THE NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE

UNIVERSITY, BHOPAL

Project
On
LABELLING THEORY
submitted by:
Aniket Nighojkar
Roll Number: 2020 BALLB 12
Enrolment Number: A 2185
1st Semester
B. A. LL. B. (Hons.)

submitted to
Prof. (Dr.) Tapan R. Mohanty
Professor (Sociology of Law / Socio Legal Studies)
PH.D., M.A., M.PHIL., UGC-JRF, NET

Date of submission

1
 INTRODUCTION

Labelling theory states people behave and identify themselves in a way that the society or people
label them. This theory is most often associated with the sociology of crime, since it can lead to bad
behaviour by labelling someone unlawfully deviant. For example, describing someone as a criminal
can cause others to treat the individual more negatively, and the individual acts out in turn.

One of the most important approaches to understanding deviant and criminal behaviour is the
labelling theory. This starts with the belief that no act is intrinsically criminal. Criminality definitions
are defined by those in power through the formulation of laws and the interpretation by the police,
courts, and correctional institutions of those laws. Therefore, deviance is not a set of individual or
group characteristics, but a process of interaction between deviants and non-deviants and the
context in which criminality is interpreted.

The individuals tasked with enforcing standards of normalcy and labelling certain behaviours as
deviant in nature are the police, judges, and educators. These officials strengthen the power
structure of society by applying labels to individuals and creating categories of deviation. The
wealthy often define deviancy for the poor, men for women, the elderly for younger people, and
ethnic majority groups for minority groups. In other words, to subordinate groups, society's
dominant groups generate and apply deviant labels.

For instance, many kids break windows, steal fruit from other people's trees, climb into the yards of
neighbours, or skip school. Parents, teachers, and police regard these behaviours as typical juvenile
conduct in affluent neighbourhoods. But similar behaviour could be viewed as signs of juvenile
delinquency in poor areas. This suggests that in labelling, class plays a significant role. Also, race is a
factor.

When talking of Race how can I forget the racial crisis prevalent in the United States. This year 2 two
black American men were brutally killed by the police officials, now when the question of police
brutality is placed in front of the government that put up the shield of facts, they tell us that the
percentage of black people who commit crime is much higher than white people which is actually
true. When we look at this issue from the angle of Labelling theory we see that the blacks are
labelled as deviant the moment they are born, the society around them tells them and treats them
as deviant and looks them with their prejudiced eyes, Such environment and circumstances makes
their subconscious mind believe that they are what people tell them they are and in turn become
criminals and actually do the offences that they are blamed for.

LITERATURE REVIEW

2
Whose Side are we on? By Howard Becker

In 1967 Howard Becker put forward the question– “Whose side are we on?”.

Becker was discussing the question during the time of civil rights, the Vietnam War and widespread
social change within the US. He sparked a debate about objectivity and value neutrality which had
long featured as a part of the social sciences’ methodological foundations and which has
implications beyond the social sciences for all academics.

What relevance do these ideas have now, in an era when academics and their research are getting
increasingly commodified? Academics are increasingly pressured by their own institutions and fellow
professionals to realize more funding, publish more papers and make more impact. Questions of
social justice and professional integrity are in danger of being swamped by these forces allied to
unscrupulous careerism.

We argue that the question now's not only who academics serve but also who we write for. There
are numerous answers to the present question: it might be for a selected cause, it might be for the
funder, it might be for the principal investigator; it could even be to realize promotion and further
one’s own status.

Our thinking was provoked by our experience of performing on variety of public policy related
research evaluations between 2009 and 2012. within the uk it's become increasingly common for
service funders to contract universities to gauge the effectiveness of services which they need
commissioned. This was seen as beneficial to all or any concerned because it allowed the
commissioning body to mention ‘look, this service has been independently evaluated by a highly
trustworthy institution’, it allowed the service provider to mention ‘our work has been evaluated
and judged by a highly trustworthy institution’ and it provided the university who did the evaluation
with research funding, academic papers and therefore the chance to say that their work had a true
world ‘impact’.

