Labeling Theory zReview of “Classic” Labeling zReflected Appraisals zReintegrative Shaming

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

Criticisms of Labeling 1. Typically history of antisocial behavior prior to formal labeling ySociety 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) zReflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency yMove from formal to informal labels (appraisals) yBack to “symbolic interactionism” roots xMuch more complex, rich yAllows early deviance to play a role yDifference between actual appraisals, reflected appraisals, and self-appraisals

Formation of the “self” zTransactions yInteractions between 2 or more individuals y “Role-taking” appraising from others’ shoes: xThe situation xOneself in the situation xPossible lines of action

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

Elements of the “self” zHow others actually see you yActual Appraisals zHow you perceive the way others see you yReflected Appraisals zHow you see yourself ySelf-Appraisals

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

John Braithwaite zAustrailian Criminologist zCrime, Shame, and Reintegration zPretty complex theory (Not parsimonious) yBUT, Central concepts are not that complex xReintegrative Shaming vs. Stigmatization xInterdependency xCommunitarianism

What is “shaming?” zBehaviors (from others) that induce guilt, shame ysnide comment, verbal confrontations ystocks/pillory, the “scarlet letter” yNaval tradition of “captains mask” zIn Western society, shaming has become uncoupled from formal punishment yOffenders privately sent away to warehouses by corrections or court “officials”

Braithwaite II zInterdependency y“attachment” with social others (indirect control at micro level) zCommunitarianism ysimilar to “collective efficacy” (control at macro) zIn communities that lack collective efficacy, and among people who are less bonded, stigmatizing punishment is likely.

Types of “Shaming” zReintegrative yLove the sinner, hate the sin ySpank the child, but tell them that you still love them zStigmatizing yno effort made to reconcile the offender with the community yoffender as outcast, “criminal” as master status ydegradation ceremonies not followed by ceremonies to “decertify” deviance

Examples of Shaming zStigmatizing yUnited States yCourt, prison, etc. (remove and shun from community) zReintegrative yJapan yCeremonies to shame and welcome back

The Model InterdependencyCommunitarianism Type of Punishment Shaming Stigmatizing Legitimate Opportunities Criminal Subculture High Crime Rates

Evidence for Reintegrative Shameing? zJapan vs. U.S. crime rates ySince WWII, Japan U.S.(others) zWhy? yHigh Interdependency and Communitarianism yReintegrative Shaming emphasized yCommunity has duty to shame and welcome back transgressors

Implications from Braithwaite? zRestorative Justice yVictim/Offender mediation yEmphasis on “repairing harm” yBuild up community, victims, offender zShaming Conferences