Tertiary deviance, the third stage of labeling theory, happens when someone labeled “deviant” does more than accept or reject the label: they redefine it. Instead of feeling ashamed, they reclaim their identity and challenge what society calls “normal.” A stigmatized group can turn stigma, a negative mark, into pride.
Key Takeaways
- Reclaiming Identity: Tertiary deviance occurs when people redefine a deviant label as positive or acceptable, turning stigma into a source of pride and self-acceptance.
- Challenging Norms: It involves rejecting society’s definition of “normal” and questioning the moral rules that created the deviant label in the first place.
- Empowering Groups: Social movements – such as the gay rights or disability pride movements – illustrate how collective identity can transform shame into empowerment.
- Contrasting Stages: Unlike primary and secondary deviance, tertiary deviance focuses not on hiding or internalizing a label but on openly embracing and reframing it.
- Redefining Morality: By shifting public attitudes, tertiary deviance can lead to cultural change and broader acceptance of previously stigmatized identities.
What Is Tertiary Deviance?
Tertiary deviance is a concept from sociology that comes out of labeling theory, part of the symbolic interactionist perspective.
In simple terms, tertiary deviance happens when someone who’s been called deviant (different or “wrong” by society’s standards) decides to reject that negative label.
Instead of accepting society’s judgment, they try to redefine their behavior or identity as normal and acceptable.
The goal is not to hide their behavior or identity. It is to change how society views it.
How It Fits Into Labeling Theory
Labeling theory, developed by sociologists Edwin Lemert and John Kitsuse, suggests that deviance isn’t about what someone does, but how others react to it.
There are three main stages:
-
Primary deviance: This is the first act of rule-breaking — often small or occasional. It usually doesn’t affect how a person sees themselves. Someone might shoplift once, never get caught, and move on without thinking of themselves as a “criminal.”
-
Secondary deviance: This happens when society labels a person as deviant, and that label starts to shape their identity. The person may begin to see themselves as “bad” or “different” and live according to that label.
-
Tertiary deviance: Introduced by John Kitsuse (1980), this is when the person rejects the negative label altogether. They argue that what they do or who they are shouldn’t be seen as deviant in the first place.
Kitsuse’s Concept and Its Origins
The term comes from American sociologist John I. Kitsuse.
He introduced it in a 1980 address published as Coming Out All Over: Deviants and the Politics of Social Problems (Kitsuse, 1980).
Kitsuse noticed a pattern in the 1970s. Very different stigmatized groups were organizing in public: gay men and lesbians, sex workers, transgender people, people living with HIV, and Deaf communities.
Each built that organizing around the trait that had marked them as deviant. They asserted it as a legitimate basis for a public identity, not something to hide or apologize for.
Kitsuse saw it as political, not only psychological.
- Aim: To explain why several unrelated stigmatized groups were organizing publicly to contest their label, rather than seeking exemption or tolerance.
- Method: A conceptual, comparative analysis of gay and lesbian “coming out” politics, extended to sex workers, transgender people, people living with HIV, and Deaf communities. It used no formal dataset.
- Results: Each group became self-conscious as a group, developed a shared political voice, and asserted rather than apologized for the trait that had marked it as deviant.
- Conclusion: This pattern is a third stage beyond Lemert’s primary and secondary deviance, in which the label itself becomes the object of contestation. Kitsuse named it tertiary deviance.
Kitsuse’s analysis is conceptual, written close to the events it describes. It cannot show how common the pattern is. Its lasting contribution is the framework: privately reframing a stigma differs from publicly contesting a label’s legitimacy.
How People Redefine the Label
Two key sociological ideas explain how tertiary deviance works. In-group orientation is the collective route: a stigmatized group builds shared pride. Deviance avowal is the individual route: a person openly embraces the label. Both turn a label from something done to a person into something claimed by them.
In-Group Orientation: Turning Stigma into Pride
In-group orientation happens when members of a stigmatized group reject society’s negative judgments and create new standards that celebrate their identity.
This helps people build self-esteem and form communities that stand together against discrimination.
Examples include groups like:
-
PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)
-
The National Association of the Deaf (NAD)
-
The National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA)
These organizations encourage pride and visibility rather than shame or secrecy.
