In sociology, the word labelling is used more as a metaphor, than a concrete concept.

The general
function of labels are widely known and recognized as a method of distinction that helps people
recognize one product from another. In social terms, labels represent a way of differentiating and
identifying people that is considered by many as a form of prejudice and discrimination.
The most common method of 'labeling' people derives from a general way of perceiving members of
a certain nationality, religion, ethnicity, gender, or some other group. When a majority of people hold
a certain point of view towards a certain group, that point of view becomes a stereotype. That
stereotype affects the way other people perceive the groups in question and the result is a 'label' that
is metaphorically imposed on the members of the group in question. A member of a targeted group is
thus 'labeled' by the larger society, and along with it, the nuances underlying the label, be it positive
or negative, that aids in the formation of social stereotypes.

Labeling theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Labeling theory is the theory of how the self-identity and behavior of individuals may be determined
or influenced by the terms used to describe or classify them. It is associated with the concepts
of self-fulfilling prophecy andstereotyping. Labeling theory holds that deviance is not inherent to an
act, but instead focuses on the tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as
deviant from standard cultural norms.[1] The theory was prominent during the 1960s and 1970s, and
some modified versions of the theory have developed and are still currently popular. A stigma is
defined as a powerfully negative label that changes a person's self-concept and social identity.[2]
Labeling theory is closely related to social-construction and symbolic-interaction analysis.[2] Labeling
theory was developed by sociologists during the 1960s. Howard Saul Becker's book Outsiders was
extremely influential in the development of this theory and its rise to popularity.
Contents
[hide]

1Theoretical basis
o

1.1George Herbert Mead

1.2Frank Tannenbaum

1.3Edwin Lemert

1.4Howard Becker

1.5Albert Memmi

1.6Erving Goffman

1.7David Matza

2The "criminal"

3The "mentally ill"

4The "homosexual"

5Modified Labeling theory

6See also

7References
o

7.1Bibliography

Theoretical basis[edit]
Labeling theory had its origins in Suicide, a book by French sociologist mile Durkheim. He found
that crime is not so much a violation of a penal code as it is an act that outrages society. He was the
first to suggest that deviant labeling satisfies that function and satisfies society's need to control the
behavior.
As a contributor to American Pragmatism and later a member of the Chicago School, George
Herbert Mead posited that the self is socially constructed and reconstructed through the interactions
which each person has with thecommunity. The labeling theory suggests that people obtain labels
from how others view their tendencies or behaviors. Each individual is aware of how they are judged
by others because he or she has attempted many different roles and functions in social interactions
and has been able to gauge the reactions of those present.
This theoretically builds a subjective conception of the self, but as others intrude into the reality of
that individual's life, this represents objective data which may require a re-evaluation of that
conception depending on the authoritativeness of the others' judgment. Family and friends may
judge differently from random strangers. More socially representative individuals such as police
officers or judges may be able to make more globally respected judgments. If deviance is a failure to
conform to the rules observed by most of the group, the reaction of the group is to label the person
as having offended against their social or moral norms of behavior. This is the power of the group: to
designate breaches of their rules as deviant and to treat the person differently depending on the
seriousness of the breach. The more differential the treatment, the more the individual's self-image is
affected.
Labeling theory concerns itself mostly not with the normal roles that define our lives, but with those
very special roles that society provides for deviant behavior, called deviant roles, stigmatic roles,
or social stigma. A social role is a set of expectations we have about a behavior. Social roles are
necessary for the organization and functioning of any society or group. We expect the postman, for
example, to adhere to certain fixed rules about how he does his job. "Deviance" for a sociologist
does not mean morally wrong, but rather behavior that is condemned by society. Deviant behavior
can include both criminal and non-criminal activities.
Investigators found that deviant roles powerfully affect how we perceive those who are assigned
those roles. They also affect how the deviant actor perceives himself and his relationship to society.
The deviant roles and the labels attached to them function as a form of social stigma. Always
inherent in the deviant role is the attribution of some form of "pollution" or difference that marks the

labeled person as different from others. Society uses these stigmatic roles to them to control and
limit deviant behavior: "If you proceed in this behavior, you will become a member of that group of
people."
Whether a breach of a given rule will be stigmatized will depend on the significance of the moral or
other tenet it represents. For example, adultery may be considered a breach of an informal rule or it
may be criminalizeddepending on the status of marriage, morality, and religion within the community.
In most Western countries, adultery is not a crime. Attaching the label "adulterer" may have some
unfortunate consequences but they are not generally severe. But in some Islamic countries, zina is a
crime and proof of extramarital activity may lead to severe consequences for all concerned.
Stigma is usually the result of laws enacted against the behavior. Laws protecting slavery or
outlawing homosexuality, for instance, will over time form deviant roles connected with those
behaviors. Those who are assigned those roles will be seen as less human and reliable. Deviant
roles are the sources of negative stereotypes, which tend to support society's disapproval of the
behavior.

