UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 7.6 Free with a free account
Labeling Theory, Secondary Deviance, and Structural Functionalism in Crime
Criminology · Chapter 7: Sociological Theories of Crime and DevianceSection 7.6 · lesson 27 of 91video coming soon
← Social Learning Theory and Symbolic Interactionism in CriminologyNext lesson: Integrating Social Structure and Process Perspectives in Criminological Analysis →
In this lesson
How responses shape offending, and what punishment does for society.
- Distinguish primary from secondary deviance.
- Describe how a label may produce further offending.
- Weigh diversion against its counter-argument.
- Explain the functionalist account of crime and punishment.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,713 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Question
Same Act, Different Responses
Two teenagers each take something small from a store, once. One is sent home with a stern talk from a parent. The other is processed through juvenile court. Same act. Will they end up in the same place? This lesson argues that the response to an act can matter as much as the act itself.
Lesson Roadmap
Where This Lesson Is Headed
That claim is the core of labeling theory. We start with the theory's distinction between primary and secondary deviance. You will learn four mechanisms by which an official label is claimed to produce further offending. We will weigh the evidence honestly, separating what is well supported from what is contested. Then we will set diversion policies against a serious counter-argument, without taking sides. Finally, we turn to structural functionalism, which asks what crime and punishment do for society. At the end, you will see how these two perspectives look at the same act of punishment from opposite ends. Throughout, keep asking whether an outcome traces to the act itself, or to the response it received.
Core Premise
Deviance Lives in the Response
Subchapter seven point one introduced a key sociological insight. Deviance is produced by the response to an act, as much as by the act itself. Labeling theory develops that insight into a full account. Its premise is that deviance is not a fixed property of an act, but of the social response to it. The same conduct can be a minor lapse in one context, and confirmation of deviant character in another. And the claim goes further than perception. Sociologically, the same conduct becomes a different thing depending on the response. A first act handled quietly within a family, school, or community never becomes deviance in this sense. It never generates the response the theory holds responsible for what follows.
Core Premise
Formal Processing Enters the Labeling Sequence
The same act processed formally enters the labeling sequence instead. So the theory claims that response does most of the causal work in shaping a person's path.
Definitions
Primary Versus Secondary Deviance
The theory distinguishes two stages. Primary deviance is initial rule-breaking. It can arise from many causes, including any of the individual or structural mechanisms covered earlier in this course. Crucially, it has not yet been shaped by any official or social response. Secondary deviance is offending that follows from a person adopting a deviant identity. That identity is itself produced by the response their primary deviance received. Why does the distinction matter so much? It locates the cause of secondary deviance not in whatever caused the first act, but in what happened afterward. That shift opens a door for policy, since responses, unlike original causes, can be chosen.
Process Overview
Four Stages of the Labeling Process
The labeling process can be traced as a sequence of four stages. It begins with primary deviance, initial rule-breaking with many possible causes. Next comes an official response, meaning detection and a formal or informal reaction. Then identity change, as the person's self-concept shifts toward the label. Finally, secondary deviance, offending that follows from the adopted identity. Between these stages, other mechanisms operate as well. They are exclusion from conventional opportunity, altered association, and self-fulfilling expectation. Notice that only the first stage is about the act itself. Every later stage is about what others did in response, and what that response set in motion.
Four Mechanisms
How Labels Produce Further Offending
Labeling theory proposes four specific mechanisms linking an official response to later secondary deviance. The first is identity change, internalizing a deviant self-concept after a formal label. That label might be an official record, or a court adjudication. The second is exclusion from conventional opportunity. A label can close off education, employment, or other advancement, narrowing realistic alternatives. The third is altered association. A label can push a person toward others who share the same label. That connects directly to the differential association and social learning mechanisms from subchapter seven point five. The fourth is the self-fulfilling expectation. Others begin treating the labeled person in line with the label, and the person's behavior gradually shifts to match.
Stigma
Uneven Labels and Collateral Consequences
A further observation is central to this theory: labels are applied unevenly across social positions. Comparable conduct is more likely to draw a formal response in some circumstances than in others. That connects directly to the disparity questions from subchapter seven point two. Once applied, a label carries stigma, both formal through an official record and informal through altered treatment. That stigma brings documented collateral consequences that extend well beyond any formal sentence. Reduced employment access affects labor market participation, and limits on employer access to old or minor records address it. Housing barriers affect access to stable housing, and limits on screening by record alone address them. Diminished civic status can be addressed by restoring civic rights after a sentence is completed. Social exclusion from relationships and community standing is addressed by reintegrative programs and expungement pathways. These consequences can follow a conviction record long after the sentence has been served.
Evidence
Mixed Support and Hard-to-Isolate Effects
Labeling theory's evidentiary record is mixed. Research finds reasonably consistent support that formal labeling reduces later conventional opportunity, especially employment. Support is weaker and more contested for the strongest versions of identity change and self-fulfilling expectation. Those mechanisms are harder to isolate empirically. The central difficulty is separating the effect of the label from the effect of the behavior behind it. A person who receives a formal label usually committed a more serious or more visible act. So later differences might reflect the original act's severity, rather than the label itself. Careful designs compare people with similar conduct who happened to receive different official responses. But such natural comparisons are not always available. The mechanisms also reinforce each other, since someone shut out of work may spend more time with similarly labeled peers. So most careful research treats the mechanisms as operating together.
