Labeling Theory

The labeling perspective is a sociological theory that explains how being labeled by others can shape a person’s identity and behavior.

It suggests that deviance isn’t just about what someone does, but about how society reacts to it.

When people are tagged as ‘troublemakers’ or ‘criminals,’ they may internalize that label and act in ways that reinforce it. Reactions can create the very deviance they aim to control.

What Is Labeling Theory? Definition and Overview

Labeling theory (also called the labeling perspective or societal reaction theory) is a sociological approach to deviance. It looks at how society defines certain people and behaviors as “normal” or “deviant”, and how those definitions affect people’s lives.

Labeling theory asks a different question. Instead of asking why someone breaks the rules, it asks what happens after they do. It focuses on how others react and how those reactions shape a person’s identity and future behavior.

People aren’t labeled “deviant” just because of what they do, but because of how society reacts. Those reactions (often shaped by power, stereotypes, and norms) stick to certain groups more than others, causing stigma and sometimes pushing people into secondary deviance (acting more like the label over time).

This approach is part of the interpretivist tradition in sociology and falls under symbolic interactionism, which studies how people create meaning through everyday social interactions.

---

Key Thinkers

Labeling theory was developed by several sociologists who built on earlier interactionist ideas about the self and society:

• Charles Cooley (1902): According to Cooley’s concept of the looking-glass self, we form our identities like reflections in a mirror – by imagining how others see us and internalizing their reactions.
• Frank Tannenbaum (1938): Tannenbaum argued that when society reacts harshly to a minor rule-breaking act, it can “dramatize” the behavior as evil. This can make the person see themselves as a “bad” or “criminal” type, which then leads to more serious deviance.

• Howard Becker (1963): In his book Outsiders, Becker argued that deviance is not about what people do, but about how others respond. He said that “deviant behavior is behavior that people so label,” and that powerful groups – what he called moral entrepreneurs – often decide which behaviors count as deviant.

• Edwin Lemert (1951): Lemert introduced the terms primary deviance (the initial rule-breaking) and secondary deviance (when someone accepts and lives up to the deviant label). He argued that social reaction and control can actually create more deviance.

• Erving Goffman (1959, 1963): Goffman studied how labels lead to stigma, which he described as a “spoiled identity.” His work explained how being seen as “different” or “tainted” changes how people are treated and how they relate to others.

---

Core Ideas

Labeling theory grew out of symbolic interactionism, a sociological perspective that focuses on small-scale, everyday interactions and how people develop meaning and identity through them.

Symbolic interactionists argue that our sense of self is shaped by how others view us.

It builds on Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead (1934), who argued that the self and meaning are built through social interaction. Howard Becker and Edwin Lemert later developed it.

1. Focus on Everyday Interactions

Labeling theory looks at how people give meaning to actions in daily life.

It’s less about large systems and more about the social dynamics between individuals – how teachers, police officers, or peers respond to behavior and what messages those reactions send.

2. Deviance Is a Matter of Definition

Deviance depends on how people interpret behavior. It exists only when certain individuals or groups define others as deviant.

Labeling theory is sometimes called a “societal reaction theory” because it focuses on the effects of other people’s reactions rather than the original causes of the behavior.

For example:

• Someone who kills an intruder may be called a hero.

• Someone who kills a cashier during a robbery is labeled a murderer.

• The act (killing) is the same, but the social reaction determines whether it’s seen as good or bad.

3. Labels Affect Identity

Drawing from symbolic interactionism, labeling theory suggests that people’s self-concept develops through how others see and treat them.

If someone is labeled a “troublemaker” or “criminal,” they may start to believe it – and behave accordingly.

Sociologist Erving Goffman described stigma. He saw it as a mark or label that damages a person’s social identity.

Once someone is stigmatized (e.g., called a “junkie” or “ex-con”), that label can shape how society sees them – and how they see themselves.

Being labeled can have serious effects. It can cause shame, social exclusion, or even push someone further into deviant behavior if they internalize the label.

---

What Was Becker’s Main Argument in Outsiders (1963)?

Howard Becker’s book Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963) is the cornerstone of labeling theory.

Becker argued that deviance is not an inherent quality of an act, but a label applied by society. In other words, behavior becomes deviant only when others define it that way.

According to Becker, groups create deviance in two steps:

1. Make the rules: Groups define what counts as acceptable or unacceptable behavior.
2. Apply the rules: Groups apply those rules to particular people and label them “outsiders” when they break them.

This process means that deviance is a social creation, not a natural fact. Acts like drinking alcohol, skipping school, or protesting might be condemned in one society and tolerated—or even celebrated—in another.

