ABSTRACT
Labelling theories have their foundations in the various concepts and insights provided by interactionism, phenomenology and ethnomethodology – which we encountered above – and focus on three central concerns. First, there is a consideration of why and how it is that some acts come to be defi ned as deviant or criminal while others do not. Thus, to this end, there is an examination of legal codes and practices, and the social and professional interest groups that shape the criminal law. Second, it is recognized that certain people and groups are more likely to attract deviant, criminal and stigmatizing labels than others. There is thus an examination of the differential applications of laws and labels by the various social control agencies and the relationship of this to organizational context. Unfortunately, these early, well-known and highly infl uential labelling theorists – with the limited exception of Becker (1963), Kitsuse (1962), Piliavin and Briar (1964) and Cicourel (1968) – did not address these concerns as thoroughly as they might have done, although they contributed signifi cantly to the development of the radical criminology discussed in the following chapter, while the later far less well-known and signifi cantly less infl uential labelling theorists such as Hartjen (1974), Ditton (1979) and Arvanites (1992) focus very much on the issue of state power. Most of the energy of the most active phase of the highly infl uential earlier labelling theory was nevertheless directed towards the third concern that assesses the experience of being labelled for the recipients of the label. We will consider each of these concerns in turn.