Policy Debate
Avoiding Labels Versus Under-Response
Labeling theory's clearest policy implications favor avoiding a formal label. Diversion handles a case outside the formal system. Decriminalization removes certain conduct from criminal law altogether. Expungement clears records after a period of good conduct, and minimal intervention is the general stance behind all three. The rationale is that avoiding a label avoids triggering the mechanisms we just described. A counter-argument deserves equal strength: under-response carries its own costs. Declining to intervene can fail to hold an offender accountable, and fail to protect potential future victims. It can also send a normalizing signal that the conduct is acceptable. Both positions are argued seriously, and this lesson takes no side.
Case Study
Juvenile Court Weighs Diversion
Now consider a case. A juvenile court is deciding whether to process a first-time offense formally, or divert it. A judge sympathetic to labeling theory warns of identity change and exclusion. A prosecutor replies that diversion would signal the conduct carries no real consequence. What would each side need to show in this specific instance? The judge would need to show that formal processing here is likely to trigger labeling mechanisms. Those harms would also need to outweigh the benefits of a formal response. The prosecutor would need to show that diversion here would actually undermine accountability, or the protection of potential victims. Neither side wins by general principle alone; the case turns on specific evidence about this young person.
Alternative Approach
Reintegrative Shaming Condemns the Act
Reintegrative shaming offers one way through: condemn the act, not the person. The community then actively readmits the person, which bridges to restorative justice in chapter eight.
Second Perspective
Structural Functionalism and Crime's Functions
Structural functionalism is a broader sociological perspective. It treats society as a system of interdependent parts, each contributing to the functioning of the whole. Applied to crime, it returns to Durkheim's claim from subchapter seven point one. Crime is normal in any society, and it serves boundary-maintaining and solidarity functions. Punishing an offender reaffirms shared norms, and can strengthen collective identity among those not punished. The central criticism is a logical one: identifying a function is not identifying a cause. Showing that crime reinforces norms does not explain why any specific act of crime occurred. Worse, a function can slide into a justification. An unreflective reader might conclude that current levels of crime and punishment are therefore appropriate. That conclusion does not follow, because a function can be real without being a reason to leave things unexamined.
Comparing Theories
Punishment Seen From Opposite Ends
Labeling theory and functionalism connect through the social meaning of punishment. Functionalism explains why a society punishes at all, to reaffirm boundaries and strengthen solidarity. Labeling theory examines what that same punishment does to the specific person who receives it. Functionalism looks outward, at the community that witnesses punishment. Labeling theory looks inward, at the person who experiences it. Read together, they reveal a tension. Punishment may serve society's boundary function through the very labeling process that risks secondary deviance. Neither theory resolves that tension on its own. An account of punishment's benefits that ignores its cost to the individual tells only half the story. So does an account of labeling's costs that ignores why society punishes at all.
Quick Check
Is Dana's Shoplifting Primary or Secondary
Let's practice distinguishing primary from secondary deviance. Dana has shoplifted many times over two years. No one has ever caught her, and she still sees herself as an ordinary student. Quick check: is her shoplifting so far primary or secondary deviance? Pause, and decide.
Answer
Repetition Without a Label Stays Primary
Primary. Repetition alone doesn't make deviance secondary. No response has labeled her, and her identity hasn't shifted; secondary deviance follows the label.
Practice Patterns
Sorting Primary and Secondary Examples
A first-time act driven by a specific situational pressure is primary. An isolated act with no pattern before or after is primary. Offending that emerges after associating mainly with similarly labeled others is secondary. A first act caused by an identifiable individual-level factor is primary. And offending after internalizing a deviant self-concept through formal processing is secondary.
Quick Check
Which Mechanism Explains Leo
One more. After a juvenile record, Leo is turned down by every employer he applies to, and he starts selling stolen goods to pay his rent. Quick check: which labeling mechanism fits best? Pause, and decide.
Answer
Leo's Case Shows Exclusion From Opportunity
Lost opportunity: the record closed off legitimate work, which is the exclusion mechanism. In real cases, it usually works alongside the others, since they reinforce each other. By contrast, offending that escalates sharply right after one minor first contact points first to identity change.
Key Takeaways
Recap and Preview of Next Subchapter
To recap. Deviance belongs to the response as well as the act. Primary deviance becomes secondary through identity, exclusion, association, and expectation. The evidence is strongest for lost opportunity. Diversion has a serious counter-argument. And functionalism and labeling see the same punishment from opposite ends. Next, subchapter seven point seven turns to integrating structure and process theories.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Labeling Theory, Secondary Deviance, and Structural Functionalism in Crime
What is the difference between primary and secondary deviance?
How can a label lead to more offending?
Is diversion better than formal processing?
How does structural functionalism explain crime and punishment?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →