Talk:Labeling theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Labeling theory, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. Rowmn 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 <http://home.earthlink.net/~hsbecker/>. 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

[edit] the OC?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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