Howard Becker and the term moral entrepreneur

Howard Becker and the term moral entrepreneurHoward Becker is hailed as the beer of modern labeling theory. He as well developed the term moral entrepreneur to take out or sobodys in power who campaign to deport certain unnatural demeanour outlawed (Becker, 1963). He claims that numerous laws argon established for such purposes, and that behaviour that is communication channeld as unlawful is dynamic and changes byout succession. Therefore, the motivateual flagitious deportment is irrelevant to the theory. What re anyy matters is which outlaws be arrested and played by the bend justice system (Becker, 1963). As a result of the belief that face-to-face and societal f pseuds do not contribute to motivations for sinful mien there has been little consider of the twist him/her egotism-grandness and the aforesaid f pieceors. As single office expect, this aspect of Labeling Theory is still being debated. There is sensation ejection to this belief, however mos t labeling theorists claim that the system is biased toward the lower class, which constitutes the overpower absolute majority of arrests and convictions within the the Statesn criminal justice system (Wellford, 1975).This Labeling Theory, found inOutsiders Studies in the Sociology of Deviance(1963), is perhaps his most all-important(prenominal) and important contribution to sociology. Influenced by Cooleyslooking-glass self, Meads theories on the internalization of the self, and Lemerts mixer constructionism, Becker condones that deflexion is base on the counterbalanceions and responses of others to an undivideds phone numbers. The label of pervert is apply to an individual when others observe their doings and react to it by labeling that person as deviant. No situation act is inherently deviant until a radical with socially powerful stat affairs or positions label it as such (Becker, 1963). This theoretical move up to distortion has influenced criminology, gender, sexual activity and identity look.This dress became the manifesto of the labeling theory movement among sociologists. In his opening, Becker writessocial groups create deviance by devising find oneselfs whose infraction creates deviance, and by applying those roles to particular large number and labeling them as outlanders. From this point of view, deviance isnota shade of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the covering by other of rules and sanctions to an offender. The deviant is one to whom that label has been succeederfully employ deviant manner is behavior that people so label.8While conjunction uses the stigmatic label to justify its condemnation, the deviant actor uses it to justify his actions. He wrote To put a complex argument in a a couple of(prenominal) words instead of the deviant motives leading to the deviant behavior, it is the other counseling around, the deviant behavior in time produces the deviant motivation.9INFLUENCESBeckers theory evolved during a period of social and political power struggle that was amplified within the arena of the college campus (Pfohl 1994). Liberal political movements were embraced by many a(prenominal) of the college students and faculty in America (Pfohl 1994). Howard Becker harnessed this liberal influence and adjusted Lemerts labeling theory and its symbolic fundamental interaction theoretical background. The labeling theory outlined in Outsiders is recognized as the rife social reaction feeler by Lemert as well as most other sociologists (www.sonoma.edu ). Beckers appeal has its roots in the symbolic interaction infan settle of Cooley and Mead, and the labeling influences of Tannenbaum and Lemert.Charles CooleysHuman Nature and the well-disposed Order(1902) examines the personal knowledge of oneself through studies of children and their imaginary number friends. Cooley develops the theoretical concept of the looking glass self, a type of imaginary sociability (Co oley 1902). People imagine the view of themselves through the eyes of others in their social circles and form judgements of themselves based on these imaginary observations (Cooley 1902). The main idea of the looking glass self is that people define themselves according to societys perception of them (www.d.umn.edu). Cooleys ideas, coupled with the works of Mead, are very important to labeling theory and its approach to a persons bringance of labels as given by society.George Meads theory is less concerned with the micro-level focus on the deviant and to a greater extent concerned with the macro-level do work of separating the conventional and the condemned (Pfohl 1994). InMind, Self, and Society(1934), Mead describes the perception of self as formed within the context of social process (Wright 1984). The self is the convergence of the psyches perception of social symbols and interactions (www.d.umn.edu). The self exists in objective realism and is then internalized into the conscious (Wright 1984). The idea of shifting the focus a elan from the individual deviant and looking at how social structure