Comparison of Differential Association and Labelling Theory in Criminology

Essay, Pages 10 (2345 words)

Views

Introduction

Within the field of criminology, it is crucial to view events and the world through various criminological lenses in order to understand any given situation and criminal behavior. In order to do so, we must analyze and compare a variety of criminological theories to better comprehend these factors and their outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to offer readers an analytical understanding of the following theories; the differential association theory and labelling theory through the use of theoretical comparison.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ Comparison of Differential Association and Labelling Theory in Criminology ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

Firstly, this section of the paper will focus on the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. Secondly, there will be a focus regarding policy implications, in addition to the social consequences related to the theories previously mentioned. Lastly, a conclusion will be provided to summarize the overall context of this paper.

Summary

Edwin Sutherland was a criminological theorist that developed the differential association theory and argued that it is through the interaction of other people that an individual may learn the motives, values, practices, and approaches for criminal behavior (Newburn 2017: 206).

Sutherland’s theory is the most popular learning theory of deviance because instead of focusing on why individuals become criminals, it focuses on how they learn to become criminals. This theory has been known to be closely similar to the interactionist perspective, however there are some difference as it focuses on the development of the limitations in an individual’s and society’s perception on them. When an individual learns the motives and manners to commit crimes, it makes it socially easier for them to engage in a criminal act.

Sutherland also explains that the idea of “self” can be identified as a social construct and that an individual’s perception of themselves constantly changes when they interact with other individuals. Due to this concept, the differential association theory can be connected with the labelling theory.

Labelling theory introduced the idea that the behavior and self-identity of an individual can be influenced by the way others and society classifies them which is linked with the notions of stereotyping and self-fulfilling prophecy. Frank Tannenbaum’s theory was developed from his work on juvenile delinquency and by using George Herbert Mead’s symbolic interactionist work on “the self” that focused on the self as a social construct and Charles Cooley concept on the looking-glass self (Newburn 2017:228). Labelling theory states that deviance is not based on an act, but rather focuses on society’s tendency to negatively label young individuals as deviant based on a certain situation or activity that the person participated in. These infractions change society’s attitude and perception of the delinquent which later on affects their behavior and self-conception and leads to them eventually being labelled as deviant.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Edwin Sutherland’s theory regarding differential association was influential in shaping criminology as we know it today through the use of sociological perspectives. Sutherland theorized that the behavior of an individual was not due to genetics or personal characteristics but was rather determined by physical and social surroundings. He states that when there is a surplus amount of pressure and encouragement of violation of the law from peers, an individual can develop an anti social behavior. The differential association theory consists of two important dimensions such as the behavioral interactional dimension and the normative dimension. The behavioral interactional dimension refers to an individual’s direct and indirect interaction and association with other people that engage in deviant or illegal behavior (McKay 1960). The normative dimension refers to the beliefs and values an individual is exposed to and learns due to the interaction and association with other people. It is within this social context that a person is exposed to an excess of definitions favourable or unfavourable to violation of law (McKay 1960).

There are a number of criticisms related to Sutherland’s theory of differential association. According to other theorists, Sutherland fails to explain the motives and causes for individuals to develop the associations they do. When concerned with friendship groups, other theorists argue that the explanation isn’t related to the influence of one’s peers but rather in the selection of peers, such as if a person is drawn to delinquency they will most likely attempt to find a group of delinquents so it may offer that individual a justification for their behavior (Newburn 2017:206). Another criticism for Sutherland’s theory is that differential association is also unable to explain crimes that is not committed in intimate personal groups nor is it influenced by an individual’s peers. Criminologists question if this theory can explain murder and rape, or if there weren’t any motives or techniques learned from the interaction and process of communication with other delinquents. Differential association theory enforces stereotypical and general assumptions about certain groups instead of addressing the structural contributing factors to an individual committing crime.

One of labelling theory’s strengths is that it focuses on the reasons as to why and how certain people are labelled as deviant rather than on the nature of deviant acts and the idea that criminality is inherent. Labelling theory explains that the people that are labelled don’t develop a deviant identity but it is rather society’s reaction that enables the deviant label. According to Lemert, this can be explained through primary and secondary deviance. Primary deviance emerges in a varied range of psychological, cultural, and social settings and can be conceptualized as the first stage in engaging in a deviant act. Primary deviance is very common in society because all individuals partake in some basic form of deviance and in most cases it will not result in an individual adopting a deviant identity. Secondary deviance can only occur when the act committed by an individual is labelled as deviant and that person’s deviant identity begins to develop as well as incorporating it into notions of self. It is the person’s defense mechanism, attack, or attempt to adapt to the label society has given them due to their primary deviation (Newburn 2017:232).

However, there are a number of weaknesses related to Tannenbaum’s labelling theory. It is argued that the theory focuses more on secondary deviance rather than putting emphasis on the causes of primary deviance and not being able to provide an explanation for it as well. Therefore, when concerning with the certain labels that might be applied to an individual, it is most likely that there will be a disregard of the circumstances in which an individual will try to be labelled a deviant (Newburn 2017:231). According to Braithwaite, labelling does not always result in more deviant acts, in some cases it can actually decrease a person’s deviance (Newburn 2017:231). In addition, even though the theory comprehends that being labelled is an important aspect in understanding deviant behavior, it does not identify if being labelled a deviant can be the cause of such behavior (Newburn 2017:231). Other critics argue that labelling theory has an inherent perception of the deviant as helpless individuals that are just reacting to society’s standard cultural norms. There are some that claim that labelling theory embellishes the significance of having a reaction from society and the community, and suggests that there wouldn’t be any deviance without it.

