Interactionist sociology provides a micro-level approach to deviance. Rather than seeing deviance as the product of structural forces such as poverty or anomie, interactionists argue that deviance is socially constructed through everyday interactions, labelling, and negotiation of meanings. Deviant subcultures, from this perspective, emerge when people are labelled as outsiders, excluded from mainstream opportunities, and pushed to seek solidarity in alternative groups.

Howard Becker (1963) – Outsiders and the Social Construction of Deviance

  • In Outsiders, Becker argued that deviance is not the act itself but the reaction to the act: “deviance is not a quality of the act, but of the reaction.”
  • He illustrated this with marijuana users, showing that deviant behaviour is learned through interaction. Subcultures form to provide the shared meanings and skills needed to sustain deviance.
  • Once labelled, individuals may embark on a “deviant career”, especially if conventional opportunities are blocked. Subcultures provide status and belonging in place of mainstream acceptance.

Evaluation: Becker highlights how labels create deviance, but critics argue he neglects the original motivations for rule-breaking.

Discussion question: Can you think of an example where someone’s deviance was shaped more by society’s reaction than by their behaviour?

Edwin Lemert (1951) – Primary and Secondary Deviance

  • Lemert distinguished between primary deviance (occasional, often unnoticed rule-breaking) and secondary deviance (rule-breaking that follows once an individual is caught, labelled, and stigmatised).
  • Secondary deviance can become a person’s master status, shaping how they see themselves and how others see them.
  • Subcultures form when people with shared labels support one another and normalise deviant identities.

Evaluation: Lemert explains how deviance escalates, but not why some labelled individuals reject deviant identities.

Discussion question: Do all negative labels stick, or can people escape them?

Edwin Schur (1971) – Negotiating Labels

  • Schur argued that labelling is not automatic; it is a process of negotiation.
  • Some labelled individuals embrace their deviant identity and build subcultures around it, while others resist.
  • Subcultures can therefore be seen as collective attempts to redefine a negative label positively.

Evaluation: Schur adds nuance but, like Becker, pays little attention to the structural causes of deviance such as inequality.

Discussion question: Are subcultures resisting labels or celebrating them?

Stanley Cohen (1972) – Folk Devils and Moral Panics

  • In Folk Devils and Moral Panics, Cohen studied conflicts between Mods and Rockers.
  • The media exaggerated events, creating “folk devils” and fuelling public fear.
  • This led to harsher policing and reinforced subcultural identities — a process known as deviance amplification.

Evaluation: Cohen shows the powerful role of the media, but critics argue he underestimates young people’s ability to resist media narratives.

Discussion question: Who are today’s “folk devils”? How does media attention affect them?

Jock Young (1971) – The Hippie Drugtakers

  • In The Drugtakers, Young studied London hippies who occasionally used cannabis.
  • Once labelled by police and media, drug use became central to their identity, and a hippie subculture developed.
  • Labelling transformed a marginal activity into a defining feature of the group.

Evaluation: Young demonstrates how labelling can create subcultures, but his study is small and focused on a particular group of middle-class youth.

Discussion question: Does labelling always make deviance worse?

Aaron Cicourel (1968) – Typifications and Justice

  • Cicourel found that police used typifications (stereotypes) of “typical delinquents.”
  • Working-class boys were more likely to be labelled deviant, while middle-class youths could negotiate their way out of trouble.
  • This selective labelling explains why deviant subcultures are often disproportionately working-class.

Evaluation: Cicourel highlights the unequal application of labels, but doesn’t explain the structural origins of class inequality.

Discussion question: How do police stereotypes shape who ends up in deviant subcultures?

David Matza (1964) – Drift and Neutralisation

  • Matza argued that deviance is not permanent: young people often drift in and out of it.
  • He also identified techniques of neutralisation (e.g. “nobody got hurt,” “everyone does it”) that allow individuals to commit deviant acts without fully accepting a deviant identity.

Evaluation: Matza challenges the idea that deviance always leads to fixed subcultural identities, but critics argue he underplays the strength of stigma and exclusion.

Discussion question: Do young people in deviant subcultures really see themselves as deviant?

Extensions and Critiques of Interactionism

Wilkins (1964) – Deviancy Amplification Spiral

Wilkins argued that attempts to control deviance often make it worse by reinforcing group identity. However, this assumes that crackdowns always backfire, which is not always the case.

Chambliss (1973) – The Saints and the Roughnecks

Although not an interactionist, Chambliss’s work supports labelling theory. He found that middle-class “Saints” and working-class “Roughnecks” engaged in similar deviant behaviour, but only the latter were labelled as troublemakers. This suggests that class power shapes labelling outcomes. However, Chambliss’s conflict perspective reminds us that interactionists often downplay structural inequality.

Discussion question: How do class and power influence who gets labelled as deviant?

Conclusion

Interactionist perspectives show how deviant subcultures are formed through labelling, negotiation, and amplification. Becker, Lemert, Cohen, and Young all demonstrate how being labelled as “outsiders” can push individuals into groups that normalise and support deviance. However, critics argue that interactionists sometimes exaggerate the power of labels and neglect the structural inequalities of class, race, and gender. By considering research such as Cicourel’s or Chambliss’s, students can see how labelling theory can be deepened by recognising how power and inequality shape the labelling process

Leave a comment