affects the separation of those persons considered original has a great influence on how Becker approaches labeling theory.Social Pathology(1951) outlines Edwin Lemerts approach to what many consider the original version of labeling theory. Lemert, unhappy with theories that take the concept of deviance for granted, focuses on the social construction of deviance (Lemert 1951). Lemert (1951) describes deviance as the product societys reaction to an act and the affixing of a deviant label on the actor.Social Pathologydetails the concepts of direct and secondary deviance. fit to Lemert (1951), primary deviance is the sign incidence of an act causing an authority figure to label the actor deviant. This initial labeling of a deviant act leave alone remain primary as long as the actor fag rationalize or deal with the process as a function of a socially ind uce qualified role (Lemert 1951). If the labeled deviant reacts to this process by pass judgment the deviant label, and further entrenches his/herself in deviant behavior, this is referred to as secondary deviance (Lemert 1951). Lemert considers the causes of primary deviance as fluid, and only important to questioners concerned with unique(predicate) social problems at a certain time. In the years by-lineSocial Pathology, Lemert argues for the decriminalization of victimless crimes, advocates pre-trial diversion programs, and has backed away labeling determinism (Wright 1984).BECKERS LABELLING THEORYHoward Beckers approach to the labeling of deviance, as described inOutsiders Studies in the Sociology of Deviance(1963), views deviance as the creation of social groups and not the quality of roughly act or behavior. Becker (1963) criticizes other theories of deviance for accepting the existence of deviance and by doing so, accept the values of the majority within the social group . accord to Becker (1963), studying the act of the individual is unimportant because deviance is simply rule breaking behavior that is labeled deviant by persons in positions of power. The rule breaking behavior is constant, the labeling of the behavior varies (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) describes rules as the reflection of certain social norms held by the majority of a society, whether formal or informal. Enforced rules, the focus of Beckers (1963) approach, are applied differentially and usually facilitate certain favorable consequences for those who apply the label. In short, members of the rule-making society whitethorn label rule breaking behavior deviant depending on the degree of reaction over time (Becker 1963).Becker (1963) views those people that are likely to restrict in rule breaking behavior as essentially different than members of the rule-making or rule-abiding society. Those persons who are inclined to rule-breaking behavior view themselves as morally at odds w ith those members of the rule-abiding society (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) uses the term after-school(prenominal)r to describe a labeled rule-breaker or deviant that accepts the label attached to them and view themselves as different from mainstream society. Deviants may consider themselves more outside than others similarly labeled (Becker 1963). Deviant outsiders might view those rule making or abiding members of society as being the outsiders of their social group (Becker 1963).The final step in the creation of a career woebegone involves the movement of a rule breaker into a deviant subculture (Becker 1963). The sleeper of the labeled deviant with an organized provides the person with moral support and a self-justifying rationale (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) describes how those involved in an organized crime may observe new forms of deviance through differential association.Becker (1963) also focuses on those in positions of power and authority that make and enforce the rule s. Rules are created by a moral entrepreneur, a person that takes the initiative to crusade for a rule that would right a society evil (Becker 1963). The moral entrepreneurs motive may be to elevate the social precondition of those members of society below him/her (Becker 1963). The success of the crusade may lead to the entrepreneur to become a passe-partout rule creator (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) states that the success of each moral crusade brings on with it a new group of outsiders, and a new responsibility of an enforcement agency.According to Becker (1963), the enforcement of societys rules is an enterprising act. The enforcement of a rule occurs when those that want a rule enforced, usually to some sort of shape up to their personal interests, bring the rule infraction to the attention of the public (Becker 1963). The rule infraction, brought to the attention of those in positions of authority, is dealt with punitively by the entrepreneur (Becker 1963). The enforcement of the rule may involve the mediation of conflicts amid many different interest groups by those in positions of power (Becker 