L

Labeling Theory, History of

Bernard B Berk, California State University, Los Angeles, CA, USA
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract

Labeling theory emerged as the dominant perspective in the study of deviance in the 1960s, though its origins can be traced to
Durkheim. Labeling theory, inuenced by symbolic interactionism, dramatically transformed the eld by redening what
constituted deviance and what was signicant to understand about deviance. It dominated the study of deviance for a quarter
of a century. While its zenith has passed, it remains, as an aspect of societal reaction theory, an enduring perspective that
continues to generate research rening the perspective and extending it to new areas under related concepts such as stigma.

The study of deviance has been shaped by a variety of streams
of inuence over the years each pulling the eld in different
directions. The earliest roots of the study of deviance can be
traced to Emile Durkheims (1897) pioneering investigation
of suicide, over a century ago, in which he established a rela-
tionship between the organization of society and rates of
suicide. From the onset, a dominant stream of inuence has
been this positivistic perspective where (1) deviance referred
to norm-violating behavior, such as crime, delinquency,
suicide, alcoholism, etc., and (2) research was oriented toward
identifying the social causes or etiology of the norm-violating
behavior as well as its consequences upon the larger society.
In the 1960s, however, the traditional positivistic perspec-
tive was eclipsed by what has been characterized as the
labeling, societal reaction, or the interactionist perspective.
The roots of this perspective can be traced to a second line of
investigation of Durkheim (1895) in The Normal and the
Pathological, which shifted attention from how society gener-
ated nonconforming behavior to how and why society created
criminals through societal reaction. Durkheims primary focus
in this work was on macroanalysis, establishing the functional
paradigm, and applying the paradigm to the study of the
(positive) contributions of crime/punishment in establishing
and maintaining social order and cohesion in society.
However the societal reaction perspective did not gain
traction until over half a century later in the 1960s, where it
was redirected away from functionalism and macroanalysis
toward microanalysis with a focus on social process rather
than social structure. This shift in focus was largely the result
of the very strong inuence that both symbolic interactionism
and the Chicago School had on the eld of deviance and redir-
ected the societal reaction perspective toward microanalysis
and a focus on social interaction. The works of early pioneers
such as Tannenbaum (1938), Lemert (1951, 1967), Becker
(1963), Goffman (1961, 1963), and Scheff (1966) brought
labeling theory front and center to a position of preeminence
in the eld. Labeling theory generated much interest, research,
and excitement in the eld and continued to dominate the
study of deviance for almost the next quarter of a century. It
gave rise to a variety of theories and research studies which
redirected the traditional positivistic study of deviance toward
new issues and concerns. Though its popularity began to
wane by the 1980s, its legacy remains a vital perspective today
in the study of deviance. Since the late 1990s there has been
a resurgence of articles and books focusing on evaluating
labeling theory, reinterpreting and rening the theory, and
applying it to new areas of study. Labeling theory is thoroughly
embedded in the fabric of deviance theory today. Several
outstanding recent histories of labeling theory have docu-
mented the resurgence of deviance theory (Plummer, 2011;
Matsueda, 2014).
There also is no all-encompassing labeling perspective.
Because it developed in a piecemeal fashion, in a variety of
areas, focusing on different issues, its relationship to the
larger body of sociological theory, such as societal reaction
theory or symbolic interactionism, has not been clearly
explicated. In addition to its macro and micro focuses, it also
assumed quite different forms as it was applied to different
types of deviance and to different facets of the processes of
deviance. It did not evolve into a coherent body of theory,
incorporating both macro and micro concerns, integrating the
disparate and seemingly unrelated studies.
One of the rst attempts at integrating the disparate strands
of many diverse studies which sought to bring them together in
a more unied way was an iconic text by Earl Rubington and
Martin Weinberg (1968) which described this emerging body
of theory and research as the interactionist perspective.
