monograph series

6

EFFECTS

OF LABELING

THE “DRUG-ABUSER”

AN INQUIRY

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE • PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE • ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE, AND MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION
The NIDA Research Monograph series is prepared by the

Research Division of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Its

primary objective is to provide critical reviews of research problem

areas and techniques, the content of state-of-the-art conferences,

integrative research reviews and significant original research. Its

dual publication emphasis is rapid and targeted dissemination to

the scientific and professional community.

Avram Goldstein, M.D.

Jerome Jaffe, M.D.

Reese T. Jones, M.D.

William McGlothlin, Ph.D.

Jack Mendelson, M.D.

Helen Nowlis, Ph.D.

Lee Robins, Ph.D.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD

Addiction Research Foundation

Palo Alto, California

College of Physicians and Surgeons

Columbia University, New York

Langley Porter Neuropsychiatric

Institute

University of California

San Francisco, California

Department of Psychology, UCLA

Los Angeles, California

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research

Center

Harvard Medical School

McLean Hospital

Belmont, Massachusetts

Office of Drug Education, DHEW

Washington., D.C.

Washington University School of

Medicine

St. Louis, Missouri

NIDA RESEARCH MONOGRAPH series

Robert DuPont, M.D. DIRECTOR, NIDA

William Pollin, M.D. DIRECTOR, NIDA RESEARCH DIVISION

Robert C. Petersen, Ph.D. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Eunice L. Corfman, M.A. MANAGING EDITOR

Rockwall Building 11400 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland, 20852
EFFECTS OF LABELING

THE “DRUG-ABUSER”:

AN INQUIRY

by

JAY R. WILLIAMS, Ph.D.

Research Triangle Institute

North Carolina

March 1976

NIDA Research Monograph 6

National Institute on Drug Abuse

11400 Rockville Pike

Rockville, Maryland 20852

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare

Public Health Service

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration
DHEW publication number (ADM) 76-320

Library of Congress catalog card number 76-3101

For sale by National Technical lnformation Service

Springfield, Va. 22161

Stock Order #PB 249 092; Papercopy: $4.00; Microfiche: $2.25

i i
FOREWORD

When this monograph was originally conceived (1973), Institute scientists and others interested in the problem of drugs

were very much concerned about the impact of being arrested

or otherwise identified as a "drug abuser" on the self concept and subsequent behavior of those adolescents so labeled.

Although there was little data to provide convincing empirical support for our impressions, it seemed reasonable

to assume that such labeling might have serious implications. In estranging the labeled individual from his peers

and creating a climate of expectation both in himself and

in others, this process of being labeled a drug user seemed

likely to encourage further a profound sense of social

alienation and a still greater tendency to use drugs.

Because of the potential importance of this issue in developing a more rational approach to illicit drug use,

the Institute commissioned the Research Triangle Institute

to study the feasibility of a study in this area.

One outcome of that work was the decision not to attempt a

larger scale study of labeling. It became clear that both

the drug-use picture and society's response to it were

changing far too rapidly to mount a longitudinal study of

the type originally considered. While personal possession

of marihuana was originally a felony in many states, there

has been an increasing tendency to make it a misdemeanor

or not to prosecute individuals found possessing small

quantities. Indeed as of this date (February, 1976),

six states have elected to decriminalize completely

personal possession of small amounts of cannabis. Moreover, what was once statistically deviant behavior has

now become the statistical norm (53% of the 18-25 age

group had used marihuana one or more times by 1975) still

further altering the way in which drug using behavior is

viewed both by users themselves and by others in the community.

Although the study originally contemplated no longer appears to be feasible, the thinking that went into reviewing the problem is of continuing interest. We believe the excellent review done by Dr. Williams deserves

a larger audience and will be valuable to many interested

in the possible impact of labeling on adolescents and on

the development of a more rational approach to drug abuse

in American society.

Robert C. Petersen, Ph.D.

Assistant Director for Program

Coordination and Integration

Division of Research

National Institute on Drug Abuse

iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This monograph is the result of a paper initially

written for the National Institute on Drug Abuse

under contract number HSM-42-73-200 (ND). With

an updated bibliography it has been revised for

the NIDA's monograph series.

My thanks to Pat Kristiansen for her library

assistance at the beginning of the project.

Thanks also to Dr. William C. Eckerman and

Rebecca F. Williams for their insightful comments and help on early drafts of the paper.

Thanks to the following publishers or authors

for permission to quote at extended length from

their books, articles or manuscripts:

Reprinted by special permission from ChamblissSeidman, LAW, ORDER AND POWER, 1971, AddisonWesley, Reading, Mass.

Reprinted, with permission of the National Council

on Crime and Delinquency, from Crime and Delinquency,

January '73, p. 35.

Reprinted by special permission from NARCOTICS,

edited by David M. Wilner and Gene G. Kassebaum.

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Reprinted by special permission of Gary F. Jensen,

Delinquency and Adolescent Self-Conceptions: A

Study of the Personal Relevance of Infractions.

Seattle, Washington: University of Washington,

1972. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

i v
CONTENTS

FOREWORD

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

1 Introduction

iii

i v

1

4

6

7

10

12

14

15

18

19

22

23

25

2 Drug Abuse as a Crime

3 The Labeling Perspective

4 The Labeling Process and Self-Concept

5 Resisting Labeling

6 The Effect of Apprehension

7 Self-Concept Antecedent to Apprehension

8 Self-Concept Antecedent to Drug Abuse

9 Drug Abuse

10 Drug Abuse and Drug Laws

11 Drug Abuse, Apprehension, Self-Concept and Subsequent Behavior

12 Concluding Remarks

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

v

1 Introduction

This monograph is the outgrowth of a paper

prepared late in 1973 under contract with the

National Institute on Drug Abuse. The purpose

of the contract was to determine the feasibility of studying the effects of arrest as a

drug law violator (or identification as a drug

abuser1) on adolescent psychological development

The effect of drug laws and possible changes

in those laws is much debated and it was felt

that assembling and reviewing what is known

could enlighten those discussions. It was

recognized that there has been much speculation about the effect of arrest, and identification of an adolescent as an “addict” or

"drug-abuser,"

quent behavior.

on his self-image and subseThese concerns fall within a

framework called labeling theory, which has

1 Various terms other than “drug abuse” have

appeared in the Literature resulting in a

thorny and unresolved definitional issue. The

term drug abuse” will be used here to refer

to non-medical and/or non-legal drug use. Any

deviation from this terminology should be

clear to the reader from its use in the text.

