Labeling theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Labeling Theory (or Labelling Theory) views given by Howard Becker (1963), is relevant to criminology and sociology explaining how criminal behavior is perpetuated by the police and other "labelers". It relates to symbolic interactionism and to social reaction theory and it is concerned with the nature, application, and consequence of labels.
Contents |
[edit] Discussion
As an application of phenomenology, the theory hypothesizes that the labels applied to individuals influence their behavior, particularly the application of negative or stigmatizing labels (such as "criminal" or "felon") promote deviant behavior, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. an individual who is labeled has little choice but to conform to the essential meaning of that judgment. Consequently, labeling theory postulates that it is possible to prevent social deviance via a limited social shaming reaction in "labelers" and replacing moral indignation with tolerance. Emphasis is placed on the rehabilitation of offenders through an alteration of their label(s). Related prevention policies include client empowerment schemes, mediation and conciliation, victim-offender forgiveness ceremonies, restitution, reparation, and alternatives to prison programs involving diversion. Labeling theory has been accused of promoting impractical policy implications, and criticized for failing to explain society's most serious offences.
[edit] Social construction
As a contributor to American Pragmatism and later a member of the Chicago School, George Herbert Mead posited that the self is socially constructed and reconstructed through the interactions which each person has with the community. Each individual is aware of how they are judged by others because he or she has attempted many different roles and functions in social interactions and has been able to gauge the reactions of those present. This builds a subjective conception of the self, but as others intrude into the reality of that individual's life, this represents objective data which may require a re-evaluation of that conception depending on the authoritativeness of the others' judgment. Family and friends may judge differently from random strangers. More socially representative individuals such as police officers or judges may be able to make more globally respected judgments. If deviance is a failure to conform to the rules observed by most of the group, the reaction of the group is to label the person as having offended against their social or moral norms of behavior. This is the power of the group: to designate breaches of their rules as deviant and to treat the person differently depending on the seriousness of the breach. The more differential the treatment, the more the individual's self-image is affected.
Whether a breach of a given rule will be stigmatized as criminal will depend on the significance of the moral or other tenet it represents. For example, adultery may be considered a breach of an informal rule or it may be criminalized depending on the status of marriage, morality, and religion within the community. In most Western countries, adultery is not a crime. Attaching the label "adulterer" may have some unfortunate consequences but they are not generally severe. But in some Islamic countries, zina is a crime and proof of extramarital activity may lead to severe consequences for all concerned.
There are also problems with stereotypes. The breach of a rule may be treated differently depending on personal factors such as the age, gender, race, etc. of the rule-breaker, or there may be relevant structural factors such as the offender's social class, the neighborhood where the offence took place, the time of day or night, etc.
[edit] Labeling Theory and Mental Illness
Labeling theory has also been applied to the mentally ill. This was first done in 1966 when Thomas Scheff published Being Mentally Ill. Scheff challenged common perceptions of mental illness by claiming that mental illness is manifested solely as a result of societal influence. He argued that society views certain actions as deviant and, in order to come to terms with and understand these actions, often places the label of mental illness on those who exhibit them. Certain expectations are then placed on these individuals and, over time, they unconsciously change their behavior to fulfill them. Criteria for different mental illnesses are not consistently filled by those who are diagnosed with them because all of these people suffer from the same disorder, they are simply fulfilled because the “mentally ill” believe they are supposed to act a certain way so, over time, come to do so.
Scheff’s theory has had many critics, most notably Walter Gove. Gove has consistently argued an almost opposite theory; he believes that society has no influence at all on mental illness. Instead, any societal perceptions of the mentally ill come about as a direct result of these people’s behaviors. In Gove’s view, the mentally ill behave unnaturally a lot of the time because of their disorders, so we treat them differently.
Most sociologists’ views of labeling and mental illness fall somewhere between the extremes of Gove and Scheff. Especially considering recent research on the biological roots of manic depression and schizophrenia, it is difficult to believe that mental illness is always a result of society. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to deny, given both common sense and research findings, that society’s negative perceptions of “crazy” people has had some effect on them. It seems that, realistically, labeling can accentuate and prolong mental illness, but it is rarely the full cause of symptoms.
Bruce G. Link and his colleagues have conducted several studies which point to the influence that labeling can have on mental patients. Through these studies, which took place in 1987, 1989, and 1997, Link has demonstrated that expectations of labeling can have a large negative effect on the mentally ill, that these expectations often cause patients to withdraw from society, and that the mentally ill are constantly being rejected from society in seemingly minor ways but that, when taken as a whole, all of these small slights can drastically alter their self concepts. It is obvious that the mentally ill both anticipate and perceive negative societal reactions to them, and that this can potentially damage their quality of life.
