Two basic ideas underpinning this generalapproach are that deviance is relative andsocially constructed.

The same behaviour can be deviant in onecontext (or society) but non-deviant in anotherand Becker (1963) argues this means devianceis not a quality of what someone does but aquality of how others react to what they do.

In other words, if people ignore criminalbehaviour - no one is pursued, processed orpunished - the offender is, to all intents andpurposes, law-abiding.

Criminals, therefore, are only different to noncriminals when they are publicly labelled assuch - and this means that to look for thecauses of crime in the qualities, bothpsychological and / or sociological, of criminalsis doomed to failure.

Labelling theoryAlthough labels are just names given tobehaviour that identify what were seeing, theyhave two important qualities:

1. When we apply a label to people's behaviourwe also give it a meaning - what we understandsomething to be. Labels, in other words, are notneutral - they carry with them a set of socialcharacteristics that define those so labelled.

For example, the label "criminal" publiclyidentifies someone as a "law-breaker" and itcarries a range of:

characteristics (shifty, dishonest, violent,troubled) given to the deviant. meanings that shape how we see and treatdeviants (as people not to be trusted, to beshunned - or embraced - etc.).

A significant feature of labelling, therefore,relates to how it shapes and impacts twoaspects of peoples identity:

1. Social identities that relate to the generalcharacteristics assigned to a label by aparticular culture. In our society, for example,different characteristics are assigned to labelslike old and young and these defineappropriate behaviours for these age statuses.

2. Personal identities that relate to the differentways individuals, with their different culturalhistories, interpret a label. Not all "old people"interpret the label in the same way.

These ideas inform labelling theories ofdeviance because they suggest that when adeviant label is successfully applied tosomeone, their subsequent behaviour isinterpreted in the light of this label - depending,of course, on the nature of the deviance.

Attracting the label murderer or paedophilehas more-serious consequences than the labelspeeding motorist.

This idea is related to what Becker (1963) callsmaster labels and statuses; these are sopowerful that everything about a person - theirpast, present and future behaviour - isreinterpreted in the light of the label.

D4. Interactionism

1Shortcutstv.com

Click image to play video

http://www.shortcutstv.com

2

Sociology Approaches to Crime

Shortcutstv.com

The outcome of a labelling process is not,however, pre-defined or certain. Just becausesomeone tries to attach a label doesntnecessarily mean they will be successful.Labels can be successfully:

Rejected - by someone demonstrating theydo not deserve it. Deflected - by successfully arguing it shouldnot be applied. Allegations of police corruption,for example, may be deflected by the argumentthat while a small minority may be corrupt, thislabel should not be applied to all police officers. Negated - by, for example, questioning theright (or ability) of someone to impose it.

Interactionism questions the assumption ideaslike crime and deviance are clear andunambiguous; most of us break the rules butsuffer no consequences for our offendingbecause no one reacts to our behaviour.Interactionism stresses any explanation ofdeviance must consider two things:

1. Concepts of power and social control, interms of the ability to make rules and applythem to peoples behaviour.

2. Ideology, in terms of decisions about whichbehaviours are considered deviant, criminal,both or neither.

By problemising concepts of crime anddeviance, Interactionism suggests no behaviouris inherently deviant and that its meaning isalways based on how people see and interpretit within different social contexts.

The meaning of "killing someone", for example,can be interpreted in many different ways, fromcriminal (murder) through negligence(manslaughter) to heroism (killing the enemy inwar time).

To understand crime, therefore, we need tounderstand how, why and under whatconditions people react to some forms ofbehaviour but not others.

EvaluationOne problem with this change of focus is that ittakes attention away from why people deviate.Some individuals and groups are more involvedin criminal behaviour than others and this can'tbe easily explained in terms of social reactions.

While the consistently greater involvement ofyoung working class males in criminalbehaviour can be partly explained by controlagencies targeting them, the consistency ofdata within and across societies suggests someother social processes at work.

Interactionism has been criticised for implyingthe only difference between criminals and non-criminals is that the former have been solabelled. This leads to the idea law-breakers,rather than being seen as aggressors, aresomehow victims of a labelling process. Whilethis idea might be sustainable in relation tominor forms of deviance it's more difficult tosustain in the case of armed robbers orcorporate criminality.

While Interactionists refer to power as animportant variable in understanding deviance, itis rarely, if ever, developed beyond the simpleobservation that some have greater power thanothers to attach labels.

Marxists, for example, have criticised thisapproach for its failure to explain how and whythe working class are consistently the object ofruling class power; their behaviour is not onlymore likely to be criminalised but controlagencies are also more-likely to enforce the lawagainst the relatively powerless.

The 11 most common micro-crimes Paid someone cash-in-hand so that it costsless, knowing they wont pay tax Illegally streamed TV shows, movies or music Illegally downloaded TV shows, movies ormusic Avoided paying for a fare on public transport Told someone your food order was to takeaway rather than eat-in because it costs less Lied about your own age/situation to get acheaper deal on something Taken a plastic bag at a supermarket withoutpaying for it Lied about your childs age to get a cheaperdeal on something Refilled your drink without paying extra: 16%Eaten loose fruit/picnmix at a store withoutpaying for it Put a product through a self-service till forless than it should actually cost

http://www.shortcutstv.com