However, what bothered us was the very fact that the commissioning body features a vested
interest during a positive evaluation, but is additionally funding the evaluators. This potential conflict
of interest may be a very old problem, as we all know ‘he who pays the piper calls the tune.’

We weren't saying that this is often definitely happening, but the purpose we were trying to form
was that this potentially could happen. this is able to have terrible consequences for universities.
Universities have one thing which sets them aside from the other research and evaluation
organisation. That thing is integrity.

However, integrity has got to be conserved; it shouldn't be sold or commodified. to try to to so is

self-defeating, as once sold integrity disappears.

3
This brings us back to Howard Becker and his idea of a “hierarchy of credibility”. Becker argues that
this hierarchy is present throughout society – to place it simply some people are more likely to be
believed than others – which this is often usually taken without any consideration. As he explains:

” Everyone knows that responsible professionals know more about things than laymen, that police
are more respectable and their words need to be taken more seriously than those of the deviants
and criminals with whom they deal” (Becker 1967: 242). 1

Becker elaborates further: those with the facility and position to be believed he describes as
“superordinates”; they're considered experts and consequently trusted. The groups he defines as
“subordinates” are subject to the expert knowledge and power of the superordinates.

This is not always an easy relationship. it's going to be that “subordinates” are disempowered and
contained by “superordinate” knowledge, as is that the case for criminals and deviants. Or, within
the case of scholars, they need to undergo a “subordinate” introduce order to succeed in
“superordinate” status.

“Thus, the law enforcement authorities are the superordinates, drug addicts are the subordinates;
professors and administrators, principals and teachers, are the superordinates, while students and
pupils are the subordinates; physicians are the superordinates, their patients the subordinate”
(Becker 1967: 240).

In asking “Whose side are we on?” Becker was inviting academics to reflect upon their
“superordinate” status and:

 ask what they might do to cause progressive reform and social change or
 acknowledge that they were actually a part of the established social order and by doing
nothing they were defending the established order.

Hiding behind some notion of scientific objectivity was for Becker simply impossible.

“The question isn't whether we should always take sides since we inevitably will but rather whose
side are, we on?” (Becker 1967: 239).

Our place within the hierarchy of credibility remains important but also, we suffer from additional
pressures fifty years after Becker. Our “superordinate” status has become highly valued and a
saleable commodity. But it's this commodification which makes that status increasingly precarious.
the very fact that it's contingent upon our integrity means Becker’s question is simply as important
because it ever was.

1
Becker, Howard S. “Whose Side Are We On?” Social Problems, vol. 14, no. 3, 1967, pp. 239–
247. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/799147. Accessed 30 Dec. 2020.

4
 OBJECTIVES

 To study about labelling theory

 To study about the various thoughts of sociologists like George Herbert Mead,
Thomas Scheff, Frank Tannenbaum, Edwin Lemert, Howard Becker, Erving Goffman
and David Matza.
 To critically analyze all the ideas and thoughts and draft a conclusion.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Labelling theory entails a policy of non-intervention meaning nothing to be done as it can

make situation worse. An examination of the labelling theory reveals that regarded as a
theory, it contains weakness and its very foundation is fragile. To build a plan to bring action
on such theory would prove to be hazardous activity. If we follow a policy of non-
intervention it may not produce suitable outcomes, in short, the problem may be aggravated
more than it was previously. In many ways, criminal behaviour gives rise to social anguishes
and eradication of this must be our aim. Labelling theory adversely affects the behaviour of
the person so labelled to the extent that he thinks himself to be quite different to others and
sometimes starts inhibiting behavioural entities that he himself wasn’t holding sometimes
earlier.
The project shall study the problem with labelling with reference to various views as was
reflected through works of various sociologists.

HYPOTHESIS

Labelling theory (also referred to as societal reaction theory) analyses how social groups create and
apply definitions for deviant behaviour. The approach examines how deviant labels emerge, how
some social groups develop the power to impose deviant labels onto selected others, and the
consequences of being labelled deviant. Labelling has increased the rate of crime and various
social issue

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What Is Labelling theory?

2. What is the meaning of deviant behavior?
3. Is the behavior of an individual actually affected by how people think of him/her?
4. What is the basis to support the labelling theory?
5. What do the critiques of labelling theory say?

5
 WORK PLAN

1. Introduction: The topic will be introduced by me in depth as the meaning and scope of
labelling theory.
2. Sociologists views: I will analyses the views of different sociologists and give my opinion on
their views.
3. Deviant Behavior: I will explain in detail the relation of deviant behavior with labelling
theory.
4. Effects of labelling theory
5. Effects of Movies, Tv show and Anime on Society and Labelling theory.
6. Critiques of labelling theory: I will analyze and explain the drawbacks of labelling theory
7. Analysis and conclusion

METHOD OF STUDY

The present research work is based on doctrinal method of data collection.

6
 Table of Contents

Introduction...............................................................................................................3
Different sociologist’s thoughts................................................................................6
Labelling..................................................................................................................10
Deviant behavior.....................................................................................................12
Deviant behavior with reference with labelling theory:..........................................13
EFFECTS OF LABELLING...................................................................................14
Conclusion...............................................................................................................15

7
 INTRODUCTION

Labelling theory gives a different sociological approach that emphasizes on the role of social
labelling in the enhancing of the development of crime and deviance. According to the
theory, it is assumed that even though one may have acted in a deviant manner for some
reason or the other initially, once associated with such a deviance or once their names are
blemished with their deviant behaviour, new troubles arise for them. These arise mainly from
the cynical reception, reactions to the deviance by oneself as well as the others in society,
majorly the stereotyping.

The stigma further leads to too many problems, eventually promulgating the harboring of
such a deviant and criminal behavior. Lemert (1967) stated, “Deviant behavior can become
means of defense, attack, or adaptation to the problems created by deviant labelling.”
Thus, being labelled as an offender further fosters the ideology or stabilizes the involvement
in acts of deviance, consequently forming a certain behavioural pattern.

Howard Becker (1963) further added about labelling, stating, “Deviancy is not a quality of
the act a person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and
sanctions to an ‘offender’. Deviant behavior is behavior that people so label.” What needs to
be inferred from the aforementioned lines is that deviant is basically something that is
perceived so, by the people, and not something that is done by an individual. Basically, the
common aspect between all the deviant acts is that they are perceived as “deviant” by others.

The prime focus of this perspective is the interaction between the individuals of the society,
the prime constituents, which forms its meaning. The labelling of certain behavioural aspects
as deviant and criminal further promulgates the concept of labelling theory in our society. It
is widely believed that such ostracizing helps in curbing the criminal activities.

Well, to some extent it is effective but it also encourages more indulging in these activities,
given the labelling associated with the ones who commit deviance. The repercussions affect
the society on a much larger scale than to have a positive effect. The corrective measures
require empathy and placid minds on the part of the individuals of the society so that they
would perceive the genuine feelings of the culprits.

8
The rehabilitation process is one complex regime which has a fine line of difference to take
care of. As the people treat them in a harsh manner, due to their labelling as “criminals” it
further inclines them towards the criminological sphere of the society. As the disparity
consolidates in the society, it becomes more conducive for deviant acts to proliferate and
influence more and more. The constant labelling leads the person to believe what he/she is
labelled. The notion of social reception and the negative reaction towards deviant acts forms
an integral part of the labelling theory.

There is a dichotomy, though. The rules are made by the people, the public reception towards
which determines whether an act is deviant or not. Further, it’s not mainly the nature of the
act but the way in which the offender is treated which eventually turns out to be a promoting
factor of an ideology of deviance and criminology. For instance, killing a person has various
connotations associated with it. If a combatant of armed forces kills an infiltrator, he is hailed
for the same. However, if the same is done by a private individual, he may be perceived as a
murderer and would be further tried for the same. The social perception plays a massive role
in the promulgation of the labelling theory. A same act, when received by people, in a distinct
manner, can result into negatively influencing an individual for something devious. The
societal response of deviance stigmatizes the offender, further exacerbating the situation.
Thus, labelling theory is based on the aspect of the reception of one’s acts by the people of
the society.

