29 Chapter 8 – Labeling Theory
Learning Objectives
This chapter explores how cultural criminology challenges traditional ideas about crime, media, and representation. You are challenged to think critically about how late modern society shapes and is shaped by images of crime by:
- Explain how cultural criminology builds on earlier theories like subcultural theory, labeling theory, and moral panic theory.
- Describe the relationship between violence, capitalism, and popular culture through examples like violent video games and reality TV policing programs.
- Identify how “media loops” and “spirals” disrupt the traditional distinction between reality and representation.
- Analyze how moral panics have evolved into ongoing, sustained spirals in late modern society.
- Discuss how crime, control, and culture intersect in the construction of media-driven narratives about deviance.
In 2013, Rockstar Games released Grand Theft Auto V, a video game that quickly broke sales records and sparked controversy for its graphic depictions of crime, violence, and deviance. Some hailed it as a cutting-edge work of interactive entertainment. Others condemned it as a cultural threat, blaming it for promoting aggression, moral decay, and even real-world criminal behavior. Once again, debates erupted: Do violent video games cause real violence? Are young players being corrupted by virtual criminality? Or are these fears just another example of media-driven moral panic?
Cultural criminologists argue that violent media like Grand Theft Auto reflects much more than just bad taste or entertainment gone too far. Instead, they see it as a window into the changing nature of crime, culture, and capitalism in late modern society. Why are images of violence and humiliation so marketable? How does media both reflect and shape public fears about crime? And what happens when the line between real crime and its media representation becomes so blurred that it’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins?
This chapter explores how cultural criminology analyzes the dynamic interplay between crime, media, and popular culture. It challenges you to rethink old assumptions: What if the media doesn’t just report on crime, but actually helps produce the way we experience it? What if fear, outrage, and fascination with violence are not side effects, but the very fuel that keeps modern media and modern capitalism running?
Labeling Theory
Classic Labeling Theory
Labeling theory offers another approach to studying crime and deviance, its roots go back to the works of George Herbert Mead (1934; 2015), who pioneered a new way of studying social reality known as symbolic interactionism. This symbolic interactionism can occur through a society’s shared views, for example a handshake may symbolize a greeting and/or a show of respect. Mead explained that we construct our social world and our sense of self through the symbols we exchange, for example, a significant form of symbolic communication in shared language.
While Mead did not write about crime, his student Herbert Blumer (who coined the term “symbolic interactionism”) produced one of the earliest studies concerning the influence of movies on delinquent and criminal behavior (Blumer & Hauser, 1933). Thus, Mead’s approach to studying social life set the stage for new ways of thinking about crime and deviance. Which led to sociologist Howard Becker formulating one approach, which came to be known as labelling theory. Rather than looking at the qualities or circumstances that make a person turn bad, Becker (1963) asks how this definition of bad behavior was originally constructed. Meaning, instead of asking why people commit crimes, he asked why society defined these acts as crimes in the first place. As he explains in his book The Outsiders, “social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders” (p. 6).
In an earlier formulation of labeling theory, Frank Tannenbaum (1938) refers to the process of a stigmatizing label influencing the labeled person’s identity. This can go as far as lead a person to start seeing themselves as a criminal, through a process he called the dramatization of evil. This dramatization of evil occurs through “a process of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self-conscious” the criminal traits in question (Tannenbaum, 1938, p. 19-20). In this drama, the treatment of a young person as a criminal can actually lead them to see themselves as a criminal. For example, if a child has a minor behavior problem and is then treated as a “bad kid” as simply continuing the bad behavior as they already are labeled as bad.
Researchers Grekul and LaBoucane-Benson (2008) further explain this dynamic with regard to the formation of gangs composed of Indigenous youth in the Prairie provinces, as these young people have two powerful labels placed on them: first being Aboriginal (indigenous), and second being stereotyped as gang members. A long historical context marred by colonialism, discriminatory government practices, and residential schools contributes to these labels sticking and harming these youths through their furthering into deviant and criminal behavior. For instance, one ex-gang member recalls the police calling his group of friends a gang, so they “began to act that way” and identify as a gang. (p. 71-72).
