate) and societal f subprogramors do not contribute to motivations for criminal behavior there has been little knowledge of the criminal him/herself and the aforestate factors. As whiz might expect, this aspect of Labeling Theory is st feverous being debated. There is one exception to this belief, however some stigmatiseing theorists claim that the system is biased toward the lower class, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of arrests and convictions in spite of appearance the Ameri cigaret criminal justice system (Wellford, 1975).This Labeling Theory, found in Outsiders Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963), is perhaps his most important and influential contribution to sociology. Influenced by Cooleys smell-glass self, Meads theories on the internalization of the self, and Lemerts affectionate constructionism, Becker explains that aberrance is based on the receptions and responses of opposites to an unmarrieds acts. The scar of dege nerate is applied to an individual when some early(a)s observe their behavior and react to it by scoreing that person as deviate. No particular act is inherently degenerate until a throng with heartyly powerful stat accustoms or positions label it as such (Becker, 1963). This divinatory sexual climax to deviation has influenced criminology, gender, sexuality and identity research.This advance became the manifesto of the labeling hypothesis movement among sociologists. In his opening, Becker writes fond groups create deflexion by making finds whose infraction creates divagation, and by applying those aims to particular bulk and labeling them as outsiders. From this head teacher of trip up, aberration is not a quality of the act the person commits, but sooner a consequence of the application by other of rules and sanctions to an offender. The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied deviant behavior is behavior that large number so label.8 While society hires the stigmatic label to justify its condemnation, the deviant actor riding habits it to justify his actions. He wrote To put a complex argument in a few words engaging of of the deviant motives leading to the deviant behavior, it is the other way around, the deviant behavior in time produces the deviant motivation.9INFLUENCESBeckers system evolved during a period of companionable and policy-making power struggle that was amplified within the world of the college campus (Pfohl, 1994). Liberal political movements were embraced by many of the college students and faculty in America (Pfohl 1994). Howard Becker harnessed this freehanded influence and adjusted Lemerts labeling theory and its symbolic interaction theoretical background. The labeling theory outlined in Outsiders is recognized as the prevailing amicable reaction tone- outset by Lemert as well as most other sociologists (www.sonoma.edu). Beckers approach has its roots in the symbolic interaction f oundation of Cooley and Mead, and the labeling influences of Tannenbaum and Lemert.Charles Cooleys valet de chambre Nature and the Social Order (1902) examines the personal perceptual experience of oneself through studies of children and their complex quantity friends. Cooley develops the theoretical concept of the feeling glass self, a type of complex quantity sociability (Cooley 1902). People imagine the view of themselves through the eyes of others in their friendly circles and form judgements of themselves based on these imaginary observations (Cooley 1902). The main desire of the looking glass self is that people define themselves according to societys sensing of them (www.d.umn.edu). Cooleys ideas, coupled with the works of Mead, are very important to labeling theory and its approach to a persons acceptance of labels as attached by society.George Meads theory is slight concerned with the micro-level focus on the deviant and more concerned with the macro-level suffice o f separating the conventional and the condemned (Pfohl 1994). In Mind, Self, and Society (1934), Mead describes the perception of self as form within the context of hearty lick (Wright, 1984). The self is the product of the minds perception of social symbols and interactions (www.d.umn.edu ). The self exists in objective reality and is then internalized into the aware (Wright 1984). The idea of shifting the focus away from the individual deviant and looking at how social structure affects the separation of those persons weighed unconventional has a owing(p) influence on how Becker approaches labeling theory.Social Pathology (1951) outlines Edwin Lemerts approach to what many consider the original version of labeling theory. Lemert, unhappy with theories that take the concept of divagation for granted, focuses on the social construction of deflexion (Lemert 1951). Lemert (1951) describes deviance as the product societys reaction to an act and the affixing of a deviant label o n the actor. Social Pathology details the concepts of unproblematic and secondary deviance. According to Lemert (1951), primary deviance is the initial incidence of an act causing an warrant figure to label the actor deviant. This initial labeling of a deviant act entrust remain primary as big as the actor foot rationalize or deal with the process as a function of a socially acceptable role (Lemert, 1951). If the labelled deviant reacts to this process by accepting the deviant label, and and entrenches his/herself in deviant behavior, this is referred to as secondary deviance (Lemert, 1951). Lemert considers the causes of primary deviance as fluid, and scarcely important to researchers concerned with specific social problems at a certain time. In the years following Social Pathology, Lemert argues for the decriminalization of victimless crimes, advocates pre-trial diversion programs, and has backed away labeling determinism (Wright, 1984).BECKERS LABELLING THEORYHoward Beck ers approach to the labeling of deviance, as describe in Outsiders Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963), views deviance as the creation of social groups and not the quality of some act or behavior. Becker (1963) criticizes other theories of deviance for accepting the existence