This is not a new concept or theory to mankind. Since time immemorial, people have been
labelling individuals and things to distinguish them and avoid any sort of confusion.
However, this leads to a person believing themselves to be inferior to others. Mainly this
practice is prevalent because of the habit of the people to patronize others, rather label oneself
as superior to others. Labelling individuals acts as a driving force or an impetus for people to
act in a specific manner, the manner in which they are being labelled as. It makes them feel as
if they have done something or have not done something as per the norms of the society,
further leading them to oblivion. Ramifications of the labelling theory drastically affect the
mindset of an individual, not just a deviant individual per se.

9
 Different sociologist’s thoughts.

GEORGE HERBERT MEAD2

George Herbert Mead, one of the founders of the social interactionism, emphasized on the
minor processes as to how our brain creates one’s self-image. In Mind, Self and Society, it
was showcased by him how the infants initially learn about persons and about the things
afterwards. According to Mead, thought is a pragmatic as well as a social act as it constitutes
of what two or more people cogitate about, to deal with a problem. Mead’s prime focus has
been on the concept of “self”, the facet of one’s personality, concerning self-awareness and
self-image. One always gets affected by how people perceive of him, in public. Our self-
image conforms out of what people think about us, entirely derived from other’s perceptions.
Human behaviour is a consequence of the various connotations drawn from the social
interaction of conversation, both actual and virtual, Mead believed. While we ridicule those,
who tend to talk to themselves, the reality is that they have been unable to do the act of
keeping things to themselves inside. These traits develop as one comes across the different
experiences with the individuals in society. So, one can easily deduce that the human
behaviour is subjected to frequent transition, which when exposed to a particular kind of
surroundings, tends to get morphed in accordance with it.

THOMAS SCHEFF

The book Being Mentally III: A Sociological Theory (1966) was released by Thomas J.
Scheff, Professor, Emeritus, Dept. of Sociology, and UCSB. Society has perceptions of
individuals with mental illness, according to Scheff. He said that through normal social
interaction, everyone in society learns the stereotyped image of mental illness. People have
been learning from infancy to use terms such as "insane," "loony," "nuts," and associating
them with troubled behaviours. The press also adds by associating them with violent crimes
to this bias against mentally ill patients. Scheff thinks that mental illness is a label provided to
a individual who has a conduct that is distant from society's social norms and is treated in

2
Scimecca, Joseph A. “Labeling Theory and Personal Construct Theory: Toward the Measurement of
Individual Variation.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), vol. 68, no. 4, 1977, pp. 652–
659. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1142426. Accessed 30 Dec. 2020.

10
society as a social deviance. Once a individual gets a "mentally ill person" label, he / she gets
from society a set of standardized answers that are usually negative in nature.

These social reactions compel the individual to assume the position of a "mentally ill
individual" as he / she begins to internalize the same. When the individual assumes the
position as her / his main identity of being mentally ill, he / she becomes a stable mental ill
person. Therefore, chronic mental illness is a social role and the social response is the most
determinant of one's entry into this chronically ill role. According to Scheff, a mentally ill
person's hospitalization further strengthens this social position and forces her / him to assume
this position as her / his self-perception. Once the individual has been institutionalized for
mental disorder, he / she was openly marked as "insane" and compelled to join a deviant
social group. It then becomes hard for a deviant individual to return to their former level of
functioning as the' patient' status creates unfavourable self and other evaluations.

FRANK TANNENBAUM3

Frank Tannenbaum is regarded as the grandfather of the theory of labelling. His Crime and
Community (1938), describing crime-related social interaction, is regarded a key foundation
of contemporary criminology. While the criminal in the initial impulse to commit a crime
first varies little or not at all from others, social interaction accounts for continuing acts that
create a pattern of concern for sociologists.

The concept of' tagging' was first introduced by Tannenbaum. While conducting his research
with delinquent youth, he discovered that a adverse tag or label often led to further
participation in criminal operations. This original tagging may cause it to be adopted by the
person as part of their identity. The crux of Tannenbaum's argument is that the more attention
this label places, the more probably the individual is to identify as the label.

