Labeling Theory of Edwin Lemert

Labeling theory of Edwin Lemert

Labeling theory posits that people come to identify and behave in ways that reflect how others label them. It is most commonly associated with the sociology of crime and deviance, where it is used to point out how social processes of labeling and treating someone as criminally deviant actually fosters deviant behavior and has negative repercussions for that person because others are likely to be biased against them because of the label (Crossman, 2016). In 1951, this theory was formalized by Edwin Lemert and introduced the concept of Primary and Secondary Deviance as a part of his work entitled “Social Pathology.” Primary deviance is engaging in the initial act of deviant. Also, individual being labeled would first reject the label, and would try ways and measures of conduct against the label (Abletis, 2009). Secondary deviance refers to a deviant behavior which flows from a stigmatized sense of self; the deviance is thought to be consistent with the character of the self. It is a stage in which in which one internalizes a deviant identity by integrating it into their self-concept. This type of deviance involves a gradual change in the behavior of an individual once labeling occurs, which resulted to the adaptation of the roles suggested by the labels (Abletis, 2009). Although the theory of Edwin Lemert focuses on deviancy, it can help in this research to explain how labels could affect the behavior of someone being labeled. According to Link and Phelan (2001, as cited in Ercole, 2009), this can be applied in a school setting, particularly in regards to explaining how students identify themselves as “good” or “bad.” This comparison is particularly evident in Rosenthal’s experiment, where primary deviance would be the individuals who scored poorly on the exam, and secondary deviance would be the way the teacher now treated these children as a result of their low scores. Thus, just like an individual who is labeled a criminal is forever seen as an outcast in the eyes of others, reducing them from a whole person to that of a tainted, discounted one, so too is the poor student. In addition, academic researcher Ray C. Ristsaid (n.d., as cited in Palmer, 2015) “within the framework of labeling theory...a major emphasis has been placed upon the role of [academic] institutions in sorting, labeling, tracking, and channeling persons along various routes depending upon the assessment the institution has made of the individual.” As a result of homogeneous blocking of the Internal Auditing students-batch 2017, labeling among these students could undeniably occur, primarily due to sectioning the students according to their academic performance. The section of high-performing students would be labeled as the “star section,” while the section of low-performing students would be called as “lower section.” Aside from that, high-ability students might be called as “grade-conscious (gc)” students or “nerds” because of exerting too much effort and time in their studies, while some may be labeled as “chill” students because of their poor performance and lack of effort. Based from the labeling theory, there is a tendency that these labels could either positively or negatively affect students and teachers’ perceptions, motivation and academic performance, depending on

the meanings conveyed by the labels. For instance, professors would give higher expectations to the students belonging to top performing class than the other classes. Also, there is a probability that high-performing students labeled as “gc,” or “nerd” would give all their best to excel, while those low-performing students would continue their slack performance, just to meet the expectations or lived by the labels tagged to them, which leads to self-fulfilling prophecy. A selffulfilling prophecy, introduced by Robert Merton, occurs when one person causes his or her own belief about another person to become true. For example, a teacher may overestimate a student’s ability, believing that the student is more capable than the student really is.A teacher who overestimates a student’s ability would have to treat the student as if she or he is highly capable. The teacher may often call on that student, spend extra time with that student, teach that student especially difficult material, and provide that student with feedback contingent on performance (Rosenthal 1973). The person about whom the false belief is held must, in response to the treatment she or he receives, confirm the originally false belief. The student who is treated as if she or he is highly capable may enjoy and value school and, consequently, invest more time and effort on school work than other students do. In turn, this student may ultimately learn more than other students in the class, thereby confirming the teacher’s originally false belief that she or he was highly capable (Sills, 2008). Labeling is rampant in the society, particularly in the academic institutions, because of the social class or sectioning being implemented. But one thing is for sure, it has a significance and impact on the performance of the students, interaction with people, and expectations shaped by the society.

References: Abletis, J.N. (2009). Labeling as a consequence of homogenous student-sectioning at Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma High School and its subsequent effects on selected student-related variables.Undergraduate thesis. Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Manila Ercole, J. (2009). Labeling in the classroom: teacher expectations and their effects on students' academic potential.Honors Scholar Theses. University of Connecticut, Connecticut.

Darity, Jr. W. (Ed.).(2008). International encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 2nd edition. Michigan, USA: Macmillan Reference USA.

Palmer, M. (2012).Should Students be Grouped by Ability in Public High Schools? Retrieved August 20, 2016 from

http://mattpalmer98.blogspot.com/