While labeling theory being a micro-level theory that focuses on how criminality is created and how people come to be defined and understood as criminals through symbolic exchanges, it still works to connect to the larger societal dimension of crime and deviance. In this regard, it shares a great deal with Durkheim, who saw crime as an integral part of society. He argued crime can never be completely eliminated from society as it is a natural part of it and plays a role in defining the boundaries of a social group. This is to say crime helps remind those within a community what is and isn’t acceptable behavior through its punishments and public disapproval (shaming).
Critics warn that this approach can lead to a morally relativistic view of crime where there is no essential reason why one act should be considered criminal and another not. Simply put if right and wrong can be changeable what’s stopping everyone from being labeled as a criminal and shamed at some point. However, Durkheim reminds us that even if laws differ from society to society, human beings require social regulation if they are to remain at peace in the world with one another.
Modern Labelling – Reintegrative Shaming Theory
Classic labeling theory suggests that attempts to control social behavior can sometimes have unintended consequences. Instead of these efforts correcting misconduct, it can push vulnerable individuals, particularly the young and impressionable, toward criminality. This concept dates back to 1938 when Tannenbaum argued that official reactions such as law enforcement and the court system can influence one’s self-identity in two key ways.
First, those labeled as criminals or delinquents are placed in environments such as prisons, where they are surrounded by criminal influences and learning opportunities. Second, these individuals may experience social rejection from family, school, and potential employers, limiting their chances of rehabilitation. Lemert (1951, 1972) termed this effect “secondary deviance,” where labeled individuals eventually internalize these identities, begin to believe them, and adjust their lifestyles accordingly. This creates a phenomenon known as the “self-fulfilling prophecy” where the given label becomes true.
Recent developments in the restorative justice movement have revived these classical ideas. With modern attention being particularly on the notion that punishment plays a crucial role in shaping behavior. With the concept of shame being revisited as a potentially constructive force that benefits both offenders and victims, fostering reconciliation. This has led to a form of restorative justice which focuses on healing rather than just punishment, and looks at how shame can be used positively to help both offenders and victims. For instance an offender may meet with the victim and learn how their actions have affected them so that instead of being simply punished responsibility can be taken and remorse can be given.
Central to this movement is John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming, shame can be used in a way that is constructive and rehabilitative rather than merely punitive. According to Braithwaite, the manner in which shame is applied within the justice system can be used to encourage offenders to make amends and rejoin society, rather than pushing them away for it.
Shame and Its Role in Criminal Justice
Shaming, whether formal (e.g., legal sanctions) or informal (e.g., disapproval from family or community) is a natural response to bad behavior and can be reinforced through various channels. For example, a juvenile caught vandalizing school property may face discipline from school officials, prompting a call to their family. As this causes both the teacher and parents to express disapproval, the school’s initial act of shaming is reinforced. Upon others learning of this reaction further condemnation may follow leading to the youth to face more social disapproval. However, the key to this shaming being effective in promoting future positive behaviors is ensuring that the offender reconnects with positive influences such as teachers, family, and well-behaved peers through apology, forgiveness, and reintegration.
As discussed Braithwaite (1989) agreed with classical labeling theorists in arguing that stigmatizing shaming can reinforce criminal behavior, while reintegrative shaming can help redirect individuals toward law-abiding behavior. With the ideal approach of this being through a combination of restitution with genuine remorse, leading to reintegration into society and satisfaction for those harmed by the crime. This process also requires the victim’s active participation beyond merely providing a victim impact statement.