Kerry Townsend writes about the revolution in criminology triggered by Tannenbaum's

work: "The roots of the theoretical model of Frank Tannenbaum, known as the' dramatization
of evil' or labelling theory, surfaces in the mid- to late-thirties. At this moment, the' New Deal
' law had not defeated the woes of the Great Depression and, although dwindling,

3
Petrunik, Michael. “The Rise and Fall of ‘Labelling Theory’: The Construction and Destruction of a
Sociological Strawman.” The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers Canadiens De Sociologie, vol. 5, no.
3, 1980, pp. 213–233. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3340175. Accessed 30 Dec. 2020.

11
immigration to the United States continued. The development of the theory and its present
practical and theoretical implementation provide a strong basis for ongoing popularity.

EDWIN LEMERT

The notion of "secondary deviance" was launched by sociologist Edwin Lemert (1951). The
primary deviance is the overt behaviour-related experience, say drug addiction and its
practical requirements and implications. Secondary deviation is the role developed to address
the condemnation of a person's conduct by society.

Lemert saw, together with other sociologists of his moment, how all deviant acts are social
acts, a result of society's collaboration. Lemert noted a very strong and subtle force at job in
his study of drug addiction. In addition to the physical addiction to the drug and all the
financial and social disruptions it caused, there was an intensely intellectual method at work
regarding one's own identity and the rationale for conduct: "I do these stuffs because I am
that way."

Some subjective and personal motives could lead an individual to drink or shoplift first. But
the activity itself informs us little about the self-image of the person or his relation to the
activity. Lemert writes: "His actions are repeated and subjectively structured and converted
into active positions and become the social criteria for assigning status..... When an individual
starts to employ his or her deviant behavior or role as a means of defending, attacking, or
adjusting to the overt and covert issues generated by the consequent social response to him,
his deviation is secondary"

HOWARD BECKER4

While the main ideas of labelling theory were introduced by Lemert, it was Howard Becker
who became their successor. He first started to describe how a individual takes on a deviant
position in a research of dance musicians that he once worked with. He subsequently
researched marijuana smokers ' identity formation. This research was the foundation of his
1963 published Outsiders. This work became the manifestation among sociologists of the
4
Becker, Howard S. “Whose Side Are We On?” Social Problems, vol. 14, no. 3, 1967, pp. 239–
247. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/799147. Accessed 30 Dec. 2020.

12
labelling theory motion. Becker writes in his opening: “... social organizations generate
deviance by creating laws whose infringement generates deviance and applying those rules to
individuals and labelling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality
of the act committed by the person, but rather a consequence of the application to an
"offender" by other rules and sanctions. The deviant is one to whom that label has been
successfully applied; deviant behaviour is a behaviour so labelled by people. While society
utilizes the stigmatic label to justify its rejection, it is used to justify its behaviour by the
deviant actor. He wrote: "In a few phrases, to put a complicated argument: the deviant
behaviour in time generates the deviant motive instead of the deviant motives leading to the
deviant behavior."

Becker's extremely common opinions were also subjected to a critical barrage, most of which
accused him of neglecting the impact of other biological, genetic and personal responsibility
impacts. He responded to his critics in a subsequent edition of his job in 1973. He wrote that
sociologists are often cautious not to look too carefully while they are devoted to studying
society. Instead, he wrote: "I prefer to think of what we study as collective action. People
behave as Mead and Blumer have made it clearer together. They do what they do with an eye
to what others have accomplished, are doing now, and can do in the future. One attempts to
fit one's own line of action into others ' behavior, just as each of them also adjusts their own
evolving behavior to what they see and expect. His opinions have been fixed and absorbed
into an extended "structuring view" after 20 years, far from being replaced.

