Crime and the Community.

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.

A journey beyond the bars: Participants' experiences of psychological treatment in a prison setting

“…Many of those theorists who emphasise a socially constructed model of deviance draw upon the conclusions of Tannenbaum (1938). Tannenbaum proposed that in order to understand the essence of criminality it is necessary to accept that its ontological basis is encapsulated in society"s inability to accept fluctuation from the norm.…”

“…In accordance with the views of Tannenbaum (1938), Lemert (1951) advocated the view that deviant behaviour, or social pathology, is the product of societal responses to a particular act, and the attribution of a specific label to the individual actor. Acknowledgement of this discreet maxim is crucial to an appreciation of Lemert"s work as it governs the context within which the reader can explore the unique, dualistic relationship (one of distinction and interaction) that exists between what he termed primary and secondary deviance.…”

“…These are highly pertinent points and should not be overlooked; however, the sustained reinforcement of such a label on the part of authority figures is likely to engender those feelings of societal alienation described by Tannenbaum (1938); or Lemert"s (1951) secondary deviance; should this occur, the resultant impact upon treatment compliance is likely to be telling.…”

“…Consistent with the views of Tannenbaum (1938) and Lemert (1972), these variables will be examined relative to the notion of deviance promoted through the socially-determined context in which they were contrived. In addition to its value in promoting the social constructionist emphasis of this research, this approach is considered necessary for two distinct reasons.…”

Social control: analytical tool or analytical quagmire?

“…The conception of social control as organized repression emerged in the 1960s and 1970s and owed an intellectual debt to the observations of Tannenbaum (1938) and Lemert (1951Lemert ( , 1967 about the deleterious effects of official stigmatization. The idea that the social control exercised by state agents produced and reinforced deviance was extensively elaborated and refined by the neo-Chicagoan labelling theorists of the 1960s and 1970s.…”