5th The Labeling theory (labeling approach)
She has worked with the theories of social control much in common, but not the premise of the standard consensus. For it is deviant behavior solely a question of who called whom different. Notwithstanding is what is referred to as such, and it is a question of social power, who who may be called deviant. Of the sub-culture theories differs by uniqueness of the labeling approach in rejecting the general validity of the standards of the theory of power in that they can not commit himself to a clear concept of power. But these differences are not clear, and it is by labeling elements of the other theories also discuss how moments of subculture theory and the theory of power in-labeling approach. The added labeling-approach really only set a major emphasis: that the interpretation of a behavior as deviant a question of the presumed or imputed intention behind the behavior, which can have as observable event as such, not "objective" characteristics of the deviation can because they also does not exist. Assuming driving without a valid ticket forgetfulness or intent, the killing of a human enrichment intentions, self-defense, revenge, or mission objectives? Depending unterstelltem motive, the act is interpreted and judged them as different or not. This is the core of the interactionist labeling approach, as portrayed in the input questions and examples already. Every social problem is not going to such by it as such looks and defined as such. You have to leave but the interactionist paradigm, if one considers the question of deviance than the reciprocal of the relationship of the actors involved, when one leaves the standard-setting and intention assumption is not the subjectivity of the inspectors or the societal power struggle and takes into account that a mutual imputation of motives and reactions of a social interaction first founded. This is also true for the interaction of social Controller and labeled as deviants actor. Here, too, is the central question not only the ethical, whether there are universal norms and values that are valid for all, but specific to the level that the deviant has a self-image as deviants, as the liar who knows he is lying and its lie is only successful if the others expect that he's telling the truth. This mutual awareness and understanding, however, the core of the interactionist paradigm, which believes strongly in the labeling approach-related. His fertility turns out to be only in situations of unilateral interaction.
The feel-labeling approach usually assumes that the Labeled as deviant himself not as a deviant, an assumption, which only as each case must turn right and should not be put under general. Also, the labeling-approach gets his explosiveness in the education on that lens is somewhat subjective, but one would actually say something intersubjective. Interactions can also be structured by power imbalances, but there are interactions and interaction can also be criticized, and may be modified. Such an imbalance is normal in social work action situations. All the more reason then that power is deliberately make its labeling. This can not mean, however, to dispense with the moral judgments and to accept the self-interpretation of the deviant. It means that we must satisfy himself of his appeal as a justifiable and in the interaction with the comparison with the consensus seeking. have studies on young offenders have shown that to be accepted on a general level, the rules and standards, in this case that of the criminal law and is also admitted to almost always break them too. Disagreement exists in most cases in assessing the actual fact that is used by the perpetrators often "neutralized" perspective that is in their special meaning (downplaying the fact ("not so bad"), blaming the victim ("is it yourself blame "), seduction of others (" am in bad Company advised "), complaints about unfair treatment by police and justice (" there is but one of the culprits looking for, "etc.). However, there are "repentant" reactions, reflecting the expectations of inspectors.
[Much love. Esther]