DAVID MATZA

The sociologist David Matza provides the most vivid and graphic account of the process of
assuming a deviant position in On Becoming Deviant (1969). Authority acts in banning a
banned conduct can have two impacts, maintaining most of the behaviour, but also providing
fresh possibilities to create deviant identities. He claims the "affinity" idea does little to
explain the behavioral commitment. "Instead, it can be considered as a natural biographical
inclination born out of private and social conditions that suggest but hardly compel a
direction or movement." The creation of a fresh identity is what provides strength to that
motion. He writes: "To be cast as a thief, as a prostitute, or more generally, as a deviant, is to
further compound and accelerate the process of becoming that very thing.... “In stunned
discovery, the topic now concretely knows that there are severe individuals who are really

13
building their life around his activities— stopping him, correcting him, devoting themselves
to him. They hold records of his lifetime, and even create theories of how he got that way....
Pressed by such a display, the topic may start adding significance and gravity to its deviant
operations. But he may do so in a manner not designed specifically by government officials.

14
 Labelling

Describing someone in a short phrase or in a word is known as labelling. For understanding

the deviant behavior of society labelling theory is a theory in sociology which can really help
you in identification of the same.

Labelling is based on the idea of reality which is central to the field of sociology and is linked
to one of the most important perspectives of the society. Sociologists focused on the process
of involving interactions with society as a very important and relevant feature for the
development of the societies.

Labelling states that people come to identify and behave in the same way as other people
often label them. For example- In the situations of criminal and deviance character shown by
people.

Labelling any person anything can cause others to treat him in the same way as he was
labeled. It may be positive or negative and the cause of these types of treatment can cause the
persons behavior more negative or positive. If a person is labeled as criminal the society will
treat him in the very same way and this can turn his behavior more negatively and rashly. On
the other hand if a person is a social worker and he is labeled as a very respective person in
the society he/she will treated in the same way. This can turn his behavior towards more
positiveness and it will encourage him to help out more and more people in the society.

With the help of a reference group we can really relate labelling with the society. For
example- the labels white and black are related to white people and black people. The labels
young and old are related to young people and old people.

A better example of labelling is the business of prostitution. For financial gain sexual
relationship takes place between man and woman. Once a person is labeled as a prostitute
he/she can never get rid of this label. Despite that they can quit that business but the label will
always remain on their head.

15
Some more examples of labelling are:

1: CRIMINAL- He/ She may be a murderer or was engaged in any other criminal activities
he/ she will always be a criminal.

2: Alcoholism and drug adductor: Once a person is considered as a adductor in a society he/
she will always remain the same for others.

3: Prostitution and etc.

16
 Deviant behavior

We first need to know what deviance means to comprehend deviant behaviour.

Deviance is actions or any form of conduct that does not fit as appropriate when compared to
what is societally suitable behavior.

Deviant behavior can also be described as something that does not comply with different
institutions ' code of conduct.

Deviance is something performed that is not aligned with the society's social norms.

Someone who does such stuff or actions is referred to as deviant behaviour.

Social norms differ from culture to culture. In any other culture, something that is deviant in
one culture may not be regarded deviant.

Deviance is usually split into two kinds of activity: the first is crime, violating a officially
enacted law. Formal deviance examples are: theft, rape, theft.

The second form of deviance is infringement of informal social norms known as informal
deviance. Generally speaking, we are presently talking about formal deviance. Norms are
mostly cultural contingent, like deviance.

Violation of social norms results in forced social sanction.

Labelling theory describes how individuals are subjected to stereotypes, judging and defining
(labelling) someone's behavior as deviant or not, as invention, choice, manipulation of views
that define behavior in a adverse manner, and choice of individuals in those categories.

Deviance is not defined as a wrong act not in compliance with set norms and standards but
rather a consequence of the application of other’s rules and sanctions to an so called
“offender”.

The deviant is the one so labeled as offender by the society based on that the so person didn’t
comply with the norms set by the society, it’s really surprising how a single act not
accordingly appropriate in eyes of the peoples setting standards for what is an appropriate
behavior or what is the proper way to act in society leads to peoples being labeled as deviant.

17
Any conduct becomes deviant or becomes known as deviant only if it is defined at the
particular place by particular individuals.

It is also worth noting that in labelling someone deviant, often wrongly identifying or
labelling someone as deviant, society is not always correct.

Definition of deviant behavior is something that could be completely acceptable in another

group very rapidly changing something that could be called deviant behavior in one group.