For instance, NAAFA’s public events – like the Million Pound March – promote the message that larger bodies are normal and worthy of respect.
In-group orientation works because it is collective. A community develops shared language, symbols, and public events that together assert the trait is not shameful.
It also creates an alternative reference group. People no longer measure themselves only against a public that has labeled them deviant, but also against a community that affirms them.
That is why pride events, marches, and support networks are the mechanism itself. The redefinition only works if it is asserted publicly and collectively.
Deviance Avowal: Owning the Label
Sometimes, people handle stigma in a different way by openly accepting or even embracing the deviant label.
This is called deviance avowal.
By doing this, a person can take control of how others see them and avoid feeling trapped by social expectations.
Sociologist Ralph Turner (1972) introduced the term. He saw deviance as a role a person can step into, not only a behavior that breaks a norm.
- Aim: To explain why some people who could downplay a deviant label instead adopt it, treating deviance as a role chosen strategically.
- Method: A theoretical analysis building on role theory, illustrated with cases such as recovery narratives from Alcoholics Anonymous-style accounts.
- Results: Three situations trigger avowal: a forced choice between two groups’ clashing expectations, pressure to follow an unwanted norm, and lingering commitment to a conventional value.
- Conclusion: Claiming a deviant identity can be a rational strategy for resolving conflicting pressures, not a sign of giving up on conventional norms.
A self-avowed alcoholic who avoids high-pressure workplaces, for example, uses the label to justify a choice that protects them. Turner’s framework is theoretical and illustrated with selected cases, so it interprets avowal better than it predicts it.
Deviance Avowal Example: Recovering Alcoholics
-
A recovering alcoholic might refuse to take a high-stress corporate job, saying, “That environment made me drink before.”
-
Another might skip family gatherings where alcohol is served, saying, “Everyone drinks there, and I don’t want to risk relapse.”
In both cases, the person chooses to live outside typical social norms – not because they’ve given up, but because they’re protecting themselves or finding meaning in a new identity.
This kind of “voluntary outsider” status can be a healthy form of self-acceptance.
Deviance Avowal in Subcultures
-
Punks and bikers often wear their “outsider” status with pride, using their appearance or lifestyle to show independence from mainstream society.
-
Body modification communities (like those who practice branding or extreme tattooing) turn what was once a mark of shame into a symbol of rebellion, pride, or belonging.
-
Eco-warriors or activists might lean into being called “radical,” using the label to signal moral commitment to their cause.
Examples
1. The “Fat Pride” Movement
A clear modern example comes from the body acceptance or fat pride movement, which challenges long-standing stereotypes about weight.
-
The Stigma: For decades, being overweight has been seen as a health risk and a social failing in Western culture. Overweight people often face discrimination and are labeled as deviant or unhealthy.
-
The Rejection: Members of the fat pride movement push back, arguing that society’s fear of fatness is exaggerated and harmful.
-
The Redefinition: They say, “Yes, I’m fat — but there’s nothing wrong with that.” This reflects tertiary deviance in action: rejecting stigma and reframing body size as a natural difference rather than a problem.
-
Organized Resistance: Groups like the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) promote body positivity and challenge discrimination through events like the Million Pound March. Their goal is to replace shame with pride and demand that larger bodies be treated as part of the normal human range.
2. Reclaiming the Mark of Stigma
The very word stigma has ancient roots — and its meaning has completely transformed over time.
-
The Original Meaning: In ancient Greece, a stigma was a brand or tattoo burned into the skin of criminals or slaves to mark them as shameful. It was an involuntary sign of disgrace.
-
The Modern Transformation: Today, branding and tattooing have become forms of self-expression and identity. What was once a mark of shame has become a symbol of pride or belonging.
-
In-Group Orientation in Action: Some subcultures, like African American fraternities, have adopted branding using their Greek letters as a way to show loyalty, pride, and brotherhood.
When popular athletes proudly display these marks, they turn a once-stigmatizing practice into a voluntary statement of strength and solidarity.
3. Identity Movements: From Shame to Solidarity
In-group orientation is also a key part of many social and identity movements, where people work together to challenge prejudice and affirm collective self-worth.
-
LGBTQ+ Pride: Groups such as PFLAG (Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) help people build self-esteem and fight against discrimination.
