However for Marxists labelling theory failed to account for why some behaviours were defined as deviant and other not.  Instead Marxists looked at how certain social groups achieved the power to apply labels to certain acts and whether or not these same social groups were having ‘their own’ law and order protected.

It’s easier to understand Marxist perspectives of crime, if you fully grasp the Marxist social theory (in fact it’s easier to understand all the perspectives of crime this way). For Marxists all social phenomena are explainable through society’s means of production.  Our capitalist means of production mean those who own the means of production have structural control over those who don’t. This causes social inequality and social conflict.

Bonger was the first to apply notions of social conflict to the subject of crime and here’s a few of his central themes:

Criminal law exists to protect the interests of the powerful

Capitalism encourages egoism and greed. In pursuit of these pleasures both the working and ruling-classes are prone to crime as they don’t care about each other

Poverty prompts crime to the extent it creates a desperate need for food and other necessities

For Bonger  the competitive and individualistic tendencies of capitalism encourages egotism and therefore criminality is like to flourish. More importantly he recognised crime wasn’t confined to the working classes, the ruling class were also criminal simply because the opportunities for crime came with their power and lack of morality in the search for profit.

For interactionists deviance is no longer a pathological act going against consensual norms but something created in the process of social interaction, in which some people who commit deviant acts come to be known as criminals while others do not. So instead of asking behavioural questions like “who is deviant?”, “why do they do it?” and “how might they be best controlled?” interactionsists ask “who defines another as deviant?”, “how does a person react to their label?”

Becker’s idea of labelling came to the fore in the early 1960s and it was a very new approach. Becker said: “social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction constitutes deviance and by applying those rules to particular and labelling them as deviant.”

Labelling is an active social process of how particular acts become defined as deviant. Therefore deviance isn’t an absolute category but a relative one as certain acts are defined as criminal at certain times and others aren’t. Becker illustrated his point “injecting heroin into your arm is not deviant, because it’s fine if a nurse does it under doctors orders. It only becomes deviant when society defines it as such”

In this process the agents of social control (police, judiciary, probation service etc) define who and what is deviant. Labelling theory illustrates the way police target specific social groups. For example ethnic minorities or working-class youths living in specific areas are targeted more by the police – Reiner (1994). While Cicourel’s (1976) study of police & juvenile officers in California found police were more likely to arrest people who fitted the picture of having – poor school performance; low-income backgrounds; ethnic minority membership. In contrast Cicourel found middle-class delinquents who were arrested tended to be counselled, cautioned and released by police officers.

Labelling theory shows how authority figures have the ability to create the social characteristics of typical delinquents as being – young, working-class and male. This contrasts significantly with functionalist/subcultural notions of crime & deviance as being located in pathological individuals.

Lemert moved interactionism forward by arguing there’s a difference between primary and secondary deviance. Primary deviance are acts which haven’t been publically defined as deviant, mainly because they’re isolated and fairly insignificant cases of rule-braking. While in contrast secondary deviance the construction (making) of deviance through social reaction to the rule-breaking.

Therefore this two stage process shows how deviance is a process. First it’s identified and then agents of society gets involved in ‘creating’ the deviance (this shows how labelling causes deviance). This had the effect of turning the previous perspectives on their head!! This is because deviance is not a universal or constant idea but one relative to the society. This simply means that for example it’s not deviant to wear Speedo’s in the swimming baths in France (you’re not allowed to wear anything but Speedo’s) but it’s become odd (maybe deviant to wear Speedo’s in UK swimming baths!

The slideshow below explains the social theory behind interactionism and labelling. In other words symbolic interactionism came first, then Becker etc used the theory to support their perspective on crime!

Cloward and Ohlin also saw working-class deviancy as a collective rather than an individual problem. Their version of strain theory identifies how the problem for the delinquent is to achieve a high status. They argued that a criminal subculture develops mainly in lower classes because criminal success is visible to young people who are willing to associate with these gangs. Their willingness stems from the often limited legitimate opportunities to succeed compared to the number of criminal successes. Indeed in more disruptive neighbourhoods conflict subcultures (gangs fighting) are likely to occur because there’s a lack of both legitimate and illegitimate means to succeed. They identified tree types of subcultures; criminal, conflict and retreatist. Which of these three types of subcultures were the Jets??

Miller (1958, 1959) agreed with Cohen that there was a delinquency subculture, but argued that it arose entirely from ‘focal concerns’ (the lower class way of life directed towards criminality). There was a clear distinction in values between the two social classes. Whereas the middle class ‘focal concerns’ are achievement and social goal oriented, Miller thought that lower class boys are socialised to be tough and street-smart which gave them an incentive to join a gang. Given that their ordinary lives were boring, the excitement of crime was a welcome relief, bringing a sense of autonomy to the monotony of everyday life. For the lower class the same sex peer group or gang is more important than family, work or school because it offers a sense of belonging, and a way to achieve status that they cannot easily achieve in mainstream society. The focal concerns are excitement, fate, smartness, trouble, toughness and autonomy.

Miller, Cohen’s along with Cloward & Ohlin’s argument is seen to be functionalist in nature through the concept of consensus. There’s a clear consensus of shared values between the gang members succeeding (illegitimately), which contrasts between the consensus of wider society of succeeding legitimately (school, college, university, top-job etc).

Matza questioned the extent to which behaviour is determined by social-class. Matza argued gang members were only partially committed to subcultural norms. Matza argues the delinquent doesn’t form a subculture which stands opposed to main stream norms and values (the established consensus) but instead drifts in and out of crime – delinquency and drift. This is possible because there is no consensus in society – no set of basic and core values but a plurality of behaviours which the delinquent taps into. For example many young people carry out delinquent acts such as drinking or minor vandalism. However because many of these young people have been socialised properly by their parents, when they get into trouble they apply what Matza termed as ‘techniques of neutralisation’ such as blaming the group they were in for “leading them astray” or blaming the shop keeper for selling the alcohol in the first place. 

The following PowerPoint covers all the above to help you make revision cue cards.

1. What do you understand by the term ‘selection’ when referring to education?
2. Which year did the tripartite system come into effect?
3. What made grammar schools different to other types of schools?
4. Why might functionalists prefer the tripartite system?
5. Why are comprehensive schools seen as socially less divisive?
6. Explain what is meant by the term ‘marketisation’ in relation to education
7. What is the post-code lottery?
8. Identify four key policies the 1988 Education Act introduced
9. How might your social-class still affect the type of school your child goes to?
10. Examine the debate between interpretivist and positivist approaches to sociological research (you need to spend around 25 minutes writing this answer)

1. What do people mean when they talk about the nature/nurture debate?
2. What is the tripartite system?
3. What schools did the tripartite system create?
4. What process decided which school a child went to?
5. Identify and briefly explain two reasons why some politicians became critical of the tripartite system.
6. In September I introduced you to the sociological concepts of stratification and social-class. Using the three links at the bottom of the page use the two sociological concepts to explain the social problems some people argue the tripartite system creates

1. What are the three methods used to record the incidence of crime in England and Wales?
2. What are self–report studies?
3. What is the British Crime Survey?
4. What are official crime figures?

5. What methodology is used in each respective statistical measure?

6. Identify and briefly explain two problems associated with each statistical measure

7. Why was Durkheim’s study of suicide significant for sociologists?

8. Why do sociologists use quantitative and qualitative research methods when studying crime?