Discuss how far sociologists would agree that youth crime can be explained by negative labelling.
How to approach this question
Structure your answer as a debate.
1. Introduction: State that labelling theory is one important explanation for youth crime, but other theories also exist.
2. Explain Labelling Theory: Describe how negative labels from police/teachers can lead to a master status and a self-fulfilling prophecy.
3. Evaluate Labelling Theory: Criticise the theory for being deterministic and for not explaining primary deviance.
4. Introduce Alternative Theories: Explain other theories like Cohen's 'status frustration' (subcultural) or Marxist explanations (poverty, inequality).
5. Conclusion: Summarise the arguments and conclude 'how far' labelling theory explains youth crime. A good conclusion would be that it explains the social reaction to deviance but not its original causes.
Full Answer
This question asks for an evaluation of the interactionist labelling theory as an explanation for youth crime. A good answer will explain the key concepts of the theory (Becker, primary/secondary deviance, master status, self-fulfilling prophecy). It will then critically evaluate this theory by pointing out its weaknesses (e.g., it's deterministic, it doesn't explain the causes of primary deviance). To provide a balanced discussion, the answer must then introduce and explain alternative theories, such as functionalist subcultural theories (Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin) or Marxist theories that focus on the structural causes of crime like poverty and inequality.
Common mistakes
Only explaining labelling theory without any criticism or comparison to other theories. Misunderstanding key concepts like 'master status' or 'self-fulfilling prophecy'.
Expert