Braithwaite (1989), drawing on Griffiths’ work, compared reintegrative shaming to family discipline, where punishment is given within a supportive environment rather than one of hostility. As in, the child is corrected but still knows they are loved and supported. He used the example of Japan, as their culture emphasizes public apology and victim involvement in reintegrating offenders, whereas American society historically employs more exclusionary methods. The differences of focus for each may explain Japan’s lower incarceration rates compared to the United States. This cultural contrast raises questions of if restorative justice in the U.S. is effective if shaming is not carefully applied.
In Theory shaming functions in two primary ways:
- Informal social control: Behavior is motivated by maintaining societal norms for approval of others. This fits with Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory, in which strong social bonds play key roles in reducing deviance.
- Self-awareness: shaming, when positive, can encourage individuals to regulate their own behavior by helping them reflect on their actions.
Although there are challenges in empirically measuring the effects of this shaming, researchers have explored various methods to assess the effectiveness of reintegrative shaming in justice processes.
Empirical Studies on Reintegrative Shaming
The most extensive empirical study on reintegrative shaming is the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) program in Canberra, Australia, in which Braithwaite played a significant role. This study randomly assigned offenders to either traditional court processing or restorative justice conferences that used reintegrative shaming principles. Participants in this study included drunk drivers, juvenile property offenders, juvenile shoplifters, and violent offenders under 30. Through support from various government and research institutions, the program aimed to see how these different methods influenced offenders and victims.
The final RISE report (Strang, Sherman, Woods, & Barnes, 2011) found that restorative conferencing worked best for young violent offenders, however, other crimes showed mixed results. These mixed results were especially shown in reported recidivism rates (Sherman, Strang, & Woods, 2000). Although offenders in restorative conferences felt they received better treatment from the justice system and greater forgiveness, their reported recidivism rates did not lead to lower recidivism rates.
Still, despite these mixed findings, the study provided insights for refining reintegrative shaming techniques, particularly for specific crime types. These restorative justice have continued to emerge and expand to other communities. For instance, Ahmed and Braithwaite (2012) applied reintegrative shaming principles to reduce bullying in Australian schools. Similarly to the RISE report their findings were also mixed. These mixed results suggest that conferencing helped some students but not others, which introduced the concept of “adaptive shame management,” emphasizing the need for shaming methods to be flexible and based on prior exposure to bullying. These results are similar to suggested approaches for workplace conflict resolution previously explored for workplace bullying and victimization (Braithwaite, Ahmed, & Braithwaite, 2008).
Mixed results are seen again in studies on reintegrative shaming done in the United States. One of which, done by researchers Ray, Dollar, and Thames in 2011 looked at mental health courts in the southeastern U.S. and found positive results on reintegrative and stigmatizing shame, as well as perceptions of respect, disapproval, and forgiveness. However, there is no clear evidence of shamings effect on reducing recidivism (Hiday & Ray, 2010), thus identifying which individuals benefit most from restorative justice remains an ongoing challenge for researchers.
Another study looked at family group conferences for juvenile offenders in Indianapolis (Hipple, Gruenewald, & McGarrel, 2012). Unlike the previously mentioned studies this study found that reintegrative shaming did reduce recidivism, but these effects were short term diminishing after two years. They also found that offense type and race were the only significant predictors of recidivism.
These studies show restorative justice and reintegrative shaming to be promising, however, needs its methods to be further examined to understand why they work for some and not others. Though a continuous challenge to researchers the identification of best procedures and target groups for treatment remain crucial for success.
Although federal funding was strongest in the late 1990s and early 2000s, by 2005 the few U.S. states had integrated restorative justice into their juvenile justice systems, relied on independent grants. As research on restorative justice continues to grow, organizations like the Centre for Justice and Reconciliation report a steady increase in scholarly work on the topic, but the challenges of implementing these programs remain.
As many studies show positive offender perceptions post-treatment, however, significant reductions in recidivism are not clear. In order for restorative justice to achieve consistent crime reduction results, the programs need to better identify suitable candidates for treatment. Future research should explore support services that focus on individuals needs from employment, mental health, and/or substance abuse treatment. Additionally, addressing peer influences is important, as maintaining ties to those active in deviant networks can hurt likelihood for reintegration success.
