Labelling Someone as Deviant Creates, Not Resolves Social Issues

As children we learn and are taught what is ‘naughty’ or ‘nice’ behaviour which results in the appropriate punishment or positive reinforcement (Skinner, B.F, 1938). The conditions and manners which are socially accepted and those which aren’t tolerated are reinforced by socialisation. Yet it could be argued that neighbours of the matching class, housing address and upbringing in society are distinguished by a label of them being deviant. This is the comment of Moore (1988) as he said the majority of citizens perform deviant acts at least once in their lives, although only those caught become assigned to the label. A practical example would be teenagers caught one night drinking and driving and instantly labelled deviant, and the locally known alcoholic doing it weekly but arguably it isn’t applied to him on the basis that he has never been caught by authorities and socially reacted to. According to Becker (1973), the label placed on the individual over powers all other existing recognitions of that person and implements a ‘master status’. This suggest that deviance is essentially a socially constructed concept based on sociocultural relativism. For example, there is evident contrasts between deviance along different cultures, in Irish culture not maintaining eye-contact is perceived as rude compared to Eastern countries, an example is Africa, where eye contact is offensive and disrespectful (Franz Boas, 1858-1942). Such proposals of deviant labels have a negative personal and social impact on an individual, but ultimately creates new problems for society.

Labelling and categorising are similar but not the same due to the outcomes and social problems which can rise from labelling. Categorising is assigning a position to someone without a meaning attached. A label has more depth as there’s typically a negative content and weight because of the past history or events behind it. A historical example social problems as a result of labelling someone deviant is the Magdalene laundries. During the 20th century they were formalised as a state institution, occasionally to correct females who had become ‘deviant’. Research done by “Justice for Magdalenes” in 2003 recorded possible reasons for their entrance into the laundries other than being formally committed by the judicial system. Here is a list that was compiled: sexual abuse, domestic abuse, too beautiful, feared scandals about wedlock or unreligious acts, disability or mental illnesses and informal commissions of the judicial system. Arguably these show no concrete evidence that the girls had not physically performed any act that was legally deviant. Their presence in those laundries were decided by the given label of deviant.

The social problem of this dark moment in Irish history is the impact it had on women and their children. It enabled a society to be formed where women were futile in protesting for their right as the child’s birth mother because she was regarded at a lesser status, at a deviant standard. Rights of the parents and child were dismissed following how society had disregarded their status as a human and superficially focused on the label surrounding them. The detrimental label of them being deviant permitted horrible events like child labour and child sexual abuse by people of power. The irony of allowing labelling is that it can act as a cover for actual evil people to commit crimes in society. This is the experience that one survivor of the Magdalene laundries had experienced outline in the testimony of the Irish documentary Darby, A. (2002). In modern times, people are facing social issues caused by the laundries. The ability to have an illegitimate abortion and negatively labelling wedlock births has led to children without mothers and disrupted families. Unrecorded entrances into the laundries is impacting possible income for state pensions, furthermore affecting their ability for primary needs like sufficient food and heating or the ability to pay for their healthcare.

Given that the label of deviance is not innate, through the labelling theory it can be argued that deviance is socially constructed. Tannenbaum (1938) contradicted known ideas from the past revolving crime as an ‘absolute evil’ through the relativism of crime. For example, young adults begin not necessarily evil but face particular events labelled delinquent. They become vulnerable and influenced by the environment of society around them which is the argument made by Locke (1632-1704) as he perceived children to be ‘tabula rasa’ or blank slates. Tannenbaum performed a study which focused on the labelling process and the impact or if it shaped the individual. He confirmed there was significant ‘tagging’ with a matching behaviour, for example the attitudes of shops towards specific people. Becker (1963) had similar opinions towards social labelling as a concept that’s created by man is therefore not consider as being deviant by nature. He acknowledged the effect of the self-fulfilling prophecy being catalysed when their act becomes attached to a public reaction. According to Becker (1973, pp.8-9) ‘‘the deviant one is whom the label has been successfully applied to’’.

His view was that social groups format the grounds for deviance, this could arguably be reference to the power of class and income along with status as superior to citizens perceived to be lower or appropriately delinquent. This power enables a superior status which over-rides all determination of the person, to be applied and acted upon. This label affects the person in relation to their attitudes and behaviour, they adapt from being generally to specifically deviant. As they adopt the illegitimate actions associated with the label and therefore prove the self-fulfilling prophecy.