It undertook efforts to incorporate both the more narrow micro
concerns of labeling theory, focusing on the effects of labeling
on the individual, while at the same time including research
studies that were broader in scope than what might have
been typically regarded as labeling theory. Studies of institu-
tions of social control such as the court, police, prisons, and
social work agencies as well as studies dealing with the

150 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 13 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03161-5

emergence of subcultures and social movements began to dot
the landscape. These studies, however, required a broader
framework than what the term interactionist perspective
might convey. Therefore, a more encompassing conceptual
framework is needed to contain the range of concerns in this
array of theories and studies. However, the effect of symbolic
interactionism on societal reaction theory was to keep the focus
on the micro and social psychological aspects of the labeling
process. Whereas Durkheim focused on the macro aspects of
societal reaction in maintaining the social system as did later
scholars Erikson (1966) and Moral Panic theorists (Nachman
and Goode, 1994), who focused on the larger implications of
societal denition and reaction. The more generic societal reac-
tion perspective, which subsumes both the narrower micro
concerns of labeling theory as well as broader macro perspec-
tives, will be employed as the primary framework in this
analysis.
The rise or fall in popularity of various paradigms in the
study of deviance often reects their popularity in sociology
generally. In both mainstream sociology as well as deviance
theory, the popularity of various paradigms is inuenced by
the tenor of the times. Times of social unrest usually bring
conict theory into prominence, as it did in the late 1960s
and 1970s, when cities were aame and blood was running
in the streets. Functional models of society often fade from
favor as they do not reect the circumstances of those times.
Whereas during periods of relative calm and prosperity or
increasing cultural diversity such as the late 1950s and 1960s,
symbolic interactionism and images of negotiated social orders
rise to prominence, as they mirror the social conditions of the
times. Therefore, changing times often lead to changing para-
digms within a discipline. These short-lived cycles, in deviance
theory have been noted as generational effects (Plummer,
2011) or paradigm shifts (Kuhn, 1970).
Symbolic interactionism left its substantial mark on
labeling theory. In addition, the orientation of the labeling
theory got continually refocused as it was applied to different
forms of deviance, such as crime, delinquency, mental illness,
drug use, gangs, sexual orientation, or disability. This fragmen-
tation of labeling theory became so pronounced that some
critics did not view it as a theory but only a loosely tied together
body of propositions which acted more like a sensitizing
perspective than a theory.
Nonetheless labeling theory dramatically shifted attention
from the traditional positivistic concerns of viewing deviance
as behavior which violated norms and seeking the social causes
of rule-violating behavior. While employing the same term,
deviance, they radically redened both the term and the eld
of study. They asserted that what deviance fundamentally refers
to is actions or people that elicit social disapproval, condemnation,
rejection, or exclusion. Furthermore, they asserted sociologists
can never deduce in advance what will be sanctioned by ideal-
ized versions of the norm. Norms were reconceptualized from
objectively determinable to subjectively problematic reaction theory, which includes micro, meso, and macro levels
(Rubington and Weinberg, 1968). Moral norms must be
studied in action as they are created, invoked, or applied in
everyday interaction, and that you can never tell what the
norm is until people are actually negatively reacted to by others
and this is highly variable (Becker, 1963). It is others reaction
to them that makes them deviant, not the act itself.
Labeling Theory, History of 151
Furthermore, people can elicit social condemnation without
violating social norms, and such individuals are still to be
regarded as deviant from this perspective. This is why positive
deviance or hidden deviance is an oxymoron. It is not the act
that the person engages in that makes them deviant. It is only
the reactions of others that confer their deviant status upon
them, no matter their actual behavior. Hence the meaning of
the term deviant shifts from behavior in which the individual
engages, in the positivist perspective, to their status in the group
and how they are dened by others in the labeling perspective.
That is determined by the reactions of other members in the
group. Thus the concerns and research efforts of labeling theo-
rists were then directed to the social denitions and causes of
labeling as well as the consequences of labeling especially on the indi-
viduals subsequent behavior, self, identity, and possible career of
deviance. Though the variable nature of applying rules and
labels to individuals was commonly investigated, the variable
responses to the labeling by prospective deviants, was less
well examined, with few exceptions (Goffman, 1963).