Becker also emphasized that power shapes labeling.

Those with authority – such as teachers, police officers, or lawmakers – have the power to decide who is labeled as “deviant” and who is not.

The same behavior can be judged very differently depending on the social position of the person involved.

Once someone is labeled a deviant, that label can become self-fulfilling.

The individual may internalize society’s reaction. They may begin to act according to the label. Becker called this a “deviant career.” It is a life path shaped by exclusion, stigma, and limited opportunities.

As Becker famously summarized:

“The deviant is one to whom the label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.”

Becoming a Marihuana User (Becker, 1953)

Becker’s fieldwork on drug users supplies the empirical case behind his wider argument.

It is one of the few classic labeling texts built on direct interview data rather than argument alone. The wider claims of Outsiders about moral entrepreneurs and career deviance remain theory and illustrative case material, which is why systematic tests matter.

How Labeling Encourages Further Deviance

Labeling can encourage deviant behavior in three ways: a deviant self-concept, a process of social exclusion, and increased involvement in deviant groups.

Social Class and Economic Status

In Schools: Working-Class Pupils

Teachers often use class-based stereotypes when judging students and parents.

• The “ideal pupil”: Usually imagined as fitting middle-class behavior and appearance. Working-class students are seen as “furthest” from this ideal and get more negative labels.

• Stereotypes about families: Working-class parents may be described as less supportive, hostile to school, or giving children too much freedom.

• Predicted outcomes: Teachers may expect lower grades, unemployment, crime, or early pregnancy for working-class pupils—while assuming middle-class underachievers will still make it to university.

• Institutional labeling: Streaming/tracking places working-class kids disproportionately in lower sets (Ball, 1981), where lessons can feel like “controlled babysitting” rather than real learning.

• Reproducing disadvantage: Willis (1977) showed how working-class pupils’ own culture can reproduce their disadvantage rather than resist it.

In Crime: The Poor and the Powerless

Labels cluster around people with less power.

• Selective enforcement: Rules get enforced more strictly on lower-class people who lack political or economic clout.

• Saints vs. Roughnecks (Chambliss): Both groups misbehaved, but the middle-class “Saints” were excused as “good kids,” while working-class “Roughnecks” were tagged as troublemakers and arrested more.

• Welfare stigma: Poor women and children using programs like Medicaid are often shamed, unlike recipients of “respectable” benefits (e.g., Social Security, veterans’ benefits).

---

Race and Ethnicity

Labels often fall hardest on racial and ethnic minorities.

• Power and stereotypes: Minorities are more likely to be seen as deviant and have less power to resist labels.

• Unequal justice: Conflict theorists argue Black and Latino people face harsher treatment from arrest onward than white people.

• “Tribal” stigma: A group can be stigmatized simply because it’s disliked by the dominant culture. In a racist setting, being Black or Jewish can draw stigma; in a different setting, whites might be the stigmatized group.

• Workplace stereotypes: Over-simple images (e.g., “lazy,” “shiftless”) are used to justify discrimination.

• Us vs. Them (Northern Ireland): Protestants and Catholics in “Glengow” relied on strong stereotypes to divide “us” and “them.”

---

Gender and Sexuality

Gender

• Unmarried teen pregnancy: Girls are blamed and punished more than boys (pregnancy is visible; norms expect girls to “set limits”).

• Working-class girls: “Hyper-heterosexual” styles (focus on looks/appearance) get read as deviant, and teachers may see these girls as over-sexualized and not interested in school.

• Mental health labels: About 75% of BPD diagnoses go to women, which some argue reflects sexist labeling of female emotion and behavior.

Sexual Orientation and Identity

• Homosexuality: Labeled a disorder by the APA until 1973, then demedicalized—showing labels can change.

• Transgender identities: Trystan Reese, a pregnant trans man, was labeled deviant by some for challenging gender norms.

• LGBTQ+ stigma: Heteronormativity (straight as the default), heterosexism, and homophobia create institutional disadvantages.

• Reclaiming “queer”: Queer Theory turned a slur into a tool of resistance (Jagose, 1996; Butler, 1990), showing labels can be reclaimed.

---

Disability and Illness

• Disability as social: Beyond the condition itself, attitudes create barriers. People get reduced to a master status (e.g., “the blind girl”) and shunned or underestimated.

• Mental illness as label: Some (e.g., Thomas Szasz) argue certain “illnesses” are social reactions to unusual behavior.

• Autism: People with ASD and their families can be misunderstood and excluded; non-speaking individuals are often wrongly assumed to be unintelligent.

