Labeling theory

Labeling theory (or social reaction theory) is concerned with how the self-identity and behavior of an individual is influenced (or created) by how that individual is categorized and described by others in their society. Originating in sociology and criminology, the theory focuses on the linguistic tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from norms, and is associated with the concept of a self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping. The theory was prominent in the 1960s and 1970s but is less so today, although a common usage rejects an unwanted descriptor or categorization (including terms related to deviance, disability or a diagnosis of mental illness) as being a label, often with attempts to adopt a more constructive language in its place.

Discussion
As an application of phenomenology, the theory hypothesizes that the labels applied to individuals influence their behavior, particularly the application of negative or stigmatizing labels (such as "criminal" or "felon") promote deviant behavior, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. an individual who is labeled has little choice but to conform to the essential meaning of that judgment. Consequently, labeling theory postulates that it is possible to prevent social deviance via a limited social shaming reaction in "labelers" and replacing moral indignation with tolerance. Emphasis is placed on the rehabilitation of offenders through an alteration of their label(s). Related prevention policies include client empowerment schemes, mediation and conciliation, victim-offender forgiveness ceremonies, restitution, reparation, and alternatives to prison programs involving diversion. Labeling theory has been accused of promoting impractical policy implications, and criticized for failing to explain society's most serious offenses.

Social construction
As a contributor to American Pragmatism and later a member of the Chicago School, George Herbert Mead posited that the self is socially constructed and reconstructed through the interactions which each person has with the community. Each individual is aware of how they are judged by others because he or she has attempted many different roles and functions in social interactions and has been able to gauge the reactions of those present. This builds a subjective conception of the self, but as others intrude into the reality of that individual's life, this represents objective data which may require a re-evaluation of that conception depending on the authoritativeness of the others' judgment. Family and friends may judge differently from random strangers. More socially representative individuals such as police officers or judges may be able to make more globally respected judgments. If deviance is a failure to conform to the rules observed by most of the group, the reaction of the group is to label the person as having offended against their social or moral norms of behavior. This is the power of the group: to designate breaches of their rules as deviant and to treat the person differently depending on the seriousness of the breach. The more differential the treatment, the more the individual's self-image is affected.

Whether a breach of a given rule will be stigmatized as "boo boo politics" will depend on the significance of the moral or other tenet it represents. For example, adultery may be considered a breach of an informal rule or it may be criminalized depending on the status of marriage, morality, and religion within the community. In most Western countries, adultery is not a crime. Attaching the label "adulterer" may have some unfortunate consequences but they are not generally severe. But in some Islamic countries, zina is a crime and proof of extramarital activity may lead to severe consequences for all concerned.

There are also problems with stereotypes. The breach of a rule may be treated differently depending on personal factors such as the age, gender, race, etc. of the rule-breaker, or there may be relevant structural factors such as the offender's social class, the neighborhood where the offense took place, the time of day or night, etc.

