Social Construction of Crime 

According to Howard Becker, a leading theorist of labelling, crime and deviance are not inherent to specific actions. Instead, an act becomes deviant only when society perceives and defines it as such. Becker’s statement, “An act only becomes deviant when others perceive and define it as such,” underscores the fluidity of crime and deviance.

Contextual Variability

Social norms vary across contexts. For instance, wearing a bikini at the beach is socially acceptable. However, doing so in a school or town center may be perceived as deviant and even criminal, such as indecent exposure. Similarly, playing loud music at a party might be acceptable, but doing so in a hospital would likely be considered deviant behaviour.

Cultural Differences

Cultural norms shape what is considered criminal or deviant. For instance, in some Middle Eastern countries, alcohol consumption is illegal, whereas it is socially acceptable and legal for those over 18 in the UK. In Saudi Arabia, consuming alcohol can lead to severe penalties, including imprisonment. Additionally, practices like eating certain foods during religious periods may be considered deviant in some cultures but are seen as normal in others.

Historical Differences

Historical changes demonstrate how societal norms evolve over time. Acts like homosexuality were once criminalized but are now legal in many parts of the world, such as the UK, following the Sexual Offences Act of 1967. Conversely, practices like opioid use for soothing children were legal in the 1800s but are now considered criminal. The changing legality of drugs such as cannabis in places like Canada and some U.S. states further highlights the historical evolution of what constitutes criminal behaviour.

Generational Changes

Generational perceptions also influence deviance. For example, an elderly person in a nightclub might be considered deviant by younger attendees, even though their presence is not illegal. Similarly, practices such as graffiti tagging were once predominantly seen as vandalism but are now increasingly considered a form of street art, with artists like Banksy gaining international recognition.

How Labelling Theory Explains Criminal Behaviour

Labelling theory explains criminal behaviour by focusing on the societal reactions that shape an individual’s identity and future actions. Once a label such as "criminal" is attached, it becomes part of the individual's master status—the dominant characteristic by which they are identified.

Moral entrepreneurs—lawmakers, governments, and influential figures—define societal norms. These individuals or groups determine what behaviors are acceptable or deviant, often reflecting the interests of those in power. For instance, during the Prohibition era in the United States (1920–1933), lawmakers criminalized alcohol consumption, leading to the rise of organized crime and underground speakeasies. In modern contexts, celebrities and social media influencers can shape public opinions about behaviours like veganism or environmental activism, normalizing some actions while stigmatizing others.

 

---

 

The Labelling Process

Labelling theory distinguishes between primary and secondary deviance, as outlined by Edwin Lemert.

Primary Deviance

Primary deviance refers to acts that go unnoticed. For example, speeding on an empty highway is both illegal and deviant, but if no one witnesses it, no label is attached. Similarly, shoplifting a small item without being caught remains a private act with no societal repercussions.

Secondary Deviance

Secondary deviance occurs when a deviant act is observed, leading to the attachment of a label. This label often results in societal rejection, pushing the individual to internalize their deviant identity. For instance, a person labelled as a criminal may struggle to find employment, housing, or social acceptance, leading to further deviance and potentially a “deviant career.” For example, former prisoners often face discrimination in job markets, which may push them toward illegal activities for survival.

 

Internalization of Labels

When individuals are labelled as deviant, they often internalize this label, seeing themselves as society perceives them. For example, a young person caught stealing may begin to view themselves as inherently dishonest if labelled as a thief. This self-concept can lead to further criminal acts as they conform to the expectations associated with their label.

Social Rejection and Isolation

Labelling often results in social rejection, limiting access to legitimate opportunities. For instance, an individual with a criminal record may struggle to find employment or housing, leading them to seek alternative, often illegal, means of survival. This isolation can push them further into deviant subcultures where criminal behaviour is normalized.

The Cycle of Deviance

Labelling can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. As individuals face rejection and stigmatization, they may reject societal norms altogether, leading to continued deviance. For example, someone repeatedly stopped and searched by police based on stereotypes may develop hostility toward law enforcement and engage in activities that confirm the stereotype.

Case Studies and Examples

The "Mods and Rockers" moral panic in the UK illustrates how labelling escalates deviance. Media sensationalism labelled these youth groups as dangerous, leading to increased police scrutiny and pushing members into a deviant identity. Similarly, studies of ex-prisoners show how the label of "ex-convict" often leads to reoffending due to limited social and economic opportunities.

 

Consequences of Labelling 

Typifications and Selective Law Enforcement

Aaron Cicourel highlights how labels create typifications—common stereotypes about criminals, such as being male, young, poor, or substance-dependent. These stereotypes lead to targeted policing and reinforce biases. For example, Black teenage boys in the UK are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched than their white peers. In the US, the “war on drugs” disproportionately targeted African American communities, perpetuating racial stereotypes and reinforcing cycles of poverty and crime.

Deviancy Amplification Spiral and Moral Panics

Jock Young’s concept of the deviancy amplification spiral illustrates how labelling amplifies deviance. In his study of marijuana users in Notting Hill during the 1960s, he observed that media sensationalism created a moral panic. This led to harsher policing, pushing the group underground and fostering a deviant subculture. Similarly, the 1970s moral panic over “Mods and Rockers” in the UK resulted in increased police attention, despite many altercations being minor scuffles exaggerated by the media.

Shaming

John Braithwaite offers a nuanced view, distinguishing between reintegrative and disintegrative shaming. Reintegrative shaming labels the act, not the individual, allowing them to reintegrate into society. For example, restorative justice programs in New Zealand focus on addressing the harm caused by criminal acts while reintegrating offenders into the community. In contrast, disintegrative shaming labels the person, leading to ostracism and a higher likelihood of continued deviance.