George Herbert Mead[edit]

One of the founders of social interactionism, George Herbert Mead focused on the internal
processes of how the mind constructs one's self-image. In Mind, Self, and Society (1934),[3] he
showed how infants come to knowpersons first and only later come to know things. According to
Mead, thought is both a social and pragmatic process, based on the model of two persons
discussing how to solve a problem. Meads central concept is the self, the part of an individuals
personality composed of self-awareness and self-image. [4] Our self-image is, in fact, constructed of
ideas about what we think others are thinking about us. While we make fun of those who visibly talk
to themselves, they have only failed to do what the rest of us do in keeping the internal conversation
to ourselves. Human behavior, Mead stated, is the result of meanings created by the social
interaction of conversation, both real and imaginary.

Frank Tannenbaum[edit]
Frank Tannenbaum is considered the grandfather of labeling theory. His Crime and
Community (1938),[5] describing the social interaction involved in crime, is considered a pivotal
foundation of modern criminology. While the criminal differs little or not at all from others in the
original impulse to first commit a crime, social interaction accounts for continued acts that develop a
pattern of interest to sociologists.
Tannenbaum first introduced the idea of 'tagging'.[6] While conducting his studies with delinquent
youth, he found that a negative tag or label often contributed to further involvement in delinquent
activities. This initial tagging may cause the individual to adopt it as part of their identity. The crux of
Tannenbaum's argument is that the greater the attention placed on this label, the more likely the
person is to identify themselves as the label.
Kerry Townsend writes about the revolution in criminology caused by Tannenbaum's work:
"The roots of Frank Tannenbaums theoretical model, known as the dramatization of evil or
labeling theory, surfaces in the mid- to late-thirties. At this time, the 'New Deal' legislation had
not defeated the woes of the Great Depression, and, although dwindling, immigration into the
United States continued.[7] The social climate was one of disillusionment with the
government. The class structure was one of cultural isolationism; cultural relativity had not
yet taken hold. 'The persistence of the class structure, despite the welfare reforms and
controls over big business, was unmistakable.'[8] The Positivist School of Criminological
thought was still dominant, and in many states, the sterilization movement was underway.
The emphasis on biological determinism and internal explanations of crime were the
preeminent force in the theories of the early thirties. This dominance by the Positivist School

changed in the late thirties with the introduction of conflict and social explanations of crime
and criminality...
"One of the central tenets of the theory is to encourage the end of labeling process. In the
words of Frank Tannenbaum, the way out is through a refusal to dramatize the evil, the
justice system attempts to do this through diversion programs. The growth of the theory and
its current application, both practical and theoretical, provide a solid foundation for continued
popularity.":[9]

Edwin Lemert[edit]
It was sociologist Edwin Lemert (1951) who introduced the concept of "secondary deviance."
The primary deviance is the experience connected to the overt behavior, say drug addiction
and its practical demands and consequences. Secondary deviation is the role created to
deal with society's condemnation of the behavior of a person.
With other sociologists of his time,Lemert saw how all deviant acts are social acts, a result
of the cooperation of society. In studying drug addiction, Lemert observed a very powerful
and subtle force at work. Besides the physical addiction to the drug and all the economic
and social disruptions it caused, there was an intensely intellectual process at work
concerning one's own identity and the justification for the behavior: "I do these things
because I am this way."
There might be certain subjective and personal motives that might first lead a person to
drink or shoplift. But the activity itself tells us little about the person's self-image or its
relationship to the activity. Lemert writes: "His acts are repeated and organized subjectively
and transformed into active roles and become the social criteria for assigning
status.....When a person begins to employ his deviant behavior or a role based on it as a
means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the overt and covert problems created by the
consequent societal reaction to him, his deviation is secondary".[10]

Howard Becker[edit]
While it was Lemert who introduced the key concepts of labeling theory, it was Howard
Becker who became their successor. He first began describing the process of how a person
adopts a deviant role in a study of dance musicians, with whom he once worked. He later
studied the identity formation of marijuana smokers. This study was the basis of
his Outsiders published in 1963. This work became the manifesto of the labeling theory
movement among sociologists. In his opening, Becker writes:
"...social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance, and by
applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of
view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of
the application by other of rules and sanctions to an 'offender.' The deviant is one to whom
that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label." [11]
While society uses the stigmatic label to justify its condemnation, the deviant actor uses
it to justify his actions. He wrote: "To put a complex argument in a few words: instead of
the deviant motives leading to the deviant behavior, it is the other way around, the
deviant behavior in time produces the deviant motivation." [12]
Becker's immensely popular views were also subjected to a barrage of criticism, most of
it blaming him for neglecting the influence of other biological, genetic effects and
personal responsibility. In a later 1973 edition of his work, he answered his critics. He
wrote that sociologists, while dedicated to studying society, are often careful not to look
too closely. Instead, he wrote: "I prefer to think of what we study as collective
action. People act, as Mead and Blumer have made clearest, together. They do what
they do with an eye on what others have done, are doing now, and may do in the future.