For a discussion of various current definitions used in drug research see, Elinson, Jack

and David Nurco (eds.). Operational Definitions in Socio-behavioral Drug Use Research

1975. Rockville, Maryland: National Institute

on Drug Abuse, October 1975. For a specific

discussion of the terms “addiction,” “dependency,” "abuse” or "use,” see, Smart, Reginald G., “Addiction, dependency, abuse or use:

Which are we studying with epidemiology?”

In Josephson, Eric and Eleanor E. Carroll

(eds.). Drug Use:Epidemiological and Sociological Approaches. New York: John Wiley and

Sons, 1974, 23-42.

not been tested with adolescents involved in

violations of drug laws. It was recognized,

however, that the problems of studying the

phenomena of labeling, self-concept, and

adolescent identity in the framework of actual

society are great. The situations in which

such work could be done might be few in number. There was a need to examine the possibilities for research on this subject and make

recommendations for realistic projects. So

an analysis of the existing literature and a

research feasibility study were undertaken.

The timing of NIDA’s interest in these issues

coincided with the published reports of the

National Commission on Marihuana and Drug

Abuse. One concern of the National Commission

was with the extent to which adolescents

apprehended for drug abuse were “criminalized."

Presumably the bulk of these youths, particularly marihuana users, were not involved in

other areas of criminal activity prior to

their offical apprehension for drug abuse.

Speculation centered on whether subsequent to

such apprehension there is a high probability

that being identified as a “criminal” reduces

the adolescent’s life chances for success and,

in other ways, leads him or her into a life

of crime.

At that moment, particularly with the publicity

received by the National Commission, public

and official attention was focused on the

adolescent “drug crisis” in America. Although

enforcement responses varied from place to

place, official crime statistics showed increasing arrests of adolescents for drug law

violations. A pressing question then was,

what were the social and psychological costs

of enforcing existing drug laws? If the

labeling effects of official apprehension had

such dire consequences for the psychological

1
and social development of the young drug user,

what implications did this have for decriminalizing the drug laws?

The policy implications for the research NIDA

was proposing were extensive and important.

However, NIDA, recognizing the complexity of

the research question, opted for a research

feasibility study.

The first step in determining the feasibility

of studying these issues then was to review

the literature. This monograph is based on

that literature review. It reviews what is

known about these issues, theoretically and

empirically. It also explores some interesting

aspects of labeling that are beginning to be

recognized more clearly, that is, the positive

functions of labeling and the various ways in

which labeling may be effectively resisted.

In addition, in the drug area, the study of

the labeling process is intriguing because of

the varying societal views on the use or abuse

of various drugs. The drug laws and the differential enforcement of those laws (that is,

the exercise of police discretion) along with

differine public views about the use or abuse

of various drugs produces a complex pattern

bearing directly on the varying extent of

labeling for the adolescents apprehended.

Since the writing of the paper (1973)) the

bibliography has been brought up to date (as

of Sept., 1975). The references added since

1973 do not alter the monograph content in any

significant way. What has been added since

that time essentially repeats and reemphasizes

the major points discussed in the monograph.

For the reader who is interested in the outcome

of the research feasibility study: it was

recommended that the ideal research design

would be longitudinal. However, a longitudinal

study would be very expensive and produce

a low yield from the target sample of adolescents who might subsequently be apprehended

for a drug law violation (despite increasing

apprehension in recent years, the proportion of

all adolescents apprehended for drug law

violations is very small). For this and other

reasons the longitudinal approach was determined not to be feasible. It was recommended

that a small number of in-depth case studies

might provide some valuable information.

Another possible approach recommended was to

identify sub-issues from the larger, longitudinal approach and to mount smaller scale,

limited studies to resolve these parts of the

overall problem in a piecemeal fashion. Hopefully, this monograph will identify serviceable

research areas and stimulate investigators to

and identification as a drug law violator on

the adolescent’s psychological development is

the labeling perspective. The labeling perspective states that societal reaction, official or unofficial, to behavior which is defined as unlawful or deviant may have an impact on the self-concept and subsequent behavior of the person labeled. While the

labeling perspective provided a framework in

which to work, it did not provide specific

empirical guidelines to the mechanisms operative in the situation of the youthful drug

law violator.

In addition to the labeling perspective, the

related idea of self-concept2 development and

the empirical fact of varying attitudes towards different drugs had to be considered.

The following questions show how these considerations intertwined.

What are the antecedent conditions of

adolescent self-concept that may lead

to drug abuse?

Does drug abuse itself alter self-concept

and if so, how?

Do the above two points vary by drug of

choice and if so, how?

Do specific drug laws and modes of

official enforcement have differential

impacts by drug of choice and thereby on

how one may respond to apprehension?

Does labeling really occur? If so:

How does it operate on the self-concept?

How does it operate in general? How does

it “take” and under what conditions? How

can it be resisted and under what

conditions?

How do all of the above points interact?

2 Self-concept and self-image are considered

equivalent terms in this paper. While there

is some confusion in the literature about the

meaning of these terms (see Wylie, 1961),

self-concept or self-image may be considered

the broad term covering the dimensions of

self-esteem and self-perception Wylie, 1961;

Rosenberg, 1965; Coopersmith, 1967). Due to

the vagaries of some literature and the need

to develop a general picture from this literature, the distinctions noted here will be

largely ignored. When possible, however,

reports on self-esteem or self-perception

come to grips with these issues and, if possible, will be noted but will be treated as an indisolve them. cator of the more general concept category.

The most timely and reasonable perspective to

utilize in exploring the impact of apprehension

2
While these and other questions were not necessarily resolved, they did point to the

complexity of the problem. Three primary

complications emerged.

In order to evaluate shifts in the adolescent’s

self-concept as the result of being labeled,

one should have a measure of the self-concept

prior to official apprehension. These determinations are made more complex by the possibility that drug use itself may impact on

the self-concept in ways that significantly

alter any self-concept change responses to the

labeling process. Further, the development of

self-concept, particularly in adolescence, is

a highly dynamic process, which means that any

changes noted from repeated measurements may

be attributed to a variety of influences.