Modern restorative justice principles have and continue to expand beyond the criminal justice system. For instance, restorative practices have been applied in workplace disputes, school conflicts, and health-related behaviors, with some child welfare cases also incorporating its practices in civil settings.
As the U.S. justice system continues to be increasingly overburdened, approaches like restorative justice are likely to continue expanding. While Australia and New Zealand are ahead in governmental support, innovation continues growing existing literature, leading to the need for continuous research and adaptation to guide future programs.
Cultural Criminology
Cultural criminology borrows from and builds upon several sociological theories of deviance. The earliest influence being the Chicago School of Sociology of the early 20th century (see chapter 1 What is Crime?), followed by the influential so-called “new deviance theory” from the 1950s and 1960s in the United States, which included subcultural theory and labelling theory (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 26; Hayward, 2016, p. 298). Unlike mainstream criminology (traditional criminology), which viewed crime and deviance as a result of cultural dysfunction, new deviance theory argued “criminal and deviant behavior cultural meaning” (Ferrell et al., 2008, p. 32 original emphasis).
Ferrell and colleagues (2008) links the rise of this approach with increased awareness of cultural differences in Western nations in the 1960s, from the civil rights movement, international immigration, the mass media, and the rise of mass tourism. This awareness brought with it worry about what diversity might mean for society. Subcultural theory helped show that “subcultural responses are not empty, not absurd, but meaningful” (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 34, original), changing the way deviance was perceived. Labelling theory also played an equally important role as Howard Becker (1963) further argued that deviance was not the result of a failure of social control, but rather reflected its success (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 37). Cultural criminology saw another key development from Matza and Sykes’s (1961) techniques of neutralization which are the “cultural work necessary to commit crimes” (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 39, original emphasis). Matza and Sykes argued that deviant culture is similar to the dominant culture in that both value aggression, violence, and toughness. This means offenders often can justify their actions through values seen in mainstream media (e.g A person consumes media where a beloved character smokes and acts aggressively, and they decide to draw from this in everyday life.) Thus, cultural criminology focuses on the paradox of how criminal violence is condemned by law, but then also “widely commodified, consumed and celebrated” (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young., 2008, p. 41).
Around the same time on the other side of the Atlantic, British subcultural theory was happening. The National Deviancy Conference and the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies were influenced by the new deviancy work from the United States. This British work blended American subcultural theory and labelling theory and gave it“a zest, an energy” (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 44). The British added more focus on wider societal issues alongside the dynamics of small-scale situations while seeking to understand action and reaction.
The most important contribution from the British to what would become cultural criminology was moral panic theory developed by Jock Young (1971) and Stanley Cohen (1972) (see chapter 3 Media and Crime). Moral panic theory drew from the insights of American labelling theory to understand the “seemingly ill-conceived and irrational reactions to deviance by authorities and the wider public” (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 47). Later works such as Policing the Crisis (Hall et al., 1978) expanded moral panic theory through added questions about race, crime, and politics in Britain.
Despite the interest from cultural criminology in diversity and conflict, a Western-centric perspective remains dominant. Considering this theory’s foundation works with focus on issues such as colonialism and indignity would likely be welcomed, however, so far the movement has been dominated by White, Western, male criminologists (Naegler & Salman, 2016). Further, despite this still being considered a Eurocentric perspective, cultural criminology’s focus on culture, diversity, and conflict, leads one to believe the ongoing struggles of Indigenous peoples for recognition and action in the face of colonial systems of oppression would draw a large amount of attention due to its high relevance.
Indigenous peoples were victims of a state-sponsored program of genocide and have seen their cultural practices criminalized and their way of life subject to erasure in residential schools. They have resisted in many ways including through art and cultural expression, which acted as powerful forms of protest in support for the political agenda of decolonization. Australian researcher, Chris Cunneen (2011) argues that “indigenous art unhinges colonial law as an abstract expression of power and grounds it firmly in the lived experiences of Aboriginal people” (p. 259, original emphasis). Thus, this art acts as “evidence that certain things occurred (such as massacres)” (Cunneen, 2010, p. 120) to fight the settler-colonial histories that try to erase genocide from the official record.