Labeling theory also shifted attention from the harmful
effects of deviance on society, frequently presumed by positiv-
ists, to the harmful effects and consequences of ofcial control
and labeling on the lives of individuals who are designated devi-
ants by society. In addition, the emergence of labeling theory
served to raise questions about value positions which are
implicit in particular ways of conceptualizing and studying devi-
ance (Mills, 1943) by incorporating the perspectives of deviants,
as Beckers (1964) title, The Other Side, aptly conveys. It gave
a type of legitimacy or validity to the perspective of deviants.
Including the perspectives of deviants also bears the mark of
the Chicago Schools emphasis on obtaining rich ethnographies
on the lives of deviants giving them a seat at the table in the dia-
logue. There are even current pleas (Fitch, 2010) urging recon-
necting labeling theory to its early roots to Dewey by
reemphasizing that isolating, stigmatizing, and condemning
individuals creates an underclass contrary to democratic ideals.
The morality of labeling cuts both ways. Other aspects of
labeling theory also reect the strong inuence of symbolic inter-
actionism, particularly theorists such as Mead (1934), as they
shaped a view of social life as uid, reality as socially con-
structed, meaning and order as negotiated, and took a less deter-
ministic nature of social interaction with a focus on social
process rather than on social structure in place of the stricter
determinism characteristic of functional/positivistic approaches.
Societal Reaction Perspective and Labeling Theory
Central to sociological analysis is part to whole analysis and in
this vein it would be helpful to place labeling theory in a larger
contextual perspective. It is asserted that labeling theory cannot
be fully appreciated apart from its connection to societal reac-
tion theory and that it can be viewed as a subbranch of societal
of analysis. Furthermore, the various levels of the perspective
are intimately intertwined. Societal reaction theory can be
viewed as comprising three streams of interrelated studies
and theories: (1) microanalysis encompassing studies dealing
with the traditional concerns of labeling theory, (2) mesoanal-
ysis exemplied by studies dealing with larger focuses and
152 Labeling Theory, History of
structures such as agencies of social control, professions, social
movements, etc., and (3) macroanalysis dealing with the inter-
connections of labeling processes to the larger social structure
and social system, perhaps even extending to the world order
and global processes related to patterns of social control.
1. Labeling theory would fall into a more narrow focus on the
micro aspects of societal reaction theory such as conse-
quences of labeling on the individual, their self-concept,
identity, life chances, and subsequent deviant actions and
entrenchment into deviant careers.
Tannenbaum (1938) was among the rst to redene the
concept of deviant and redirect study to the effects of labeling
and how it creates what Lemert (1967) calls secondary devi-
ance; deviance that is a product of the labeling process itself.
Whereas positivists had focused their attention on the initial
rule-breaking act or primary deviance. The labeling apparatus
could be viewed as a system of amplication of deviance,
which paralleled concerns of mainstream sociologists with
the process of socialization, more aptly described as resocializa-
tion. Beckers (1963, 1964) focus was more on the creation and
application of the rules by moral entrepreneurs and enforcers,
the various contingencies involved in labeling, and the impor-
tance of social denitions. The labeling approach led to a recon-
ceptualization of norms as objectively determinable to
subjectively problematic (Rubington and Weinbergs, 1968). labeling theory in delinquency (Hayes, 1997). The research
Becker (1963), in his study of marijuana use and Scheff
(1966, 1984,1999) in his analysis of mental illness, both high-
lighted the importance of learning the deviant role, which
further targeted the amplication process of elaborating and
stabilizing deviance. Reecting similar concerns, Goffman in
Asylums (1961) elucidated the systematic efforts of institutions
of social control to transform individuals identities into
deviant ones, in order to more effectively manage them in
a bureaucratic system. This work addressed social control insti-
tutions and more encompassing institutions he described as
total institutions. His Stigma (1963) called attention to the
central place of stigma and the critical role that social
acceptance plays in the study of deviance, not only in the lives
of deviants but in the underlying threat of embarrassment and
loss of face that everyone faces at every moment in everyday
interaction. All individuals share with deviants, though in
a lesser degree, the experience of managing stigma. When social
rejection becomes more extreme and spills over into other roles
and situations, it reects the terrain of deviance. Normals can
usually shed the devaluation at the termination of the interac-
tion sequence as it does not usually follow them into new situ-
ations as it may among deviants. Thus the meaning as
a deviant the person comes to have for others is constructed
through social interaction by the treatment the individual
receives, which is critical to creating deviants. The meaning is
revealed in the process of social interaction where the
individual is constructed out of the actions and reactions of
others.