Labeling theory and mental illness
Labeling theory has also been applied to the mentally ill. This was first done in 1966 when Thomas Scheff published Being Mentally Ill. Scheff challenged common perceptions of mental illness by claiming that mental illness is manifested solely as a result of societal influence. He argued that society views certain actions as deviant and, in order to come to terms with and understand these actions, often places the label of mental illness on those who exhibit them. Certain expectations are then placed on these individuals and, over time, they unconsciously change their behavior to fulfill them. Criteria for different mental illnesses are not consistently filled by those who are diagnosed with them because all of these people suffer from the same disorder, they are simply fulfilled because the “mentally ill” believe they are supposed to act a certain way so, over time, come to do so. Scheff’s theory has had many critics, most notably Walter Gove. Gove has consistently argued an almost opposite theory; he believes that society has no influence at all on mental illness. Instead, any societal perceptions of the mentally ill come about as a direct result of these people’s behaviors. In Gove’s view, the mentally ill behave unnaturally a lot of the time because of their disorders, so we treat them differently. Most sociologists’ views of labeling and mental illness fall somewhere between the extremes of Gove and Scheff. Especially considering recent research on the biological roots of manic depression and schizophrenia, it is difficult to believe that mental illness is always a result of society. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to deny, given both common sense and research findings, that society’s negative perceptions of “crazy” people has had some effect on them. It seems that, realistically, labeling can accentuate and prolong mental illness, but it is rarely the full cause of symptoms. Bruce G. Link and his colleagues have conducted several studies which point to the influence that labeling can have on mental patients. Through these studies, which took place in 1987, 1989, and 1997, Link has demonstrated that expectations of labeling can have a large negative effect on the mentally ill, that these expectations often cause patients to withdraw from society, and that the mentally ill are constantly being rejected from society in seemingly minor ways but that, when taken as a whole, all of these small slights can drastically alter their self concepts. It is obvious that the mentally ill both anticipate and perceive negative societal reactions to them, and that this can potentially damage their quality of life. Many other studies have been conducted in this general vein. To provide a few examples, several studies have indicated that most people associate being labeled mentally ill as being just as, or even more, stigmatizing than being seen as a drug addict, ex-convict, or prostitute (for example: Brand & Claiborn 1976). Additionally, Page’s 1977 study found that self declared “ex-mental patients” are much less likely to be offered apartment leases or hired for jobs. Clearly, these studies and the dozens of others like them serve to demonstrate that labeling can have a very real and very large effect on the mentally ill. None of these studies, nor any other published ones, however, prove that labeling is the sole cause of any symptoms of mental illness. Unlike when applied to the criminal world, the label of “mentally ill” can sometimes have a positive effect on the person who receives it. Once a person is labeled, he or she knows to seek the correct help. There is extensive literature which points to the effectiveness of psychotherapy, a strategy that is utilized in most diagnoses (for example: Smith, Glass, & Miller 1980). Being diagnosed also usually means being prescribed with medication. This, while not helpful for everyone, has been shown to significantly improve the quality of life for many (Davis 1975, Clomipramine Collaborative Study Group 1991). Labels, while they can be stigmatizing, can also lead those who bear them down the road to proper treatment and (hopefully) recovery. If the label of mental illness did not exist, then treatment for it would never have existed either. If one believes that being mentally ill is more than just believing one should fulfill a set of diagnostic criteria (as Scheff – see above – would argue), then one would probably also agree that those who are mentally ill need help. This could never happen if we did not have a way to categorize (and therefore label) them.

Social construction of mental illness and the labeling process in mass media
The social construction of deviant behavior plays an important role in the labeling process that occurs in society. This process involves not only the labeling of criminally deviant behavior, which is behavior that does not fit socially constructed norms, but also labeling that which reflects stereotyped or stigmatized behavior of the mentally ill. Peggy Thoits discusses the process of labeling someone with a mental illness in her article, “Sociological Approaches to Mental Illness.” Working off of Thomas Scheff’s (1966) theory, Thoits claims that people who are labeled as mentally ill are stereotypically portrayed as unpredictable, dangerous, and unable to care for themselves. She also claims that “people who are labeled as deviant and treated as deviant become deviant,” (Thoits 1999: 134). This statement can be broken down into two processes, one that involves the effects of self-labeling and the other differential treatment from society based on the individual’s label. Therefore, if society sees mentally ill individuals as unpredictable, dangerous and reliant on others, then a person who may not actually be mentally ill but has been labeled as such, could become mentally ill.'''

Commentary
Some offenses including the use of violence are universally recognized as wrong. Hence, labeling either habitual criminals or those who have caused serious harm as "criminals" is not constructive. Society may use more specific labels such as "murderer" or "rapist" or "child abuser" to demonstrate more clearly after the event the extent of its disapproval, but there is a slightly mechanical determinism in asserting that the application of a label will invariably modify the behavior of the one labeled. Further, if one of the functions of the penal system is to reduce recidivism, applying a long-term label may cause prejudice against the offender, resulting in the inability to maintain employment and social relationships.

External link
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. George Herbert Mead.