• Sticky diagnoses: Labels like “schizophrenic” can be hard to shed even after discharge.

Rosenhan’s Pseudopatient Study (1973)

Rosenhan (1973) tested how durable a diagnostic label is in his pseudopatient study.

The study is a landmark demonstration of how hard a diagnostic label is to shed. However, it used a small, non-random sample, had no comparison hospitals, and would not pass modern ethical review. Current diagnostic practice may also limit how far its 1970s findings generalize.

---

Subcultures and “Deviant” Groups

• Mods & Rockers: Media used words like “hooligans” and “thugs”; clothes and hair became a “badge of delinquency” (Cohen, 1972).

• “One percenters”: Biker groups reclaimed a hostile label as a badge of honor.

• Who counts as deviant? People listed wildly different groups (from drug users to career women to the President), showing how relative and wide-ranging labeling can be.

• Owning outsider status: Punks or outlaw bikers may celebrate being outsiders; the look signals resistance and invites ready-made labels (“loud,” “troublemaker”). Hebdige (1979) analyzed how such style becomes a badge of identity and resistance.

---

Formal and Informal Labeling

Formal and informal labeling are two sides of how societies define and control deviance.

• Formal labels come from institutions with legal authority and carry lasting consequences.

• Informal labels come from everyday interactions and shape our reputations and self-concepts.

Understanding the difference between formal and informal labeling helps explain where the label comes from, how severe it is, and how it can shape a person’s identity.

---

Formal Labeling

Formal labeling happens when official institutions — such as the police, courts, schools, or employers — apply a label based on written rules or laws.

This process represents formal social control, where the rules are codified and enforced by designated authorities.

How Formal Labeling Works

1. Formal Rules and Laws: These are the official standards of behavior, such as laws, school policies, or workplace codes of conduct.

   • Examples: laws against theft, school grading policies, or company handbooks.

2. Institutions That Enforce Rules: The main agents of formal control include the criminal justice system (police, courts, prisons), as well as schools and professional bodies.

   • For instance, a police officer can issue an arrest, or a teacher can formally fail a student.

3. Formal Sanctions: These are the official punishments or rewards for following or breaking formal rules.

   • Negative sanctions: arrest, fine, suspension, expulsion, or imprisonment.

   • Positive sanctions: promotions, awards, or public recognition.

Consequences of Formal Labeling

Formal labels are powerful because they are public and often permanent.

• Bias in Enforcement: Police and courts may apply labels unequally, based on stereotypes about class, race, or appearance.

• Master Status: Once labeled as a “criminal,” “addict,” or “dropout,” that identity can dominate how others see you — even overshadowing your other qualities.

  • Example: someone with a criminal record may find it much harder to get a job, even after serving their sentence.

• Education and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Schools also engage in formal labeling through grades or class placements. A student labeled a “low achiever” might start to believe it, leading to poorer performance over time.

---

Informal Labeling

Informal labeling happens through everyday interactions — among family, friends, peers, coworkers, or strangers.

It’s based on unwritten social rules, known as informal norms, and enforced through social pressure rather than law.

How Informal Labeling Works

1. Informal Norms: These are unwritten expectations for behavior, like politeness, honesty, or respect.

   • For example, you’re expected to greet people, not interrupt, and dress appropriately for the occasion.

2. Informal Sanctions: These are reactions from other people when someone breaks or follows informal norms.

   • Negative sanctions include gossip, ridicule, disapproval, dirty looks, or social exclusion.

   • Positive sanctions include smiles, praise, or gratitude for behaving helpfully or politely.

Consequences of Informal Labeling

Informal labels may not appear in any official record, but they can deeply affect a person’s reputation and self-esteem.

• Shame and Exclusion: Someone who behaves “inappropriately” may be seen as disrespectful or odd and could be avoided by others.

• Power Differences: The impact of informal sanctions depends on context. A glare might mean little in a gang but could be enough to silence someone in a social gathering.

• Police Discretion: Even law enforcement officers sometimes use informal labeling — for example, issuing a warning instead of an arrest but still treating someone as “suspicious.”

• Self-Sanctioning: Over time, people internalize these informal rules. They behave “properly” not just to avoid punishment but because they’ve learned to feel guilt or embarrassment when they break norms.

---

How Formal and Informal Labeling Work Together

In reality, formal and informal labeling are closely linked — they reinforce each other in maintaining social order.

• Reinforcement Between Systems: Serious moral rules (informal norms) often become formalized into laws. For instance, murder violates both moral and legal codes.

• Power and Control: The legal system (formal control) and everyday interactions (informal control) work side by side. Together, they regulate behavior at every level of society.