The LGBTQ+ rights movement as a whole has replaced shame with pride, rejecting heterosexism—the belief that heterosexuality is the only “normal” or acceptable identity.
Pride parades and the rainbow flag are powerful examples of reclaiming identity and celebrating diversity.
Weitz’s (1985) historical analysis traces lesbian identity shifting from quiet accommodation, such as passing as heterosexual, to an openly and sometimes defiantly asserted public identity. It is a documented case of tertiary deviance. -
Disability Rights: The disability rights movement encourages people to see disability not as a flaw, but as part of human diversity.
Many disabled people form communities, such as deaf social clubs, that create pride and belonging.
This is another example of in-group orientation—rejecting the idea that disability means inferiority and replacing it with a message of empowerment and equality.
Implications
Tertiary deviance is the final stage in the labeling process.
It happens when people who have been labeled as deviant make a conscious effort to reject that negative label and redefine their identity in a positive way.
This process doesn’t just affect individuals. It can reshape entire societies.
It influences how stigma is handled, how identities are formed, and how social change takes root.
1. How Tertiary Deviance Affects Stigma
The most direct effect of tertiary deviance is the rejection of stigma, the negative mark that society places on certain behaviors, appearances, or identities.
Challenging a “Spoiled” Identity
When someone is labeled as deviant, it can damage their self-image, creating what sociologist Erving Goffman called a “spoiled identity” (Goffman, 1963).
Tertiary deviance is a way of repairing that damage.
- Relabeling Difference as Normal: The person or group argues that their behavior or trait isn’t inherently wrong or shameful. It’s just different. By relabeling it as normal or acceptable, they push back against the idea that it deserves social rejection.
- Fighting Stigma Collectively: People facing the same stigma often come together in what’s known as in-group orientation — building communities that celebrate their shared identity and challenge prejudice.
For instance, fat acceptance groups or disability rights organizations work to replace discrimination with pride and belonging. - Showing That “Deviance” Changes Over Time: Tertiary deviance reminds us that ideas about what’s “normal” or “deviant” are socially constructed — they change depending on culture and history.
For example, in ancient times, a stigma (literally a brand burned into the skin) was a mark of shame on criminals or slaves. Today, tattoos and body branding can be symbols of pride and personal expression, showing how meanings evolve.
2. How It Shapes Identity
Tertiary deviance doesn’t just change how others see a person. It changes how that person sees themselves.
It’s about turning shame into pride and developing a stronger sense of self.
Transforming the Self
- Rebuilding Identity: Our identities are shaped by how others treat us. When people resist harmful labels, they open the door to self-discovery and new ways of being.
Tertiary deviance shows that identity isn’t fixed — it’s something people can reclaim and reshape. - Replacing Shame with Pride: Movements like civil rights and LGBTQ+ pride are classic examples of tertiary deviance in action.
They helped transform collective emotions — replacing shame with self-respect and empowerment, and promoting a sense of community pride. - Choosing Outsider Status: In some cases, people deliberately embrace the label of “outsider” instead of struggling to conform. This is known as deviance avowal — choosing to live differently on purpose.
For example, an eco-activist might proudly reject consumer culture, or a recovering alcoholic might avoid conventional workplaces to protect their health.
These choices reflect control, not defeat. They are a way of shaping identity on one’s own terms.
3. How It Drives Social Change
Tertiary deviance is also a powerful force for social change.
By challenging society’s definitions of right and wrong, individuals and groups can push cultural and legal boundaries and inspire reform.
Challenging Norms and Laws
- Testing the Boundaries of Law: Sociologist Émile Durkheim argued that deviance plays a positive role in society because it tests moral and legal limits.
When people reject an unfair label, they push society to reconsider what should count as deviant or criminal. - Creating Social Progress: Many important social changes began with acts that were once considered deviant.
For example, Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her bus seat was an act of defiance that helped spark the civil rights movement — a classic example of how challenging norms can reshape laws and values.
Similarly, movements to normalize body diversity or legalize marijuana reflect tertiary deviance pushing culture forward. - Fueling Reform Movements: Tertiary deviance often grows into organized social movements that fight for inclusion and equality — from disability rights and gay rights to fat acceptance and racial justice.
