HOW MIGHT THE LABELLING OF ACTIVITIES AS ‘DEVIANT’ SERVE AS A FORM OF SOCIAL CONTROL?
Deviancy is considered any behaviour to violate cultural norms and it is essentially split between two formations; formal deviancy (crime) and informal deviancy (social). Social control is a product of social learning via labeling strategies, it is composed of both informal and formal mechanisms and maintains that the exploitation of socialization and social learning contributes to the individual building of self-control, and in the reduction divergent behaviour. Both controls enforce labeling as a sanction to shame the supposedly deviant character; it infers that the individual has earned disapproval from society due to failed expectations of behaviour. Labeling theorists propose that criminality comes from the response to behaviour as an alternative to actual violation of the law (Wellford, 1975), this is evident in society’s acceptance of illegal downloading despite the sanctions and group in powers values. Durkheim views this defiance as a necessity to an ever changing society where deviance is of use to maintaining functionality, social constancy and collective consciousness, when this is absent anomie is said to arise. Labelling theory holds much of the same stance as conflict theory in emphasising the power of social groups and social control in expectations and stigmatisation. Where the delegation of labels creates sub-groups within society each group is anticipated to fulfil certain normative behaviours, in violating these they become outsiders and hereafter ‘deviant’.
Control theory is dependent on the socialization of an individual; it introduces various restraints reliant on internal controls inclusive of morality, consciousness and the desire to be considered a good person. Outer controls such as policing, family and friends support, and religious authorities, then