Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

“Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "“Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory"— Presentation transcript:

1 “Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory
Labeling Theory “Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory

2 The Social Context of Labeling
Many “early writings” Lemert in 1950s Tannenbaum in 1938 Emerged in the 1960s as a force Social context of the 1960s “Fit” with the theory Labeling theory = “ironic twist”

3 Labeling as a mix of 3 perpectives
Symbolic Interactionism Gestures/signs to communicate A single “label” can have many meanings or “baggage” Identity (self), “master status,” etc Conflict Theory How the law is created and applied Crime as “Constructed” All deviance is relative (no absolute evils)

4 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

5 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...

6 Policy Implications (The 4 Ds)
Diversion De-institutionalization Decriminalization Due Process How all relate to labeling Actually part of OJJDP dialogue and policy in the 1970s (irony here) Jerome Miller Last One Over the Wall

7 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

8 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”

9 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.

10 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

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

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

13 Evidence for Reintegrative Shaming?
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

14 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

15 Lawrence Sherman “Defiance Theory”
“the net increase in the prevalence, incidence, or seriousness of the future offending against a sanctioning community caused by a proud, shameless reaction to the administration of a criminal sanction.”

16 What causes defiance? Sanctions are defined as “unfair”
Sanctioning agent behaves with disrespect for the offender or his/her group The sanction is actually unfair (discriminatory, excessive, undeserved) – COPS Offender is poorly bonded to sanctioning agent or community Borrowed from social bond theory Hostile reaction  the labeling theory irony again (getting tough produces opposite reaction)

Download ppt "“Classic” Labeling Reintegrative Shaming Defiance Theory"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google