In Canada, some Indigenous activists have recently targeted colonial symbols that erase the acts of historical violence the ancestors faced. For example, on July 1, 2021, a statue of Queen Victoria in front of the Manitoba Legislature was toppled and replaced by a new grassroots cultural and political monument. This is one example of how crime, protest, art, and culture all collide in the ongoing struggles for recognition and decolonisation in the present day. Cultural criminology could offer a valuable approach to analyzing this perspective for better understanding and support. However, as yet, a cultural criminological analysis of colonialism and anti-colonial protest has yet to be written.
Crime Media and Popular Culture
Interaction from media, culture, and crime influences key factors of moral panic. For example, violence in immersive video games like the wildly popular Grand Theft Auto series have drawn the attention of cultural criminologists (Rowlands et al., 2016; Steinmetz, 2018; Fawcett & Kohm, 2020). This is due to these games being at the center of moral panic over the effects of violent media on youth (Rowlands et al., 2016). Ferrell and colleagues (2008) point out, today’s moral panics about video games and other violent forms of culture follow many features of Stanley Cohen’s (1972) classic model, however, now happens faster and more intensely. In fact, companies treat this as something that should not be avoided but instead used to sell products, especially in the youth market (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 140). Attention sells and in modern times the easiest way to receive attention is controversies (Think of the idea of “no such thing as bad publicity,”) This can be seen in earlier time periods (e.g., McRobie & Thornton, 1995) but is becoming more common in late modern times along with the proliferation of interactive digital technologies and social media. Hier (2019) suggests that digital media logic produces a new kind of panic akin to a wildfire or firestorm that burns intensely, but ends quickly. For cultural criminology looking at crime media, such as violent video games, something more telling about contemporary culture and the nature of global capitalism can be seen. These video games “exemplify the broader trend toward the commodification of violence and the marketing of transgression” (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 139).
Atkinson and Rodgers (2016) argue that violent video games and explicit online pornography are appealing in late modern times because of a historical trend toward what is referred to as civilizing process. Over time, visible public violence moves from being a visible and commonplace part of our lives to being largely invisible and hidden with prisons and other state institutions (Foucault, 1977). Think of public executions and how historically they were done in public but later moved to be in prisons in private. Michel Foucault (1977) vividly described this shift in his book Discipline and Punish, with a detailed description Frances public extreme punishments such as torture, dismemberment and execution, however, a few years later that punishment was longer a public spectacle. As this punishment moved behind the walls of newly developed penitentiaries the rituals of violence were replaced by self-regulating forms of discipline enforced by new surveillance technologies.
Thus, Atkinson and Rodgers (2016) argue life has become more sanitized, safe and generally free of the threat of everyday violence causing individuals to turn to new outlets for repressed violent impulses. With this increase of demand for new forms of entertainment companies responded offering a wide variety of products that play on our interest in participating in or witnessing forms of violence and humiliation long removed from public eyes. So while public executions are long gone, today we have violent video games and reality TV shows that humiliate and punish criminals for entertainment (Kohm, 2009).
Media and pop culture are important sites for cultural criminology to analyze the collision of culture, crime, and control. Drawing from postmodern theory, cultural criminology asserts that reality and representation can no longer be analytically separated:
In this world the street scripts the screen and the screen scripts the street; there is no clearly linear sequence, but rather a shifting interplay between the real and the virtual, the factual and the fictional. (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 123-124)
In the past, cultural meaning was thought to be linear. In other words, reality comes first and its representation in the media comes only after the fact. But what if this wasn’t the case? What if real events were not needed, and media reports could just be created? For example, Kohm (2009) showed how the popular NBC TV news magazine Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator staged criminal situations to entrap men chatting online with actors pretending to be minors. This means the program not only created the story but then broadcast as “news,” with TV producers directing how police would make these arrests in order to be more dramatic in the name of good TV (Kohm, 2009). This shows how news and entertainment have merged into “infotainment” and news programs actively create the content they report as news (Kohm, 2009).