This tradition was often characteristic of subsequent
research in criminology where a plethora of studies emerged
with their focus on the consequences of formal systems of
social control on recidivism. Here the ndings show somewhat
consistent effects of labeling and the formal processing of crim-
inals on subsequent law-breaking behavior and
reincarceration. Some studies, however, showed more inconsis-
tent effects and suggested reformulation of the theory by spec-
ifying the conditions under which labeling is likely to be
effective, in order to more adequately test labeling theory
(Paternoster and Iovanni, 1989).
More recent studies extend the theory to new areas such as
gambling, victim perceptions, and drug use. In addition, they
explore differences in formal and informal labeling, the varied
conditions under which labeling takes place, the type of sanc-
tions imposed, age at which labeling occurs, the duration of
the effects of labeling, areas impacted by labeling, as well as
differences in the effectiveness of labeling on various groups
differing in gender, age, ethnicity, etc. The studies showed
signicant differences and point to the necessity of further
research characterized by more rened formulations more
adequate controls over these variables. Efforts were undertaken
to identify how the effects of labeling are mediated, whether
through (1) identity change or (2) cumulative structural disad-
vantage through the exclusionary process of labeling. Both
contribute to explaining the variance. More specication
is needed of the types of deviance, sanctions, and conditions
under which labeling takes place, so a more precise under-
standing of how the process of labeling inuences outcomes.
The introduction of more sophisticated techniques such as
modeling theory has increased the explanatory power of
and the concerns raised by labeling theory, despite the lack of
highly controlled studies, has led to an increased use of alterna-
tives to traditional methods of social control in society such as
drug courts, home monitoring, alternatives to incarceration,
and techniques of radical nonintervention (Schur, 1973).
This pattern of research was also characteristic of studies
in the area of mental illness where research explored the conse-
quences of labeling on symptom remission, rehospitalization,
and the stigma the individual experienced, though more incon-
sistent effects were found with respect to symptom remission
and rehospitalization (Scheff, 1967, 1999; Gove, 1980;
Link et al., 2001). Alternatives to hospitalization such as deinsti-
tutionalization were undertaken on a mass scale in states like
California, though these programs failed to provide help for
the individuals in the community which ultimately led to an
increase of the mentally ill among the homeless and now
prisons and jails have become the largest mental hospitals in
the nation. Self-help and twelve-step programs have arisen
around an enormous range of addictions reecting some
deprofessionalization of the management of deviance
countering somewhat the trends toward the medicalization of
deviance. Studies in the area of mental illness also urge
a more thoughtful reformulation of the theory in order that
more precise predictions can be made.
The most recent direction that labeling theory and micro-
analysis has taken, spearheaded by the work of Link et al.
(1989, 2001), has been under the terms of stigma and stigma-
tization. Stigma studies tend to show consistent negative effects
of labeling and have been linked to self-esteem, earning power,
ties in the community, psychological symptoms, and
satisfaction with life (Markowitz, 1998).
Plummer (2011) noted that while many current researchers
do not explicitly identify with the labeling perspective or locate
the relevance of their ndings to the tradition, their ndings fall

squarely in labeling theory paradigm. Ordinary sorrow is trans-
formed into depressive disorder that illustrates medicalization
of deviance as life history criminology, which relates subse-
quent criminality to involvement in the criminal justice system
is old wine in new bottles. Also one cannot ignore the impact of
labeling theory on other disciplines such as psychology, psychi-
atry, social work, special education, etc. (Corrigan, 2004).
Numerous studies raise serious questions about the nosology
and types of mental illness of the eld of psychiatry, based
on the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, calling into question
not only its reliability but also its validity. The goodness of t
between these fundamental diagnostic categories and the
symptoms manifested by individuals is very poor, lending
credence to Scheffs claims and afrming social constructionists
interpretations of the term mental illness.
All the above studies and efforts fall into this more narrow
focus on societal reaction traditionally associated with labeling
theory.
