* * * * *
1. Epistemological Concerns. Labeling theory is strongly influenced by the symbolic interactionism developed by George Herbert Mead, for whom the intersubjective was the "raw stuff" of sociology. Retaining a remnant of the belief that is so central to Beccaria's thought, that the social realm is "constructed" by actors, Mead's symbolic interactionism emphasizes the processes by which shared meanings are created by actors. Mead's interactionism differs from other versions of intersubjective sociation, such as Simmel's, in its prioritizing of the individual and her psychological involvement in creating the social realm. Despite his stress on the individual, however, Mead's understanding of the process of individualization produces a rather thin understanding of individuality, as being formed seemingly entirely through "symbolic" responses to the social environment, lacking an internal dimension.
2. Theoretical Concerns. The labeling perspective is so fundamentally bound up with interactionist epistemological commitments that Howard Becker preferred to call it an "interactionist theory of deviance." Its impact on the labeling approach is evident in the core theoretical commitment of the perspective, what Edwin Lemert termed "secondary deviance." As originally formulated by Lemert, acts of secondary deviance are those which come about as a result of society's stigmatizing of a deviant (as opposed to lesser penalties), following a prior act (or series of acts) of original primary deviance. The difference between primary and secondary deviation are explained by Lemert in terms of Mead's interactionism: ". . . a severe societal reaction . . . through a process of identification is incorporated as part of the 'me' of the individual," disrupting the individual's healthy roles in society and pressuring them to adopt a role in an existing deviant group, or to create a group, in response to society's stigmatizing reaction. The importance of a new group is essential to this perspective, as emphasized in the studies of Becker's Outsiders; as individuals become "emancipated from the controls of society" they "become responsive to those of a smaller group." Studies by Becker and others seek to uncover the processes by which individuals come to break with conventionality and become integrated in subcultures, attempting to theorize, as did Edwin H. Sutherland, the processes by which groups transmit not only deviant "techniques," but the "rationalizations and justifications" required to engage in deviant acts without guilt, and the perceptions required to "define" or perceive shared experiences.
The second theoretical commitment of labeling theorists follows from the first: the study of societal reaction to deviance, including the processes by which rules come to be made and differentially enforced. Developing Mead's and Lemert's understanding of the polarizing effects of stigma, and re-shifting the emphasis onto society's response to deviance (as was Mead's focus), Kitsuse argues that deviance is in fact the process of social groups responding to behavior previously interpreted as deviant: ". . . it is the responses of the conventional and conforming members of the society who identify and interpret behavior as deviant which sociological transform persons into deviants." Howard Becker similarly suggests that "deviance" has more to do with the process of being interpreted and responded to as deviant: for example, "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." Labeling theorists emphasize how the application of "deviance" to a particular individual occurs in the process of interaction between individuals, and explore the processes by which particular interpretations of deviance are formally made into official rules and laws, and come to be enforced. It is in these latter theoretical concerns that labeling theorists engage with issues of "power." One is struck, however, by the extent to which labeling scholars, particularly in the work of Lemert and Erikson, maintain a commitment to the central message of "stigma" shared by Durkheim, Mead, and the Chicago School: stigmatizing a deviant act serves as a means of generating group solidarity.
3. Substantive Concerns. The substantive areas emphasized by labeling perspectives are typically pervasive or everyday acts of minor deviance, including "victimless crimes," such as drug use, prostitution, homosexuality, and abortion (before legalization); crimes such as gambling and check fraud; and society's treatment of the socially awkward, the mentally ill, and the handicapped. If Robert K. Merton was correct when he argued that all sociological theories choose their "strategic research site," then we should conclude that these areas of substantive concern best reflect the strengths and priorities of the perspective. All are areas in which everyday acts of "primary deviance" occur; acts which could plausibly have been engaged while remaining wholly in conventional society, if not for the social response; and which allow themselves sympathetic treatment as socially "normal" behaviors despite their deviance (where normal is understood in the Durkheimian sense alluded to by Erikson: "Deviation . .. can often be understood as a normal product of stable institutions, an important resource which is guarded and preserved by forces found in all human organizations." (However, Durkheim's other argument for the positive functions of normality—that deviance enables social change and progress—seems less pursued.). The study of mental illness seems additionally to be a special case of exploring the implications of an interactionist view of the person, studying the degree to which group inclusion is a necessity for mental health. With regard to the processes by which rules are made and enforced, particular substantive areas of research tend to include an emphasis on the mobilizing actions of "moral entrepreneurs" and everyday reporting of deviant behaviors to rule-enforcers. Again, adopting as their targets "interested" members of society who seek to advance their particular agendas emphasizes labeling theory's interest in the extraordinary.