Labeling Theory

Introduction

Labeling Theory is a major sociological perspective that explores how societal reactions and definitions shape human behavior, particularly in the context of deviance. Rooted in symbolic interactionism, this theory challenges traditional views that see deviance as an inherent characteristic of individuals or groups. Instead, it argues that deviance is a social construct—an outcome of how society labels certain behaviors and the people who engage in them.

The theory gained prominence in the mid-20th century through the works of Howard Becker, Edwin Lemert, and others, who shifted the focus from the deviant act itself to the processes of social judgment and control. By examining how institutions like schools, courts, and media assign labels, Labeling Theory reveals how these classifications can perpetuate cycles of marginalization and reinforce deviant identities.

Theoretical foundations and key thinkers

Labeling Theory emerged as a critique of structural-functionalism and classical criminology, which often treated deviance as a product of individual pathology or social disorganization. Instead, labeling theorists, influenced by George Herbert Mead’s symbolic interactionism, argue that meaning is constructed through social interaction.

Howard Becker’s Outsiders (1963) famously asserted that “deviance is not a quality of the act but a consequence of the application of rules.” This means that what makes an act deviant is not its nature but how society reacts to it.

Similarly, Edwin Lemert distinguished between primary and secondary deviance, emphasizing how societal reaction can push individuals toward sustained deviant behavior. Frank Tannenbaum’s concept of the “dramatization of evil” further illustrated how labeling transforms minor misconduct into a lasting criminal identity through societal overreaction.

Primary deviance vs. secondary deviance

Edwin Lemert’s distinction between primary deviance and secondary deviance is central to understanding how labels solidify into identities. Primary deviance refers to initial, often trivial rule-breaking that does not yet define the individual—such as a teenager skipping school or experimenting with petty theft. At this stage, the person does not see themselves as deviant.

However, if authorities (teachers, police, parents) react by applying a strong label—such as delinquent, troublemaker, or criminal—the individual may experience secondary deviance. This occurs when they internalize the label, adjust their self-concept accordingly, and begin to adopt a deviant role. For example, a student repeatedly punished for minor misbehavior may eventually accept the “bad kid” label, leading to further rule-breaking and association with similarly labeled peers. This cycle demonstrates how social reaction can amplify, rather than deter, deviance.

Institutional labeling: schools, criminal justice, and media

Powerful social institutions play a critical role in assigning and reinforcing deviant labels. Schools often label students based on behavior or academic performance—terms like slow learner, disruptive, or gifted can shape a student’s educational trajectory. Research shows that teachers’ expectations (the Pygmalion effect) influence student performance, with negatively labeled students more likely to underachieve.

The criminal justice system is perhaps the most consequential labeling agent. Arrests, convictions, and incarceration create permanent stigmas, limiting employment, housing, and social integration. Studies on recidivism suggest that formerly incarcerated individuals struggle to escape their “ex-con” label, increasing the likelihood of reoffending. Meanwhile, the media amplifies labeling by sensationalizing crime, disproportionately portraying marginalized groups as deviant, and reinforcing stereotypes. News coverage of gangs, welfare fraud, or mental illness shapes public perception, further entrenching societal biases.

Stigma, self-identity, and the deviant career

Once labeled, individuals often face stigma—a mark of disgrace that leads to social exclusion. Erving Goffman’s Stigma (1963) explains how stigmatized individuals manage “spoiled identities” through concealment, withdrawal, or defiance. For example, an ex-convict might hide their criminal record or avoid social situations where they fear judgment.

Over time, the labeled person may undergo a self-fulfilling prophecy, where they conform to societal expectations. This can lead to a deviant career, where the individual fully adopts the deviant role, seeks out subcultures that accept their label (e.g., gangs, drug communities), and engages in further norm-breaking. The case of mental illness illustrates this well: once diagnosed, a person may be treated differently, leading to social withdrawal and worsened symptoms, reinforcing the original label.

Criticisms and limitations of labeling theory

Despite its contributions, Labeling Theory has faced significant critiques. Some argue that it overemphasizes societal reaction while downplaying the real harm of certain behaviors (e.g., violence, exploitation). Critics also note that not everyone internalizes labels—some resist or reject them through resilience or supportive networks.

Additionally, the theory struggles to explain why primary deviance occurs in the first place, as it focuses more on societal response than root causes (e.g., poverty, inequality). Another critique is that Labeling Theory can be overly deterministic, implying that labeled individuals have no agency to overcome stigma. In reality, some people successfully rehabilitate or challenge their labels through activism, education, or legal reforms.

Modern applications: restorative justice, education, and mental health

Labeling Theory remains influential in shaping policies aimed at reducing stigma and recidivism. In criminal justice, restorative justice programs avoid formal labeling by emphasizing reconciliation over punishment.

Diversion programs for first-time offenders aim to prevent the criminal label from taking hold. In education, reforms discourage tracking (grouping students by perceived ability) and promote growth mindset approaches to avoid fixed labels.

In mental health, critics use labeling theory to challenge overdiagnosis and the pathologizing of normal behaviors (e.g., ADHD in children). Anti-stigma campaigns also work to reframe societal perceptions of addiction and mental illness, recognizing that labels like “junkie” or “crazy” can worsen recovery.