Another complication is the varying attitudes

towards the type of drug the adolescent uses.

Although tobacco and alcohol are drugs, their

use, even by adolescents, is viewed in the

public and official minds as very different

from the use of marihuana, LSD or heroin.

In turn, the use of marihuana, in the current

public and official view, seems far less

heinous than the use of LSD or heroin. Use of

different drugs evokes different degrees of

public or official reaction. Presumably,

labeling effects would be more marked if the

enforcing agency view towards a drug required

that the adolescent be apprehended and processed through the criminal justice system.

On the other hand, the social attitudes

surrounding the adolescent’s drug(s) of choice

may often serve to insulate him or her against

any damaging effects of the labeling process.

The third major complication is perhaps the

most crucial. Does the labeling phenomenon

occur in the real world? Despite the compelling theoretical reasons for hypothesizing the

labeling effect, there is little empirical

evidence that demonstrates the labeling mechanism and its operation. Further, the more

researchers and theorists delve into the labeling perspective, the more they unearth additional complexities associated with the operation of the labeling process. Labeling has

typically been associated with the ascription

of a negative status to a person as a result

of “societal reaction” to some real or imagined deviant activity. But, the general process of socialization or social learning also

allows for the ascription of status to a person

through “societal reaction” to real or imagined

activity, both positive and negative. More and

more the labeling perspective looks less and less

unique and specific, but rather, appears to be

a particular application of a larger theoretical

view of social developmental processes. This

is not to deny the importance of the labeling

perspective. Indeed, if labeling a person for

a deviant act has implications for that person’s further deviancy, we need to be aware

of this process in order to implement social

policy that will minimize the negative consequences of such labeling.

This paper explores what is known about the

effect of arrest and official identification

of the adolescent “drug abuser” or “addict”

on his or her self-image and subsequent

behavior. In searching the literature, this

writer was unable to find any empirical work

that dealt directly with the problem as stated

above. However, there is a substantial literature that addresses various parts of the

problem. In particular, the perspective of

labeling deals specifically with the impact

of societal reaction to deviance on the person designated “deviant.” This approach, due

to its theoretical importance and relevance

to the issue of drug abuse, will be discussed

in detail. In addition, other broad areas

reflected in the bibliography are selfconcept, effects of official apprehension,

juvenile delinquency, symbolic interactionism,

adolescent behavior. This literature will be

discussed in terms of how these major areas

individually or in combination contribute to

understanding the problem. The various threads

of theoretical and empirical works will hopefully produce a meaningful woven cloth of

understanding.

3
2 Drug Abuse as a Crime

Drug abuse provides some interesting

insights into how our society defines certain behaviors and formalizes certain norms

or rules into laws. Drug abuse, unlike

homicide, assault, robbery, or burglary may

be classified as a "victimless" crime

(Schur, 1965). The crime without a victim

refers to an illegal act in which the participating parties consent to be involved.

Homosexuality, prostitution, gambling, and

drug abuse are examples of this type of

crime. These "crimes" are borderline

offenses in that substantial segments of the

population often do not view such behavior

as criminal. Where certain laws are seen

as intruding on private matters, there may

be a wholesale "patterned evasion"

[Williams, 1960) of the particular law, as

is the case currently with much sexual

behavior and the use of certain drugs. These

offenses are made additionally borderline by

the lack of a complaining victim thereby

causing enforcement to be nearly impossible.

The difficulties of enforcement produce low

apprehension rates, most of which are accomplished by entrapment techniques used by the

enforcement agencies. The entrapment techniques raise questions about the legality of

official behavior as well as whether it is

"fair" or worth the trouble. The low apprehension rates spawn a sense of injustice in

persons caught since most other "offenders"

are "getting away with it." This heightens

the feeling that "the only crime is getting

caught" and thereby potentially generates

disrespect for laws in general. Even

officials respond to crimes without victims

in inconsistent ways. Sane will merely wink

at the behavior while others will be "moral

entrepreneurs" (Becker, 1963). Such inconsistent official response serves to highlight the borderline features of such crimes.

The mixed emotions about drug abuse as a

crime come not only from its victimless

nature but fran the multiple definitions

4

society has imposed on those substances

called drugs (see Brecher, 1972). Alcohol,

nicotine, and caffeine are legal drugs in

common usage. In addition, prescription

drugs are available for controlled use and

nonprescription drugs are readily available

for use by anyone. However, other drugs

such as heroin, LSD, and marihuana are

illegal. But, many of the users of marihuana, for example, claim the physiological

effects of alcohol and nicotine are more

detrimental to the individual user than

marihuana. As the battle rages over these

issues, many persons have concluded that

some legal drugs are potentially quite

harmful while at least one illegal drug

(specifically, marihuana) may not be particulary harmful.

The question of drug use legality seems to be

based less on evidence of its potential harm

to the user than on its relationship to the

user's life style.

Drug use is regarded as a social

problem by other members of our

society because certain drugs have

become part of a life style whose

values are the antithesis of such

conventional middle-class values

as the pursuit of wealth and occupational success. Drug use, like

long hair and unconventional dress,

is interpreted as a symbol of an

ominous threat to the American way

of life. Even if the drugs are not

seriously harmful, their use is opposed by those who feel it tends to

flaunt basic moral values.

(Clausen, 1971:187)

Jock Young (1971a, b) makes this point by

bringing an economic perspective to bear on

the issue.
...the reaction against the drug-taker

springs from moral indignation engendered

by an economy which dictates the

necessity of maintaining both productivity and high consumption. The

ideal citizen of the post-Keynesian age

is one who is disciplined in his work

yet hedonistic in his leisure. For we

are taught to value the deferred gratification of hard work, although seeking

our identity within the hedonistic consumption patterns which shape our free

time. As a result we feel guilty

about both, and the consequent fundamental ambivalence is deeply ingrained

in our social relationships. Thus the

Bohemian fascinates us because he seems

to us to be acting out our fantasies

of unrestrained hedonism, while at the

same time he angers us because he disdains hard work and does not earn his

free time. Furthermore, the illicit

drugs he uses are seen as reprehensible

yet effective sources of pleasure.