18
 Deviant behavior with reference with labelling theory:

Labelling theory conveys the concept that when two things happen, people become deviant:

1. An person is provided a label.

2. By inhibiting the activities, behaviors connected with the label thus provided, the person
adopts the label.

Labelling theory informs how a person adopting a deviant behavior sometimes results from
the labelling.

Behavior that breaks standards. Deviating conduct is conduct that violates cultural models '
normative laws, understandings, or aspirations. This is the term's most popular use and the
meaning in which it will be used here. In this context, crime is the prototype of deviance, and
crime has been overwhelmingly worried with hypothesis and study into deviant behaviour.
Regulatory rules, however, are intrinsic in the essence of all social systems, be they buddy
organizations, committed pairs, relatives, job teams, mills, or domestic communities. Legal
norms are then only one form of norm whose infringement represents deviant behavior.

19
 EFFECTS OF LABELLING

Labelling is not a fresh idea for humanity, individuals have marked stuff from the previous
centuries in order to make it simple for them to distinguish between things and prevent
confusion.

But now the thing has begun to grip the human society nowadays human beings are marked
as well.

During college time, the first type of labelling an employee suffers. Peer labels, teachers etc.

This is usually ignored as people believe it is a insignificant question, but branding has
demonstrated to have long-term impacts on the conduct of an individual.

Labelling leads to the inferiority of an person thinking himself. It has been quite a common
practice to label individuals, individuals generally label someone superior just for pleasure.
They believe they'd be superior by labelling individuals. People's mentality is that they
always want to be called superior before a group of individuals.

For this, most of them create a particular class of individuals within a community, these are
individuals who want to dominate others, it's been a jungle principle that anyone who reveals
himself to be strong jungle laws, in the event of animals, what they do is if someone stronger
than them goes in between trying to demonstrate him to be inferior, they understand they're
not superior to them, but they still mark individuals.

In the person thinking that he chose or did not do something that is in accordance with the
cultural standards laid and thought, the labelling of any person outcomes. This causes the
person to begin to act like the mark provided to him, the conduct of the person begins to alter.

Labelling leads to changes in a person’s behaviour, firstly small changes take place and later
significant changes starts to show in the behaviour of the individual.

The title once given is really hard to remove from the minds of the infant so given the label.

Naming Theory is commonly designed for a people's characters inside society, concentrating
on the marks society has put on them—more often than not on the grounds that they don't fit
into the run of the mill standard. Marking is a procedure of giving an individual a title they

20
have not decided for themselves. This title conveys with it assumptions, attributes, and
qualities "about" the Person. Naming could have either negative or positive outcomes; yet
normally marking

Hypothesis is related with negative results, and typically spins around aberrance. Names

Can begin during childbirth and can keep going for a whole lifetime.

When a child is marked as kid or young lady desires are established. These desires will figure
out what shading garments it will wear, the sort of toys that it will play with, and what kind
of conduct is viewed as adequate. From that point, assumptions are drawn on a baby due to
their "race," guardians' financial status, spot of birth, and Their by and large physical
wellbeing and appearance, which will later decides the sorts of assets They will approach.
This procedure of marking can have an "impact on an individual's social personality" that
they will convey with them for a lifetime".

21
 Conclusion & Suggestions

Labelling theory entails a policy of non-intervention meaning nothing to be done as it can

make situation worse. An examination of the labelling theory reveals that regarded as a
theory, it contains weakness and its very foundation is fragile.
To build a plan to bring action on such theory would prove to be hazardous activity.
If we follow a policy of non-intervention it may not produce suitable outcomes, in short, the
problem may be aggravated more than it was previously.
Labelling someone increases the chance of them being deviant even after the labelling has
stopped, they start to believe that they are like that and the reason they are being labelled is
that they should accept it too. The way deviance works has been explained by various
sociologists of the time and have provided evidence for the same.

22
 BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Whose Side Are We On – Howard Becker https://www.jstor.org/stable/799147?
seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory

3. What is labelling theory https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/what-is-labelling-

theory-in-sociology/article26062527.ece

4. Research gate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226795096_Labeling_Theory

5. www.jstor.org

23