• Social Construction of Crime Statistics: Even “official” crime data reflects this interaction — police decisions to arrest, warn, or ignore an offense depend not just on formal rules but also on informal judgments and stereotypes.

---

Applications

Labeling theory suggests that public labels such as “criminal,” “lazy,” or “troublemaker” can shape how others treat people. They can also change how people see themselves.

This idea, first developed by sociologists like Howard Becker and Edwin Lemert, remains highly relevant in today’s debates about identity, justice, and social media.

---

1. Identity Politics and Social Stigma

Labeling theory helps us understand how social labels define who belongs and who doesn’t — a key issue in identity politics and stigma.

Stigma and “Spoiled Identity”

Sociologist Erving Goffman described stigma as a negative label that devalues a person and prevents them from being fully accepted by society.

When there’s a gap between how society expects someone to be (their “virtual identity”) and how they really are (their “actual identity”), their reputation can become “spoiled.”

This process affects many marginalized groups. For instance:

• Health and disability: People with mental illness or physical disabilities often face stigma and may internalize society’s negative views, leading to low self-esteem.
• Sexuality: Before 1973, homosexuality was officially classified as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. This institutional labeling reinforced social prejudice and caused many LGBTQ+ individuals to internalize shame or self-hatred.

Identity Politics and Resistance

Labeling theory also helps explain why marginalized groups fight to reclaim their identities — a process known as tertiary deviance, where people reject or redefine a negative label.

• Race and ethnicity: Powerful groups have long used negative labels to justify inequality (for example, colonial stereotypes that depicted Indigenous peoples as “uncivilized”).

• Reclaiming identity: Movements for racial justice, LGBTQ+ pride, and disability rights challenge these negative definitions and turn stigmatized labels into sources of pride.
  This shows how labeling theory can illuminate both oppression and resistance in identity politics.

---

2. Relevance for Criminal Justice Reform

Labeling theory has had a major influence on criminal justice reform, especially in movements against mass incarceration.

It suggests that the system itself can sometimes create more deviance rather than reduce it.

Labeled “criminals” or “offenders,” people may internalize that identity. It then becomes much harder to find work, housing, or social acceptance, which raises the risk of reoffending.

This process is known as deviance amplification: the social reaction to deviance increases further deviance. Harsh punishments and zero-tolerance policies can trap people in a cycle of crime and exclusion. Reform aims to break that cycle.

Restorative justice and rehabilitation-focused programs promote behavior change, repair harm, and help people reintegrate into their communities rather than permanently stigmatizing them.

---

3. Education Policy

Labeling theory is also applied to education, where teachers and institutions act as powerful labeling agents.

In schools, labeling theory helps explain how teacher expectations can shape students’ futures.

Being labeled a “low achiever” or “disruptive” can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies, where students internalize low expectations and perform worse.

Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968) tested this mechanism experimentally. In their Pygmalion study, teachers were falsely told that certain randomly chosen pupils were about to “bloom” academically. Those pupils’ performance subsequently improved.

Two school practices show how labeling operates institutionally, often reinforcing inequality:

• Streaming: placing students in different tracks based on ability.
• Off-rolling: removing underperforming students to improve school statistics.

Educational reform inspired by labeling theory focuses on reducing bias and building inclusive environments that prevent negative labeling in the first place.

---

4. Social Media and Public Shaming

Social media has made labeling faster, more public, and more powerful.

It functions as a digital form of social control, where millions can instantly approve, condemn, or shame others.

Public Shaming and Informal Sanctions

Online shaming uses informal social sanctions — ridicule, gossip, and outrage — to punish perceived wrongdoing.

Unlike the legal system, these sanctions are immediate and emotional.

A single viral post can destroy someone’s reputation within hours.

Social media movements like #MeToo or Black Lives Matter demonstrate both sides of this process: they spread awareness of injustice but can also amplify stigma through mass condemnation.

Digital Moral Panics

Sociologists link this to moral panic theory (Cohen, 1972), which describes how the media creates “folk devils”: individuals or groups portrayed as threats to social order.

On social media, new “folk devils” emerge rapidly — often based on a single quote or video clip.

Public outrage can escalate quickly, exaggerating the offense and overshadowing more serious social issues.

Labeling, once local, now operates globally at digital speed.

---

5. “Cancel Culture” and Labeling

Labeling theory offers insight into cancel culture — the process by which people are ostracized or boycotted after perceived wrongdoing.

From a labeling perspective, “being canceled” can function as a form of societal punishment that reinforces norms about acceptable behavior.