Alasdair MacIntyre captured the attitude well when he wrote:

Most of the hostility that I

have met with comes from people

who have never examined the facts

at all. I suspect that what makes

them dislike cannabis is not the

belief that the effects of taking

it are harmful but rather a horrifying suspicion that here is a

source of pure pleasure which is

available for those who have not

earned it, who do not deserve it.

(Young, 1971b:55)

The social definition of illegal drug use

and users in the United States is therefore a highly charged issue. About 34 years

ago, in an article on opiate users,

Lindesmith (1940) commented that all illicit

drug users tended to be viewed as "dope

fiends" and therefore a threat to society.

He traced the poor condition of the opiate

user not to the drug but to the social

situation which the law and public created

for the user.

The treatment of addicts in the

United States today is on no higher

plane than the persecution of

witches of other ages, and like the

latter it is to be hoped that it

will soon become merely another dark

chapter of history.

(Lindesmith, 1940:208)

Barber (1967) notes that the "dope fiend"

myth about drug abuse is still prevalent in

the United States today.

The non-medical use of narcotics in

the United States is not only a

crime...but "one of the most stigmatized of crimes."

(Barber, 1967:135)

This view is in contrast to the predominant

European view that drug abuse is primarily a

psychological and medical problem (Barber,

1967:136).

The official and public reactions to drug

abuse and abusers are precisely the sort of

problem amenable to analysis from the labeling perspective. Becker's well known definition of deviance makes this point.

...social groups createu deviance by

making the rules whose infraction

constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people

and labeling them as outsiders. From

this point of view, deviance is not a

quality of the act the person commits,

but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions

to an offender." The deviant behavior

is behavior that people so label.

(Becker, 1963:9)

Drug abuse defined in parts of the world as a

psychological and/or medical problem is

defined in the United States as a legal

problem, that is, a crime. The apprehended

drug abuser is declared a criminal with all

of the ramifications that entails for the

individual. In order to explore those resulting ramifications we now turn to a discussion of the labeling perspective, its

relationship to self-concept, and the impact

of labeling on the individual.

5
3 The Labeling Perspective

The labeling perspective or labeling

approach as Schur (1971) calls it has been

referred to by many as a "labeling theory."

In reality the labeling perspective is a

particular application of the basic sociological perspective, which does not qualify

as a "new theory." Furthermore, it lacks

essential elements needed to give it the

status of a theory (see Schur, 1971:34-36).

Others have commented on this point (Simmons,

1965; Johnson, 1973b), but all agree that,

theory or not, the perspective is a useful

one (see Merton and Nisbet, 1971:825-829;

Schur, 1971).

The following statement is in the tradition

of those early concerned with the issue

(Tannenbaum, 1938; Lemert, 1951) and those

more recently responsible for the revival of

the position (Kitsuse, 1962; Becker, 1963).

The labeling hypothesis maintains that

being publicly identified as deviant

results in a "spoiled" public identity.

It contends that being labeled "deviant"

results in a degree of social liability

(i.e., exclusion from participation in

certain conventional groups or activities)

which would not occur if the deviance were

not made a matter of public knowledge.

It further suggests that the social

liability incurred by being labeled

"deviant" has the ultimate effects of

reinforcing the deviance.

[Foster, 1971; Foster, Dinitz,

and Reckless, 1972:202)

This view of the labeling phenomenon is commonly held among social scientists although it is

more narrow in scope than the labeling perspective implies. The broader approach (Schur,

1969b;312) involves positive as well as negative labeling (Rosenthal and Jacobson, 1968;

Payne, 1973) and informal labeling as well as

formal or official labeling (Whyte, 1955;

14-25; Berger, 1963:66-121; Antonio, 1973).

In considering these additional dimensions of

the labeling perspective it is somewhat easier

to note the tie between the socialization

process, role expectations, achieved and ascribed status and the labeling process (see,

for example, Scott, 1969: 14-19; Mercer, 1973:

12-27). Before dealing with these issues, a

major criticism leveled at the labeling approach will be briefly discussed in light of

the broadened labeling perspective.

The major criticism of the labeling perspective (see Merton and Nisbet, 1971:826-829;

Schur, 1971) questions the claim made by some

that it is an approach which explains deviance

in general. As several critics (Gibbs, 1966;

Simmons, 1969; Denzin,1970; Gove, 1970a; Gove

1970b; Gibbs, 1972) have pointed out, labeling

does not account for the genesis of deviant

behavior or for deviant behavior which goes

unapprehended. However, the broader labeling

perspective utilizing informal and selflabeling can, in part, account for incipient

deviant behavior. The informal labeling of

predelinquents, lower class children, and

black children, for example, may well spur

them on to deviant behavior. Once involved in

deviant behavior, these same persons may selflabel and reinforce their deviant behavior

pattern. Whether this indeed occurs is an

unanswered empirical question but it does suggest that the labeling perspective can deal

with these issues. The broad labeling perspective then is a flexible approach tied to a

basic sociological point of view.

What then is the relationship between the labeling perspective and those basic sociological

concepts mentioned above? Essentially, labeling is the ascription of a status to a person

(see, for example, Schur, 1969a:115) or the

achievement of a status (Mercer, 1973:27).

Whether the status is ascribed or achieved

may well depend on how one views the labeling

situation. For example, if the person labeled

6
is viewed as being victimized by the label

(Akers, 1968:463; Gove, 1970a:881-882) then

the status is ascribed. If, on the other

hand, the problem is seen as lying with the

person labeled, the status is achieved. Typically the labeling perspective has dealt with

negative labeling and the person labeled has

been viewed as a victim of society’s casting

him outside the pale (Becker, 1963).

With the assignment of a status goes a set of

role expectations for behavior (see Merton,

1957:368-370; Loomis and Loomis, 1961:282-284).

In various ways the labelers socialize the

labelee into his label-status. After a time,

if the socialization process is successful,

the labelee has incorporated the role behavior demanded by the status into his behavior

repertoire. Successful labeling, positive or

negative, therefore is a basic process of

socialization (see Scott, 1969:14-17; Mercer,

1973:21-23).

4 The Labeling Process and Self-Concept

We now turn to the question of how the selfconcept is involved in the labeling process.