Many other studies have been conducted in this general vein. To provide a few examples, several studies have indicated that most people associate being labeled mentally ill as being just as, or even more, stigmatizing than being seen as a drug addict, ex-convict, or prostitute (for example: Brand & Claiborn 1976). Additionally, Page’s 1977 study found that self declared “ex-mental patients” are much less likely to be offered apartment leases or hired for jobs. Clearly, these studies and the dozens of others like them serve to demonstrate that labeling can have a very real and very large effect on the mentally ill. None of these studies, nor any other published ones, however, prove that labeling is the sole cause of any symptoms of mental illness.
Unlike when applied to the criminal world, the label of “mentally ill” can sometimes have a positive effect on the person who receives it. Once a person is labeled, he or she knows to seek the correct help. There is extensive literature which points to the effectiveness of psychotherapy, a strategy that is utilized in most diagnoses (for example: Smith, Glass, & Miller 1980). Being diagnosed also usually means being prescribed with medication. This, while not helpful for everyone, has been shown to significantly improve the quality of life for many (Davis 1975, Clomipramine Collaborative Study Group 1991). Labels, while they can be stigmatizing, can also lead those who bear them down the road to proper treatment and (hopefully) recovery. If the label of mental illness did not exist, then treatment for it would never have existed either. If one believes that being mentally ill is more than just believing one should fulfill a set of diagnostic criteria (as Scheff – see above – would argue), then one would probably also agree that those who are mentally ill need help. This could never happen if we did not have a way to categorize (and therefore label) them.
[edit] Social Construction of Mental Illness and the Labeling process in Mass Media
The social construction of deviant behavior plays an important role in the labeling process that occurs in society. This process involves not only the labeling of criminally deviant behavior, which is behavior that does not fit socially constructed norms, but also labeling that which reflects stereotyped or stigmatized behavior of the mentally ill. Peggy Thoits discusses the process of labeling someone with a mental illness in her article, “Sociological Approaches to Mental Illness.” Working off of Thomas Scheff’s (1966) theory, Thoits claims that people who are labeled as mentally ill are stereotypically portrayed as unpredictable, dangerous, and unable to care for themselves. She also claims that “people who are labeled as deviant and treated as deviant become deviant,” (Thoits 1999: 134). This statement can be broken down into two processes, one that involves the effects of self-labeling and the other differential treatment from society based on the individual’s label. Therefore, if society sees mentally ill individuals as unpredictable, dangerous and reliant on others, then a person who may not actually be mentally ill but has been labeled as such, could become mentally ill.
Mass media’s presentation of mental illness and the process of labeling deviant behavior clearly portray the extent to which public perception of mental illness fits this stereotype. Using mass media to determine public perception of mental illness is critical to understanding how labeling deviant behavior affects individuals today. A working knowledge of lay perception of mental illness will help in the discussion of the construction of societal norms which determine what is and what is not to be considered deviant behavior, and how such behavior is to be treated. One role of the mentally ill character in mass media is to dramatize the performance by creating a mentally ill character who is to be feared and yet pitied.
[edit] Examples
Roswell
An example from several episodes of the second season of Roswell provides an excellent depiction of how the mentally ill are used for this purpose in media. It also provides a fictional example of how labeling deviant behavior in a mentally healthy person can create mental illness. In Roswell the mentally ill character is named Laurie. Although she does not have paranoid schizophrenia, she is first informally labeled as schizophrenic by her family and then formally by a medical professional. It is this formal label that then leads to her institutionalization in a psychiatric hospital. Peggy Thoits speaks of this step of the process as the beginning of when deviant individuals experience differential treatment, which results from the stereotype of unpredictability, danger and dysfunction that they adopt along with their label. Even after Laurie escapes from the hospital, she continues to act mentally ill because she has put on this identity after having been labeled and treated as deviant. In essence, Laurie displays “secondary deviance” in which she continues to act mentally ill because she has internalized and identified with the role of a mentally ill patient (Thoits 1999: 136).
The cause of the differential treatment that Laurie receives from other characters on the show is due to a combination of label-induced stigma and unmet social expectations for proper behavior. In this way mental illness is stereotyped in Laurie’s behavior, which serves to dramatize and thus induce heightened interest in the story. This dramatization occurs most significantly on the level of endangering the popular characters on the show, as well as giving other characters an opportunity for emotional development by being able to show compassion to a less fortunate person, that is, the mentally ill individual. The mentally ill individual in society as someone to be feared and yet pitied reflects a broader public perception of mental illness, which is neither entirely negative, nor entirely positive.
This example of mental illness in mass media, shows the process by which social norms are constructed and then used to label deviant behavior in individuals. Because mass media appeals to the lay public, it is a good representation of how society views mental illness. In an indirect manner the lay perception of mental illness affects the medical side of mental health for individuals. If society were completely neutral towards mentally ill individuals, free from stereotypes and a tendency to stigmatize them, then the informal labeling process would occur in a much different way, which would consequently influence who is urged to seek psychiatric help, where they go to seek it, and when they seek it. It is clear that social construction plays an important role in Peggy Thoits’ process of labeling deviant behavior.