In cancel culture, labels like “racist,” “misogynist,” or “transphobe” can become someone’s master status. That label then overshadows every other aspect of their identity.

Once applied, these labels can lead to severe consequences: job loss, social isolation, and long-term damage to reputation.

The key question is whether such labeling encourages accountability or merely creates stigma without room for growth or reintegration (Ng, 2020). It echoes long-standing debates about punishment versus rehabilitation.

From a Foucauldian view, cancel culture does more than punish individuals. It also creates categories like “the canceled” or “the problematic,” which shape how society defines acceptable behavior.

Whether or not the person changes their behavior, the label sticks and reshapes their social identity.

---

Labeling and Power Dynamics

Labeling theory isn’t just about how people get called “criminals” or “outsiders.”

It’s also about who has the power to decide what those labels mean, and who gets stuck with them.

Labeling theory’s links to power remind us that deviance is about more than behavior. It is about inequality.

Who gets labeled “problematic,” “criminal,” or “undesirable” often depends less on what they’ve done and more on who they are and how much power they have.

By examining who makes the rules, who enforces them, and who suffers the consequences, we can see how labeling maintains social hierarchies. Changing those systems could make society fairer.

---

1. The Power to Define the Rules

Not everyone has an equal say in deciding what counts as deviant or criminal.

Those with more money, influence, or authority have far more power to shape social rules.

Rule-Making and Enforcement

Conflict theorists argue that society is structured around competition for resources and power. The rich and powerful use laws and social norms to protect their own interests.

• For example, white-collar crimes like tax evasion or corporate fraud are often treated more lightly than theft or vandalism, even though they can harm more people.

• This happens because those in charge — politicians, business leaders, media figures — often come from the same social groups that benefit from the existing system.

Sociologist Howard Becker described such people as moral entrepreneurs — those who define what’s “right” and “wrong” for everyone else.

When they succeed, their personal values become society’s rules.

---

2. Labels Are Applied Unequally

Even if two people commit the same act, they’re not always treated the same.

Those without power — especially working-class people and racial minorities — are far more likely to be officially labeled as “deviant.”

• Selective Enforcement: Police and courts tend to focus on the crimes of the poor and visible, rather than the hidden crimes of the wealthy.

• Stereotypes and Bias: Appearance, race, class, and gender all influence how someone is treated. For example, a white, middle-class teenager might be seen as “just experimenting,” while a poor, Black teenager doing the same thing could be arrested or suspended.

• The Saints and the Roughnecks: A classic study showed that middle-class teens (“the Saints”) and working-class teens (“the Roughnecks”) committed similar levels of deviance, but only the poorer kids were seen as troublemakers (Chambliss, 1973).

In other words, the same behavior can look very different depending on who does it.

The Saints and the Roughnecks (Chambliss, 1973)

Years later, most Saints held respectable careers, while several Roughnecks had been convicted of serious crime.

As an ethnography of two groups in one school, the study cannot show how common the pattern is. It has not been replicated at this scale, but it remains a clear demonstration of class-based selective labeling.

---

3. The Cost of Being Labeled

Once a label sticks, it can have lifelong effects — especially for people with little power to resist it.

Criminalizing the Powerless

Law enforcement focuses heavily on street crime, while crimes committed by corporations, governments, or financial elites often go unnoticed or unpunished.

This creates a distorted image that the poor are the main “social problem,” while the wrongdoing of the powerful stays invisible.

Official crime statistics, therefore, tell us more about who gets caught and labeled than about who actually commits harm.

Unequal Punishment

The justice system tends to give lighter sentences to wealthy or white offenders and harsher punishments to poorer or minority offenders.

A banker convicted of fraud might serve less time than a factory worker convicted of theft — even though the harm caused by fraud is much greater.

Victim Discounting

Power also shapes whose suffering matters. Crimes against people from lower social classes or minority groups are often taken less seriously, as if the victim’s life has less value.

This “victim discounting” reinforces inequality by implying that some people matter more than others.

---

4. Foucault: Power, Knowledge, and the Creation of “Types” of People

French philosopher Michel Foucault took these ideas even further.

He argued that power doesn’t just punish people — it creates categories of people and defines what’s considered “normal.”

• Power/Knowledge: Knowledge and power are inseparable. Those who control institutions — like schools, prisons, and hospitals — also control what counts as truth (Foucault, 1977).

• The Production of Subjects: By collecting data and observing behavior, institutions create new social categories: “the delinquent,” “the mentally ill,” “the disorderly.”

• Discipline and Normalization: These categories are used to control people. Schools label “slow learners,” prisons create “offenders,” and workplaces define “productive” vs. “lazy” workers. Each label justifies certain types of punishment or control.

