Three main approachesthe historical development of labelsthe application of the labels;

the consequences of being labeled

Moral Entrepreneurs (aka “Claims Makers”)◦ Making “Imputations of Deviance”

Imputations: claims that a particular activity is deviant and that it is a problem about which society needs to be concerned and do something

◦ Create new images◦ Seek public support

Marijuana Tax Act, 1937◦ Changing legal status of opiates

Chinese immigrant workers◦ Precedent: 1914, Harrison Stamp Act

Opiates by prescription only Enforced by Narcotics Division, U.S. Treasury

◦ Narcotics Division criminalized use of opiates to treat addicts Harassed physicians 1925, Lindner v. United States (Supreme Court sided

with physicians) Harassment continued AMA caved in, no more pharmacological

maintenance of addicts From tax agency to criminal enforcement agency

◦ 1930: Narcotics Division becomes separate Federal agency: Federal Bureau of Narcotics

◦ FBN shifted to focus on marijuana images of fear “reefer madness”

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6696582420128930236

addictive, deranging apocryphal stories

Imputations as Rhetorical Arguments◦ persuade◦ spur to action

The Structure of Imputations (Joel Best) Three Elements (Data/Grounds, Warrants,

& Conclusions)◦ Data/Grounds (3 types)

a) definitions domain statements orientation statements

causal responsibility

Missing kids issue domain: frighteningly common orientation: bad individuals menacing children

typifying examples -- the human face of the issue frequently use extreme e.g. missing kids: stranger abductions Estimates of extent (overlap with grounds statements)

Incidence estimates (how widespread?) Growth estimates (it’s getting worse all the time) Range claims (who’s affected)

Warrants (statements that justify drawing conclusions from grounds statements) Value of kids Blameless victims Associated evils (porn, prostitution, drugs, Satanism) Deficient existing policies

Conclusions (drawn from grounds/warrants) Awareness Prevention Social control

Rhetoric of Deviance Imputations Interpretive Change◦ Moral conversion

Preliminaries◦ Imputations: a putative problem exists, is

discussed in public discourse◦ Success depends upon amount of attention

problem receives in public arenas Carrying Capacity

◦ Media: column inches; minutes of air time; # of productions in a year

◦ Policy makers: court dockets; time to devote to public hearings; political campaigns

Carrying capacity determines public agenda

◦ Key: not volume of deviance, but carrying capacity of public institutions & organizations

◦ Capacity limits range of problems◦ Large pool of problems + capacity limits◦ Thus, entrepreneurs must compete

Dynamics of Competition◦ Between imputational areas

Which forms of deviance get selected◦ Within imputational areas

Which definition of deviant behavior is adopted

Principles of Selection◦ Drama (greater chance for success of claim)

Extreme examples Extreme estimates of extent

◦ Culture Related to core values Consistent with core beliefs

◦ Politics Match interests of wealthy & powerful

◦ Institutional rhythms Scheduling of hearings Media deadlines

◦ Each arena has its own principles of selection Media, government Entrepreneurs know what works and package their

issue accordingly

Contingencies◦ Reasons a label is applied independent of

Quality of the labeled act Factual existence of the act (did it even happen?)

◦ Erving Goffman, Asylums◦ Thomas Scheff

Labeling mental illness What causes labeling?

Degree of rule-breaking Amount of rule-breaking Visibility of rule-breaking Power of the rule-breaker Social distance between rule-breaker and control

agents Tolerance level in a particular family, community Availability of alternatives to labeling

◦ Professionals are predisposed to label

Training Financial considerations Ideological reasons Political concerns

Other contingencies◦ Enforcement Bias

Physical Appearance Attitude Complaining citizen

Differential visibility Nature of the organization Politics of crime

Contingencies in Kelly case◦ Juror pressure◦ Improprieties◦ Changes in Deviance “Marketplace”

Increase in skilled activists Technological improvements Increased media “carrying capacity”

Tabloid news Child protection establishment Multiple uses of this type of deviance

Organizational overlap

◦ Societal, Cultural & Historical context Symbolism & “unsettled times”

Puritan New England Great Awakening(s) Cold War 1960’s & ’70’s Cultural changes

Psychotherapy Individualizes De-politicizes

Stigma Deviance Amplification Black Market Pathologies

Empirical Issues◦ Contingencies

Supported◦ Relativity

Yes But also consensus

Structural Critiques◦ Overly-individualistic (Lemert)

Focus is on those already labeled

◦ “Nuts, sluts, & pre-verts” (Alex Liaszos)◦ Theory of pure domination (Frances Fox Piven)

Ignores power & agency Conscious choices to deviate

◦ Tertiary deviance (John Kitsuse) Deviants fight back

Alienative Alienative ExpressiveExpressiveRetreat from world, Retreat from world, but create new worldbut create new world

cults, utopian communitiescults, utopian communities

Conformative Conformative ExpressiveExpressiveShared problems to Shared problems to overcomeovercomeAA, Weight WatchersAA, Weight Watchers

Alienative Alienative InstrumentalInstrumentalChange the system & Change the system & change the meaningschange the meaningsGay Liberation Front; Civil Gay Liberation Front; Civil

Rights; FeminismRights; Feminism

Conformative Conformative InstrumentalInstrumentalCampaign to be included Campaign to be included in existing moral orderin existing moral order

COYOTECOYOTE