Labeling and Secondary Deviance
Deviance is very much a product of social rulemaking, rule enforcement, and policies regarding the consequence of enforcement (Goode, 2001). Though many theories of what causes deviance have been developed, this report will examine the labeling or interactionist theory of deviance which Goode (2001) describes as focused on rulemaking and, most particularly, reactions to rule-breaking. The goal of the study is to examine the effects of labeling on secondary deviance.
The report will first provide an overview of labeling theory. It will then discuss the nature and sources of secondary deviance. The report will then examine the specific linkages between labeling as a means of defining behavior and the creation of secondary deviance. A limited number of sources will be employed to argue that labeling directly fosters secondary deviance because the individual who enacts deviant behavior may be dealing with the problems created by social reactions to his or her primary deviations (Goode, 2001).
Labeling theory, also known as the interactionist approach to deviance, does not focus on the causes of deviance as such, but rather on how certain behaviors are labeled as deviant in the first place and the ways in which such designations or labels influence future behavior (Pontell, 2002). Labeling theory posits an essentially reactive view of deviance wherein audience responses are viewed as equal in significance to the behavior itself. Labeling theory was influenced heavily by the writings of Edwin Lemert and involves a social-psychological perspective on deviance (Pontell, 2002).
According to Pontell (2002), Lemert argued that the primary causes of deviance were less significant than the reactions of others to such behaviors. By labeling or stigmatizing certain behaviors as deviant, the social self as understood by Charles Horton Cooley (2002) draws an understanding o...