Unlike classic labeling theory, which focuses on how people internalize labels, Foucault focused on how institutions produce labels in the first place. Those labels shape our identities before we even realize it.

Foucault’s later work (1979) extended this analysis to sexuality. He traced how the very idea of a fixed sexual identity was historically produced by expert discourse rather than simply discovered.

---

Critical Evaluation

Labeling theory, part of the symbolic interactionist tradition, focuses on how society reacts to rule-breaking rather than why people break rules in the first place.

It was very influential — especially in research on crime, education, and social stigma — but by the early 1980s it had lost much of its popularity.

However, the theory has faced several major criticisms.

Scholars argue it can be too narrow, too deterministic, and disconnected from wider social structures like class and power. 

---

1. Mixed or Weak Evidence

Researchers have tested labeling theory for decades, but the results have been inconsistent.

Does labeling lead to more deviance?

Labeling theory suggests that once people are officially labeled as “criminals” or “delinquents,” they often go on to commit more crime — a process called deviance amplification.

However, research findings are divided:

• Some studies show that harsh punishment and stigmatizing labels make reoffending more likely, including a longitudinal test of official labeling in adolescence (Bernburg, Krohn, & Rivera, 2006).

• Others find little or no effect, or even that labeling reduces deviance for some people.

Does labeling change self-image?

A central claim of symbolic interactionism is that people eventually see themselves through society’s labels.

But many studies show the opposite: being labeled doesn’t always make someone feel worse about themselves, and self-image often stays the same despite labeling.

Are labels biased by class, race, or gender?

Labeling theory argues that social factors — like race, appearance, and social class — influence who gets officially labeled.

While some studies support this “status characteristics” idea, results are mixed.

Evidence suggests that the main reasons for arrest or punishment are still:

• how serious the crime was;
• whether the victim wants prosecution; and
• the offender’s criminal history.

Bias exists, but it’s not always the deciding factor.

---

2. Theoretical and Conceptual Weaknesses

Even supporters of labeling theory admit it leaves big questions unanswered.

It doesn’t explain the causes of deviance

Labeling theory mainly describes what happens after someone is caught or labeled.

It doesn’t explain why people break rules to begin with — a problem known as failing to explain primary deviance.

As a result, it can’t tell us why some people with similar backgrounds stay law-abiding while others don’t.

It underestimates personal choice

Critics say the theory is too deterministic — it assumes that once someone is labeled “deviant,” they will inevitably act according to that label.

But in reality, people don’t all respond the same way.

Some reject or resist labels; others redefine them. The link between being labeled and continuing deviance is not automatic.

For example, being labeled a “criminal” might lead one person to internalize that identity, while another might work harder to prove society wrong.

David Matza (1964) developed this point. He argued that young offenders “drift” in and out of delinquency rather than being wholly determined by it.

It’s vague about how labeling works

Labeling theory often fails to spell out how the labeling process actually leads to more deviance.

It’s not always clear what the key steps are, or how informal labels (like gossip or teasing) compare with formal ones (like arrests or school suspensions).

---

3. Methodological and Foundational Problems

Labeling theory also faces challenges related to how it studies deviance and how it defines “reality.”

Research limitations

Because symbolic interactionism focuses on small-scale social interactions, studies often rely on interviews or observations.

Critics argue that this approach makes it hard to be objective or to draw broader conclusions about society as a whole.

Problems with defining deviance and reality

Some critics say labeling theorists treat deviance as only a social label, ignoring the fact that certain behaviors or harms exist independently of how society views them.

For example, serious health conditions or violent crimes are real phenomena, not just social reactions.

Others argue that labeling theory doesn’t pay enough attention to inequality — the way that power, class, and race shape who gets labeled in the first place.

---

4. What Do Marxist and Realist Criminologists Say?

Both Marxist and Left Realist criminologists agree that labeling theory raises important questions about power and bias. But they also think it overlooks the real causes and real harms of crime.

The Marxist Response

Marxist theorists agree with labeling theory that the criminal justice system is biased and that laws are selectively enforced to protect the rich and powerful.

They see official crime statistics as tools that serve the interests of the capitalist class — making it seem like crime is mostly a working-class problem.

However, Marxists criticize labeling theory for focusing too narrowly on interactions (the micro level) rather than on economic structures and class inequality (the macro level).

They argue that crime is rooted in capitalism itself — in exploitation, alienation, and class conflict.

Neo-Marxists, or Critical Criminologists, tried to bridge this gap.

