Howard Becker Studies in the Sociology of Deviance

Howard Becker Studies in the Sociology of DevianceAlthough in that location had been prior research into degenerate give chases, Howard Becker is hailed as the found of the modern commemorateling possible doing. Founded in Outsiders Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, it is this estimateling guess that is perhaps his most important influential contri only ifion to sociological and criminological knowledge. Beckers influences came from Cooleys looking-glass selfii, Meads theories on the internalisation of the selfiii, and Lemerts societal constructionismiv. Becker suggests that deviance is based on reactions and responses of others labelling an individual as such. He states that no particular act is inherently deviant unless until a group with socially causalityful statuses or positions label it as such.vThis approach to labelling deviance has be condescend manifest in criminological and sociological research, and the development of the labelling theory. Becker opens Outs iders writesocial groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance, and by applying those roles to particular people and labelling them as outsiders. From this point of status, deviance isnota quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an offender. The deviant is bingle to whom that label has been successfully applied deviant de hatefulor is conduct that people so labelvi.Just as auberge uses the stigma of the deviant label to justify its disapproval, the individual designate uses it to justify their actions. Becker attempts to put a complex argument in a few words instead of the deviant motives leading to the deviant behaviour, it is the other way around, the deviant behaviour in time produces the deviant motivation.viiIn Outsiders, Becker views deviance as the creation of social groups by persons in positions of berth rather than the quality of some act or behaviour. Becker d is see to its with other theories of deviance, which accept the experienceence of deviance, and by doing so, simply accept the values and of the majority within a particular social group. According to Becker, canvass the act of the individual is unimportant as it is merely breaking the rules made by those in power the rule breaking behaviour is constant and it is the labelling of such behaviour that changes. He describes rules as the reflection of sealed social norms held by the majority of a order, whether formal or informalviii. Clearly, in a society where criminal activity is the norm, the maven who chooses not to conform, should not be labelled as deviant for not committing crimes. Nevertheless, it could be said that they be deviant as they ar not acting as pass judgment and atomic number 18 deviating from the norm.Beckers approach, however, focuses on enforced rules. He views those who are likely to engage in rule-breaking behaviour as essentially different from those of the rule-making or rule-abiding society. He believes that those persons who are prone to rule-breaking behaviour see themselves goodly at odds with those members of the rule-abiding societyix. Becker uses the term outsider to describe a rule-breaker who accepts the label of deviant and therefore view themselves as outside mainstream society.Becker also focuses on those in positions of power that have the authority to deem what rules society should abide by and who enforce those rules. According to Becker, the creation and enforcement of these rules is an enterprising actx. He hints at disagreeing with the ethics and reasoning behind those who make and enforce these rules, realising that while some may have a moral crusade to prevent crime, most engage in the process strictly because it is a requirement of their vocation. Becker wrote restrain enforcers use the process of formal enforcement to satisfy two major interests, the justification of their occupation and the winning o f wish from the people he/she patrolsxi. He recognises that individuals who would not normally be prone to rule-breaking may become so by the misuse of labelling powers as a result of the enforcer abusing the great deal of discretion they are armed with.Becker concludes Outsiders by calling for empirical research of his approach to the labelling theory. As a result, there has been a vast amount of response from social scientists. Some research has directly reflected Beckers approach, whilst others have used his labelling theory as a foundation on which they furthered the theory.Gideon Fishman, for example, tested his theory by consumeing a sample distribution of juvenile delinquents in mid-western America. Fishmans studyxiilooked at negative self-perception and whether this self-perception affects future misbehaviour. His results indicated that, although some accept the label of deviance and further entrench themselves in deviant behaviour, it is by no means universal individuals react to the label in different ways.A popular application of Beckers labelling theory is in the research into intellectual health. doubting Thomas Scheff adopts Beckers views on labelling theory and apologises how people are labelled mentally ill in order to explain certain rule-breaking behaviour that society cant categorisexiii. Wrightxivand Pfohlxvrecognise that Scheff is not concerned with occasional acts of deviance, but the lasting and sporadic deviance that is often considered under mental illness. People who are subsequently labelled as mentally ill often adopt the behaviour they would personally expect of a unimaginative mental health patient as portrayed through the media. Scheff identifies that we will all display symptoms of mental illness at some point in our lives, and labels are attached to those without powerxvi. Scheff argues individuals who become stereotypically mentally ill, or at least behave as such, are rewarded by enterprising psychology professionalsxvi i. existential evidence of this can be found in several studies by Scheff into the process of mental infirmary commitment.In carrying out his own research into the labelling theory, Edwin Schur modifies Beckers approach in Labelling Deviant Behaviourxviii, by faulting some of the focus to the deviant individual. He claims that, if people who are labelled deviant can dress up and polish off power within the society, they will be able to change societal views on what is or what is not considered deviantxix.Schur says that this change in power may come in the form of uprisings, social movements, and even civil strife, which could ultimately result in the formation of a strong political group.xxHoward Becker has been criticised on much of his work on many levels, and these criticisms must be explored before any evaluation of his parting to criminological knowledge can be made.Becker himself examines some of the criticisms made of the theory in his book Labelling conjecture Reconsid eredxxi. Firstly, he addresses those who have said it is not a true