1963). The hatchet mans themselves may grant a moral crusade to stop crime, but most engage in the process strictly as a part of their stock (Becker 1963). Rule enforcers use the process of formal enforcement to satisfy two major interests, the justification of their occupation and the winning of respect from the people he/she patrols (Becker 1963). The enforcer is armed with a great deal of discretion and may use his/her power to label an innocent person in order to name respect (Becker 1963). The misuse of labeling powers by enforcers may create a deviant out of a person who otherwise would not be prone to rule breaking behavior (Becker 1963).Beckers work pays particular attention to the way society reacts to people with criminal labels. He proposes that this label becomes a persons keep in line status, meaning that this is a constant label, affecting and over-riding how others leave behind view them. The status people use to identify and classify a person testament always be that of a criminal. Any other statuses a person occupies are no longer heeded. A person could be a parent,employee, spouse, etc., but the first and major status that will come to mind to other people and themselves is that of the criminal (Becker, 1963).BeckersOutsiders(1963) uses two cases to illustrate his approach to labeling theory. Becker (1963) crushs the muniment of hemp laws in the United States and how individuals progress into the recreational use of the drug. Becker (1963) chooses to analyze marijuana because the progression of use can be observed. The first time user of marijuana finds the experience as somewhat unpleasant, but as the user imitates peers he/she learns to perceive the effects of marijuana as pleasurable (Becker 1963).Becker (1963) identifies three stages of marijuana use the beginner, the occasional user, and the regular us er. The three obvious categories of marijuana users can be manipulated through the use of social pick ups (Becker 1963). keep back of the marijuana supply has both positive and negative effects (Becker 1963). A diminished supply of marijuana may lead to a rock-bottom use of the drug among some people, but it may also fuck off a user to associate with an organized group of deviants to obtain marijuana (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) commits that part control of marijuana supply is an important social control, it does not deter use. The best way to deter a user is to control his/her individual moral view of marijuana use.A marihuana user is labelled to be deviant as it contravenes the rules and norms of the society. Becker researched on marihuana users and use it in supporting hislabelling theory. Becker notes that this deviant behaviour is based on the given mannikin of behaviour as an end product of a sequence of social experiences during which the person acquires a comprehensi on of the meaning of the behaviour, the perceptions and judgements of objects and situations, all of which makes the activity possible and desirable. An individual will only be able to use marihuana for pleasure if he goes through a process of learning to conceive of it as an object where he is able to sleep together the effects and connect them with drug use to inhale in a way that produce real upshot and learning to enjoy the sense datum he comprehends. Once the ability to achieve enjoyment is acquired, he will continue to use it. (continuing usage of the marihuana is the secondary deviant) Considerations of morality and appropriateness, occasioned by the rejoinder of society, may hamper and impede use, but use persists to be a possibility in terms of the notion of the drug. The act will only be impossible when the ability to achieve the enjoyment is vanished, through a revolutionize of users conception of the drug occasioned by certain kind of experience with it.Becker (1963) u ses a participant observation study of the lives of Chicago spring participants to illustrate the social intent of a deviant subculture. Although dance musicians as a group are law-abiding, their unconventional lifestyles lead them to feel as outsiders (Becker 1963). Becker (1963) describes how being a dance musician involves a change in attitudes and opinions in order to conform to the subculture. The culture of the dance musician is bass in its own language and gestures (Becker 1963). legion(predicate) of the dance musicians live a conventional family life during the day and change into their role as musician at night (Becker 1963).Another aspect of labelling theory in which Becker outlines as problematic, is the concept of morality. He questions a situation where the researchers sympathies should lie. He contemplates on whether one should side with the underdog or simply judge criminal behaviour as inherently wrong? He stresses the sociological difficulty of this decision. H e claims that the researcher, whether winning either side, will be accused of taking a aslant and distorted view, but how is it possible to see the situation from both sides at the same time (Becker, 1963)? Despite