Labeling Theory z Review of Classic Labeling z

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

The Classic Labeling Process Formal Sanctions Primary Deviance • Most engage in this • Typically sporadic, not serious • Degradation ceremony • Stigmatizing Change in Self-Concept • looking glass self • hard to resist formal label Secondary Deviance • Caused by new self-image as criminal or deviant

Criticisms of Labeling 1. Typically history of antisocial behavior prior to formal labeling y. 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. . .

Matsueda (1992) z. Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency y. Move from formal to informal labels (appraisals) y. Back to “symbolic interactionism” roots x. Much more complex, rich y. Allows early deviance to play a role y. Difference between actual appraisals, reflected appraisals, and self-appraisals

Formation of the “self” z. Transactions y. Interactions between 2 or more individuals y “Role-taking” appraising from others’ shoes: x. The situation x. Oneself in the situation x. Possible lines of action

Role-taking as socialization z. Early socialization y. Take the role of significant others who are present in situations z. Later socialization y. Take the role of “generalized other, ” or the whole social group

Elements of the “self” z. How others actually see you y. Actual Appraisals z. How you perceive the way others see you y. Reflected Appraisals z. How you see yourself y. Self-Appraisals

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

John Braithwaite z. Austrailian Criminologist z. Crime, Shame, and Reintegration z. Pretty complex theory (Not parsimonious) y. BUT, Central concepts are not that complex x. Reintegrative Shaming vs. Stigmatization x. Interdependency x. Communitarianism

What is “shaming? ” z. Behaviors (from others) that induce guilt, shame ysnide comment, verbal confrontations ystocks/pillory, the “scarlet letter” y. Naval tradition of “captains mask” z. In Western society, shaming has become uncoupled from formal punishment y. Offenders privately sent away to warehouses by corrections or court “officials”

Braithwaite II z. Interdependency y“attachment” with social others (indirect control at micro level) z. Communitarianism ysimilar to “collective efficacy” (control at macro) z In communities that lack collective efficacy, and among people who are less bonded, stigmatizing punishment is likely.

Types of “Shaming” z. Reintegrative y. Love the sinner, hate the sin y. Spank the child, but tell them that you still love them z. Stigmatizing yno effort made to reconcile the offender with the community yoffender as outcast, “criminal” as master status ydegradation ceremonies not followed by ceremonies to “decertify” deviance

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

The Model Interdependency Communitarianism Type of Punishment • Shaming • Stigmatizing Legitimate Opportunities Criminal Subculture High Crime Rates

Evidence for Reintegrative Shameing? z. Japan vs. U. S. crime rates y. Since WWII, Japan U. S. (others) z. Why? y. High Interdependency and Communitarianism y. Reintegrative Shaming emphasized y. Community has duty to shame and welcome back transgressors

Implications from Braithwaite? z. Restorative Justice y. Victim/Offender mediation y. Emphasis on “repairing harm” y. Build up community, victims, offender z. Shaming Conferences