One tries to fit his own line of action into the actions of others, just as each of them
likewise adjusts his own developing actions to what he sees and expects others to
do."[12]
Francis Cullen reported in 1984 that Becker was probably too generous with his critics.
After 20 years, his views, far from being supplanted, have been corrected and absorbed
into an expanded "structuring perspective."[13]

Albert Memmi[edit]
In The Colonizer and the Colonized (1965) Albert Memmi described the deep
psychological effects of the social stigma created by the domination of one group by
another. He wrote:
"The longer the oppression lasts, the more profoundly it affects him (the oppressed). It ends
by becoming so familiar to him that he believes it is part of his own constitution, that he
accepts it and could not imagine his recovery from it. This acceptance is the crowning point
of oppression."[14]
In Dominated Man (1968), Memmi turned his attention to the motivation of stigmatic
labeling: it justifies the exploitation or criminalization of the victim. He wrote:
"Why does the accuser feel obliged to accuse in order to justify himself? Because he feels
guilty toward his victim. Because he feels that his attitude and his behavior are essentially
unjust and fraudulent....Proof? In almost every case, the punishment has already been
inflicted. The victim of racism is already living under the weight of disgrace and oppression....
In order to justify such punishment and misfortune, a process of rationalization is set in
motion, by which to explain the ghetto and colonial exploitation."[15]
Central to stigmatic labeling is the attribution of an inherent fault: It is as if one
says, "There must be something wrong with these people. Otherwise, why
would we treat them so badly?"

Erving Goffman[edit]
Perhaps the most important contributor to labeling theory was Erving Goffman,
President of the American Sociological Association, and one of America's most
cited sociologists. His most popular books include The Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life,[16] Interaction Ritual, [17] and Frame Analysis.[18]
His most important contribution to labeling theory, however, was Stigma: Notes
on the Management of Spoiled Identity published in 1963.[19] Unlike other
authors who examined the process of adopting a deviant identity, Goffman
explored the ways people managed that identity and controlled information
about it.
Among Goffman's key insights were the following:

The modern nation state's heightened demand for normalcy. Today's

stigmas are the result not so much of ancient or religious prohibitions, but of
a new demand for normalcy. He wrote: "The notion of the 'normal human
being' may have its source in the medial approach to humanity, or in the
tendency of large-scale bureaucratic organizations such as the nation state,
to treat all members in some respects as equal. Whatever its origins, it
seems to provide the basic imagery through which laymen currently
conceive themselves.[20]

Living in a divided world. Deviants divide their worlds into 1. forbidden

places where discovery means exposure and danger, 2. places where
people of that kind are painfully tolerated, and 3. places where one's kind is
exposed without need to dissimulate or conceal.[21]

Dealing with others is fraught with great complexity and ambiguity. He

wrote: "When normals and stigmatized do in fact enter one another's
immediate presence, especially when they attempt to maintain a joint
conversational encounter, there occurs one of the primal scenes of
sociology; for, in many cases, these moments will be the ones when the
causes and effects of stigma will be directly confronted by both sides....
[22]
"What are unthinking routines for normals can become management
problems for the discreditable....The person with a secret failing, then, must
be alive to the social situation as a scanner of possibilities, and is therefore
likely to be alienated from the simpler world in which those around them
apparently dwell."[23]

Society's demands are filled with contradictions. On the one hand, a

stigmatized person may be told that he is no different from others. On the
other hand, he must declare his status as "a resident alien who stands for
his group."[24] "It requires that the stigmatized individual cheerfully and
unselfconsciously accept himself as essentially the same as normals, while
at the same time he voluntarily withholds himself from those situations in
which normals would find it difficult to give lip service to their similar
acceptance of him..." One has to convey the impression that the burden of
the stigma is not too heavy yet keep himself at the required distance.
"A phantom acceptance is allowed to provide the base for a phantom
normalcy."[25]

Familiarity need not reduce contempt. In spite of the common belief that
openness and exposure will decrease stereotypes and repression, the
opposite is true. "Thus, whether we interact with strangers or intimates, we
will still find that the fingertips of society have reached bluntly into the
contact, even here putting us in our place."[26]