The modern social problems of this self-fulfilling prophecy is the resulting events of a significant increase in crime, vandalism, anti-social behaviour in disadvantaged areas perceived as dangerous and deviant. This affects not solely the individual and their possibility to develop or succeed but also the community’s ability to develop, the dilution of ideal ‘community belonging’, decrease of tourist appeal and negative economic affects on businesses. Evident research done by Kim Gorgens, a professor of psychophysiology, Clinical Neuropsychology and psychology of criminal behaviour holds important revelations. Her studies investigate reported injury histories, cognitive functions and brain biomarkers of youth and college athletes, probationers and inmates. The journal published (a unique approach to traumatic brain injury in a county jail, 2015) included extensive analysis of a connection between inmates and TBI, with an astounding indication of the result being 60-87%, while it was only 7% in society. TBI is linked to memory and attention deficits, irritability or anger, disinhibited behaviour and slow response times. The side effects of traumatic brain injury aren’t considered when they’re considered deviant, and they also fail to affect the decision made by the judicial court. The social problems of this is individuals have increased risk of recidivism, which according to the Central Statistics Office says that almost forty six percent of prisoners released in 2012 reoffended. It also extends to being unable to independently cope leading to homelessness, prisons becoming cramped accommodation and it long term affects society as a whole of being ironically labelled deviant itself. In addition, it proves the power of labels and the existence of self-fulfilling prophecies.

This disregard for the individual’s circumstances and higher emphasis made on the prevailing label continues past the criminal judicial system and features in state legislation. The government influence citizens, the mass media and the knowledge we gain on a daily basis and over a period of time the society we exist in. They form the regulations and articles included in state policies, this is an in advert mode of impressing perceptions, attitudes and labels upon us. They categorise what crimes are deviant with their respective consequences, train enforcers of the law, educate lawyers and decide the education of others.

The irony of this power is that history has seen dominance of white collar crime, committed by these higher status, ‘law abiding citizens’ who dominate societal reactions, the Lehonan brothers would be famously known for this type of crime. This conflicting standards of defining deviance enforces the idea of it as a mere social concept and dependent on a social confrontation set out by Becker (1973). For example young teenagers, who have no previous record of punishment by the police, are arrested for drunk driving, yet the village they live in has become aware and they are now assigned a label as deviant. In distinction, the same local village has a businessman, a regular customer of the pub, known to complete the same act but on a weekly basis remains considered only as the respectable businessman. Why is there a double standard of deviance? Arguably it’s due to the lack of societal reaction and reprimand from law enforcers.

Similarly it comes down to legislative law and the contextual terms of the crimes. In context of driving, there are laws dedicated to the youth of Ireland which impact them socially, physically and economically. These laws are only implemented due to a minority committing the crime and labels which have been placed upon the remaining majority. It impacts their abilities to develop and succeed, for example a student requiring a car to attend college yet having government constraints allowing them to is a huge impairment to their continuation of education. The inflation of insurance premiums when they hear a particular age group is often unattainable by those in a lower-class and inhibits potential transportation for them or results in colossal financial debt. These labels not only having damaging effects with employment or education because of stereotypes but extend to feelings of tension and dissatisfaction towards those with power. This adoption of negative attitudes towards a targeted collective and forcing a marginalised subculture can lead to a result of ‘violence begets violence’. A relevant statement argued by ‘The White Negro’ (Mailer, 1957) who wrote the nine thousand word essay as point to the ‘Squares’ that the continuation of their pressure for a conservative society would only lead to chaos and hostility.

There is acts which are deemed to be labelled good citizenship and deviant, but could be completed by the same person on the same day. The only distinction between both the act and the person is judged by society. The application of deviance and the enabling of particular behaviour towards such members, it is created social problems which are difficult to overcome and unable to compete with. It has forged a pathway in society that makes it easy to fall down or to force others down. Deviance is a societally created concept which could be its own demise if it continues to fabricate labels and apply detrimental consequences. The label of deviance initially only significantly affects the individual, i.e. their growth, perspectives, abilities. Furthermore, theorists like Bronnfenner (1917-1778) and Vygotsky (1896-1934) have recognised the role the environment accountability plays in their development. For the duration of their lifetime people pass on their views though socialisation, and as people are the foundation of society it means these negative values are being spread and the socially connected problems increase.