By taking pride in what society once stigmatized, these groups transform discrimination into empowerment, creating lasting cultural and institutional change.
Criticisms of Tertiary Deviance
Tertiary deviance is well-defined as the stage where a person rejects stigma and relabels their behavior as normal. Studying that process is harder. Researchers have pointed out several challenges in proving how it actually works.
These criticisms don’t usually target tertiary deviance directly, but rather the labeling theory and symbolic interactionism it’s based on.
The main issue is subjectivity. These theories focus on internal processes, such as how people see themselves or believe others see them. These are very hard to measure scientifically.
Below are the main areas where sociologists and researchers have raised concerns.
1. Difficulty Measuring Internal Identity Processes
A major criticism is that it’s hard to observe or measure the internal changes involved in tertiary deviance, such as how someone rejects stigma or reconstructs their identity.
- Problems with Measuring “Reflected Appraisals”: One key idea in labeling theory is reflected appraisals (how people think others see them), later formalized in Differential Social Control theory (Heimer & Matsueda, 1994).
Paternoster and Iovanni’s (1989) review of the evidence found that these appraisals did not predict reoffending (recidivism) among adult offenders.
This weak relationship suggests that the symbolic processes thought to shape identity, such as rejecting a deviant label, might not reliably explain future behavior. - Unclear and Weak Constructs: Other symbolic measures — like how much disapproval a person expects from family or friends — have also been found unrelated to delinquency or reoffending.
Researchers argue that these ideas are poorly defined and hard to measure, leading to inconsistent or invalid results. - Need for Qualitative Research: Some scholars suggest that using qualitative methods (like interviews or case studies) could provide deeper insights into these inner identity processes.
These methods might help reveal how people actually reinterpret labels and manage stigma in their daily lives.
2. Questions About Human Agency and Habitual Behavior
Tertiary deviance assumes that people consciously choose to reject stigma and redefine their identity.
However, this emphasis on personal choice or agency raises questions about those whose deviant behavior has become habitual or automatic.
- Habit vs. Reflection: Research on chronic offenders shows that much criminal behavior happens out of habit, not conscious decision-making. People may act without reflecting on their social identity or how others see them.
This creates a problem: if deviance is automatic, how can the same individual engage in the deliberate, thoughtful process of re-labeling themselves, as tertiary deviance suggests? - Weak Connection to Identity Change: Even when people reflect on how society views them, studies found little evidence that these reflections reliably influence behavior.
This challenges the idea that identity transformation (central to tertiary deviance) drives real-world change.
3. Neglect of the Causes of Deviance
Labeling theory, and by extension tertiary deviance, has a long-standing weakness. It focuses too much on reaction and identity, rather than on why deviance happens in the first place.
- Ignoring Primary Deviance: Labeling theory explains what happens after someone is labeled deviant, but it says little about what causes the original behavior (called primary deviance).
In this sense, tertiary deviance—focused on what happens after stigma – shares the same limitation. It looks at responses to deviance, not its origins.
4. Overly Narrow Focus on Stigma Management
Finally, critics argue that symbolic interactionism (the perspective behind tertiary deviance) looks too closely at individual interactions and meanings, while neglecting the bigger social structures that influence people’s lives.
- Overlooking Structural Barriers: Tertiary deviance describes how individuals try to redefine themselves as normal, but it doesn’t always account for the wider forces – like class, race, gender, or institutional discrimination – that may make it harder for some people to gain social acceptance, no matter how they see themselves.
5. Identity Redefinition Is Not a Stable Achievement
Summaries often treat tertiary deviance as a fixed endpoint: a group achieves pride and the story ends. Sorensen and Siemsen’s (2006) analysis of the GLBTQ movement complicates that picture.
- Aim: To ask whether a movement’s identity politics stay stable once tertiary deviance is achieved, or pass through further change.
- Method: A documentary and historical case analysis of the GLBTQ movement’s public identity politics over several decades.
- Results: The movement passed through radicalization, fragmentation over who the identity includes, and re-assimilation with mainstream institutions. Disputes arose over including bisexual and transgender people, and over race, class, and gender.
- Conclusion: Collective identity redefinition is a dynamic process that restructures over time, with internal dissent along the way, rather than one stable end state.
