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

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. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. 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

10. 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”

11. 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.

12. 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

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

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

15. 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

16. 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