The OC
In The OC the portrayal of Oliver Trask, a character that is said to have depression but actually seems to have Borderline Personality Disorder, is also illuminating, and is further discussed in the entry titled Oliver Trask. Applying labeling theory to this portrayal is interesting because Oliver is informally labeled by Marissa as being depressed and having substance abuse problems. However, his behavior is not compatible with this label, as it escalates from lies and manipulation to threats of self-violence. Thus, although he possibly has Borderline Personality Disorder, Oliver is not labeled as such, and viewers' reactions to his character are based on the diagnosis of depression. We can only speculate on the effect a different, and more serious label like BPD would have on our perception of Oliver. According to labeling theory, this label, because it is more serious and less likely to be informal, would cause the viewer to distance him or herself from Oliver. Since he is a character on television this is not important, but it has interesting implications for real life instances of labeling.
The OC's portrayal of Oliver is clearly meant for drama and plot development, rather than as a statement about mental illness. However, as a popular show, The OC mirrors the views of society in general about issues like mental illness. The fact that Oliver's character does not actually show symptoms that correspond to the diagnosis he is given is an indictment of our lack of knowledge about mental illness. Surely the situation would be different if Oliver had been stricken with a physcial illness--research would have been done to verify the symptoms and course of the disease. However, mental illness, with its stigma and relative ambiguity, is more subject to misrepresentation. In Oliver's case, his label is so informal and his behavior so extreme, that the viewer is apt to see him as a generic "crazy person" rather than a representative of a specific mental illness label. While this is an example of our ignorance about mental illness and is possible harmful to the cause of mental illness in general, it does not hurt the image of people with Borderline Personality Disorder. In contrast, if Oliver had been labeled as having BPD, he would have then come to represent the whole disorder, and his violence and escalating behavior would become synonymous with the label.
Thus, The OC shows how media can contribute to our negative stereotypes about mental illness by dramatizing the effects of a specific mental illness. While The OC's effect was dampened by the incorrect labeling, still the show did nothing post=itive for the cause of mental illness, as so often is the case when labeling is involved.
[edit] Commentary
Some offences including the use of violence are universally recognised as wrong. Hence, labeling either habitual criminals or those who have caused serious harm as "criminals" is not constructive. Society may use more specific labels such as "murderer" or "rapist" or "pedophile" to demonstrate more clearly after the event the extent of its disapproval, but there is a slightly mechanical determinism in asserting that the application of a label will invariably modify the behavior of the one labeled. Further, if one of the functions of the penal system is to reduce recidivism, applying a long-term label may cause prejudice against the offender, resulting in the inability to maintain employment and social relationships.
[edit] External link
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. George Herbert Mead. [1]
[edit] References
- Akers, Ronald L. (1997). "Labeling Theories (Chapter 6)", in Criminological Theories
- Braithwaite, John. (1989). Crime, Shame, and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Brand, R.C., & W.L. Claiborn (1976). Two studies of comparative stigma. Employer attitudes and practices toward rehabilitated convicts, mental and tuberculosis patients. Community Mental Health J. 12: 168-175.
- Clomipramine Collaborative Study Group (1991). Clomipramine in the treatment of patients with obsessive compulsive disorder. Arch. General Psychiatry 48: 730-8.
- Davis, J.M. (1975). Overview: Maintenance therapy in psychiatry: I. Schizophrenia. Amer. J. Psychiatry 132: 1237-45.
- Grattet, Ryken; Jenness, Valerie & Curry, Theodore. (1998). "The Homogenization and Differentiation of Hate Crime Law in the United States, 1978-1995: Innovation and Diffusion in the Criminalization of Bigotry", American Sociological Review, 63:286-307.
- Link, Bruce G. and Jo C. Phelan. 1999. “The Labeling Theory of Mental Disorder (II): The Consequences of Labeling.” Pp. 361-376 in A Handbook for the Study of Mental Health, edited by Allan V. Horwitz and Teresa L. Scheid. NY, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Mead, George Herbert. (1934) Mind, Self, and Society, ed. C.W. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago.
- Page, S. (1977). Effects of the mental illness label in attempts to obtain accommodation. Canadian J. Behavioral Science 9: 85-90.
- Smith, M.L., G. Glass, & T. Miller (1980). The Benefits of Psychotherapy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
- Phelan, Jo C. and Bruce G. Link. 1999. “Social Contingencies in Labeling Theory.” Pp. 139-149 in A Handbook for the Study of Mental Health, edited by Allan V. Horwitz and Teresa L. Scheid. NY, NY: Cambridge University Press.