David Matza[edit]
In On Becoming Deviant (1969),[27] sociologist David Matza gives the most vivid
and graphic account of the process of adopting a deviant role. The acts of
authorities in outlawing a proscribed behavior can have two effects, keeping
most out of the behavior, but also offering new opportunities for creating deviant
identities. He says the concept of "affinity" does little to explain the dedication to
the behavior. "Instead, it may be regarded as a natural biographical tendency
born of personal and social circumstances that suggests but hardly compels a
direction or movement."[28] What gives force to that movement is the
development of a new identity. He writes:
"To be cast as a thief, as a prostitute, or more generally, a deviant, is to further compound
and hasten the process of becoming that very thing...."[29] In shocked discovery, the subject
now concretely understands that there are serious people who really go around building their
lives around his activities--stopping him, correcting him, devoted to him. They keep records
on the course of his life, even develop theories on how he got that way.... Pressed by such a
display, the subject may begin to add meaning and gravity to his deviant activities. But he
may do so in a way not especially intended by agents of the state...." [30]

"The meaningful issue of identity is whether this activity, or any of my activities can stand for
me, or be regarded as proper indications of my being. I have done a theft, been signified a
thief. am I a thief? To answer affirmatively, we must be able to conceive a special relationship
between being and doing--a unity capable of being indicated. That building of meaning has a
notable quality."[31]

The "criminal"[edit]
Criminology
and penology

Theory[hide]

Anomie
Biosocial criminology

Broken windows

Collective efficacy

Crime analysis

Criminalization

Differential association

Deviance

Labeling theory

Psychopathy

Rational choice

Social control

Social disorganization

Social learning

Strain
Subculture
Symbolic interactionism

Victimology
Types of crime[show]

Penology[show]

As an application of phenomenology, the theory hypothesizes that the

labels applied to individuals influence their behavior, particularly the
application of negative or stigmatizing labels (such as "criminal" or
"felon") promote deviant behavior, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy,
i.e. an individual who is labeled has little choice but to conform to the
essential meaning of that judgment. Consequently, labeling theory
postulates that it is possible to prevent social deviance via a limited
social shaming reaction in "labelers" and replacing moral indignation
with tolerance. Emphasis is placed on the rehabilitation of offenders
through an alteration of their label(s). Related prevention policies
include client empowerment schemes, mediationand conciliation,
victim-offender forgiveness ceremonies (restorative
justice), restitution, reparation, and alternatives to prison programs
involving diversion. Labeling theory has been accused of promoting
impractical policy implications, and criticized for failing to explain
society's most serious offenses.[32]
Some offenses, including the use of violence, are universally
recognized as wrong. Hence, labeling either habitual criminals or those
who have caused serious harm as "criminals" is not constructive.
Society may use more specific labels such as "murderer" or "rapist" or
"child abuser" to demonstrate more clearly after the event the extent of
its disapproval, but there is a slightly mechanical determinism in
asserting that the application of a label will invariably modify the
behavior of the one labeled. Further, if one of the functions of the penal
system is to reduce recidivism, applying a long-term label may cause
prejudice against the offender, resulting in the inability to maintain
employment and social relationships.

The "mentally ill"[edit]

The social construction of deviant behavior plays an important role in
the labeling process that occurs in society. This process involves not
only the labeling of criminally deviant behavior, which is behavior that
does not fit socially constructed norms, but also labeling that which
reflects stereotyped or stigmatized behavior of the "mentally ill".
Labeling theory was first applied to the term "mentally ill" in 1966
when Thomas J. Scheff published Being Mentally Ill. Scheff challenged
common perceptions of mental illness by claiming that mental illness is
manifested solely as a result of societal influence. He argued that
society views certain actions as deviant and, in order to come to terms
with and understand these actions, often places the label of mental
illness on those who exhibit them. Certain expectations are then placed
on these individuals and, over time, they unconsciously change their
behavior to fulfill them. Criteria for different mental illnesses are not
consistently fulfilled by those who are diagnosed with them because all

