Labeling Theory Review of “Classic” Labeling Reflected Appraisals Reintegrative Shaming

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

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...

Matsueda (1992) Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency Move from formal to informal labels (appraisals) Back to “symbolic interactionism” roots Much more complex, rich Allows early deviance to play a role Difference between actual appraisals, reflected appraisals, and self-appraisals

Formation of the “self” Transactions Interactions between 2 or more individuals “Role-taking” appraising from others’ shoes: The situation Oneself in the situation Possible lines of action

Role-taking as socialization Early socialization Take the role of significant others who are present in situations Later socialization Take the role of “generalized other,” or the whole social group

Elements of the “self” How others actually see you Actual Appraisals How you perceive the way others see you Reflected Appraisals How you see yourself Self-Appraisals

Matsueda’s Model Initial Behaviors Reflected Appraisals of Others Actual Appraisal by Others

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

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”

Braithwaite II Interdependency Communitarianism “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.

Types of “Shaming” Reintegrative Stigmatizing 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

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

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

Evidence for Reintegrative Shameing? 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

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