many contributions, the evaluation of labelling theorists is normally considered with an excessive amount of review.Becker concludesOutsiders(1963) by emphasizing the need for empirical research of his approach to labeling theory. Social scientists produced a vast amount of literature in response to Beckers request. Much of the research involving labeling theory directly reflects Beckers approach, while others use Becker (1963) as a foundation for theory development.APPLICATIONGideon Fishman tests Beckers labeling theory by studying a sample of midwestern juvenile delinquents (Friday and Stewart 1977). Fishmans research design measures negative self-perception and whether this self-perception affects future crime (Friday and Stewart 1977). The results of Fishmans st udy show that secondary deviance is not universal and individuals react to deviant labels in different ways (Friday and Stewart 1977).A touristed occupation of Beckers labeling theory (1963) is in the area of mental health. Thomas Scheff embraces Beckers approach to labeling and describes how people are labeled mentally ill in order to condone certain rule-breaking behavior that society cant categorize (Holstein 1993www.sscf.ucsb.edu). Scheff is not concerned with occasional acts of deviance, rather it is the residual or episodic deviance that much falls under the label of mental illness (Wright 1984 Pfohl 1994). People labeled as mentally ill adopt the behaviors of the stereotypical mental patient of as portrayed through the mass media (Wright 1984). Scheff argues that those who express the stereotypical behavior of the mentally ill are rewarded by enterprising psychology professionals (Wright 1984 Pfohl 1994). According to Scheff, everybody expresses the popular symptoms of m ental illness at some point in their life and labels are attached to those without power (Wright 1984). Scheff provides empirical evidence in the form of some(prenominal) studies of the process of mental hospital commitment (Holstein 1993 Pfohl 1994 Wright 1983www.sscf.ucsb.edu).Many social scientists challenge Scheffs arguments on theoretical and empirical grounds. James A. Holstein (1993) attacks Scheffs approach for focusing on the deviant and not the moral entrepreneurs that attach the labels. Florence Ridlon (1988) criticizes Scheffs work for being deterministic and argues for a less causative model to explain mental afflictions such as alcoholism. Walter Gove (1980), an adamant critic of Scheff, believes that Scheff should not toss the influence of psychopathological variables on mental illness. Gove (1980) also criticizes Scheffs empirical methodological analysis and operations.Edwin Schur modifies Beckers labeling theory inLabeling Deviant Behavior(1971) by shifting some of the focus to the individual deviant. Schur (1971) also theorizes that as persons labeled deviant gain power and organize, they progress in social definition from an uprising, social movement, and genteel war to the formation of a mainstream political party. Schur argues inLabeling Women Deviant(1983) that women in America are automatically labeled deviant by the male-dominated society. Women accept the deviant label as their scale status and limit their life chances (Schur 1983).CRITICISMSBeckers theory of labeling, while maintaining a great deal of popularity today, does encounter several criticisms (Pfohl 1994www.mpcc.cc.ne.us Ridlon 1988). Many sociologists view labeling theory as untestable and, by definition, not a true theory (Ridlon 1988). Becker (1963) acknowledges that his labeling theory is a theoretical approach, not a true theory, and that sociologists should attempt to establish empirical tests for his approach. Another major criticism of labeling theory is its fai lure to explain primary deviance (www.mpcc.cc.ne.us). Both Lemert (1951) and Becker (1963) believe that primary deviance is influenced by many different and changing variables and the research of primary deviance causes is futile. Pfohl (1994) details the criticism of many sociologists that labeling theory is causal or deterministic. Becker (1963) qualifies his approach to social reaction theory by stating that some groups of rule-breakers may be able to choose alternative courses of action.Beckers immensely popular views were also subjected to a barrage of criticism, most of it blaming him for neglecting the influence of other biological, contractable effects and personal responsibility. In a later 1973 edition of his work, he get alonged his critics. He wrote that while sociologists, while dedicated to studying society, are often careful not to look too closely. Instead, he wrote I choose to think of what we study ascollective action.People act, as Mead and Blumer have made cle arest,together. They do what they do with an eye on what others have done, are doing now, and may do in the future. One tries to fit his own line of action into the actions of others, just as each of them likewise adjusts his own growing actions to what he sees and expects others to do.10Francis Cullen reported