According to the symbolic interactionist perspective of Cooley (1964) and Mead (Strauss,

1964), the development of a self-concept is a

product of interaction with others. Cooley

talks about the “looking-glass self’ (Cooley,

1964:184) in which a person imagines his appearance to another, imagines the other’s

judgment of that appearance, and has some selffeeling (pride or mortification) about that

judgment . This view demonstrates how the

shared rules of a group or society become internalized and thereby serve as an internal

control for behavior in addition to the external controls of “other” reactions. For Mead,

learning to take the role of the “other” permits one to interact successfully with others

by understanding, anticipating, and appropriately responding to them. In this process of

incorporating the “generalized other” the self

comes to be defined in terms of others. As

Goffman (1959) points out, one may choose to

play his role with tongue-in-cheek, which he

calls “role distance.” In so doing the actor

plays through the role with no involvement or

identification with the role. In the process

of identity or self-concept formation such

calculated role playing is unlikely since the

least stressful behavioral option is to incorporate the role expectations and to become

what the expectations demand. This view is

presented in a clear and interesting fashion

by Berger (1963). In reply to the question of

why we tend to cooperate with societal expectations rather than rebel against them, he says:

(Berger, 1963:93)

He goes on to say:

The role forms, shapes, patterns both

action and actor. It is very difficult

The sociological answer to this question

has already been alluded to--because

most of the time we ourselves desire

just that which society expects of us.

We want to obey the rules. We want the

parts that society has assigned to us.

to pretend in this world. Normally, one

becomes what one plays at.

(Berger , 1963:98)

In the socialization process, learning rules

for behavior, learning what others expect from

you, learning how others respond to you, and

learning how others feel combine to develop a

concept of the self, an identity.

Identities are socially bestowed. They

must also be socially sustained, and

fairly steadily so. One cannot be human

all by oneself and, apparently, one cannot hold on to any particular identity

all by oneself.

(Berger, 1963:100)

The labeling process, as noted earlier,

7
is the socialization to a particular status

with its associated role expectations. We

have also noted that that the symbolic interactionist perspective the formation of a selfconcept is intimately tied to the socialization process. Therefore, the labeling of a

person is highly likely to have some impact

on his self-concept. And indeed, the selfconcept is an important feature of the labeling perspective as it has been developed.

Tannenbaum (1938), in tracing through the

process of how the adolescent involved in delinquent behavior is eventually labeled by the

community, draws on the earlier work of W. I:

Thomas (1928). Thomas presented the idea that

social definitions of a situation were crucial

to the behavior of the participants. From the

definition of the situation came the "selffulfilling prophecy" (see also Merton, 1957:

421-434) which holds that if a situation is

defined as real then the consequences of that

definition are real. This all draws our attention to the importance of social definitions

of reality. Tannenbaum described the conflict

between the delinquent adolescent and the community as one of "two opposing definitions of

the situation" (Tannenbaum, 1938:17).

From the community's point of view, the

individual who used to do bad and mischievous things has now become a bad

and unredeemable human being. From

the individual's point of view there

has taken place a similar change. He

has gone slowly from a sense of grievance and injustice, of being unduly

mistreated and punished, to a recognition that the definition of him as

a human being is different from that

of other boys in his neighborhood, his

school, street, community. This recognition on his part becomes a process of

self-identification....

(Tannenbaum, 1938:17)

(Emphasis added)

He goes on to describe the trappings of official response to the boy's delinquent behavior which transform the boy into the delinquent.

The first dramatization of the "evil"

which separates the child out of his

group for specialized treatment plays

a greater role in making the criminal

than perhaps any other experience.

The process of making the criminal,

therefore, is a process of tagging,

defining, identifying, segregating,

describing, emphasizing, making conscious and self-conscious; it becomes

8

a way of stimulating, suggesting,

emphasizing, and evoking the very

traits that are complained of.

The person becomes the thing he is

described as being.

(Tannenbaum, 1938:19-20)

(Emphasis added)

Lemert (1951) draws a distinction between

primary and secondary deviance while tracing

personality changes correlated with the shift

from primary to secondary deviance. In essence he is showing how societal reaction to

deviant behavior encourages the individual to

occupy the status of deviant and thereby to

develop a concomitant self-concept, thus ensuring a deviant career or secondary deviance.

However, if the deviant acts are repetitive and have a high visibility, and

if there is a severe societal reaction,

which, through a process of identification is incorporated as part of the "me"

of the individual, the probability is

greatly increased that the integration

of existing roles will be disrupted and

that reorganization based upon a new role

or roles will occur . . . . Reorganization

may be the adoption of another normal

role in which the tendencies previously

defined as "pathological" are given a

more acceptable social expression. The

other general possibility is the assumption of a deviant role, if such exists;

or, more rarely, the person may organize

an aberrant sect or group in which he

creates a special role of his own. When

a person begins to employ his deviant

behavior or-a role based-upon it as a

means of defense, attack, or adjustment

to the overt and covert problems created

by the consequent societal reaction to

him, his deviation is secondary. Objective

evidences of this change will be found in

the symbolic appurtenances of the new role,

in clothes, speech, posture, and mannerisms, which in some cases heighten social

visibility, and which in some cases

serve as symbolic cues to professionalization.

(Lemert, 1951:75-76)

More recently, Wilkens (1965) employed a

labeling perspective to his presentation of a

deviation amplification model. One of the

model's components is the self-concept of

the "deviant." Briefly, certain acts are defined as deviant and the "parent system" excludes the actors by the process of definition.

This provides the actors with an information

set which enables them to perceive
themselves as deviants. It is important to

note that at this point Wilkins cormments,

“Perhaps the main way in which any person

gets to how what sort of person he is is

through feedback from other persons.”

(Wilkins, 1965:92). Of course, this is precisely the position the symbolic interaction

perspective takes. Wilkins continues:

The action taken by society and the

resulting self-perception of the individuals defined as deviant, lead to the

isolation and alienation of the specified

individuals.

This provides the first part of a deviation amplifying system. The definition

of society leads to the development

of the self-perception as ‘deviant’ on

the part of the ‘outliers’ (outlaws),

and it is hardly to be expected that

people who are excluded by a system

will continue to regard themselves as

part of it.

The deviant groups will tend to develop

their own values which may run counter

to the values of the parent system, the

system which defined them as ‘outliers.’

