Interactionism
Becker (1963): Deviance is:
Relative across two dimensions:
▪ not a quality of what someone does.
▪ a quality of how others react to whatsomeone does.
Relative: How behaviour is classified(from killing someone at one extreme towiping your nose on your sleeve at theother) always involves moralinterpretation – beliefs about “right”and “wrong” that categorise behaviourusing subjective rather than objectivecriteria. For this reason definitions ofdeviance frequently vary over time andbetween socieites.
How people react to behaviour is acrucial variable. If there is no publicreaction - no-one is pursued,processed or punished - an offender is,as far as anyone knows, law-abiding.
This means ‘criminals’ are onlydifferent to ‘non criminals’ when theyare publicly labelled as such.
T
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
1
)
Homosexuality is a good example to use here.
In the UK, for example, homosexualitywas a crime until 1967, while for mostpeople in contemporary Britain thisbehaviour is now seen as neithercriminal nor deviant. There are,however, groups within our society -particularly some religiousfundamentalists - who still see it asdeviant.
• criminal and deviant.
• not criminal, but deviant.
• neither criminal nor deviant.
E
x
a
m
p
l
e
s
The act of "killing another individual“ can be defined and interpreted as:
• Criminal - such as deliberately killing someone in the course of robbing them(murder).
• Deviant, but not necessarily, criminal - in Switzerland, for example, "assistedsuicide" (helping someone take their own life) is not a criminal offence (it may beclassified as murder in the UK).
• Neither criminal nor deviant: In times of war, a soldier killing an enemy soldier isseen as a duty, rather than deviant.
T
h
e
o
r
y
o
f
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
2
)
Different societies may have different concepts of crimeand deviance. In the UK, it's normal to maintain a circle ofspace around our body extending roughly 60cm and wefeel uncomfortable if people enter this personal spaceuninvited – their behaviour is deviant if they do so.
Other cultures often interpret things differently - inArgentina, for example, personal space can be so smallas to be almost non-existent.
S
o
c
i
a
l
l
y
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
Becker (1963) :"Social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infractionconstitutes deviance".
Deviance involves understanding how and why societies create and selectivelyenforce rules.
How others react to what someone does is the key to explaining deviance.
Durkheim (1895): ‘What confers (criminal) character...is not some intrinsic quality ofa given act but the definition which the collective conscience lends it’.
Although Durkheim and Becker sharethe idea deviance is sociallyconstructed, they differ in terms ofhow they theorise such socialconstructions.
For Durkheim, social actions (such asconformity and deviance) areexplained in terms of the operation ofsocial structures – hence the notion of“collective conscience”.
Wilkins (1964): ‘Positive Feedback Loop’:
Primary deviance is identified and condemned.
Social reaction leads to secondary deviation.
Secondary deviation leads to criminalisation.
Although devinacy amplificationhas a strong assocation withInteractionist perspectives, itwas originally developed byWilkins as a positivist model forpredicting the development ofdeviant behaviour.
Increased Deviance
Increased Social Reaction
Secondary Deviance
Social Reaction
Isolation and Alienation
Primary Deviance
Primary Deviance
Lemert (1951): primary deviation is deviantbehaviour in its ‘pure form’; it represents someform of rule breaking (real or imagined).
Unless attention is drawn to primary deviation,it has little impact on the ‘psychologicalstructure of the individual’ - they may not seethemselves as deviant.
Step 1: Primary deviance isidentified and condemned.
Role of moral entrepreneurs is to draw publicattention to primary deviance by condemningdeviant behaviour.
Isolation and Alienation
Deviant groups become socially isolated –marked-out by public condemnation as“different”.
Step 2: The Isolation and Alienationof those identified as deviants.
Deviantly-labelled groups become resentful ofand alienated by the attention they receive.
Becker (1963): Deviant groups as “Outsiders”.
Deviant groups are “The Other” – people whodo not fit into “normal” society.
