The dominant theoretical traditions: labeling, subcultural, control, opportunity and learning theories

Abstract

In this chapter, a number of criminological theories will be briefly discussed which later become important to our analysis: labeling, subcultural, control, opportunity and learning theories. These are the major theoretical traditions that have guided twentieth century criminological research. It will be contended that the theories are not as mutually inconsistent as their proponents would have us believe. Let us simplify the relevance of this chapter by imagining Fagin's lair as something of a caricature of a criminal subculture. We need control theory to bring young offenders to the doorstep of the criminal subculture (primary deviance); stigmatization (labeling theory) to open the door; subcultural and learning theory to maintain the lair as a rewarding place for secondary deviants to stay in; and opportunity theory to explain how such criminal subcultures come to exist in the first place. This is the scheme supplied by the theory of reintegrative shaming for synthesizing the dominant theoretical traditions. Figure 1 (page 99) summarizes how reintegrative shaming is the central linkage among these explanatory frameworks. Labeling Theory older sociology…tended to rest heavily on the idea that deviance leads to social control. I have come to believe that the reverse idea, i.e., social control leads to deviance, is equally tenable and the potentially richer premise for studying deviance in modern society. (Lemert, 1967: v) Edwin Lemert, Howard Becker, John Kitsuse, Edwin Schur and other leading exponents of the labeling perspective tend to deny that there is such a thing as labeling theory.