Deterrents or Labeling?

Abstract

Contradictory predictions about the effects of sanctioning drawn from and labeling perspectives are evaluated in light of extant empirical evidence. Although the data favor a deterrent rather than a secondary deviance interpretation, consideration of the issue reveals gross theoretical inadequacy. The fundamental task is to specify the conditions under which one or the other outcome is likely and then to build an integrated theory incorporates those contingencies. Drawing on current literature, contingencies are likely to affect the outcome of sanctioning are identified. Contemporary students of deviance have shifted attention from the deviant act to the social reactions generated by deviance (Gibbs, 1966). This change in focus has stimulated a number of new theoretical interests, the most important of which concerns the consequences of reaction to rule breaking. It is now recognized a fundamental problem for social science is to determine what effects are produced when social groups or individuals try to do something about violations of social rules. The problem has been approached in many different ways. Some have tried to specify the consequences for the people directly involved in doing something about deviance (Blumberg, 1967; Ross, 1973; Skolnick, 1966), while others have tried to establish the consequences for the individuals or groups are the object of such efforts (Buckner, 1971; Lemert, 1967; Schwartz and Skolnick, 1962). Some social scientists have asked how social actions to deal with rule violations affect the amount and kind of deviance occurs within a given population unit (Andenaes, 1966; Tittle and Logan, 1973; Zimring and Hawkins, 1973). And still others have investigated the way various reactions to deviance contribute to or undermine the ability of social groups to survive and maintain themselves (Connor, 1972; Erikson, 1966; Turk, 1969). But despite the diverse approaches, two dominant intellectual trends have emerged. One trend has followed the labeling perspective. The basic premise of work in this vein is deviance is itself a product of reactions by a social audience or by social agents. To labeling advocates, rules or rule breaking are only of incidental interest since deviance is that behavior which has been so labeled. Thus, labeling may occur in the absence of rule breaking or it may be problematic even when rule breaking has occurred. The important tasks for students of labeling are, therefore: (1) to determine how and why labeling occurs, (2) to establish the consequences of labeling, and (3) to understand the behavior of those directly involved in labeling. A second intellectual trend can be identified as the control perspective. Students of take rules as given and then attempt to account for conformity or deviance from those rules. In the search for explanation, they focus particularly on what is done about rule breaking, especially on actions involve negative sanctions. Thus in their inquiries, researchers have sought: (1) to determine what effect sanctions have on conformity, (2) to ascertain how and why sanctions are imposed in particular social groups, and (3) to understand the organization of sanctioning systems. COMPARISON OF THE APPROACHES Although distinguishable as separate approaches, these two intellectual trends clearly have much in common. They are both concerned with how and why social groups respond to particular behaviors, and they are both interested in the effects of those responses. Moreover, proponents of each are committed to understanding the behavior and organization of those who try to do something about nonconformity and to explication of the significance of such efforts for human society. There are, however, some clear divergences. The first concerns definitions of the object of study. Labeling proponents focus on those behaviors which result in a label of deviance. Since the same behaviors may be labeled deviant at one time but not another or for one