Social Reaction
Role of media – both Traditional and New –significant in “soft social reaction” phase (a phaseof ideas rather than action).
Step 3: Social reactionto primary deviation.
Social reaction orchestrated by the media; actson the public, politicians and formal controlagencies and leads to creation of folk devils.
Most – but significiantly not all - deviants have“zero-sum credibility”; they lack the power tocounteract or nullify deviant labelling.
Secondary Deviance
Deviant self-images: Lemert (1951) arguesoffenders interpret their behaviour in the lightof the labelling process.
Becker (1963): Secondary deviation starts toconfirm deviant identites and marks start ofdeviant career.
Step 4: Secondary deviation – deviantsrecreate themselves in image portrayedby control agencies.
How people respond to being labelled‘deviant’.
Repeated deviance becomes ‘a means of
defence, attack or adaptation’ to the
problems created by being labelled as deviant.
Increased Social Reaction
“Hard social reaction” phase based aroundmoral:
Step 5: How The authorities react tosecondary deviation.
Pressure from politicians, public and mediamounts, leading to:
Crusade.
Increased police resources to deal with ‘theproblem”.
New laws – the criminalisation of deviance.
Panic.
Clampdown.
Discovery of “more deviance”.
Increased Crime...
May create serious organised criminal problemout of disorganised primary deviance.
Step 6: Criminalisation.
Aggressive social reaction transforms deviance
into crime.
Relatively minor primary deviance spirals intocriminalisation of deviants.
Most primary deviants drift away, leaving“hardcore centre”.
‘Spiral of crime and deviance’ may continuewith further isolation and alientation ofdeviant group...
Cohen (1972): Situation where a group is:
defined as threat to societal values.
stereotyped and
stigmatised by the media.
involve moral crusades.
Miller and Reilly (1994): these ideas and processes reflect ideological social control asa prelude to political action.
include demands for moral clampdown.
For Cohen (Folk Devils andMoral Panics, 1972), a moralpanic exists when: "A condition,episode, person or groups ofpersons emerges to becomedefined as a threat to societalvalues and interests“.
Moral panics ‘soften up’ public opinion so people are prepared to acceptrepressive social controls (such as new laws).
Demands for a moral clampdownrelate particular forms of devianceto wider issues of morality – the“underlying causes” of youthdeviance being a result of a lack ofdiscipline in the home and school,for example.
Moral crusades involve various mediataking up arms against a particular typeof deviant, based on moral objectionsto their behaviour. Paedophiles are arecent example; others include “benefitscroungers”, “illegal immigrants” and“ecstasy-fuelled raves”.
The draft Communications Data Bill(2012), for example, massively extendsthe police and security service’s ability tolegally intercept and monitor “privateinternet communications” (such asemail) on the basis of “combattingterrorism and paedophilia”.
Labels – names given to behaviour that
help us make sense of what we’re seeing –
have two main qualities:
Some labels have:
Meanings.
Social characteristics.
Labelling theory argues:
The label "criminal”, for example,carries with it a range of associatedcharacteristics given to the deviant- they may be considered morally,socially and psychologicallydeficient, untrustworthy, deviousand the like).
The label “thief”, for example, carrieswith it a range of meanings thatshape how we see and treatdeviants. We may, for example, beless inclined to trust someonelabelled as a “thief”.
M
a
s
t
e
r
l
a
b
e
l
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
t
u
s
e
s
When a deviant label is successfully applied, subsequentbehaviour is interpreted in the light of the label. But some labels– what Becker (1963) calls master labels and statuses - havegreater significance than others.
Attracting a deviant label such as ‘rapist’, for example, or
These labels are so powerful that everything about a person -their past, present and future - is reinterpreted in the light of thelabel and their status is changed accordingly.
‘paedophile’ gives those so-labelled a new and unwanted status.
From pop star topaedophile...
From album
spinner to abuser...