2. Mesoanalysis attempts to link labeling perspectives with
larger structures in society such as agencies of social control,
social movements, and the emergence of subcultures or
professions.
More encompassing studies on labeling processes and soci-
etal reaction take into account the creation of social types, the
consequences of large formal agencies of social control
(Goffman, 1961) such as courts, police, prisons and apply
these perspectives to other bureaucratic systems such as school
systems and the tracking of students or social work agencies.
These studies investigate social processes and systems with
a much broader scope than just focusing on the effects of
labeling. Studies in cultural criminology, public reactions to
crime, and the role of media in shaping public responses to
crime also reect mesolevel concerns of societal reaction
theory. Developing an understanding of how these institutions
operate as social systems, such as the Theory of Ofce
(Rubington and Weinberg, 1968), as well as their role in the
larger society in managing deviance also demonstrates linkages
to larger structures in society sometimes edging the labeling
perspective toward macroanalysis.
In mesoanalysis, this social meaning key to the term
deviant is made more structural by introducing the concept
of status as dening the deviant, and along with the concept
of master status, deviant status is placed in a larger structural
context of analysis or in Goffmans terms a larger frame. Taking
it further, deviance can be seen as a form of social stratication
based on status groups in Webers terms referring to the
prestige, respect, or dignity of the person so as to make social
acceptance possible through status claims. Celebrities would
form the highest tier, ordinary people an intermediate tier,
and deviants fall at the bottom of the hierarchical system.
Therefore deviance can be studied within a structure of strati-
cation and inequality of prestige or social acceptance in the
same way other systems of inequality are examined in main-
stream sociology.
Mesolevel research also examines the effects of labeling
systems on both the deviants and on other institutions in
society. This tradition of social constructionism has embodied
the study of whole professions such as psychiatry, medicine,
and the pharmaceutical industry and their roles in medicalizing
Labeling Theory, History of 153
deviance. Some of the richest studies on professions have
emerged from studies in the eld of deviance. These studies
integrate structural aspects of large-scale organizations and
institutions with micro level interpersonal and individual
effects of managing deviance.
3. Macro concerns in societal reaction theory had its roots in
Durkheim (1895), and reemerged in the 1960s with the
resurgence of labeling theory. Aspects of macroanalysis can
be found in Erikson (1966), Scheff (1966, 1984, 1999)
where the larger functions of labeling deviance or mental
illness were examined, and in Moral Panic analyses
(Nachman and Goode, 1994) which focused on larger
societal reactions. Studies that examined aspects of deviance
as precursors to social movements such as gay pride or the
discrimination associated with mental illness, like the
emergence of these movements were efforts to cope with
deviant status in society. These studies and theories
embodied macro perspectives.
Labeling concerns are also linked to macroanalysis by
including the societys system of social types in their analyses.
The boxes or categories within which individuals are placed
are larger societal constructions. Furthermore, Scheffs (1966,
1999) analysis of mental illness as a residual category (placing
all forms of deviance that do not t other established types or
categories), permits the larger structural systems integrity by
coping with the range of unacceptable behavior that does not
neatly t into the conventional system of social types, and
ties his analysis to macro concerns of system maintenance.
Furthermore, Scheffs (1966, 1999) assertion that the function
of labeling is to (1) protect the status quo and (2) preserve the
underlying social reality, also speaks to the issues raised by
Durkheim in his macroanalysis of deviance. Less well explored,
but equally critical to a larger macroanalysis, are Scheffs and
Goffmans notion of psychiatric symptoms reecting the
taken-for-granted residual rules of society. They are a reective
prism on the assumptive world of that social system. Thus
psychiatry becomes a way of policing a certain part of the moral
terrain. This extends Durkheims macroanalysis of crime to
mental illness. For Durkheim creating criminals is a way to
dene moral boundaries and similarly for Scheff, labeling
people as mentally ill is a way also to dene moral boundaries
of the taken-for-granted world.
Another stream of inuence owing from societal reaction
perspectives arose as the similarity between the plight of devi-
ants and other oppressed or stigmatized groups came to be
recognized in social movement theory. The connecting of gay
rights, the disability community, prisoner rights movements,
etc. were seen as instances of civil rights struggles and the larger
issues of equality and civil rights came to the forefront forging
an alliance between larger concerns of social acceptance and the
power of the state. Increasing convergences between issues
studied by deviant theorists and those in mainstream sociology
can be observed. The plight of deviants and threats to their civil
rights arose along with other stigmatized and oppressed minor-
ities became an increasingly important issue in recent times.