of these people suffer from the same disorder, they are simply fulfilled
because the "mentally ill" believe they are supposed to act a certain
way so, over time, come to do so.[33]
Scheff's theory had many critics, most notably Walter Gove. Gove
consistently argued an almost opposite theory; he believed that society
has no influence at all on "mental illness". Instead, any societal
perceptions of the "mentally ill" come about as a direct result of these
people's behaviors. Most sociologists' views of labeling and mental
illness have fallen somewhere between the extremes of Gove and
Scheff. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to deny, given both
common sense and research findings, that society's negative
perceptions of "crazy" people has had some effect on them. It seems
that, realistically, labeling can accentuate and prolong the issues
termed "mental illness", but it is rarely the full cause.[34]
Many other studies have been conducted in this general vein. To
provide a few examples, several studies have indicated that most
people associate being labeled mentally ill as being just as, or even
more, stigmatizing than being seen as a drug addict, ex-convict,
or prostitute (for example: Brand & Claiborn 1976). Additionally, Page's
1977 study found that self declared "ex-mental patients" are much less
likely to be offered apartment leases or hired for jobs. Clearly, these
studies and the dozens of others like them serve to demonstrate that
labeling can have a very real and very large effect on the mentally ill.
However, labeling has not been proven to be the sole cause of any
symptoms of mental illness.
Peggy Thoits discusses the process of labeling someone with a mental
illness in her article, "Sociological Approaches to Mental Illness".
Working off Thomas Scheff's (1966) theory, Thoits claims that people
who are labeled as mentally ill are stereotypically portrayed as
unpredictable, dangerous, and unable to care for themselves. She also
claims that "people who are labeled as deviant and treated as deviant
become deviant".[35] This statement can be broken down into two
processes, one that involves the effects of self-labeling and the other
differential treatment from society based on the individual's label.
Therefore, if society sees mentally ill individuals as unpredictable,
dangerous and reliant on others, then a person who may not actually
be mentally ill but has been labeled as such, could become mentally ill.
The label of "mentally ill" may help a person seek help, for
example psychotherapy or medication. Labels, while they can be
stigmatizing, can also lead those who bear them down the road to
proper treatment and (hopefully) recovery. If one believes that "being
mentally ill" is more than just believing one should fulfill a set
of diagnostic criteria (as Scheff see above would argue[citation needed]),
then one would probably also agree that there are some who are
labeled "mentally ill" who need help. It has been claimed that this could
not happen if "we" did not have a way to categorize (and therefore
label) them, although there are actually plenty of approaches to these
phenomena that don't use categorical classifications and diagnostic
terms, for example spectrum or continuum models. Here, people vary
along different dimensions, and everyone falls at different points on
each dimension.

Proponents of hard labeling, as opposed to soft labeling, believe that

mental illness does not exist, but is merely deviance from norms of
society, causing people to believe in mental illness. They view them as
socially constructed illnesses and psychotic disorders.[36]

The "homosexual"[edit]
The application of labeling theory to homosexuality has been extremely
controversial. It was Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues who pointed out
the big discrepancy between the behavior and the role attached to it.
They had observed the often negative consequences of labeling and
repeatedly condemned labeling people as homosexual:
"It is amazing to observe how many psychologists and psychiatrists have accepted this sort
of propaganda, and have come to believe that homosexual males and females are discretely
different from persons who respond to natural stimuli. Instead of using these terms as
substantives which stand for persons, or even as adjectives to describe persons, they may
better be used to describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which
an individual erotically responds... It would clarify our thinking if the terms could be dropped
completely out of our vocabulary....[37]
"Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual... Only the
human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into pigeonholes. The living world is a
continuum in each and every one of its aspects.[38]
"The classification of sexual behavior as masturbatory, heterosexual, or homosexual, is,
therefore, unfortunate if it suggests that only different types of persons seek out or accept
each kind of sexual activity. There is nothing known in the anatomy or physiology of sexual
response and orgasm which distinguishes masturbatory, heterosexual, or homosexual
reactions....[39]
"In regard to sexual behavior, it has been possible to maintain this dichotomy only by placing
all persons who are exclusively heterosexual in a heterosexual category and all persons who
have any amount of experience with their own sex, even including those with the slightest
experience, in a homosexual category.... The attempt to maintain a simple dichotomy on
these matters exposes the traditional biases which are likely to enter whenever the
heterosexual or homosexual classification of an individual is involved" [40]
Erving Goffman's Stigma: Notes on the Management
of Spoiled Identity distinguished between the behavior
and the role assigned to it. He wrote:
"The term 'homosexual' is generally used to refer to anyone who engages in overt sexual
practices with a member of his own sex, the practice being called 'homosexuality.' This
usage appears to be based on a medical and legal frame of reference and provides much
too broad and heterogenous a categorization for use here. I refer only to individuals who
participate in a special community of understanding wherein members of one's own sex are
defined as the most desirable sexual objects, and sociability is energetically organized
around the pursuit and entertainment of these objects."[41]
Labeling theory was also applied to homosexuality
by Evelyn Hooker[42][43][44] and by Leznoff and
Westley, who published the first sociological study
of the gay community.[45] Erving Goffman and
Howard Becker used the lives of gay-identified
persons in their theories of labeling and
interactionism. Simon and Gagnon likewise wrote:
"It is necessary to move away from the obsessive