The increased deviance demonstrated by

the deviant groups (resulting from the

deviation-amplifying effect of the selfperception, which in turn may have derived from the defining acts of society)

results in more forceful action by the

conforming groups against the nonconformists.

(Wilkins, 1965:92)

The feedback process from the definers to the

deviants and back to the definers amplifies

the self-perception of persons as deviants

and thereby produces deviant behavior (see

Hess, 1971).

The preceding works have exemplified the basic

sociological perspective of labeling. Through

the ascription or achievement of a particular

status the individual may fulfill the role

expectations of that status and thereby identify in terms of his self-concept with that

status. Payne (1973) in his discussion of the

creation of a deviant self-image presents the

following useful diagram.

Societal Reaction to Individual

(Label)

Individual’s Awareness and Interpretation of Social Reaction

Revision of Self-Label to

Conform to Perceptions of

Social Label

Payne, 1973:35)

Payne’s introduction of the self-label serves

two purposes for this discussion. First, it

demonstrates the process of incorporation or

internalization of deviant role expectations

by the labeled status incumbent. Secondly,

it brings to our attention again the possibility of self-labeling without societal reaction.

The “internalized morality” of society or

personal internal controls may be as efficient

in labeling the individual as are external

societal controls.

It is clear then that the labeling process is

intimately involved in developing and altering self-concepts (for additional works see

‘Scheff, 1966a; Klapp, 1968; Rubington and

Weinberg, 1968; Lofland, 1969; Quinney, 1970;

Fabrega and Manning, 1972). The extent to

which self-concepts are affected by labeling

will be explored next.

Unfortunately, little is empirically known

about the impact of the labeling on the selfconcept (see Freidson, 1965:74). However, the

literature which comments on this and related

issues provides some theoretical indication of

how the self-concept and labeling interact.

The simplistic view of the labeling process

holds that the label is applied and the person

labeled responds according to the particular

label. This view has been stated in an interesting way by Akers (1968).

One sometimes gets the impression

from reading this literature that

people go about minding their own

business, and then--“wham”- -bad society

comes along and slaps them with a stigmatized label. Forced into the role of

deviant the individual has little choice

but to be deviant. This is an exaggeration, of course, but such an image can

be gained easily from an overemphasis

on the impact of labeling.

(Akers, 1968: 463)

Akers is quite correct to warn us against

9
overemphasizing the impact of labeling because the impact is bound to be variable.

While such dramatized insults to

identity and integrity cut deep

for some, their impact varies and

is absorbed or discounted by others.

(Lemert, 1971:12)

Here Lemert is discussing the impact of a

part of the labeling process, namely, juvenile court proceedings which have been

described as a "degradation ritual" (Garfinkel,

1956).

The labei has been applied to the blind,

but oddly enought it often does not stick.

When asked the direct question, 39 percent

of the sample of blind children answered

that they do not consider themselves blind.

In the equivalent subgroup of adults in

the sample (also blinded in early childhood or from birth and living in the same

area of the country) who have had years

and years of labeling, 37 percent reported

that-they do not regard themselves as

blind. Such are the mysterious workings

of the self. Thus studies of the blind

suggest that, even when labeling is most

flagrant, this psychic shaping of reality

must be taken into account.

The variability of labeling impact is also

noted by Hyman, Stokes, and Strauss.

Considering the sharp definition of

their situation, the-blind might also

seem to be ideal witnesses for the

advocates of labeling theory to call

upon.

(Hyman, Stokes, and

Strauss, 1973:406)

Who accepts a label, who rejects a label, and

why, is still not wholly understood.

5 Resisting Labeling

We turn now to the consideration of four

major categories of resisting the labeling

process. They are socialization of norms,

reference groups, techniques of neutralization, and the negotiation of reality.

The person who is socialized to a deviant

mode of life views deviance as "normal." The

normative definitions of deviance for the

labeling social system are never internalized or shared by the "normal deviant" (see

Bredemeier and Stephenson, 1962:126-128).

Apprehending and labeling such a deviant will

have little effect on him (see DeLamater,

‘1968: 454). From his point of view it is the

others who are the “deviants” and their labeling has little or no relevance for him.

The person in the preceding example is, no

doubt, also supported by a deviant reference

group. A reference group is any group one

refers to or identifies with for definitions

of the social situation (see Merton, 1957:

225-386). Shoham (1970) indirectly comments

on the effects of labeling and one’s identification or lack of it with the labeling

group by noting in another context that

stigma as a means of social control is more

effective when the gap between self-image and

social image [that is, the labeling group’s

image or definition) is narrow and less effective when there is a wide gap between the

self-image and the social image. The socialized deviant maintains contact with his

deviant reference group and thereby neutralizes the effect of the labeling group. The

more deeply a person is involved in sharing

the norms and values of the labeling group,

the more likely the labeling will have an

effect on the person labeled. As Shoham

hypothesizes, the more distant the relationship, the less the impact.

This point is supported by Dinitz, Dynes, and

Clarke (1969:20) in their discussion of the

stigmatization process on various types of

deviants. They conclude that where societal

response is protective toward the deviant,

thus co-opting the deviant and reducing the

gap between self and social images, labeling

is quite successful and low self-esteem results. But, where society is punitive toward

the deviant and the gap is widened, societal

labeling and impact on self-esteem varies.

10
This point is also supported dramatically

an article by Reiss (1964) describing the

homosexual behavior of lower class boys.

The reactions of the larger society,

in defining the behavior as homosexual

is unimportant in their own selfdefinition. What is important to

them is the reactions of their peers

to violation of peer group norms which

define roles in the peer-queer transaction.

in

(Reiss, 1965:207)

Here the peer reference group successfully

insulates the individual from the labeling of

the larger society and thereby preserves his

self-concept.

In some cases labeling of a deviant by the

larger society, which does not serve as the

deviant's reference.group, is a rewarding

experience.

In such criminal subcultures and

groups the stigmatized social pariahs

may obtain a number of rewards:

status and positive evaluation from

peers, enhancing the offender's

self-image....

(Hills, 1971:52)

As Hills notes, not only does the deviant reference group assist the individual in resisting

the labeling assault on his self-concept, but

his self-concept is "enhanced" by the experience! In sum, the reference group can serve

as a powerful neutralizer of the labeling

process.

