Essentially, a person’s behaviours may be influenced or determined by the terms that are used in describing them. These terms are referred to as labels and can be either formal or informal. As noted by Bernburg, (2002), the labeling stem from the process of self-concept and development of symbolic interactions which occurs throughout one’s life. Notably, self-concept is used to refer to the organization of qualities in which a person attributes to themselves. Consequently, these self-conceptions are linked to the social positions existing in the particular community that a person belongs to. A majority of people who are significantly affected by these labels are the youth in the society. According to research conducted previously by Kavish, Mullins & Soto,( 2016), both the formal and informal labels are attributed with causing both primary and secondary deviance.
Definition of Formal and Informal Labels
With regards to the above, it is vital to understand what formal and informal labels are in depth. Kavish, Mullins & Soto, (2016), notes that formal labels are applied to people who have already come into contact with the educational as well as correctional systems “with the authority to officially label the individual as deviant or juvenile” (Kavish, Mullins & Soto, 2016). The criminology efforts are tailored towards reducing the repeat of such crimes and helping the offender overcome such behaviours through rehabilitation. However, they move the offenders to more criminal activities due to the labels assigned to them. Subsequently, the members of the society begin to treat these individuals according to these labels which in turn make them accept and act accordingly to the label.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other end, the informal labels are applied to people by an individual who does not have any official or professional authority to differentiate between non-deviant and deviant behaviours. It is worth noting that parents are considered to be the sources of informal labeling. This may then have adverse effects on the behaviours of their children as it tampers with their self-esteem and their self-concept (Kavish, Mullins & Soto, 2016).
Primary and Secondary Deviance
Primary deviance refers to the initial acts of delinquency which have minor consequences on the individual’s status or their relationship with other people in the society. Usually, many people end violating some laws and committing some deviant crimes at various points in their lives. However, this does not make them be considered as criminal by other people in the society. Some of these acts may be deemed to be normal, for example over speeding (Bernburg, 2002).
Secondary deviance, on the other hand, is behaviours which occur in response to the societal reaction to a label on an individual as a result of them engaging in deviant acts (Bernburg, 2002). The secondary deviance has advance implications on the person’s status and the kind of relationship they have with other people. Basically, this deviance is a direct result of the internalization of the deviant label accorded to an individual. The secondary deviances follow primary deviance.
Consequences of Formal and Informal Labeling
Formal Labelling
Research carried out by Kavish, Mullins & Soto, (2016), revealed that formal labeling, measured as self-reported arrests, was highly involved with chances of delinquency involvement for people in later life. This is to mean that, individuals who had been arrested and labeled as deviants, had more chances of getting back to such behaviours that would lead to their arrest later on in life. Further evidence showed that extreme labeling experiences resulted in the much stronger effect of the formal labeling on the behaviours of delinquencies that followed thereafter. For instance, there were more chances that a formal conviction would have a strong relationship with behaviours of delinquency then being arrested. This fact can also be attributed to the perception of care by the young people. The research showed that the perception of care by the youth, to a large extent, mediates the relations between delinquency and formal labeling.
In most cases, when a person experiences formal labeling, this affects their behaviours and their identity. Kavish, Mullins & Soto,( 2016), note that such individuals may be limited access or be excluded from particular conventional groups by people in the society. As a result, this may lead to the individual getting involved in more delinquency. For example, individuals who have already been declared as felons have a tough time being integrated into the community. This is due to the public fear that this person may commit the crime again. Thus, people tend to avoid any interactions with that person, and the label makes it difficult for him to be employed and live a healthy life. In turn, this increases their chances of going back to criminal behaviours again.
Informal labeling
On the other end, Kavish, Mullins & Soto, (2016) noted that informal labels resulted in primary delinquencies. According to a survey which they carried out, children cared how their parents and teachers viewed them, and thus, the labels which they gave them impacted on their lives. It is worth noting that individuals who are considered to have deviant behaviours have deviant self-concepts as well. The chances are that the individual might have adopted the deviant behavior in response to the labels that the society has attached to them. However, the deviant identity may be unimportant in respect to their self-concept. Mainly, these informal labels and the subsequent stigmatization produce negative behaviours in an individual. They ma
As such, the children’s behaviours were more likely to be in line with such labels given to them by such people. For example, in a case whereby a mother labeled his child as being deviant, these children had more chances of engaging in petty criminal behaviours. However, in a case whereby the parents used positive labels on the children, they would adopt positive behaviours due to improved self-esteem and self-concept. Thus this would lead to a decrease in deliquescent behaviours. Similarly, teachers and other significant individuals in the society played a significant role in shaping the behavior of the children with the type of informal labels they assigned to the children.
Subsequently, negative perception of social bond to teachers and families increased the chances of future delinquencies. It also partially mediated the relationship between a formal label and the subsequent delinquency. As such, weak informal social bonds to teachers and families conditioned the impact of formal labeling on the subsequent delinquencies (Bernburg, 2002). Apart from this, there was no other strong connection between informal labeling and secondary deviance. Likewise, parental labeling was also not seen a significant impact on the deliquescent behaviours thereafter. School stigmatization is considered to be insignificant in influencing secondary delinquency in the youth. However, the informal labels by these groups profoundly contributed to the primary deviance.
Conclusion
Evidently, formal and informal labels are responsible for causing primary and secondary delinquencies in societies. Formal labels are responsible for secondary deviance while the informal labels create primary deviance. Primary deviances are acts which do have severe implications on the lives of an individual and the relation they have with other people. However, secondary deviances have severe implications on an individual and come about as a result of the internalization of a deviant label. The informal labels are mainly from parents and teachers and affect an individual’s self-conception and self-esteem. The formal labels are given by individuals who have a professional authority and are accorded to people who have been in educational and correctional systems. They mainly contribute to the reoccurrence of deviant behaviours because people have a hard time believing that the person labeled a criminal will change their behavior.
References
Bernburg,g, J. G. (2002). State Reaction, Life-Course Outcomes, and Structural Disadvantage: A Panel Study of the Impact of Formal Criminal Labeling on the Transition to Adulthood. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Kavish, D., Mullins, C., & Soto, D. (2016). Interactionist Labeling. Crime & Delinquency , 62 (10), 1313-1336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0011128714542504