Policy Implications and Social Consequences

The policy implications that were generated from the differential association theory are very important and valuable. From a sociological perspective, deviant and criminal behavior is learned through the interaction with peers and family. If one agrees that an individual can learn a great amount of definitions that are encouraging to the violation of the law, then theoretically they are able to unlearn them and learn new definitions, values, and beliefs that are encouraging to behavior that is more law-abiding (Goodman 2019). Another policy implication that was made from the differential association theory is the rehabilitation of a delinquent and the hope that that individual can be corrected. The implementation of rehabilitative programs and Criminal Thinking programs are very popular across the criminal justice system in Canada and have a set goal of changing a delinquent’s behavior in a positive way (Goodman 2019). Another policy implication consists of preventing an individual from committing a deviant act through stronger communities, social institutions, as well as neighbourhoods. By changing a delinquent’s environment and providing them with positive experiences and role models, it should reduce crime rates and diminish criminal acts in the future.

It is said that in the 1970s and 1980s, labelling theory greatly influenced the understanding of crime and criminal justice (Newburn 2017:239). According to studies in Britain, social workers believed that they played an important role in the limitation to which juvenile offenders would become involved in formal criminal justice processes (Newburn 2017:239). Whenever the opportunity would surface, juvenile justice workers would make great attempts to make sure that delinquents would be cautioned instead of prosecuted, or to be kept out of custody if they were already prosecuted. Labelling theory also influenced Edwin Schur’s book “Radical Non-intervention”, which argued that young individuals that participated in deviant acts or activities should not have to be punished and that the involvement in delinquency was just part of a developmental process of adolescence (Newburn 2017:239). Labelling theory suggests that it is relatively normal for young adults to offend, and that they would stop wanting to commit crimes if they are left alone. It also states that punishment did not prevent offenders from reoffending, but rather it would influence them to commit deviant acts again because they have already been labelled as delinquents. In 1988, the Home Office green paper indicated that young offenders needed the community’s help and encouragement to respect the law and to no longer commit crimes (Newburn 2017:240). It was stated that even after a short period of time spent in custody, the young adults would already be labelled as criminals which will make them see themselves as such and act accordingly by obtaining new criminal skills from the criminals that have been in custody for a long period of time.

Even though the differential association theory has benefited society with its understanding on deviance, it does have a few social consequences. The concept of differential association is that if an individual is around other people that encourage and promote the violation of the law rather being against such behavior, then criminal deviance is more likely to occur. There are a few problems that can occur with the policies implemented by the theory such as prevention programs and treatments for delinquents. These programs might not be able to have a positive effect on the deviant individual if there isn’t a change in the values and beliefs of that person, if there isn’t a variety of opportunities of different forms of conventional activities for the delinquent to participate in so it can alter their criminal behavior, or if there isn’t a change in the culture that is transmitted to them, as well as an end to the participation between deviant groups and institutions. There is a difficulty to acquiring positive results through the policies implemented if there is no change in the individual, in their will to participate in conventional activities, or they are unable to change their situation so that there can be an increase in the number of conventional people that person interacts with.

Labelling theory has also helped better our understanding of criminal deviance, however it does have a few social consequences. Edwin Lemert is an advocate of this theory and argues that even though there’s a wide range of acts of deviance, it is the social response of the community and society that should be the topic of analysis (Newburn 2017:240). Furthermore, the reaction of the population can negatively impact the delinquent which can lead to them to make changes to their perceptions of themselves and possibly lead them to think that they are in fact deviant and alter their actions to this basis until they are labelled as deviant. According to Lemert, when that process does occur, the delinquent’s deviance transitions from primary which is the enactment of an act that is prohibited to secondary deviance which is when an individual uses their deviant behavior as a defense mechanism due to society’s social response towards them (Newburn 2017:240). Due to these factors, the differential association theory is preferable than the labelling theory because its policy implications as well as the community and society are making attempts at rehabilitating the troubled adolescents, unlike the labelling theory which continues negatively label them as delinquents.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper was to provide readers with an analytical understanding of the following theories; the differential association theory and labelling theory through the use of theoretical comparison. Firstly, this section of the paper focused on the strengths and weaknesses of both theories. Secondly, an emphasis regarding policy implications, in addition to the social consequences related to the theories was provided. As previously mentioned there is a large variety of theories used within the field such as social disorganization, classical theory, as well as critical race theory. Although this paper focused primarily on two theories it is crucial for those within this field to have a critical understanding of all criminological theories and behaviors in order to improve their practice as well as the implications within the criminal justice system.

Works cited

Goodman, M. (2019). Differential Association Theory and Criminology: Assessing the Empirical Validity of Sutherland's Theory. Criminal Justice Review, 44(2), 132-148. doi:10.1177/0734016819826109
McKay, H. D. (1960). A Comparison of the Differential Association and Subcultural Theories of Criminal Behavior. Social Problems, 8(4), 343-352. doi:10.2307/798739
Newburn, T. (2017). Criminology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (n.d.). Labelling Theory. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190264079.013.83
Lemert, E. M. (1972). Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control. Prentice-Hall.
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the Community. Columbia University Press.
Schur, E. M. (1973). Radical Non-intervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem. Prentice-Hall.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
Home Office. (1988). Punishment, Custody, and the Community: The Way Ahead for Juvenile Justice. Author.
Lemert, E. M. (1967). Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control (Revised ed.). Prentice-Hall.