S
o
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
P
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
I
d
e
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
A significant feature of labelling is how it shapes identities:
• Social identities relate to the characteristics assigned to a labelby a particular culture. In our society different characteristics areassigned to labels like “thief” and “law-abiding” that definebehaviours for and perceptions of, these statuses.
• Personal identities relate to the different ways individuals, withtheir different cultural histories, interpret a label. Not all “law-abiding people” interpret the label in the same way.
L
a
b
e
l
l
i
n
g
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
The outcome of a labelling process is neither pre-definednor certain. Just because someone tries to attach a labeldoesn’t mean they will be successful. Labels can be:
Rejected.
Deflected.
Negated.
An individual may be able to reject adeviant label in a range of ways – fromdemonstrating their behaviour doesn’tdeserve it, through questioning thevalidity of the label in realtion to
their behaviour, to questioning the
right of those doing the labelling toimpose such a label.
This may be achieved by successfullyarguing a deviant label should not beapplied to everyone in a group. Allegationsof police corruption, for example, may bedeflected by the argument that while asmall minority may be corrupt, this labelshould not be applied to all police officers.
Labels can be negated (or their effectneutralised) in a number of ways –from disputing the right (or ability)of someone to impose alabel, tochanging the behaviour thatattracted the original label.
P
r
o
b
l
e
m
a
t
i
s
i
n
g
“Crime” and “deviance” are not objective, unchanging andundisputed concepts and categories.
Power: the ability to make and apply rules.
Ideology: decisions about which types of behaviour areconsidered deviant, criminal, both or neither.
They are subjective and socially-constructed around twoconcepts:
Suggests main differencebetween criminals and non-criminals is simply the label.
Takes attention away fromwhy some choose to deviate.
Tends to see law-breakersas victims of a labelling
process.
Power (to apply labels) is animportant variable, butdoesn’t explain powerdifferences – lacks structuraldimension to power.
Questions the assumptionconcepts like ‘crime’ and‘deviance’ are clear andunambiguous.
Problematises concepts ofcrime and deviance.
Shows how the meaning ofbehaviour is determined by itssocial context.
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
m
Taylor, Walton and Young(1975): overidentificationwith ‘victims’ of labelling.
Labelling often applieddeterministically - deviantresponse to labelling takenas “given”.
Individuals seen as passive -pushed into deviancethrough labelling process.
Difficult to explain someforms of crime, such asburglary, using labelling.
Moves focus away from the‘causes of crime’ located inpeople’s social/psychologicalbackground, to understandinghow deviance is socially createdand constructed.
Puts social reactions tobehaviour at the centre of anyunderstanding of deviance.
Suggests how “deviants” can bevictims of the power held bymoral entrepreneurs such asthe media.
L
a
b
e
l
l
i
n
g
T
h
e
o
r
y
Amplification process lesspredictable than Wilkins(1964) suggested.
Model is over-deterministicin its portraytal of deviant –control relationships.
Only applies to relativelynarrow range of group-based deviance.
Can only be applied tounderstand deviance “afterthe event” – once the spiralis complete.
Shows how behaviour ofcontrol agencies can have‘unintended consequences’ interms of amplifiying devianceinto crime.
Illustrates role of powerfulsocial actors in socialconstruction of deviance.
Suggests how media playimportant role in creation ofcrime.
D
e
v
i
a
n
c
y
A
m
p
l
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Significant component in thedevelopment of deviancyamplification spirals.
Cohen (1972): Explains howand why ampification spiralsdevelop through a group being‘defined as a threat to societalvalues’.
Jusitfication for strong actionagainst deviants: “Drugtakers”(Young, 1971); “black muggers”(Hall, 1978); “rave culture” andecstasy (Critcher, 2000).
M
o
r
a
l
P
a
n
i
c
s
McRobbie (1994): Conceptused so often it has becomemeaningless - used todescribe any behaviour that“worries people”.
McRobbie and Thornton(1995): Media generatesmoral panics for their shockvalue. "Moral panics, oncethe unintended outcome ofjournalistic practice, havebecome a goal’.
