The Labeling Theory and Cultural Deviance Theory - Assignment Example

? Labeling and the Cultural Deviancy theories This paper responds to certain questions regarding labeling and the cultural deviancy theory. In response to question 1, besides the labeling theory, an alternative theory that could be utilized to avoid stereotyping within the criminal justice system is the cultural deviancy theory because it does not present criminals as immoral and sinful people. In response to part 2, labeling theory is considered as a legitimate theory on the account that fits the events in real life situation, yet is also supported by various psychological theories. In response to question 3, the third version of the cultural deviancy theory is chosen to fit the description of criminal gangs on the basis that it involves organized groups that seek to advance self-vested interests. In response to question 4, labeling theory is chosen as the most appropriate theory to account for the case. Labeling and the Cultural Deviancy theories Introduction It could be argued that criminal activities are common in every society across the world. Furthermore, has been argued that criminal activities have existed as along as man and societies have contented and grappled with addressing them. However, what has been of great concern is the evolution and surge of criminal activities. In the attempts of addressing crimes, criminologists have sought to understand the causes and proposed an array of theories, including the labeling theory and the legitimate crime causation theory. This paper answers some pertinent questions in regard to the two theories. Response to question 1 The proponents of the labeling theory are concerned that the labels that are placed on the offenders through the justice systems. Such labels function to worsen the behaviors of the inmates because the labels function to aggravate the behaviors that need to be stopped. In the long run, this constrains recovery form criminal behaviors. The proponents are concerned that the criminal justice system has not only failed to stop criminal behaviors, but it is also functioning to reinforce the very criminal behaviors (Gabbidon & Greene, 2013). An alternative theory that could be utilized to avoid stereotyping within the criminal justice system is the cultural deviancy theory. The cultural deviance theory posits that the cause of the criminal behaviors in the urban areas can be hardly attributed to poverty, but to a distinct lower-class culture, which is mainly concerned about the societal norms. The social deviancy theory is based on the conflict perspective, thus perceives cultural deviancy as a condition that is normal that crime is simply a concept of conflicts within classes (Bereska, 2011). The theory posits that the lower class category contains its values, goals and ideals that significantly differ from those of other classes. As the individuals within the lower classes conform to these practices on the course of day life routine, they also interact with people from other classes. Their behaviors overlap and conflict and the lower-class group suffer the implication of being considered socially deviant. This theory also follows the account that as people conform to the values within the class, they may even impart the values to the subsequent generation. This theory acknowledges the basis of nature versus nurture, wherein the behaviors of persons are nurtured by the intervening social environment. Thus, cultural deviance theory is that which approaches crimes from the sociological perspectives. Cultural deviance theory does not present criminals as immoral and sinful people, and describes crimes based in the examination of race, social circle, levels of education and income, culture, among other social aspects and this makes it particularly suited to limit stereotyping within the criminal justice systems. Then the only weakness this approach is that it tends to justify crimes as unintentional. Response to Part 2 In my view, labeling is a legitimate crime causation theory on various accounts. According to the labeling theory, labels are placed on the offenders through the justice systems. Such labels function to worsen the behaviors of the inmates because the labels function to aggravate the behaviors that need to be stopped. In the long run, this constrains recovery form criminal behaviors. The proponents are concerned that the criminal justice system has not only failed to stop criminal behaviors, but it is also functioning to reinforce the very criminal behaviors. Thus, labelling theory has to do with the view that behaviours of people are not inherent to how they act, but how they are perceived by the society. The theory concerns itself about how the behaviours, as well as self identity are predetermined by the terms that are used in describing them; thus, it is a theory whose manifestation rests upon stereotyping and self-fulfilling prophecy. As people are labelled, they adjust their behaviours to conform to the labels. In the context of labelling theory, as an example, a child who is labelled as a thief will nurture into a thief, a feature that is evidenced in practice. This theory is also relevant in the sense that it can be accounted based on psychological theories, as documented by Irving and Donald (2003). One of these theories is the Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory, which presupposes that development is governed by an array of environmental systems, which can be categorized into five, including the mesosystem, microsystems, exosystem, Macrosystem Chronosystem. Another theory is the Vygotsky theory of development. Vygotsky’s theory on perceives child development as a process consisting of a series of stages that are governed by the environment. Furthermore, based on the personality theory, as individuals encounter experiences in life, there are always three possibilities. In one way, the experiences may be perceived, symbolized and organized to relate with the self. In another way, the experiences could be ignored, especially because its relationship with the self structure is particularly limited. Lastly, the