In The New Criminology (Taylor, Walton, and Young, 1973), they combined Marxist ideas about structure with interactionist ideas about meaning and identity.

They agreed with labeling theorists that deviance is socially constructed but also emphasized human agency and resistance, not just economic forces.

The Left Realist Response

Left Realists criticize labeling (and Marxist) theories for taking the idea of “social construction” too far.

They argue that:

• It’s wrong to claim official crime statistics are entirely socially constructed.

• Crime has real effects, especially for victims in working-class communities.

• Many crimes — theft, assault, domestic violence — cause genuine harm, often to people in the same social group as the offenders.

Left Realists also object to the romanticizing of working-class offenders as “rebels against capitalism” (Lea & Young, 1984).

They argue that these individuals often harm other marginalized people, not the powerful.

---

5. Can Labeling Theory Be Integrated with Broader Perspectives?

Yes.

Labeling theory can be combined with larger social theories to create a more complete picture of deviance and control.

Integration with Conflict Theory

Labeling theory fits naturally with Conflict Theory, which focuses on inequality and power.

Both perspectives argue that:

• Those with power decide what counts as deviant.

• Laws are unequally enforced against those with less social or economic power.

• Crime and deviance reflect broader struggles over control and status.

This overlap is most clearly seen in Neo-Marxist and Critical Criminology, which merge the structural analysis of capitalism with labeling’s focus on social meaning and identity.

This allows for an explanation that includes both structure and agency.

Integration into New Theoretical Models

Modern criminologists have built more complex frameworks that link personal identity and social structure.

• Differential Social Control (Heimer & Matsueda, 1994) integrates labeling, social learning, and role theory. It explains how social position (like class, gender, or age) influences self-identity and behavior.

• The theory sees labeling as one part of a larger process — people interpret social reactions, form self-meanings, and then act in ways that reinforce or challenge those meanings.

Combining with Environmental and Rational Choice Theories

Labeling theory looks at the internal meaning of deviance — how people define themselves.

Other theories, like Routine Activities Theory (RAT), focus on external opportunities — when and where crimes happen.

Together, these perspectives offer a fuller view: labeling explains how identity develops, while RAT explains how context and opportunity shape behavior.

Contemporary Research

Recent longitudinal studies support deviance amplification more strongly than the theory’s mixed earlier record did. The support is strongest for formal, durable labels such as a suspension, an arrest, or a criminal record.

None of it is experimental. Randomly assigning who is suspended or arrested would be unethical, so causal certainty remains out of reach.

Does School Suspension Lead to Arrest?

Mowen and Brent (2016) tested whether a school-based formal label compounds over time.

This national panel controls for prior delinquency, so it is stronger than the classic case studies. It is still observational, so unmeasured traits could explain some of the link. Selection on a fixed trait would predict a constant gap. The observed gap widens each year.

Who Bears the Label?

Pesta (2018) modeled pathways from school exclusion to dropout, delinquency, and criminal offending for White, Black, and Hispanic youth. She used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent and Adult Health.

The effect of exclusion differed significantly across ethno-racial groups. At national scale, this echoes the bias in who gets labeled that Chambliss documented in one school.

Can Employment Break the Cycle?

Denver and colleagues (2017) studied 6,648 people with criminal records. All were provisionally hired into non-licensed health-care jobs in New York State. An instrumental-variable design isolated the effect of clearance to work.

Clearance cut the likelihood of arrest by 2.2 percentage points after one year and 4.2 points over three years. The protective effect was larger for men (8.4 points over three years) than for women (2.4 points, not significant). Looking past a label can break the cycle.

---

References

• Ball, S. J. (1981). Beachside comprehensive: A case study of secondary schooling. Cambridge University Press.
• Becker, H. S. (1953). Becoming a marihuana user. American Journal of Sociology, 59(3), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1086/221326

• Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.

• Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. Routledge.

• Chambliss, W. J. (1973). The Saints and the Roughnecks. Society, 11(1), 24–31.

• Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics: The creation of the mods and rockers. MacGibbon & Kee.

• Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. Scribner’s.

• Denver, M., Siwach, G., & Bushway, S. D. (2017). A new look at the employment and recidivism relationship through the lens of a criminal background check. Criminology, 55(1), 174–204. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12130

• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Pantheon.

• Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality: Volume 1. Vintage.

• Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor.

• Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.

• Hebdige, D. (1979). Subculture: The meaning of style. Routledge.
• Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. New York University Press.
• Lea, J., & Young, J. (1984). What is to be done about law and order? Crisis in the eighties. Penguin.

• Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. McGraw-Hill.