Sykes and Matza (1957) present five techniques

for neutralizing labeling and thereby avoiding

feelings that might contribute to a poorer

self-concept. Three of the techniques are

denial techniques -- denial of responsibility,

denial of injury, and denial of the victim.

The offender attributes his behavior to forces

beyond his control such as having a broken

home or bad companions. In denial of injury

the offender denies that anyone was harmed by

his activity -- he stole a car but who got

hurt? And in the denial of the victim the

offender might insist that the victim "had it

coming to him" so that the victim has not

been victimized but justly punished. The

fourth technique of neutralization is called

condemnation of the condemners where the offender uses the tactic that the best defense

is a good offense and accuses his accusers of

various wrongdoings. The final technique is

called the appeal to high loyalty where the

offender places his loyalty to friends or

relatives above the demands of the law. Using

these techniques the deviant "tends to develop

a self-conception that allows him to admit his

delinquencies to himself without damage to his

self-esteem."

(Hartung, 1965:120)

While the above techniques of neutralization

are described in the context of official sanctions, it should be noted that the danger of

labeling to the self-concept does not only

come from the officials of society but, as

mentioned earlier, from informal sources as

well as from the self. These sources must be

neutralized too, or the danger to the selfconcept is just as great:

Also, if the person cannot neutralize

conventional norms and standards, he

may label himself as a deviant; as a

result, he will incur a negative selfevaluation and may perceive his primary

relations as being disrupted.

Such self-labelling may produce

as much of a self-fulfilling prophecy

as does labelling by society's agents.

(DeLamater, 1968:454)

These neutralization techniques therefore

permit the individual to resist the labeling

process and to maintain their self-concept

(see Schervish, 1973:51; Emerson, 1969:142-

143 for a review of similar techniques).

Another defense against the impact of labeling on the self-concept is to negotiate the

seriousness of the label with the label definers (see Scheff, 1968). Lorber (1967)

notes that when a self-label does not agree

with a given social label a person may negotiate a new label.

This does not neutralize the label assigned

but modifies it and thereby minimizes changes

in the self-concept. Another negotiating

strategy is to give an "account" which allows

others to excuse or understand the deviant

behavior and which thereby preserves one's

self-esteem (see Scott and Lyman, 1968).

This strategy is much like some techniques of

neutralization. Juveniles apprehended by the

police are often able to negotiate labels

based on their demeanor toward the police

(Piliavin and Briar, 1964). The flippant,

"fractious" or "nonchalant" youths are typically dealt with more severely than are the

"contrite," "respectful," and slightly

"fearful" youths who were successful in negotiating their "basically law abiding or at

least 'salvageable"' labels (see also Emerson,

1969:101-102).

11
We have seen that when a label is applied its dition to the several strategies available

impact on the labelee is not necessarily com- to the labelee. However, our knowledge about

plete or final (see Schur, 1973:125-126). the impact of labeling is sparse and leaves

Various conditions mitigate the impact in ad- much to be discovered.

6 The Effect of Apprehension

Gold (1970) and Gold and Williams (1969) provide data on the effect of apprehension on

subsequent juvenile delinquent behavior.

Gold (1970), in a study of detected and undetected delinquent behavior in a large Midwestern city, reported that when a group of adolescents apprehended by the police were matched

with unapprehended adolescents sharing the

same social and delinquent behavior characteristics, the apprehended group showed significantly more incidences of delinquent behavior

subsequent to their apprehension than did

their match group. Gold and Williams (1969)

replicated the Gold study with matched pairs

of juveniles from a national sample of adolescents. Their findings supported the Gold

data and they concluded that "apprehension

itself contributes to further delinquency"

(Gold and Williams, 1969:10). The dynamics

of why this relationship occurs are not explored by Gold and Williams. However, Gold

(1970:108) suggests that perhaps the apprehended youth must continue his delinquent

behavior or else risk being labeled "chicken"

by his peers. Gold also suggests that the

original motives for involvement in delinquent

behavior might be untouched by the apprehension and that, therefore, the behavior continues. In this view it is reasonable to expect

some of the unapprehended matches to share

these motivations and to continue their behavior. Indeed, some did continue their delinquent behavior but not enough of them to

view this explanation as the entire explanation. Gold offers the additional explanation

that the apprehended juvenile may simply be

angered and strike out with further delinquent behavior. The empirical explanation for

increased deviance as the result of official

labeling has yet to be given. However, these

two studies clearly demonstrate that official

apprehension often serves to increase subsequent deviant behavior.

The labeling perspective on this issue has

been clearly stated by Duncan (1969).

...stigma resulting from being officially

labeled as a "delinquent" increases the

probability of a youth engaging in further

delinquent behavior.

This stigma acts to foster delinquent

role enactment, isolates the youth

from effective social control, cuts

him off from many legitimate opportunities, and opens up illegitimate

opportunities to him.

(Duncan, 1969:41)

And Wheeler and Cottrell (1966) add to this

perspective.

If the labeling hypothesis is correct,

official intervention may further

define the youth as delinquent in the

eyes of neighbors, family members,

and peers, thus making it more difficult for him to resume conventional

activities.

(Wheeler and Cottrell,

1966:23)

However, Foster (1971) and Foster, Dinitz, and

Reckless (1972) report that their study of

apprehended boys found very few who perceived any difficulties in their interpersonal relationships with family or friends

as the result of their official labeling.

They therefore concluded that the social

liability incurred by apprehension is overestimated by the labeling perspective (Foster,

Dinitz, and Reckless, 1972:208).

12
Despite the pros and cons of the issue there

is much agreement (see, for example, Wheeler

and Cottrell, 1966, Lemert, 1967b; Werthman,

1967; Schur, 1973) that official intervention

in delinquent behavior often serves to propel

the juvenile from primary deviance to secondary or career deviance (Lemert, 1951).

There is a very important distinction

between engaging in a delinquent act

and following a delinquent career organized around the repetitive commission of

such acts. Given the relatively minor,

episodic, and perhaps situationally

induced character of much delinquency,

many who have engaged in minor forms of

delinquency once or twice may grow out

of this pattern of behavior as they move

toward adulthood. For these, the labeling theorists argue, a concerted policy

of doing nothing may be more helpful than

active intervention, if the long-range

goal is to reduce the probability of

repetition of the acts.