experiences could be denied or granted a distorted symbolization, especially because the experiences are not consistent with the self structures. Substantial forms of behaviors that are adopted by the organism as a result of interaction are those that are only those that coincide with self. In some cases, behaviors could be triggered by the needs and organic experiences, as well as the needs that are yet to be symbolized (Rubington & Weinberg, 2008). This gives allowance for explanation of roles of social and cultural aspects in the processes of child development. What can be derived from these two theories is that the environment plays a crucial role in shaping developmental and serves to justify that the impact of social labels is indisputable. I content that this theory is well placed to account how criminal justice systems end up producing hardened criminals, as opposed to rehabilitated criminals. Response to Question 3 As far as cultural deviance theory is concerned, there are three influential versions. One of the versions is that lower class bears the responsibility for causing crimes in the urbanized areas. The second version is that urban-lower classes produce subcultures that are to blame for the commitment if crimes in the urban areas. The third version is that urban areas are comprised of subcultures where certain groups of individuals come together, form bands for committing crimes for their personal gains. The most appropriate influential version to that gangs fit is the third version of the cultural deviance theory. This choice is justified by the nature of organization of the gangs and their motives. One of the points that is worth mentioning is that gangs is an organization of more than one criminal; thus, it can be considered as a band of criminals, as highlighted in the third version. Secondly, gangs hardly have good motives. Gangs are often concerned about safeguarding their interests at the expense o the wellness of other people. For example, gangs may be involved in robbery and theft cases. In this regard, they gangs are often set to pursue self-vested motives, effectively matching the description in the third version. Response to Question 4 The labelling theory can be effectively applied in accounting the scenario where the number of youths joining the inner city gangs has significantly increases while the number of gang leaders released from prison has increased, resulting in the rise of violence by 20 percent. One of the points to acknowledge in this response is that the increase in crimes is related to the increase in the numbers of youths joining gangs in the city, as well as the release of gang leaders. In one way, this relationship can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence; that the crime incidents are increasing with the increase in number of released convicted gang leaders and youths joining gangs. In another way, it is possible to elucidate the relationship. Simply, the realised gang leaders are join the society and resort to recruiting gang members to engage in the criminal activities. In linking the crime scenario to labelling, there are two points that may need to be acknowledged. One is that criminal justice systems can be hardly trusted in judging reforming criminals. If anything, the criminals released are often hardened as a result of labelling that reinforces their behaviour. Another account is that the justice systems can be trusted in releasing rehabilitated offenders into the society. However, upon reaching the society, the released persons are still labelled as criminals. This compels the X-offenders to revert to their behaviour to recruit the gangs to commit crimes. Indeed, the proponents of the labeling theory are concerned that the labels that are placed on the offenders through the justice systems. Such labels function to worsen the behaviors of the inmates because the labels function to aggravate the behaviors that need to be stopped. In the long run, this constrains recovery form criminal behaviors. The proponents are concerned that the criminal justice system has not only failed to stop criminal behaviors, but it is also functioning to reinforce the very criminal behaviors. To recap on the account of the personality theory, as individuals encounter experiences in life, there are always three possibilities. In one way, the experiences may be perceived, symbolized and organized to relate with the self. In another way, the experiences could be ignored, especially because its relationship with the self structure is particularly limited. Lastly, the experiences could be denied or granted a distorted symbolization, especially because the experiences are not consistent with the self structures. Substantial forms of behaviors that are adopted by the organism as a result of interaction are those that are only those that coincide with self. In this case, the perceptions to the labels are symbolized and internalized and changes made in the self to match the label. Conclusion In conclusion, besides the labeling theory, an alternative theory that could be utilized to avoid stereotyping within the criminal justice system is the cultural deviancy theory because it does not present criminals as immoral and sinful people. Labeling theory is considered as a legitimate theory on the account that fits the events in real life situation, yet is also supported by various psychological theories. The third version of the cultural deviancy theory is chosen to fit the description of criminal gangs on the basis that it involves organized groups that seek to advance self-vested interests. The labeling theory is chosen as the most appropriate theory to account for the mentioned case. References Gabbidon, S. L., & Greene, H. T. (2013). Race and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Irving, W. & Donald F. (2003). A Handbook of psychology. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Publications, Inc.Bereska, T. (2011). Deviance, Conformity, and Social Control. Toronto: Pearson. Rubington, E. & Weinberg, S. (2008). Deviance: The Interactionist Perspective (10th Edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon Read More