• Lemert, E. M. (1953). An isolation and closure theory of naive check forgery. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 44(3), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.2307/1139226
• Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. Wiley.

• Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. University of Chicago Press.

• Mowen, T. J., & Brent, J. J. (2016). School discipline as a turning point: The cumulative effect of suspension on arrest. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 53(5), 628–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427816643135
• Ng, E. (2020). No grand pronouncements here…: Reflections on cancel culture and digital participation. Television & New Media, 21(6), 621–627.
• Pesta, R. (2018). Labeling and the differential impact of school discipline on negative life outcomes: Assessing ethno-racial variation in the school-to-prison pipeline. Crime & Delinquency, 64(11), 1489–1512. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717749223
• Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

• Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. Columbia University Press.

• Willis, P. (1977). Learning to labour: How working-class kids get working-class jobs. Saxon House.

Foundational Articles, Concepts, and Major Tests

• Bernburg, J. G. (2019). Labeling theory. In M. D. Krohn, N. Hendrix, G. P. Hall, & A. J. Lizotte (Eds.), Handbook on crime and deviance (2nd ed., pp. 179–196). Springer.

• Bernburg, J. G., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Labeling, life chances, and adult crime: The direct and indirect effects of official intervention in adolescence on crime in early adulthood. Criminology, 41(4), 1287–1318.

• Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67–88.

• Briar, S., & Piliavin, I. (1965). Delinquency, situational inducements, and commitment to conformity. Social Problems, 13(1), 35–45.

• Carter, M. J., & Fuller, C. (2016). Symbols, meaning, and action: The past, present, and future of symbolic interactionism. Current Sociology, 64(6), 931–961.

• Chiricos, T., Barrick, K., Bales, W., & Bontrager, S. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45(3), 547–581.

• Huizinga, D., & Henry, K. L. (2008). The effect of arrest and justice system sanctions on subsequent behavior: Findings from longitudinal and other studies. In A. M. Liberman (Ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 220–254). Springer.

• Kavish, D. R., Mullins, C. W., & Soto, D. A. (2016). Interactionist labeling: Formal and informal labeling’s effects on juvenile delinquency. Crime & Delinquency, 62(10), 1313–1336.

• Link, B. G. (1982). Mental patient status, work, and income: An examination of the effects of a psychiatric label. American Sociological Review, 47(2), 202–215.

• Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385.

• Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1577–1611.

• Paternoster, R., & Iovanni, L. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6(3), 359–394.

• Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179(4070), 250–258.

• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 609–627.

• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). A life-course theory of cumulative disadvantage and the stability of delinquency. In T. P. Thornberry (Ed.), Developmental theories of crime and delinquency (pp. 133–161). Transaction.

• Short, J. F., Jr., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1965). Group process and gang delinquency. University of Chicago Press.

• Sutherland, E. H., Cressey, D. R., & Luckenbill, D. F. (1992). Principles of criminology (11th ed.). AltaMira Press.

Policing, Domestic Violence Sanctions, and Discretion

• Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1990). The role of arrest in domestic assault: The Omaha police experiment. Criminology, 28(2), 183–204.

• Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The Minneapolis domestic violence experiment (Police Foundation Reports). Police Foundation.

• Sherman, L. W., Smith, D. A., Schmidt, J. D., & Rogan, D. P. (1992). Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 680–690.

• Worden, R. E., Shepard, R. L., & Mastrofski, S. D. (1996). On the meaning and measurement of suspects’ demeanor toward the police: A comment on “Demeanor and Arrest.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33(3), 324–332.

Life After Punishment 

• Travis, J. (2002). Beyond the prison gates: The state of parole in America. Urban Institute Press.

Cross-Cultural Evidence

• Zhang, L. (1994b). Peers’ rejection as a possible consequence of official reaction to delinquency in Chinese society. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 21(4), 387–402.

• Zhang, L., & Messner, S. F. (1994a). The severity of official punishment for delinquency and change in interpersonal relations in Chinese society. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31(4), 416–433.

Integrations & Extensions

• Heimer, K., & Matsueda, R. L. (1994). Role-taking, role commitment, and delinquency: A theory of differential social control. American Sociological Review, 59(3), 365–390.

• Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1995). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Harvard University Press.

Helpful Overviews / Texts

• Chriss, J. J. (2007). Social control: An introduction. Polity.

Further Reading

• Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American journal of sociology, 97(6), 1577-1611.
• Bernburg, J. G., Krohn, M. D., & Rivera, C. J. (2006). Official labeling, criminal embeddedness, and subsequent delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43(1), 67-88.
• Bernburg, J. G. Chapter title: Labeling and Secondary Deviance.