This was foreshadowed by Durkheims analysis of the growing
importance of the individual and individual rights in modern
society as the sphere of the collective morality diminished
154 Labeling Theory, History of
with industrialization. Parsons pushed the analysis of moder-
nity further and viewed increasing democratization as a conse-
quence of modern society. Thus these movements may reect
a larger transformation to attain dignity and rights for all in
society even among the lowest of the low, social outcasts.
Within this macro tradition are also studies demonstrating
relationships between labeling systems and macro structures.
For example, there has been research linking increasing rates
of incarceration to the creation of prisons as the new Jim
Crow system. Some view increased incarceration as a result
of the later stages of declining empires linking labeling
processes to the larger world order. Thus labeling may be driven
by much larger macro concerns than deviance theorists have yet
explored. Conict/radical theorists have sought to link
increasing incarceration to the late stages of capitalism as
a way of coping with the bourgeoning unemployment. Studies
investigating the current decriminalizing of marijuana bear
directly upon Durkheims hypothesis that societies seek to
maintain optimum amounts of crime through efforts at loos-
ening boundaries when there are excessive numbers of devi-
ants, as was the case before the repeal of prohibition in the
U.S. Current mass releases of inmates from prison also reect
societys efforts to balance the creation of criminals with social
resources. In addition, investigations of efforts by society to
create new categories of deviants such as terrorists and extend-
ing that label to eco-terrorism or animal rights terrorism links
labeling processes to efforts of state or corporate control to
employ labeling as a means of extending their power and
control in society. Thus issues of societal reaction t neatly
into aspects of conict/radical perspectives of deviance as
well and merge easily into macroanalysis.
Falling squarely in the macro tradition were investigations
and studies which explored variations in labeling processes
by type of society (Pfohl, 1981; Raybeck, 1988) which focused
specically on macromicro relationships between narrower
concerns of labeling and social control at the micro level and
broader issues of social organization societal reaction, with
an emphasis on macromicro integration.
These trends in research and theory illustrate the various
strands of labeling and societal reaction theory and the range
of societal reaction theory. Overall the trends in research over
the last half century has been moving toward expanding the
range of societal reaction theory, identifying convergences in
different areas of deviance, and proposing renements in the
theory by specifying the relevant variables and types of controls
necessary to isolate the effects of various systems of labeling.
There are calls for efforts to integrate the various strands of soci-
etal reaction theory into a more encompassing and coherent
perspective and designed research to examine the overall
system of social control.
Not only may it be impossible to separate aspects of
labeling theory as issues seem to be strongly interrelated. It
would be articial to separate them as independent lines of
inquiry without seeing their interconnection. It may be true
that separating deviance theory from general sociological
theory may prove increasingly unfruitful since the problem
of deviance (disorder) is the opposite side of the coin of the
problem of order which has been a foundational concern
since the inception of the discipline. A coherent sociology
will attempt to unify instead of fragment the eld into
subdisciplines. Separating rather than integrating disciplines
may result in fracturing our grasp of the world. Each science
is a strategy of abstracting from a complex world. Otherwise
everything would have to be said at once to capture the
immense complexity of the world. On the other hand, by
separating disciplines, we lose the interconnectedness of
nature.
If labeling theory is to advance today, it must consolidate
a variety of disparate concerns into a more coherent overall
theory. Currently it sensitizes researchers to specic issues in
the study of deviance without integrating its various facets
showing the relationships among the diverse concerns on
both a macro and micro level that have been embraced by
labeling theorists in order to move from a perspective to
a theory.
Deviance theory has not developed as a cumulative
endeavor where each research study builds upon previous
studies and theories are modied on the basis of empirical
ndings, so there is a close correspondence between the state
of research and theory. If the eld is to advance signicantly
the various strands of labeling theory, positivism, and conict
theory have to be pulled together within the various subareas,
and then in turn has to be integrated into mainstream sociolog-
ical theory.
