Theories of crime and deviance: interactionist

Introduction to Interactionist Theory of Crime and Deviance

Interactionist theory is a micro-level understanding based on how individuals act and react to their social environment.
The Interactionist approach to crime and deviance revolves around the concept of social construction and the way society labels and reacts to behaviour.
Becker and others argued crime doesn’t exist until labelled as such. The interaction between the criminal and those who label them is a focus in this perspective.

Labelling Theory

Labelling theory is a key component of the Interactionist perspective. It argues that criminality is not a personal characteristic, but a consequence of social labelling.
Principles of this theory suggest that once a person is labelled as a criminal or deviant, they start to incorporate this label into their self-concept, often leading towards a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Labelling also brings about societal reaction which further pushes the individual towards deviance.

Influence on Criminal Behaviour

Interactionists argue that laws and norms are not equally enforced, leading to differential justice. Whether an act is labelled as deviant or criminal often depends on the actor’s social standing or profile.
The social status of the ‘offender’, as well as the perceptions and reactions of the ‘audience’, play a large part in the labelling process.
The nature of contact with authorities and its frequency can have an impact on whether someone becomes labelled as a criminal or deviant.

Deviancy Amplification

According to Stanley Cohen’s deviancy amplification model, societal reaction, media exaggeration and distortion often lead to an increased level of deviant behaviour.
The societal reaction may create ‘folk devils’ which can culminate in a moral panic. This leads to further labelling and increase in deviance, creating a deviancy amplification spiral.

Critiques of Interactionist Approach

Traditional Interactionist theory is often criticised for over-emphasising the role of labelling and neglecting the influence of structural factors on criminal behaviour.
Critics also debate that Interactionist theory may seem to excuse criminals by blaming society’s labels for crimes rather than the individuals committing the actions.
The voluntaristic nature of interactionist theory is questioned, with critics suggesting that not all labelled individuals take on deviant roles.

Conclusion

Interactionist approaches offer a different perspective to understand crime and deviance from micro-level interactions and labels, underlining the role of societal reactions and the subjective nature of deviance.
Despite criticism, this perspective offers depth to our understanding of crime and deviance by focusing on social processes that often get overshadowed by more dominant structural theories.