On the Origin of “Labeling” Theory in Criminology: Frank Tannenbaum and the Chicago School of Sociology

ABSTRACT

According to the criminological literature, Frank Tannenbaum’s theory of “The Dramatization of Evil” was the first formulation of an approach to deviance that in the 1960s became known as the “labeling” theory. This paper makes three arguments about Tannenbaum’s theory. Firstly, it explains professional criminality. Secondly, the conceptual foundation for the theory is provided by John Dewey, William I. Thomas, Ernest W. Burgess, Clifford R. Shaw, and Charles H. Cooley. Thirdly, it is in fact prefigured in the work of Thomas, Shaw, and Burgess. The first argument is an answer to an enduring question related to “labeling” theory: does it explain professional criminality or any form of social deviance? The second argument negates a long-standing belief held by criminologists, i.e., that George H. Mead was the conceptual progenitor of Tannenbaum’s theory. The third argument refutes the persistent belief that Tannenbaum’s theory was the first formulation of labeling theory.

Notes

¹ The term “professional” was originally applied by some criminals to themselves and was meant to indicate that criminality was one’s trade or profession (Healy 1915:316).

² Cressey was correct to indicate that Becker was influenced by Tannenbaum. Becker had indicated that himself in Outsiders (1963:9, footnote). However, Cressey was incorrect in the case of Lemert. He never acknowledged any intellectual debt to Tannenbaum. This was despite the fact that he referred to him several times in his Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control (1972) and pointed to having “some brief interpretive ideas similar in nature” to those of Tannenbaum’s (p. 15). However, Lemert had not mentioned Tannenbaum at all in his Social Pathology (1951) where he first presented his version of labeling theory. Names mentioned there were Cooley, Thomas, Mead, and Shaw. Particularly, it was “THE DEAD HAND OF COOLEY” (i.e., Cooley’s theories of social disorganization and social control) that he wrestled with (p. 9).

³ James quoted in Perry (1935:501, vol. 2).

⁴ It must be noted that Michael Petrunik (1980:218) once pointed to the work of Chicago School members as the original source of labeling theory. However, his comments were broad, incidental, and imprecise. Had he elaborated on his points, he would probably have rendered a discussion of some the issues related to the second argument of this paper redundant.

⁵ The book was not an academic book informed by sociological or psychological theories of the day. It was the product of Tannenbaum’s imprisonment and the intimate knowledge that he had gained of the life patterns of other inmates. He was convicted in 1914 and spent 1 year in Blackwell’s Island Penitentiary due to his radical activities associated with anarchists and International Workers of the World. The book also reflected his eventual tour of some 70 prisons in the US after his release. (Yeager 2016:63).

⁶ For a detailed accounts of points 1–3, see Barmaki (2016).

⁷ His own prior work was very similar to social disorganization theory on this point.

⁸ The behavioral-psychological term for “personality.” “Habit” referred to “acquired” behavior (Dewey 1930:89).

⁹ Unless cited otherwise, in this section references are to Thomas himself.

¹⁰ Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this part of the paper are to Shaw.

¹¹ A pseudonym given by Shaw to the individual whom the book was about.

¹² For example, when it benefited the family (e.g., secured additional money, food, or clothing).

¹³ The pseudonym of the central figure of the book.

¹⁴ Shaw first met Stanley in 1921 when he was about 12 years old. By then Stanley had already spent almost half of his life in gangs and correctional facilities for boys. He was first arrested in 1913. By the age 16 he was arrested 38 times. His arrest record showed a gradual increase in the volume and seriousness of his criminality: From “minor difficulties of truancy and petty stealing” to “more serious delinquency of ‘jack-rolling’ and burglary” (Shaw 1930: 25). He was described by correctional authorities as “‘incorrigible’” (Snodgrass 1982:4).

¹⁵ According to Shaw, these included “self-justificatory attitude” and placing “responsibility for his misconducts upon fate, circumstances, and other persons” (p. 47). It also included “attitudes of persecution and suspicion” (p. 50). Stanley described his childhood and family life as unhappy and degrading, which he believed had turned him into a cruel, hateful, and selfish individual.

¹⁶ Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this part are to Burgess.

¹⁷ As personality was unmodifiable, the best strategy for preventing the emergence of the criminal type was “transplantation,” i.e., changing the individual’s social environment so as to produce a non-criminal social type (Burgess 1930:195).

¹⁸ Unless otherwise cited, all references in this section are to Cooley’s Human Nature and the Social Order (1964).

¹⁹ Unless indicated otherwise, all references are to Mead’s Mind, Self & Society (1934).

²⁰ Lloyd (1864–1927) was a philosopher who taught at University of Michigan.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Reza Barmaki

REZA BARMAKI teaches at Centre for Criminology and Socio-legal studies at University of Toronto, Canada. His main area of research is criminological theory.