concern with the sexuality of the individual, and

attempt to see the homosexual in terms of the
broader attachments that he must make to live in
the world around him."[46]
British sociologist Mary McIntosh reflected the
enthusiasm of Europeans for labeling theory in her
1968 study, "The Homosexual Role."
"The vantage-point of comparative sociology enables us to see that the conception of
homosexuality as a condition is, itself, a possible object of study. This conception and the
behavior it supports operate as a form of social control in a society in which homosexuality is
condemned...
"It is interesting to notice that homosexuals themselves welcome and support the notion that
homosexuality as a condition. For just as the rigid categorization deters people from drifting
into deviancy, so it appears to foreclose on the possibility of drifting back into normalcy and
thus removes the element of anxious choice. It appears to justify the deviant behavior of the
homosexual as being appropriate for him as a member of the homosexual category. The
deviancy can thus be seen as legitimate for him and he can continue in it without rejecting
the norm of society."[47]
Sara Fein and Elaine M. Nuehring were
among the many who supported the
application of labeling theory to
homosexuality. They saw the gay role
functioning as a "master status" around
which other roles become organized. This
brings a whole new set of problems and
restrictions:
"Placement in a social category constituting a master status prohibits individuals from
choosing the extent of their involvement in various categories. Members of the stigmatized
group lose the opportunity to establish their own personal system of evaluation and group
membership as well as the ability to arrive at their own ranking of each personal
characteristic.... For example, newly self-acknowledged homosexual individuals cannot take
for granted that they share the world with others who hold congruent interpretations and
assumptions; their behavior and motives, both past and present, will be interpreted in light of
their stigma." [48]
Perhaps the strongest proponent of
labeling theory was Edward Sagarin.
In his book, Deviants and Deviance,
he wrote, "There are no homosexuals,
transvestites, chemical addicts,
suicidogenics, delinquents, criminals,
or other such entities, in the sense of
people having such
identities."[49] Sagarin's position was
roundly condemned by academics in
the gay community. Sagarin had
written some gay novels under the
pseudonym of Donald Webster Cory.
According to reports, he later
abandoned his gay identity and began

promoting an interactionist view of

homosexuality.[50]
A number of authors adopted a
modified, non-deviant, labeling theory.
They rejected the stigmatic function of
the gay role, but found it useful in
describing the process of coming
out and reconciling one's homosexual
experiences with the social role. Their
works included:

Colin J. Williams and Martin

Weinberg, Homosexuals and the
Military, 1971.[51]

Barry Dank, "Coming Out in the

Gay World," 1971.[52]

Sue Hammersmith and Martin

Weinberg, "Homosexual Identity:
Commitment, Adjustment, and
Significant Others," 1973.[53]

Martin Weinberg and Colin

Williams, in "Male Homosexuals:
Their Problems and Adaptations,"
1974.[54]

Carol A. B. Warren, in Identity and

Community in the Gay
World, 1974.[55]

Michael Shively and John

DeCecco, "Components of Sexual
Identity," 1977.[56]

Alan Bell and Martin

Weinberg, Homosexualities: A
Study of Diversity Among Men
and Women, 1978.[57]

Thomas Weinberg, "On 'Doing'

and 'Being' Gay: Sexual Behavior
and Homosexual Male SelfIdentity." 1978.[58]

Vivienne Cass, "Homosexual

Identity Formation: A Theoretical
Model," 1979.[59]

Richard Troiden, "Becoming

Homosexual: A model of Gay
Identity Acquisition," 1979.[60]

Alan Bell, Martin Weinberg, and

Sue Kiefer Hammersmith, Sexual
Preference: Its Development in
Men and Women, 1981.[61]

Eli Coleman, "Developmental

Stages of the Coming Out
Process", 1982.[62]

Barry Adam, in his Survival of

Domination: Inferiorization of
Everyday Life, took those authors to
task for ignoring the force of the
oppression in creating identities and
their inferiorizing effects. Drawing
upon the works of Albert Memmi,
Adam showed how gay-identified
persons, like Jews and blacks,
internalize the hatred to justify their
limitations of life choices. He saw the
gravitation towards ghettos was
evidence of the self-limitations. He
wrote:
"A certain romantic liberalism runs through the literature, evident from attempts to paper over
or discount the very real problems of inferiorization. Some researchers seem bent on
'rescuing' their subjects from 'defamation' by ignoring the problems of defeatism and
complicit self-destruction. Avoidance of dispiriting reflection upon the day-to-day practice of
dominated people appears to spring from a desire to 'enhance' the reputation of the
dominated and magically relieve their plight. Careful observation has been sacrificed to the
'power of positive thinking.'"[63]
Strong defense of labeling theory
also arose within the gay
community. Dan Slater of the Los
Angeles Homosexual Information
Center said, "There is no such
thing as a homosexual lifestyle.
There is no such thing as gay
pride or anything like that.
Homosexuality is simply based on
the sex act. Gay consciousness
and all the rest are separatist and
defeatist attitudes going back to
centuries-old and out-moded
conceptions that homosexuals
are, indeed, different from other
people."[64]

