Introduction to interactionism

Interactionism is a sociological perspective that examines how individuals and groups create and interpret social reality through their interactions. In the context of crime and deviance, interactionists argue that deviance is not an inherent quality of an act but rather a label applied through social processes. This occurs because norms - the expected standards of behaviour in a society - vary between groups and cultures, making deviance relative rather than absolute.

What one person sees as normal behaviour might be viewed as deviant by another, depending on the social context. This relativity means that definitions of deviance are socially constructed, shaped by interactions and power dynamics within society. As a result, interactionists focus on how certain behaviours come to be labelled as deviant and the consequences of those labels.

The role of power in defining deviance

Interactionists emphasise that powerful groups in society play a key role in defining what counts as deviant or criminal behaviour. These definitions are not neutral but serve the interests of those in power.

Key arguments from Becker

• Imposition of norms - Powerful elites, such as the wealthy or ruling classes, create and enforce rules to maintain control over less powerful groups, like the working class or ethnic minorities. This ensures that behaviours challenging the status quo are labelled as deviant.
• Social construction of deviance - Definitions of crime and deviance are not fixed but are built through social interactions. Powerless groups, including young people, working-class individuals, and those from minority ethnic backgrounds, are more likely to have their actions labelled negatively by those in authority.
• Agents of social control - These include institutions like the police, courts, social workers, teachers, and psychiatrists, which monitor and regulate behaviour on behalf of the powerful. Their role is to enforce conformity to elite-defined norms.

Interactionists also highlight the mass media's influence. Journalists and editors, particularly in tabloid newspapers, scrutinise and negatively label certain behaviours, pressuring authorities to act. This can amplify perceptions of deviance, leading to increased social control.

Labelling and stereotyping in social control

Labelling involves attaching a negative tag to an individual or group, which can shape their identity and future behaviour. Stereotyping is a related process where generalised assumptions are made about entire groups based on perceived characteristics.

How labelling operates

• Profiling by authorities - Studies show that police often target specific groups, such as young, working-class Black males, based on stereotypes of criminality. This leads to frequent stops and searches, even without evidence of wrongdoing.
• Master status - Once labelled as deviant or criminal, this becomes the dominant aspect of a person's identity. Other statuses, like being a parent or employee, become secondary. For example, an ex-prisoner might struggle to find work because employers focus on their criminal label.

These processes demonstrate how labelling reinforces power imbalances, as agents of social control apply labels selectively to marginalised groups.

Primary and secondary deviance

Edwin Lemert, an interactionist sociologist, distinguishes between two types of deviance to explain how minor acts can escalate due to social reactions.

Primary deviance

Primary deviance refers to minor, everyday acts of wrongdoing that most people commit at some point, such as small rule-breaking that often goes unnoticed and unpunished. No negative label is attached, so it has little impact on a person's self-image or social standing.

Secondary deviance

Secondary deviance occurs when deviant acts are noticed and responded to by those in authority, leading to labelling or punishment. The individual may then internalise the label, adopting a deviant identity and engaging in further deviance as a result.

Lemert argues that society's harsh response to secondary deviance makes reintegration difficult, often pushing individuals towards deviant groups for acceptance.

Consequences of labelling

Labelling can have unintended effects, sometimes increasing rather than reducing deviance. Interactionists explore how societal reactions create cycles of deviant behaviour.

Self-fulfilling prophecy

When individuals are labelled as deviant, they may internalise this view and behave accordingly. For instance, stigmatised ex-offenders face rejection from mainstream society, leading to resentment and reoffending. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the label produces the expected deviant behaviour.

Deviancy amplification

This process, described by interactionists like Stanley Cohen, occurs when societal reactions intensify deviance. Labelled individuals might embrace the label as a 'badge of honour' to gain status among peers, leading to more serious or frequent deviant acts. As a result, the overall level of deviance increases in response to social control efforts.

Techniques of neutralisation

David Matza, another interactionist, suggests that not all labelling leads to a deviant career. Young people often use 'techniques of neutralisation' to justify deviant acts without fully adopting a deviant identity. This allows them to 'drift' between deviance and conformity.

Five techniques of neutralisation:

• Denial of responsibility
• Denial of injury
• Denial of the victim
• Condemnation of the condemners
• Appeal to higher loyalties

Matza notes that most youths eventually outgrow delinquency and return to law-abiding lives.

Evaluation of labelling theory

Labelling theory, a key part of interactionism, has strengths in explaining the social processes behind deviance but also faces criticisms for its limitations.

Strengths of labelling theory

• Complexity of deviance - It demonstrates that defining deviance is a relative and socially constructed process, not a fixed or universal one.
• Focus on consequences - It was the first theory to highlight how labelling can create more deviance, showing that social control efforts sometimes backfire.
• Attention to power dynamics - It reveals how powerful groups influence definitions of deviance, affecting marginalised populations disproportionately.

Criticisms of labelling theory

• Lack of explanation for origins - It does not address why people commit initial acts of deviance before any label is applied.
• Overemphasis on reaction - Ronald Akers argues that the deviant act itself is more important than society's response; individuals often know their actions are wrong without needing a label.
• Determinism - Critics say the theory implies that labelling always leads to a deviant career, ignoring cases where people reject or overcome labels.
• Romanticising deviance - Left realists criticise it for focusing too much on offenders and agencies of control, while neglecting the harm to victims of crime.