1 / 13

Labeling Theory

Labeling Theory. Review of “Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory . The Classic Labeling Process. Formal Sanctions Degradation ceremony Stigmatizing. Change in Self-Concept looking glass self hard to resist formal label. Primary Deviance Most engage in this

Mia_John
Télécharger la présentation

Labeling Theory

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Labeling Theory Review of “Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory

  2. The Classic Labeling Process • Formal Sanctions • Degradation ceremony • Stigmatizing • Change in Self-Concept • looking glass self • hard to resist formal label • Primary Deviance • Most engage in this • Typically sporadic, not serious • Secondary Deviance • Caused by new self-image as criminal or deviant

  3. Criticisms of Labeling 1. Typically history of antisocial behavior prior to formal labeling • Society doesn’t “identify, tag, and sanction individuals as deviant in a vacuum.” 2. Controlling initial levels of deviance, formal sanctions have little (no?) effect. 3. No “negotiation,” obsession with “formal” sanctions...

  4. John Braithwaite • Austrailian Criminologist • Crime, Shame, and Reintegration • Pretty complex theory (Not parsimonious) • BUT, Central concepts are not that complex • Reintegrative Shaming vs. Stigmatization • Interdependency • Communitarianism

  5. What is “shaming?” • Behaviors (from others) that induce guilt, shame • snide comment, verbal confrontations • stocks/pillory, the “scarlet letter” • Naval tradition of “captains mask” • In Western society, shaming has become uncoupled from formal punishment • Offenders privately sent away to warehouses by corrections or court “officials”

  6. Braithwaite II • Interdependency • “attachment” with social others (indirect control at micro level) • Communitarianism • similar to “collective efficacy” (control at macro) • In communities that lack collective efficacy, and among people who are less bonded, stigmatizing punishment is likely.

  7. Types of “Shaming” • Reintegrative • Love the sinner, hate the sin • Spank the child, but tell them that you still love them • Stigmatizing • no effort made to reconcile the offender with the community • offender as outcast, “criminal” as master status • degradation ceremonies not followed by ceremonies to “decertify” deviance

  8. Examples of Shaming • Stigmatizing • United States • Court, prison, etc. (remove and shun from community) • Reintegrative • Japan • Ceremonies to shame and welcome back

  9. The Model Interdependency (MICRO) Communitarianism (MACRO) • Type of Punishment • Reintegrative Shaming • Stigmatizing Legitimate Opportunities Criminal Subculture High Crime

  10. Evidence for Reintegrative Shaming? • Japan vs. U.S. crime rates • Since WWII, Japan U.S.(others) • Why? • High Interdependency and Communitarianism • Reintegrative Shaming emphasized • Community has duty to shame and welcome back transgressors

  11. Implications of Braithwaite? • Restorative Justice • Emphasis on “repairing harm” • Punishment alone is not effective in changing behavior and is disruptive to community harmony and good relationships • Restitution as a means of restoring both parties; goal of reconciliation and restoration • Community involvement • Crime control the domain of the community • Community as facilitator in restorative process • Crime has social dimensions of responsibility • Victims are central to the process of resolving a crime

  12. Lawrence Sherman “Defiance Theory” • Defiance • “the net increase in the prevalence, incidence, or seriousness of the future offending against a sanctioning community caused by a proud, shameless reaction to the administration of a criminal sanction.”

  13. What causes defiance? • Sanctions are defined as “unfair” • Sanctioning agent behaves with disrespect for the offender or his/her group • The sanction is actually unfair (discriminatory, excessive, undeserved) • Offender is poorly bonded to sanctioning agent or community • Offenders defines sanctioning as stigmatizing (reject the person) • Offenders denies or refuses to

More Related