- For a more detailed look at this issue, see part 1 of this two-part series by 20/20 that investigates the program To Catch a Predator.
Cultural criminologists use the concept of “loops” to explain the complex and non-linear way meaning flows through media and popular culture. These loops are described as “an ongoing process by which everyday life recreates itself in its own image” (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 130). Simply put this meaning doesn’t flow in a straight line from real life to media but instead endlessly loops. Jeff Ferrell (1999, p. 397) describes this state of affairs as akin to a “hall of mirrors.” where the disorienting effect of a fun house filled with multiple mirrors, reflected images, and images of images, you get a sense of the cultural and media loops that characterize late modern life, wherein “images… bounce endlessly one off the other.”
When a crime or a reaction to a crime is taken up by the media, the effect is to “amplify, distort, and define the experience of crime” (Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 130). This can be seen clearly in so-called reality TV, a genre of television purporting to show real-life situations and events. For example, reality programs featuring footage from American cops ride-alongs claiming to realistically depict crime and urban policing. For example the long-running U.S. TV series Cops and is the best known of these reality TV police programs or Canada’s version To Serve and Protect.
To Serve and Protect initially aired in the 1990s and early 2000s, but was rebranded and re-released on Netflix in 2017 as Under Arrest. To bolster its claim to reality, each episode begins with a voiceover: “This program contains actual police footage. No reporters, no recreations” along with the caveat that “Any suspects shown are innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.” However, once a suspect is captured on camera, any distinction between legal innocence or guilt becomes a moot point as often shirtless (and frequently non-white) bodies with blurred faces are tackled and violently subdued by uniformed officers who speak directly to the camera claiming the righteousness of their actions.
As Doyle (2003) points out, reality TV police programs are far from reality and heavily favor the police’s point of view. These reality policing programs result in a looping effect whereby police, suspects, and the public start believing that “appropriate law enforcement correlates with high-speed chases, blocking and tackling, drawn weapons, and a shoot-first, think-later mind set” (Rapaport, 2007, as cited in Ferrell, Hayward, & Young, 2008, p. 132). Simply put this causes a shared belief that aggressive policing is normal and necessary (you can imagine why this may have negative effects on not only the public but police and suspects as well).
Influence from media can be seen clearly in shared reactions to events, for example, Pamela Donovan (1998) describes a scene in a suburban neighborhood where crowds of onlookers watching real police serve an arrest warrant and begin to sing the theme song from Cops (“Bad Boys”). From this it seems clear that the media was indeed “scripting the street” (Hayward & Young, 2004).
Cultural criminologists also use the concept of spiral to describe the dynamic interplay between crime, control, and media. This concept goes back to early theories in the sociology of deviance and put it to new use in analyzing crime and media in late modern times. As early as the 1970s, interactionists documented the interplay between media, moral entrepreneurs, and subcultural groups resulting in a deviance amplification spiral that caused deviant behavior to increase instead of reducing it (Young, 1971; Cohen, 1972).
We can understand these media loops as building over time into a spiral that in turn feeds back into society shaping our decisions on politics, opinions about crime, and the actions of authorities in charge of crime control. Although these contemporary mediated spirals resemble the moral panic of the early 1970s, cultural criminologists like Ferrell, Hayward, and Young (2008) claim late modernity has created conditions for a sustained spiraling panic, rather than the short-lived episodes described by Cohen (1972) and other researchers. Whether seen as a moral panic or a spiral of media representation, cultural criminology continues seeking to explain irrational consequences produced when crime, media, and culture intersect.
Critical Thinking Discussion
How is social media shaping our understanding about the causes of crime?