of deviance and by doing so, accept the values of the majority within the social group. According to Becker (1963), fielding the act of the individual is nickel-and-dime because deviance is simply rule breaking behavior that is label deviant by persons in positions of power. The rule breaking behavior is constant, the labeling of the behavior varies (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) describes rules as the reflection of certain social norms held by the majority of a society, whether nominal or informal. Enforced rules, the focus of Beckers (1963) approach, are applied differentially and usually facilitate certain favorable consequences for those who apply the label. In short, members of the rule-making society whitethorn label rule breaking behavior deviant depending on the grad of reaction over time (Becker, 1963).Becker (1963) views those people that are likely to ingest in rule breaking behavior as essentially different than members of the rule-making or rule- continue society. Those persons who are prone to rule-breaking behavior see themselves as chastely at odds with those members of the rule-abiding society (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) uses the term outsider to describe a labeled rule-breaker or deviant that accepts the label attached to them and view themselves as different from mainstream society. Deviants whitethorn consider themselves more outside than others similarly labeled (Becker 1963). Deviant outsiders might view those rule making or abiding members of society as being the outsiders of their social group (Becker, 1963).The final measuring rod in the creation of a career delinquent involves the movement of a rule breaker into a deviant subculture (Becker, 196 3). The affiliation of the labeled deviant with an organized provides the person with incorrupt support and a self-justifying rationale (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) describes how those mingled in an organized crime may learn unseasoned forms of deviance through differential association.Becker (1963) also focuses on those in positions of power and authority that make and enforce the rules. Rules are created by a moral entrepreneur, a person that takes the initiative to crusade for a rule that would right a society evil (Becker 1963). The moral entrepreneurs motive may be to fig up the social status of those members of society below him/her (Becker 1963). The success of the crusade may lead to the entrepreneur to become a professional rule author (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) states that the success of each moral crusade brings along with it a new group of outsiders, and a new responsibility of an enforcement agency.According to Becker (1963), the enforcement of societys rules is an enterprising act. The enforcement of a rule occurs when those that want a rule enforced, usually to some sort of gain to their personal invades, bring the rule infraction to the attention of the human beings (Becker 1963). The rule infraction, brought to the attention of those in positions of authority, is dealt with punitively by the entrepreneur (Becker, 1963). The enforcement of the rule may involve the mediation of conflicts mingled with many different interest groups by those in positions of power (Becker, 1963). The enforcers themselves may have a moral crusade to stop crime, but most engage in the process strictly as a part of their rail line (Becker 1963). Rule enforcers use the process of formal enforcement to satisfy two major interests, the justification of their occupation and the winning of respect from the people he/she patrols (Becker, 1963). The enforcer is armed with a great deal of discretion and may use his/her power to label an innocent person in gear up to gain respect (Becker, 1963). The ruin of labeling powers by enforcers may create a deviant out of a person who otherwise would not be prone to rule breaking behavior (Becker, 1963).Beckers work pays particular attention to the way society reacts to people with criminal labels. He proposes that this label becomes a persons master status, meaning that this is a constant label, affecting and over-riding how others lead view them. The status people use to identify and classify a person will always be that of a criminal. Any other statuses a person occupies are no longer heeded. A person could be a parent, employee, spouse, etc., but the starting signal and major status that will come to mind to other people and themselves is that of the criminal (Becker, 1963).Beckers Outsiders (1963) uses two cases to illustrate his approach to labeling theory. Becker (1963) analyzes the history of cannabis laws in the United States and how individuals pass on into the recreational use of the medicate. Becker (1963) chooses to analyze hemp because the improvement of use can be observed. The first time drug user of marijuana finds the experience as somewhat unpleasant, but as the user imitates peers he/she learns to perceive the effects of marijuana as enjoyable (Becker 1963).Becker (1963) identifies three stages of marijuana use the beginner, the occasional user, and the regular user. The three self-explanatory categories of marijuana users can be manipulated through the use of social experiences (Becker, 1963). Control of the marijuana planning has both positive and negative effects (Becker, 1963). A diminished bring out of marijuana may lead to a decreased use of the drug among some people, but it may also drive a user to associate with an organized group of deviants to obtain marijuana (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) believes that turn control of marijuana supply is an important social control, it does not deter use. The shell way to deter a user is to control h is/her individual moral view of marijuana use.A ganja user is labelled to be deviant as it contravenes the rules and norms of the society. Becker researched on marihuana users and used it in encouraging his labelling theory . Becker notes that this deviant behaviour is based on the given kind of behaviour as an end product of a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a comprehension of the