Talk:Labeling theory

Suggested merging with 'Labelling'
Labeling (The act of..) and Labeling theory are two entirely different discussions and in my opinion should not be merged. Also, no mention of Frank Tannenbaum (1938) and the "Dramatization of Evil" or the major works by Howard Becker (1963) which looked at the social control mechanisms? What about primary deviance vs. secondary deviance? There is a LOT omitted from Labeling Theory on here. For the record, "Crash" is not a good example of labeling theory. The study by William Chambliss called "The Saints and the Roughnecks" is a fair representation of Labeling Theory.

209.173.24.179 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Dano

I agree that 'labelling' and 'labelling theory'are different. However the current article at Labelling is mainly about labelling theory, and therefore I agree that it should be merged into this article.Rowmn 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

--

I concur, this article is incomplete without mentioning the likes of Howard Becker, Tannenbaum, and Lemert as being highly influential in the creation of this theory. In his revised edition of 'Outsiders' in 1971, Becker discusses that what people have called 'labelling theory' is nothing more than one strand of interactionist theory and this had always been the intention of his work. Becker's original book was written in 1963 and published in 1964. Yet, Tannenbaum was discussing this area of criminology in his 1938 book 'Crime and the Community'. Missing out these people is criminal in itself (pun intended). Even the likes of Braithwaite (1989) 'Crime, shame and reintegration' could be mentioned for attempting to build on the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.48.238 (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed Labelling so that it is not just about Labelling Theory. I hope that sorts out the problem. I have also made the two articles link to each other in a sensible way. Yaris678 (talk) 11:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Labeling Theory
Why is there no section discussing the various critiques of Labeling Theory? This theory is one that has been highly debated since its creation, and I find it odd that the current page makes no mention of these critiques whatsoever. Amaranth2000 (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What about adding Ethnic label?
I think it should be added, if not as a sepparate article, inside this article. Anyone thinks so? Onofre Bouvila 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be interesting to add information about how labelling applies to all groups. lolRowmn 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think Labelling theory is mostly concerned with deviant behaviour, so an ethnic label wouldn't really qualify. An exception would be something like acting white. However, labelling of ethnic groups is worth mentioning outside of this article. Perhaps you should add something to the article on labelling in general. Yaris678 (talk) 11:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

???Some offenses including the use of violence, fornication and weapons are universally recognized as wrong??? sais who???

If a soldier kills someone it is not necessarily considered as wrong, same with the use of violence by enforcement authorities and who defines what fornication is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.36.239 (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Other points
Has anyone seen the movie "Crash?" Would this be a good movie that shows the labeling theory?

If the two spellings are important enough to be mentioned in the introduction, why are they never explained? -Fsotrain09 01:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The two spellings are simply US and UK forms of 'labelling', UK with two Ls and yanks with one. As such dont require explanation.

Surprised to see no mention of or reference to Howard Becker, sometimes regarded as the father of labelling theory, or a link to his homepage . Good article, but could possibly benefit from a presentation overhaul? Keep up the good work.
 * In response to the Crash comment, probably not, the theories are a bit too sociologically complex to be accurately illustrated in such a film.


 * i think crash is an excellent way to describe the labelling theory

the OC?
removed some unnecessary references to popular tv shows. don't think anyone will miss 'em.

good status
Probably not possible to nominate since this article is still pending review for neutrality. But as a former student of this theory, I am impressed - I would call this article 70% comprehensive. Some items are missing from the general discussion - a few more basic creators (Lemert, etc) and several other popular applications. Also, the often overlooked positive impacts of labeling might need a mention. Thanks. --Spesek 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "commentary" is absolutely not NPOV. It should almost certainly be deleted. I'll wait a few days before deleting it for the "commentator" to try to turn this into NPOV.Wyote 16:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Article definitely looks different than it did when I posted last. --Spesek 05:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Labeling is a Label unto itself... an evloving study unto itself
Certainly, "Labeling" does relate to "Deviancy"; however, I would rather suggest merging the wikipedia topics "Labeling" with 'Labeling Theory," as well as "Deviant Behavior" with "Deviance (sociology)." (By the way, both wikipedia topics for "Deviancy" have poor descriptions for "labeling" as a sub-discipline.) I would also suggest that wikipedia authors consider the diverse contributions of both sociology and psychology (both social sciences, but different perspectives), let alone the history and theory behind such studies as criminology, medicine and even the anthropology of religion and personality, etc. My largest reservation, however, goes well beyond all that. Nowadays, it seems to me, that "labeling" and/ or "labeling theory" has well evolved from the sociology of deviancy and traditional psychology. Especially in modern, democratic societies, whereas "norms" are becoming highly secularized and subjective, and thus labeling has since taken on a far greater study well into its own subject and orientation, with many sub-disciplines and dealing more with the ideas of "self conception." Popular culture now understands labeling and self-conception as a behavior or social phenomenon that is free of value-judgment, whether or not that is truely a practical idea in the traditional view of "deviancy theory." Wikipedia user "Rowmn," in the above, is leading to the right idea. Studies in labeling are now quite popularly dealing with topics like ethnicity (or race), sub-culture, sexuality, gender, lifestyle, politics, etc. How any one of these groups has historically been labeled as "deviant" is often times significant from how they self-identify and/ or interact with society in today's world. This change and phenomenon in "labelling" is often a study and topic that is fascinating to people unto itself; therein including everything from etymology of the specific label's name, its like variations, to its use in oppression, its influence and development towards cultural identifiers and symbolism; and, then too, even its link to history and social movement, etc. 69.109.208.103 (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)DjZ

needs a bit of a style alteration
There are points in this article where it reads more like speculation and original research than an encyclopedia article. Examples: "Clearly, these studies and the dozens of others like them serve to demonstrate that..."; "There is extensive literature which points to..."'; "The theory was prominent in the 1960s and 1970s but is less so today...". These are statements of fact, and we usually try to provide a footnote for such statements so that the article's reader can know where the statement of fact came from. See WP:OR for details. I know this article's probably still under active development, and it looks like a great standalone article will be in this space soon. I just wanted to suggest that the active authors keep in mind that ultimately, the article will need to be neutral in tone and not present original research. Footnotes would be good too. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah it's been like this for a long time if I recall and does need sorting out. EverSince (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Becker was not first person to work on this theory, Tannenbaum was
I agree: Tannenbaum stated: „The young delinquent becomes bad because he is defined as bad.”

Frank Tannenbaum. Crime and the Community. New York and London: Columbia University Press. 1938 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.36.239 (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Added Lemert to the page.
Will also need to add Erving Goffman, another biggie. I also added the new section on homosexuality and labellingBdubay (talk) 04:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

"Boo Boo Politics"
'scuze me? I Googled the term and still don't know what the author is trying to convey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.124.237 (talk) 23:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Article is hard to understand
Can you guys simplify the language in this article? It's currently written like a scientific paper, which makes it very hard to absorb, and learn from. Remember that the point of Wikipedia articles is to inform people, and scientific language goes way in the wrong direction. I think editors feel a sense of legitimacy and validation when their writing sounds like scientific papers, but this doesn't help anybody learn anything.-- [ Dario D. ]   13:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"Ibid" references
The Ibid references seem useless. Flyer22 (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Labeling theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426080156/http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/tannenbaum.htm to http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/crimtheory/tannenbaum.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing word?
Is there a missing word after "criminal" (perhaps "acts") in the final sentence from the third paragraph?

"The label doesn't refer to criminal but rather acts that aren't socially accepted due to mental disorders."

John Link (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Crime and Media
— Assignment last updated by Dmaccartney (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)