Acknowledgment
The author acknowledges helpful comments made by Thomas J. Scheff.
See also: Applied Criminology and Criminal Justice;
Constructivism and Constructionism: Methodology;
Individuals in Society: History of the Concept; Social
Constructivism; Social Control and Deviance, History of.
Bibliography
Becker, Howard S., 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. The Free
Press, New York.
Becker, Howard S., 1964. The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance. Free Press,
New York.
Corrigan, Patrick, 2004. How stigma interferes with mental health care. American
Psychologist 59 (7), 614625.
Durkheim, Emile, 1895. Rules of the Sociological Method. Felix Alcan, Paris, France.
Durkheim, Emile, 1897. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Felix Alcan, Paris, France.
Erikson, Kai T., 1966. Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance. Wiley
and Sons, New York.
Fitch, Frank, 2010. Laggards, labeling and limitations: re-connecting labeling deviance
theory with Deweyan pragmatism. Philosophical Studies in Education 41, 1728.
Goffman, Erving, 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and
Other Inmates. Doubleday, New York.
Goffman, Erving, 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gove, Walter R., 1980. The Labeling of Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective, second ed.
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Hayes, Hennessey D., 1997. Using integrated theory to explain the movement into
juvenile delinquency. Deviant Behavior 18 (2), 614625.
Kuhn, Thomas, 1970. The Structure of Scientic Revolutions, second ed. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Lemert, Edwin M., 1951. Social Pathology: A Systematic Approach to the Study
of Sociopathic Behavior. McGraw Hill, New York.
Lemert, Edwin M., 1967. Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Link, Bruce G., Cullen, Francis, Struening, Elmer, Shrout, Patrick, Donrenwend, Bruce,
1989. A modied labeling theory approach to mental disorders: an empirical
assessment. American Sociological Review 54 (3), 400423.
Link, Bruce G., Struening, Elmer L., Neese-Todd, Sheree, Asmussen, Sara,
Phelan, Joe C., 2001. Stigma as a barrier to recovery: the consequences of stigma
for the self-esteem of people with mental illnesses. Psychiatric Services 52 (12),
16211626.
Markowitz, Fred E., 1998. The effects of stigma on the psychological well-being and
life satisfaction of persons with mental illness. Journal of Health and Social
Behaviors 39, 335347.
Matsueda, Ross L., 2014. The natural history of labeling theory in Farrington. In:
David, P., Murray, Joseph (Eds.), Labeling Theory: Empirical Tests. Trans-
action, NJ.
Mead, George H., 1934. Mind, Self and Society from the Standpoint of a Social
Behaviorist. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Mills, C. Wright, 1943. The professional ideology of social pathologists. American
Journal of Sociology 49 (2), 165180.
Nachman, Ben-Yehuda, Goode, Eric, 1994. Moral Panics: The Social Construction
of Deviance. Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Labeling Theory, History of 155
Paternoster, Raymond, Iovanni, Leeann, 1989. The labeling perspective and delin-
quency: an elaboration of the theory and an assessment of the evidence. Justice
Quarterly 6 (3), 359394.
Pfohl, Stephen, 1981. Labeling criminals. In: Ross, Laurence H. (Ed.), Law and
Deviance. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp. 6597.
Plummer, Ken, 2011. The labelling perspective forty years on. In: Peters, Helge,
Dellwing, Michael (Eds.), Langweiliges Verbrechen (Boring Crimes). VS Verlag,
Webaden.
Raybeck, Douglas, 1988. Anthropology and labeling theory: a constructive critique.
Ethos 16 (4), 371397.
Rubington, Earl, Weinberg, Martin S., 1968. Deviance: The Interactionist Perspective.
Macmillan, New York.
Scheff, Thomas J., 1966, 1984 second ed., 1999 third ed. Being Mentally Ill: A
Sociological Theory. Aldine, Chicago.
Scheff, ThomasJ., 1967. Mental Illness and Social Process. Harper and Row, New York.
Schur, Edwin, 1973. Radical Non-Intervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem.
Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Tannenbaum, Frank, 1938. Crime and the Community. Columbia University Press,
New York.