In a later article, Slater stated the

gay movement was going in the
wrong direction:
"Is it the purpose of the movement to try to assert sexual rights for everyone or create a
political and social cult out of homosexuality?.... Persons who perform homosexual acts or
other non-conforming acts are sexually free. They want others enlightened. They want
hostile laws changed, but the resent the attempt to organize their lives around homosexuality
just as much as they resent the centuries-old attempt to organize their lives around
heterosexuality.[65]
William DuBay, in Gay
Identity: The Self Under Ban,
[66]
describes gay identity as
one strategy for dealing with
society's oppression. It solves
some problems but creates
many more, replacing a closet
of secrecy with one of gay
identity. A better strategy, he
suggests, is to reject the label
and live as if the oppression
did not exist. Quoting
Goffman, he writes, "But of
course what is a good
adjustment for the individual
can be an even better one for
society."[25]
DuBay contends that the
attempt to define
homosexuality as a class of
persons to be protected
against discrimination as
defined in the statutes has not
reduced the oppression. The
goal of the movement instead
should be to gain acceptance
of homosexual relationships
as useful and productive for
both society and the family.
The movement has lost the
high moral ground by
sponsoring the "flight from
choice" and not taking up the
moral issues. "Persons whom
we confine to back rooms and
bars other societies have
honored as tenders of
children, astrologers, dancers,
chanters, minstrels, jesters,
artists, shamans, sacred
warriors and judges, seers,
healers, weavers of tales and
magic."[67]

DuBay refers to the "gay

trajectory," in which a person
first wraps himself in the gay
role, organizing his
personality and his life around
sexual behavior. He might flee
from his family and home
town to a large gay center.
There, the bedeviling force of
the stigma will introduce him
to more excessive modes of
deviance such as promiscuity,
prostitution, alcoholism, and
drugs. Many resist such
temptations and try to
normalize their life, but the
fast lanes of gay society are
littered with the casualties of
gay identity. Some come to
reject the label entirely.
"Accomplishing the forbidden,
they are neither gay nor
straight. Again learning to
choose, they develop the
ability to make the ban
ambiguous, taking
responsibility and refusing
explanations of their
behaviors." [68]
John Henry Mackay writes
about a gay hustler in Berlin
adopting such a solution:
"What was self-evident,
natural, and not the least sick
did not require an excuse
through an explanation.... It
was love just like any other
love. Whoever could not or
would not accept it as love
was mistaken."[69]

Modified Labeling
theory[edit]
Bruce Link and colleagues
have conducted several
studies which point to the
influence that labeling can
have on mental patients.
Through these studies, which
took place in 1987, 1989, and
1997, Link advanced a

"modified labeling theory"

indicating that expectations of
labeling can have a large
negative effect, that these
expectations often cause
patients to withdraw from
society, and that those labeled
as having a mental disorder
are constantly being rejected
from society in seemingly
minor ways but that, when
taken as a whole, all of these
small slights can drastically
alter their self concepts. They
come to both anticipate and
perceive negative societal
reactions to them, and this
potentially damages their
quality of life.[70]
Modified Labeling theory has
been described as a
"sophisticated socialpsychological model of 'why
labels matter' ". In 2000,
results from a prospective
two-year study of patients
discharged from a mental
hospital (in the context
of deinstitutionalization)
showed that stigma was a
powerful and persistent force
in their lives, and that
experiences of social
rejection were a persistent
source of social stress. Efforts
to cope with labels, such as
not telling anyone, educating
people about mental
distress/disorder, withdrawing
from stigmatizing situations,
could result in further social
isolation and reinforce
negative self-concepts.
Sometimes an identity as a
low self-esteem minority in
society would be accepted.
The stigma was associated
with diminished motivation
and ability to "make it in
mainstream society" and with
"a state of social and
psychological vulnerability to
prolonged and recurrent

problems". There was an up

and down pattern in selfesteem, however, and it was
suggested that, rather than
simply gradual erosion of selfworth and increasing selfdeprecating tendencies,
people were sometimes
managing, but struggling, to
maintain consistent feelings of
self-worth. Ultimately, "a cadre
of patients had developed an
entrenched, negative view of
themselves, and their
experiences of rejection
appear to be a key element in
the construction of these selfrelated feelings" and "hostile
neighbourhoods may not only
affect their self-concept but
may also ultimately impact the
patient's mental health status
and how successful they are".
[71]

See also[edit]
Psychology portal
Sociology portal

Attributional bias

Attribute substitution

Deviance (sociology)

Framing (social sciences)

Interactionism

Moral entrepreneur

Moral panic

Nominative determinism

Observer-expectancy
effect

Psychology

Signaling theory

Social construction

Sociology of deviance

Stigma

Stereotype

Victim blaming

References[edit]
1.

Jump up^ Labeling

theory: Social
constructionism, Social
stigma,
Deinstitutionalisation,
George Herbert Mead,
Howard S. Becker,
Labelling

2.

^ Jump up
to:a b Macionis & Gerber
(2010)

3.

Jump up^ Mead (1934)

4.

Jump up^ Macionis

(2012), p. 107

5.

Jump up^ Tannenbaum

(1938)

6.

Jump up^ O'Grady

(2011)

7.

Jump up^ Sumner

(1994)

8.

Jump up^ Sumner

(1994), p. 117

9.

Jump up^ Townsend,

F. Frank Tannenbaum:
The Dramatization of
Evil. [1].

10. Jump up^ Lemert

(1951), pp. 7576
11. Jump up^ Becker
(1973), p. 9
12. ^ Jump up to:a b Becker
(1973), p. 26
13. Jump up^ Cullen
(1984), p. 130
14. Jump up^ Memmi
(1965), pp. 321322
15. Jump up^ Memmi
(1968), pp. 191193
16. Jump up^ Goffman
(1959)
17. Jump up^ Goffman
(1982)
18. Jump up^ Goffman
(1974)
19. Jump up^ Goffman
(1963)
20. Jump up^ Goffman
(1963), p. 7
21. Jump up^ Goffman
(1963), p. 81
22. Jump up^ Goffman
(1963), p. 13
23. Jump up^ Goffman
(1963), p. 88
24. Jump up^ Goffman
(1963), p. 108
25. ^ Jump up
to:a b Goffman (1963),
p. 122
26. Jump up^ Goffman
(1963), p. 53
27. Jump up^ Matza
(1969)

28. Jump up^ Matza

(1969), p. 93
29. Jump up^ Matza
(1969), p. 157
30. Jump up^ Matza
(1969), pp. 163164
31. Jump up^ Matza
(1969), pp. 165170
32. Jump up^ Vito, Maahs
& Holmes (2006)
33. Jump up^ Scheff
(1984)
34. Jump up^ Gove (1975)
35. Jump up^ Thoits
(1999), p. 134
36. Jump up^ Link &
Phelan (1999), pp. 361
376
37. Jump up^ Kinsey,
Pomeroy & Martin
(1948), pp. 616617
38. Jump up^ Kinsey,
Pomeroy & Martin
(1948), p. 639
39. Jump up^ Kinsey et al.
(1953), p. 446
40. Jump up^ Kinsey et al.
(1953), pp. 468469
41. Jump up^ Goffman
(1963), pp. 143144
42. Jump up^ Hooker
(1956)
43. Jump up^ Hooker
(1958)
44. Jump up^ Hooker
(1967)

45. Jump up^ Leznoff &

Westley (1956)
46. Jump up^ Simon &
Gagnon (1967), p. 179
47. Jump up^ McIntosh
(1968)
48. Jump up^ Fein &
Nuehring (1981)
49. Jump up^ Sagarin
(1975), p. 150
50. Jump up^ DuBay
(1967), p. 150
51. Jump up^ Williams &
Weinberg (1971)
52. Jump up^ Dank (1971)
53. Jump
up^ Hammersmith &
Weinberg (1973)
54. Jump up^ Weinberg &
Williams (1974)
55. Jump up^ Warren
(1974)
56. Jump up^ Shively &
DeCecco (1977)
57. Jump up^ Bell &
Weinberg (1978)
58. Jump up^ Weinberg
(1978)
59. Jump up^ Cass (1979)
60. Jump up^ Troiden
(1979)
61. Jump up^ Bell,
Weinberg &
Hammersmith (1981)
62. Jump up^ Coleman
(1982)

63. Jump up^ Adam

(1978), pp. 56
64. Jump up^ Leopold
(1975), p. 26
65. Jump up^ Slater (1971)
66. Jump up^ DuBay
(1967)
67. Jump up^ DuBay
(1967), p. 9
68. Jump up^ DuBay
(1967), p. 143
69. Jump up^ Mackay
(1985)
70. Jump up^ Link et al.
(1989)
71. Jump up^ Wright,
Gronfein & Owens
(2000)