Labeling Theory
Review of “Classic” Labeling
Reflected Appraisals
Reintegrative Shaming
The Classic Labeling Process
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...
Matsueda (1992)
Reflected Appraisals, Parental Labeling, and Delinquency
Move from formal to informal labels (appraisals)
Back to “symbolic interactionism” roots
Much more complex, rich
Allows early deviance to play a role
Difference between actual appraisals, reflected appraisals, and self-appraisals
Formation of the “self”
Transactions
Interactions between 2 or more individuals
“Role-taking” appraising from others’ shoes:
The situation
Oneself in the situation
Possible lines of action
Role-taking as socialization
Early socialization
Take the role of significant others who are present in situations
Later socialization
Take the role of “generalized other,” or the whole social group
Elements of the “self”
How others actually see you
Actual Appraisals
How you perceive the way others see you
Reflected Appraisals
How you see yourself
Self-Appraisals
Matsueda’s Model
Initial Behaviors
Reflected Appraisals
of Others
Behavior
Actual Appraisal
by Others
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
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 sent away to warehouses
Braithwaite II
Interdependency
“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.
Types of “Shaming”
Reintegrative
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
Examples of Shaming
Stigmatizing
United States
Court, prison, etc. (remove and shun from community)
Reintegrative
Japan
Ceremonies to shame and welcome back
The Model
Evidence for Reintegrative Shameing?
Japan vs. U.S. crime rates
Since WWII, Japan and U.S.
Why?
High Interdependency and Communitarianism
Reintegrative Shaming emphasized
Community has duty to shame and welcome back transgressors
Implications from Braithwaite?
Restorative Justice
Victim/Offender mediation
Emphasis on “repairing harm”
Build up community, victims, offender
Shaming Conferences