theory. He points out that rather than creation an all-encompassing theory of deviance, labelling theory was established as a way of looking at a general area of human activityxxii, and not, he claims, a theory, with all the achievements and obligations that go with the title, nor focused so exclusively on the act of labelling as some have thoughtxxiii.He points out that the thought of morality can be problematic in its research and interpretation. He contemplates on where the researchers sympathies should lie and considers whether one should side with the outsider or simply ascertain criminal activity as intrinsically wrong? He stresses the roughies of the sociologist of this decision, recognising that the researcher, whether taking either side, will be accused of taking a one-sided and distorted view. So we because ask how is it possible to see the situation from both sides simultaneouslyxxiv? I agree that B ecker is right in raising this criticism, as it is somewhat impossible to be completely un-bias on the base of operations that no researcher is capable of not carrying any sort of pre-conformed opinion or view on society and will, without doubt, have moral values, right or wrongly. In Whose Side Are We Onxxv, Becker goes as cold as to say that the labelling theorist must side with the deviator, as it is up to the sociologists to remedy inequitable situationsxxvi.Becker also points out there is problems with secrecy. The deviant individual, in many cases, will commit deviant acts in secrecy and will not what their actions to become universally known, especially when those acts are criminal. This poses difficulty in gaining a true insight into the world of the deviant individual and therefore jeopardises the validity of the labelling theory. Beckers claim was found to be correct by Humphrey in his study Tearoom Tradexxvii. In many cases, the individuals participating in homosexual b ehaviour in the tearooms were married with children, and consequently, when later asked in a questionnaire about their views on homosexuality, actually few admitted their own visits to the tearooms. This notion of secrecy among deviants will undoubtedly cause problems for researchers and their research.It is also very difficult for researchers to observe the day-to-day lives of deviant individuals, in what are perhaps highly dangerous places, as there are problems of infiltration and gaining the trust of what may be violent and dangerous people. If the researcher is able to gain such access, they because face the tasks of remaining impartial in their observations, to continue to observe without becoming convoluted in criminal activity themselves, and even trying to prevent crimes being committed. This can be seen in Parkers View from the Boysxxviii, where he studied boys in an area of Liverpool. Parker was only able to gain insight as he had previously met the boys he was studyin g at a centre for Liverpools deprived children. He says, however, If I had not been young, hairy, boozy, willing to keep long hours, accept permissive standards, the liaison would never have workedxxix. He also admits that his presence affected the behaviour and actions of the boys. On occasions he prevented them from committing crimes and even went as far as to help them if they were caught.In his research and development of the labelling theory, Becker doesnt address how factors such as biology, genetic effectuate and personal responsibility can influence, if at all, deviant individuals behaviour. After this met a barrage of criticism, he answered his critics in his 1973 edition of his work. He wrote that while sociological researchers are dedicated to finding an understanding about society, they are often too careful to look too closely. Becker annotationd I prefer to think of what we study ascollective 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 future. 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 doxxx. Francis Cullen believed Becker was overly bounteous with his critics. He recognised that after 20 years, far from being supplanted, have been corrected and absorbed into an spread out structuring perspectivexxxi. Beckers suggesting that rather than simply criticise him for not including these factors in his research, these sociologists should use those factors to help develop the labelling theory themselves.What I believe to be the greatest flaw in the labelling theory is the notion that no acts are inherently criminalxxxii, they only become criminal when society has deemed them as such. This seems to be suggesting that without the persons in power trying to satisfy two major interests the justification of their occ upation and the winning of respect from the peoplexxxiiiby implementing laws, there would be no deviant. So does this mean that simply because it couldnt be labelled as such, it wouldnt exist? Just because something cant be specifically labelled as such does not mean that it ceases to occur. I agree with Beckers argument that people become deviant if they are expected to become so by society, but I fail be of the same mind that this is the reason behind the majority of deviant behaviour. In my opinion, the labelling of deviance comes after the deviant act occurs.The theory also claims that for a criminal to be successfully labelled, an audience must be present to provide a reaction to the crimes committed. So does this mean that if a murder is committed and the orca avoids suspicion or being caught, they are not a criminal and will not think of themselves in such a way? It is probable that the killer will have some idea of morals and what is conceived to be inherently right and wro ng as a result of their own socialisation, and so could initialise self-labelling, but the theory clearly states the labelling must come from a third party.In attempting to evaluate the contribution of Becker to the study of criminology and more specifically the sociology of deviance, it is important to note that it depends on how the theory is viewed. If the theory is considered as a theory, with all the achievement and obligations that go with the titlexxxiv indeed its flaws are many. Yet, if we consider the theory, as Becker suggests we do, as a mere way of looking at deviance, then the contribution could be said to be significant. Becker, unlike previous theorists, did not only look at the after-effects of a deviant act but considered the way one begins to fall deviant. In his study of marijuana users, for example, he considers how one begins to smoke. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Beckers approach to the labelling theory, the majority, if not all, will use that opinion to then form their own ideas and approaches to the study of deviance, as is evident from the amount of critique Becker has obtained. As a result, one can conclude that Beckers approach to the labelling theory continues in its usefulness, and will remain to do so as long as deviant behaviour continues to exist.