Any claim that a group has “achieved” tertiary deviance should therefore name a particular moment in a trajectory that may be ongoing and reversible.
As a single-movement case study, the analysis cannot show whether the same sequence holds for other groups.
Contemporary Research
Research since 2015 asks whether redefining a stigmatized identity as positive is protective, and how that message travels. Three strands stand out: a quantitative test of the mechanism, qualitative accounts of the process, and studies of public reception.
Disability Pride and Self-Esteem
- Aim: To test whether disability pride protects self-esteem against stigma, following the rejection-identification model. That model proposes that strong in-group identification buffers the harm of stigma.
- Method: An online survey of 1,105 adults, 710 of whom reported a health condition or impairment. Participants rated their experienced stigma, disability pride, and self-esteem, allowing a mediation test.
- Results: Greater stigma was linked to greater disability pride, which was linked to higher self-esteem, so pride partly mediated the link between stigma and self-esteem. Only about 12% of participants with a condition identified as disabled.
- Conclusion: Claiming a positive disability identity, rather than distancing from the label, appears to protect against the psychological harm of stigma.
Bogart et al. (2018) used a large sample and a formal mediation model. That makes this stronger evidence than the conceptual and historical work behind the theory.
It is still a single cross-sectional survey, so causal direction is uncertain. People with higher self-esteem may simply report more pride.
Autistic Identity and Community
Botha, Dibb, and Frost (2020) interviewed autistic adults in depth about how they made sense of autism and the stigma attached to it.
Many reframed autism through the neurodiversity movement, seeing it as natural human variation rather than a disorder. This reframing was often tied to finding an autistic community, which echoes in-group orientation.
Interviews cannot show how common this reframing is. They are better than a survey at showing how people actually do the interpretive work.
How the Public Receives the Message
VanDaalen et al. (2025) analyzed open-ended responses from 99 adults about the neurodiversity movement. Most approved of its broad goals, including acceptance, a diversity framework, and expanded opportunity for neurodivergent people. Many also offered critiques, and lay interpretations often differed from advocates’ own definitions.
The lesson is cautionary. A group’s internal success at redefining its identity does not guarantee that the wider public receives the message as intended.
None of this research is experimental, since nobody can ethically randomize who experiences stigma. Observational and qualitative designs remain the best available evidence, so claims about how reliably tertiary deviance works should be held with caution.
References
Bogart, K. R., Lund, E. M., & Rottenstein, A. (2018). Disability pride protects self-esteem through the rejection-identification model. Rehabilitation Psychology, 63(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000166
Botha, M., Dibb, B., & Frost, D. M. (2020). “Autism is me”: An investigation of how autistic individuals make sense of autism and stigma. Disability & Society, 37(3), 427–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2020.1822782
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095939
Kitsuse, J. I. (1980). Coming out all over: Deviants and the politics of social problems. Social Problems, 28(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.2307/800377
Lemert, E. (1951). Primary and secondary deviation. Crime. Critical concepts in sociology, 3, 603-607.
Lemert, E. M. (1967). Human deviance, social problems, and social control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall.
Martino, L. (2017). Concepts of primary and secondary deviance.
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418828900090261
Rosenberg, M. J. (2010). Lemert, Edwin M.: Primary and secondary deviance. Encyclopedia of criminological theory, 551-553.
Sorensen, A. M., & Siemsen, C. (2006). Identity radicalization, fragmentation and re-assimilation: An analysis of the GLBTQ movement. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 4(4), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.32398/cjhp.v4i4.1986
Turner, R. H. (1972). Deviance avowal as neutralization of commitment. Social Problems, 19(3), 308–321. https://doi.org/10.2307/799732
VanDaalen, R. A., Vallefuoco, A. A., Fernandez, M. L., Liu, S. Y., & Lemaire, C. J. A. (2025). Public perceptions of the neurodiversity movement: A thematic analysis. Neurodiversity, 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/27546330251325973
Weitz, R. (1985). From accommodation to rebellion: Tertiary deviance and the radical redefinition of lesbianism. In J. Kitsuse & J. Schneider (Eds.), Studies in the sociology of social problems (pp. 140–161). Ablex.
