The neo-Marxists were the offshoots of the
Marxism and conflict theory. They rejected the views of the orthodox Marxists.
They evolved a development of Marxist sociology by combining it with other ideas- especially those from
Interactionalism called the “New deviancy theorists, the “societal reaction
perspective” or labelling theory, and more recently Feminism.
Within
this neo- Marxist camp there are further sub divisions:
The New criminology; which advocated the
development of a “fully social theory of
deviance” from the interactionism and The New left Realism which suggests that we should become “realistic” about crime
and deviance, due to its harsh reality to many working-class people.
Taylor
and his co-authors argued that they have:
…redirected criminological attention to the
grand questions of social structure and the social arrangements within which
the criminal process played out. We are confronted once
again with the central question of man’s
relationship to structures of power, domination and authority - and the ability
of men to confront these structures in any
acts of crime, we are back in the realm of social theory itself (Kirby,
et al, 1997).
Lan Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young proposed
a fully social theory of crime on their
book, titled “the new criminology: for a social theory of deviance” advocated
and recommendation that explanation of crime and deviance should address the following:
1.
The wider origins of the
deviant act
2.
The immediate origins of the
deviance act
3.
The actual act
4.
The immediate origins of the
social reaction.
5.
The wider origins of the
deviant reaction
6.
The outcome of the social
reaction on the deviant further action; and
finally
7.
The nature of the deviant
process as a whole.
According to Taylor, et al, criminology would be
adequate to the understanding of these developments (Kirby, et al 1997).
Furthermore, on the revisitation of interest by the British sociologist of
crime, Lan Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young called this school of thought the “New
criminology”. They became subversive of the
earlier theories of crime and make a critique of them. They reviewed each of
the major theories of criminology and found them lacking. They then
argue that a series of key questions need to be addressed in any “fully social theory of crime”.
These key questions became highly important water- shed, taking stock of the
old- field criminology and designating the requirements for a fully social
theory of crime.
The labeling theory turned away from the conventional
theories of crime of the offenders to the societal reactions to crime; the role
of law, social control agencies, the media etc in shaping the nature of crimes.
Labelling Theory:
The labelling perspective to crime is associated
with the symbolic –interactionist theory. According to Frank Tannenbaum,
labelling is the process of making the criminal, therefore, is a process of
tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing, emphasizing, evoking the very traits
that are complained of….” (Eamonn 2004).
The labeling theory of deviance is based on two
assumptions. First, for someone
to be called “deviant” that person
must have broken a rule. Rules generally refer to the social norms and
expectations for acceptable behaviour. Rule-breaking per se
is not sufficient to label the deviant according to the theory. If the Rule violation is undetected, then no label
will be attributed to the violator,
and therefore should not be
qualified as a deviant. For example an individual who violated the payment of
income tax and defraud the government but was not detected could not be
referred to and declared as a criminal.
The second assumption focuses on the reaction of
the society to the rule-breaking. If a
social norm violation is detected, it becomes defined as deviance (the
perpetrator is labeled “deviant” and this label leads to social disapproval
and a host of other consequences.
In the same way, a person may be labeled and stigmatized by mental illness and criminality. and
criminality. Howard S. Becker showed the processes by which a person who breaks
the norms of the society became outsider and perceives himself as different.
This is how the process of alienation occurs.
The labeling approach, therefore, concentrates
on identifying and criticising the process by
which norms arise and are enforced and by
which some people are labeled for behaving in a certain way while others
are not. Howard S. Becker studied the ways in which cultures and careers were
transformed by negative sanctions against drug use. Social groups create
deviance by making the rules the infraction of which constitutes deviance.
Having been stigmatized as deviants,
many people are driven to fulfill the expectations of them on deviants. Because they have a bad name, they come to see
themselves as bad, and so they do bad things.
The
“Outsiders” Perspective, Et Al
In another study, the basic premises of labeling
theory were clearly articulated by Howard S. Becker whose study focuses on use
of marijuana and social control. Becker pointed out that marijuana smoking was
defined as deviant because others had the power to label it as such. Therefore social groups create deviance by making rules which if violated constitutes
deviance and by attributing those rules
to a particular person and labelling him as an outsider.
Labelling came to be a way in which individuals or groups assigned
certain types of behaviour. A deviant or outsider is a person who has been
labeled as such, which raises the question of “who does the labelling”? A
multitude of labels exist in society to employ in categorising the specific
types of norm violations: “Criminality” is used for behaviour that violates
laws, “perversion” is assigned to behaviour that does not conform to norms for
sexual behaviour; and “drunkenness” applies
to alcohol usage that the society
considers excessive. Labels also exist
for violations of minor social norms, such as obnoxious
“crude” and “ignorant”.
Travis Hirschi (1969) in his control theory
claims that the essence of social control lies in the people’s perception of
the consequences of their behaviour. Hirschi believed that everyone finds at
least some deviance tempting. By contrast, individuals who have little to lose
from deviance are most likely to become rule breakers.
Another leading interactionist Edwin Lemert
(1989) classified deviance into types:
Primary
deviance refers to an initial action committed by an individual.
Secondary deviance refers to the social reaction to the initial action. Deviance is not the act, but the reaction. Equally, primary deviance can be committed, but if no social reaction follows then the individual involved on the act will not pass on to the second deviance stage – will not accept the label.
Overall, labelling theory had covered
surprisingly a wide range of issues and produced many classic studies. Edwin
Schur looked at victimless crimes and showed how the legal response to
criminalized homosexuality, pornography, prostitution, abortion, and drug use
generated more problems than were solved. Edwin Sutherland (1928) and later
developed by one of his students, Donald Cressey (1992) the theory of
differential Association which holds that deviant behaviour is largely the
result of associating with another persons
whose behaviour is deviant. According to this theory, the greater the degree
of association, the greater the likelihood the behaviour will be
deviant. Sutherland sought to show that deviance was a function of such factors
as the frequency and intensity of associations; how long they lasted, and how
early they occurred in a person’s life.
Symbolic interactionism provides important
insights into the ways in which deviant behaviour is labeled through
interaction with other people.
REFERENCES
Carrabine, Eamonn, et al (2004). Criminology: A Sociological Introduction.
London: Routledge.
Ferdinand, Theodore N. (1966). Typologies of Delinquency: A Critical Analysis.
New York: Random House.
McGuire, Mike, et al, eds. (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology. 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neubeck, Kenneth J. and Davita S. Glasberg (2005). Sociology: Diversity, Conflict, and Change. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Williams, Hall J. E. (1984). Criminology and Criminal Justice. London: Butterworths.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave your comment below