Labeling Theory
Deviance as a social product of labeling rather than an inherent property of acts.
Labeling Theory was substantially developed in the 1960s within the symbolic interactionist tradition, principally through Howard S. Becker's Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963), Edwin Lemert's Social Pathology (1951, primary vs secondary deviance), and the broader 'societal reaction' tradition. The framework's central reframing is that deviance is not a quality of acts in themselves but the application of social labels to acts and actors — 'deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.' This shifts analytical attention from why some individuals commit deviant acts (the question that strain theory and other 'cause of crime' frameworks address) to how acts and actors come to be labeled deviant in particular times and places. Lemert's distinction between primary deviance (initial rule-breaking, often experimental and not identity-defining) and secondary deviance (deviant behavior that follows from being publicly labeled and treated as deviant — what we might call 'becoming a criminal') was particularly influential. The framework emphasizes the role of moral entrepreneurs in creating and enforcing deviance categories, the differential distribution of labeling power (who gets labeled depends substantially on race, class, and other social factors), and the self-fulfilling-prophecy effects of labeling. Labeling theory had substantial influence on the deinstitutionalization movement and on policy reforms aimed at reducing labeling effects (juvenile-justice diversion, mental-health treatment alternatives), though empirical evidence on labeling effects is mixed.
Core components
- Deviance as social label rather than inherent property
- Primary deviance (initial rule-breaking) vs secondary deviance (deviant identity post-labeling)
- Moral entrepreneurs
- Differential distribution of labeling power
- Self-fulfilling prophecy of labeling
- Connection to symbolic interactionism
- Influence on deinstitutionalization and diversion policies
- Distinction from cause-of-crime theories (asks different question)
- Goffman's complementary work on stigma
Primary use case
Sociology of deviance and criminology; foundation for substantial work on the criminal justice system, juvenile justice, and deinstitutionalization; reference framework in critical criminology; basis for policy advocacy around diversion and reduced labeling; influence on mental-health treatment philosophy; foundation for some social-movement analyses of stigmatized identities.
Common criticisms
- Original framework was argued to underweight primary deviance (the initial rule-breaking) by focusing on labeling effects on subsequent behavior — strain, control, and learning theories better address why some commit primary deviance
- empirical evidence on labeling effects is mixed — some studies show substantial effects of formal labeling on subsequent behavior, others show smaller effects than the framework predicts
- risk of relativizing genuine harm by framing deviance as label rather than fact (strong-form readings have problematic implications for serious harm)
- differential labeling has substantial empirical support but the mechanisms are contested
- commercial popularization has sometimes flattened the framework into 'don't label people'
- tension between labeling theory's microsociological focus and the structural conditions producing differential labeling
- integration with other criminological frameworks remains incomplete.
Lineage
- Child of
- Symbolic Interactionism
- Siblings
- Strain Theory, Symbolic Interactionism, Goffman's Dramaturgy
- Derived from
- Symbolic Interactionism