in 1984 that Becker was probably too generous with his critics. by and by 20 years, his views, far from being supplanted, have been corrected and absorbed into an expand structuring perspective.11From a logical standpoint there are flaws within the main points of labeling theory. Initially the theory states that no acts are inherently criminal (Wellford, 1975). center that acts are only criminal when society has deemed them as such. The implications of this being that criminal law is dynamic and ever-changing, differing from society to society. But if this is true then wherefore are certain acts illegal within the majority of the civilized homo? Murder, rape, arson, arme d robbery. All these are considered crimes in any society or country one could care to name.Also the theory claims that for a criminal to be successfully labeled an audience must be make up to provide a reaction to the crimes pull. Does this mean that if a murder is committed where the killer has successfully avoided anyones suspicion that the act is then not criminal and the killer will not think of him/herself as such? Its probable that the murderers socialization and/or value system could initialize self-labeling, but the theory distinctly states the labeling must come from a 3rd party (Hagan, 1973).For the stake of argument, if self labeling is possible and a person has obtained a self-initialized criminal master status/label, how do they react to it? Do they become criminals or try to rationalize as stated by Foster, Dinitz, and Reckless (Foster Dinitz Reckless, 1972)?Beckerslabelling theoryhas also drawn to a considerable criticism. One of such is that hislabelling theo ryfailed to answer the etiological question aboutprimary deviance, for example What causes deviance? scallywag Gibbspointed out that the theory failed to provide ample answers to three etiological questions wherefore does the prevalence of a particular act vary from one cosmos to the next? Why do some persons commit the act while others do not? Why is the act in question considered deviant and criminal in some societies but not in others? This clearly shows thatlabelling theoryis unblemished humanistic-antideterministic or voluntaristic hypothesis only . Then again, late activists of the theory beginning to shift thelabelling theoryinto a more scientific, deterministic one, and this approach is apparent in empirical studies of thesecondary deviance. Instead of describing the process of interaction between labellers and the labelled that leads tosecondary deviance, these revisionists defined, operationalised or measure labelling as a causal variable of secondary deviation.CONCLUS IONSocial scientists protest on the future of labeling theory. Pfohl (1994) recognizes labeling theory as very influential in todays studies of deviance. Some social scientists view labeling theory as declining in importance due to lack of empirical support and a conservative political climate (www.mpcc.cc.ne.us). Becker (1963) believes the future of labeling theory lies in the widespread empirical study of deviance and kinds of deviance.Beckers analysis gives us a dynamic account of how a person can be funneled into a deviant career by labeling processes. This is also a compellingly humanistic theory of deviance. We can identify and empathise with the deviant who has been the victim of labeling processes, even to the extent of realizing that it could happen to any of us. In this and many other respects, Beckers micro-relativistic approach to deviance theory contrasts markedly with prescriptive theories that emphasize in a detached, objective way the fundamental differences betwee n deviants and nondeviants. If Becker makes us understand thehumanimplications of reactions to deviance, then he has accomplished one of his major theoretical goals.In attempting to evaluate the contribution of the labelling theorists to the study of the sociology of deviance, it can be said that it depends on how the theory is viewed. If the theory is considered as a theory, with all the achievements and obligations that go with the title, then its flaws are many. Yet if, as partisan suggests, we attempt to consider the theory as it were intended, that is, as a mere way of looking at deviance, then the contribution can be said to be weighty, as it opened up a full new study of the individual after he has committed an act of deviance. At this point it must be mentioned that labelling theorists do not precisely consider the after-effects of the deviant act, as it is sometimes suggested. Becker, for example, considers the individual and how he begins to crazyweed marijuana. As Sch ur sums up, labelling theory is not a revolutionary new approach to the analysis of social problems but rather a recording or emphasis of such analysis, a reordering that may help us to view deviance and control in a realistic, comprehensive, and sociologically meaning(prenominal) light. As such, one can conclude that labelling theory continues in its usefulness, as long as deviant behaviour continues to exist.