meaning of the behaviour, the perceptions and judgements of objects and situations, all of which makes the activity potential and desirable. An individual will only be able to use marihuana for pleasure if he goes through a process of learning to recall of it as an object where he is able to recognise the effects and assign them with drug use to inhale in a way that produce real upshot and learning to enjoy the sensation he comprehends. at a time the ability to achieve enjoyment is acquired, he will continue to use it. (continuing usage of the marihuana is the secondar y deviant) Considerations of morality and appropriateness, occasioned by the rejoinder of society, may hamper and impede use, but use persists to be a supposition in terms of the notion of the drug. The act will only be impossible when the ability to achieve the enjoyment is vanished, through a turn over of users conception of the drug occasioned by certain kind of experience with it.Becker (1963) uses a participant observation think over of the lives of Chicago dance musicians to illustrate the social life-time of a deviant subculture. Although dance musicians as a group are law-abiding, their unconventional lifestyles lead them to feel as outsiders (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) describes how being a dance musician involves a change in attitudes and opinions in order to conform to the subculture. The culture of the dance musician is rich in its sustain language and gestures (Becker, 1963). Many of the dance musicians live a conventional family life during the day and change int o their role as musician at darkness (Becker, 1963).Another aspect of labelling theory in which Becker outlines as problematic, is the concept of morality. He obvious motions a situation where the researchers sympathies should lie. He contemplates on whether one should side with the underdog or simply judge criminal behaviour as inherently defective? He stresses the sociological difficulty of this decision. He claims that the researcher, whether taking either side, will be accused of taking a one-sided and distorted view, but how is it possible to see the situation from both sides simultaneously (Becker, 1963)? Despite many contributions, the evaluation of labelling theorists is normally considered with an excessive make sense of criticism.Becker concludes Outsiders (1963) by emphasizing the contract for empirical research of his approach to labeling theory. Social scientists produced a vast amount of literature in response to Beckers request. Much of the research involving la beling theory straightway reflects Beckers approach, eyepatch others use Becker (1963) as a foundation for theory development. performanceGideon Fishman tests Beckers labeling theory by studying a sample of midwestern upstart delinquents (Friday and Stewart, 1977). Fishmans research design measures negative self-perception and whether this self-perception affects early delinquency (Friday and Stewart, 1977). The results of Fishmans study rise that secondary deviance is not universal and individuals react to deviant labels in different ways (Friday and Stewart, 1977).A popular application of Beckers labeling theory (1963) is in the area of cordial health. Thomas Scheff embraces Beckers approach to labeling and describes how people are labeled mentally ill in order to explain certain rule-breaking behavior that society cant categorize (Holstein, 1993 www.sscf.ucsb.edu). Scheff is not concerned with occasional acts of deviance, rather it is the residual or episodic deviance that often falls under the label of mental illness (Wright, 1984 Pfohl, 1994). People labeled as mentally ill adopt the behaviors of the stereotypical mental patient as visualized through the mass media (Wright 1984). Scheff argues that those who express the stereotypical behavior of the mentally ill are rewarded by enterprising psychology professionals (Wright, 1984 Pfohl, 1994). According to Scheff, everybody expresses the popular symptoms of mental illness at some point in their life and labels are attached to those without power (Wright 1984). Scheff provides empirical evidence in the form of some(prenominal) studies of the process of mental hospital commitment (Holstein, 1993 Pfohl, 1994 Wright, 1983 www.sscf.ucsb.edu).Many social scientists scrap Scheffs arguments on theoretical and empirical grounds. James A. Holstein (1993) attacks Scheffs approach for focusing on the deviant and not the moral entrepreneurs that attach the labels. Florence Ridlon (1988) criticizes Scheffs work for being settled and argues for a less causative model to explain mental afflictions such as alcoholism. Walter Gove (1980), an adamant critic of Scheff, believes that Scheff should not dismiss the influence of psychopathological variables on mental illness. Gove (1980) also criticizes Scheffs empirical methodology and operations.Edwin Schur modifies Beckers labeling theory in Labeling Deviant Behavior (1971) by shifting some of the focus to the individual deviant. Schur (1971) also theorizes that as persons labeled deviant gain power and organize, they progress in social definition from an uprising, social movement, and civil war to the shaping of a mainstream political party. Schur argues in Labeling Women Deviant (1983) that women in America are automatically labeled deviant by the male-dominated society. Women accept the deviant label as their master status and limit their life chances (Schur, 1983).CRITICISMSBeckers theory of labeling, while maintaining a great deal of pop ularity today, does encounter several criticisms (Pfohl 1994 www.mpcc.cc.ne.us Ridlon 1988). Many sociologists view labeling theory as untestable and, by definition, not a true theory (Ridlon 1988). Becker (1963) acknowledges that his labeling theory is a theoretical approach, not a true theory, and that sociologists should set about to establish empirical tests for his approach. Another major criticism of labeling theory is its misadventure to explain primary deviance (www.mpcc.cc.ne.us). Both Lemert (1951) and Becker (1963) believe that primary deviance is influenced by many different and changing variables and the research of primary deviance causes is futile. Pfohl (1994) details the criticism of many sociologists that labeling theory is causal or deterministic. Becker (1963) qualifies his approach to social reaction theory by stating that some groups of rule-breakers may be able to choose alternative courses of action.Beckers immensely popular views were also subjected to a barrage of criticism, most of it blaming him for neglecting the influence of other biological, genetic effects and personal responsibility. In a later 1973 edition of his work, he answered his critics. He wrote that while sociologists, while dedicated to studying society, are often careful not to look too closely. Instead, he wrote I prefer to think of what we study as collective action. People act, as Mead and Blumer have made clearest, together. They do what they do with an eye on what others have done, are doing now, and may do in the coming(prenominal). One tries to fit his own line of action into the actions of others, just as each of them likewise adjusts his own developing actions to what he sees and expects others to do.10Francis Cullen describe in 1984 that Becker was probably too generous with his critics. After 20 years, his views, furthest from being supplanted, have been corrected and absorbed into an expanded structuring perspective.11From a logical standpoint there are flaws within the main points of labeling theory. Initially the theory states that no acts are inherently criminal (Wellford, 1975). Meaning that acts are only criminal when society has deemed them as such. The implications of this being that criminal law is dynamic and ever-changing, differing from society to society. But if this is true then why are certain acts illegal within the majority of the civilized world? Murder, rape, arson, armed robbery. every(prenominal) these are considered crimes in any society or country one could care to name.Also the theory claims that for a criminal to be successfully labeled an audience moldiness be present to provide a reaction to the crimes committed. Does this mean that if a murder is committed where the killer has successfully avoided anyones suspicion that the act is then not criminal and the killer will not think of him/herself as such? Its probable that the murderers socialization and/or value system could initialize self-labeling, b ut the theory clearly states the labeling must come from a 3rd party (Hagan, 1973).For the sake of argument, if self labeling is possible and a person has obtained a self-initialized criminal master status/label, how do they react to it? Do they become criminals or try to rationalize as stated by Foster, Dinitz, and Reckless (Foster Dinitz Reckless, 1972)?Beckers labelling theory has also drawn to a considerable criticism. One of such is that his labelling theory failed to answer the etiological question about primary deviance, for example What causes deviance? Jack Gibbs pointed out that the theory failed to provide ample answers to three etiological questions wherefore does the prevalence of a particular act vary from one population to the next? Why do some persons commit the act while others do not? Why is the act in question considered deviant and criminal in some societies but not in others? This clearly shows that labelling theory is immaculate humanistic-antideterministic or voluntaristic hypothesis only . Then again, recent activists of the theory beginning to shift the labelling theory into a more scientific, deterministic one, and this approach is apparent in empirical studies of the secondary deviance. Instead of describing the process of interaction between labellers and the labelled that leads to secondary deviance, these revisionists defined, operationalised or measure labelling as a causal variable of secondary deviation.CONCLUSIONSocial scientists disagree on the future of labeling theory. Pfohl (1994) recognizes labeling theory as very influential in todays studies of deviance. Some social scientists view labeling theory as declining in importance due to deprivation of empirical support and a conservative political climate (www.mpcc.cc.ne.us ). Becker (1963) believes the future of labeling theory lies in the widespread empirical study of deviance and kinds of deviance.Beckers digest gives us a dynamic account of how a person can be funne led into a deviant career by labeling processes. This is also a compellingly humanistic theory of deviance. We can identify and sympathize with the deviant who has been the victim of labeling processes, even to the extent of realizing that it could happen to any of us. In this and many other respects, Beckers micro-relativistic approach to deviance theory contrasts markedly with normative theories that emphasize in a detached, objective way the fundamental differences between deviants and nondeviants. If Becker makes us scan the human implications of reactions to deviance, then he has accomplished one of his major theoretical goals.In attempting to evaluate the contribution of the labelling theorists to the study of the sociology of deviance, it can be said that it depends on how the theory is viewed. If the theory is considered as a theory, with all the achievements and obligations that go with the title, then its flaws are many. Yet if, as Backer suggests, we attempt to consider the theory as it were intended, that is, as a mere way of looking at deviance, then the contribution can be said to be weighty, as it opened up a whole new study of the individual after he has committed an act of deviance. At this point it must be mentioned that labelling theorists do not merely consider the after-effects of the deviant act, as it is sometimes suggested. Becker, for example, considers the individual and how he begins to smoke marijuana. As Schur sums up, labelling theory is not a revolutionary new approach to the analysis of social problems but rather a recording or emphasis of such analysis, a reordering that may help us to view deviance and control in a realistic, comprehensive, and sociologically meaningful light. As such, one can conclude that labelling theory continues in its usefulness, as long as deviant behaviour continues to exist.