(Wheeler and Cottrell,

1966:23)

It has been noted that most delinquent behavior will, in time, "mature out" (Lemert,

1967b:94; Werthman, 1967:155; Corrections,

1973:248). Henley and Adams (1973:514) report that for the cohorts of college graduates

they studied, the incidence and prevalence of

marihuana use was increasing despite the

increasing age of the graduates. But, for

those graduates who were married and parents

the marihuana use ceased. This cessation was

presumably due to the "maturing" effect of

marriage and parenthood responsibilities.

Because of the "maturing out" phenomenon attributed to delinquent behavior it has been

suggested that these young offenders be dealt

with by what Lemert calls "judicious nonintervention" (Lemert, 1967b:96; see also,

Corrections, 1973:248; Schur, 1973). This

does not mean adopting a "do nothing" posture

but rather suggests steering the "doing" from

the official agencies of society back to

parents, neighbors, and the like. Problems

should be dealt with on this level and the

juvenile court should be "an agency of last

resort for children, holding to a doctrine

analogous to that of appeal courts which require that all other remedies be exhausted

before a case will be considered" (Lemert,

1967b:96).

Despite the somewhat contradictory explanations for the impact of apprehension on the

offender's subsequent behavior, there is

evidence that increased deviant behavior often

results. We now turn to a study which presents

data on the relationship between apprehension

and self-esteem.

Jensen (1972a), in a study of 2,589 black and

white adolescent males, looked at the relationship between official delinquency

(youths apprehended for delinquent behavior)

and two self-concept measures -- self-esteem

and perception of self as delinquent. It

should be noted that the self-concept measures

were taken subsequent to the official apprehension of approximately 97%-99% of the total

of apprehended youths in the sample.

Jensen reports that the relationship between

official delinquency and the evaluation of

the self as delinquent is stronger for whites

than blacks in his sample. Among whites this

relationship is weakened in the case of the

middle and upper class youths and for those

with delinquent companions. While the direction of the reported relationship is consistent for both races, the strength of the relationship is weak.

. . . there is a persistent tendency for

those who have been officially evaluated

as delinquent to think of themselves and

to feel thought of by others as delinquent, but this tendency was more characteristic of whites than blacks. In

addition, the relationships among blacks

and whites did tend to converge within

certain subcategories, either as a product

of stronger relationships in some categories of blacks, weaker relationships in

some categories of whites, or both. For

example, among whites, the higher their

class standing (in terms of father's

educational attainment), the weaker the

relationship between recorded delinquency

and delinquent evaluations. This finding

was consistent with Hewitt's . . . contention that lower-class delinquency "feeds

upon official definitions" while middle

class delinquents are insulated by

"understanding" adults. However, this

interpretation must be tempered with the

recognition that blacks tend to be fairly

well-insulated [relative to whites) irrespective of class standing.

Delinquent companions condition the

consequences of official evaluations only

among whites. Whites with several delinquent friends exhibited a relationship

virtually identical to the black adolescents in general. Some adolescents,

then, may be "doubly insulated" by adults

prepared to allow "mistakes" and peers

involved in similar activities.

In sum, the application of official labels

appears least consequential among those

who can readily rationalize their act13
ivities or who are insulated by "understanding" parents and peers.

(Jensen, 1972a:139-140)

Jensen notes that while the relationship between official delinquency and perception of

self as delinauent differs for blacks and

whites, the perception of self bears a weak

negative relationship to self-esteem for both

racial groups. Apparently, although a youth

may accept the delinquent label, his selfesteem is largely unaffected. The relationship between official delinquency and selfesteem is even more remote.

Given the magnitude of the relationships

between official definitions and delinquent

self-conceptions and between such conceptions and self-esteem we would not expect

much of a relationship between official

delinquency and self-esteem.

(Jensen, 1972a:141)

So Jensen concludes --

. . . these data suggest that contact with

official labelers has no significant consequences for feelings of personal worth

for most subcategories of adolescents.

Of all the subcategories in which the

relation between official delinquency and

self-esteem was examined, such official

definitions made the greatest difference

among middle-to-upper-status blacks but

even there the relationship was weak

(-.20, -.25). While insignificant, the

positive relationship among lower-class

blacks, leaves open the possibility that

labels intended as stigmatic may have the

opposite effect.

(Jensen, 1972a:142)

(Emphasis added)

Jensen's interpretation of a trend relationship suggests that, for at least one group,

self-esteem may be slightly improved by

official labeling.

In summarizing the findings of these studies,

one could say that apprehension encourages

increased delinquent behavior, is slightly

related to the perception or increased perception of oneself as delinquent, and has

no consequences for one's level of selfesteem. Since each study deals with a different effect of apprehension, the questions

concerning the impact of apprehension and

official labeling on the interaction effects

(if any) of behavior and self-concept or its

components remain unanswered by these data.

7 Self-Concept Antecedent to Apprehension

In the attempt to determine the impact of

official labeling on the self-concept it is

(useful to know about the condition of the

self-concept prior to the apprehension.

Fitts and Hamner (1969) have stated the problem well.

The question has often been raised as to

whether the self concept causes behavior

or results from behavior; whether delinquency results from an already existent

inadequate self concept or whether the

low self concept stems from society's

reaction to the delinquent pattern of

behavior. The question has been raised

but not answered.

(Fitts and Hammer, 1969:81)

While the main focus is on the self-concept

antecedent to apprehension of official labeling, the informal and self-labeling processes

should not be neglected. For example,

Gemignani (1973) and Harris (1968) draw our

attention to the phenomenon of predelinquent

informal labeling which, in the formative

years, may have a definite impact on the

socialization-self-concept formation process.

Fisher (1972:821 notes that public or official labeling "appears not to set in motion

a process of differential treatment, rather

it-appears simply to reflect, and perhaps

exacerbate, a process already ongoing."

In a longitudinal study done by Reckless and

others at Ohio State it was determined that a

good self-concept acted as an insulator

against delinquent behavior (see Reckless,

Dinitz, and Array, 1956; Reckless, Dinitz,

and Kay, 1957; Reckless, Dinitz, and Murray,

1957; Scarpitti, Murray, Dinitz, and Reckless,

1960; Dinitz, Scarpitti, and Reckless, 1962;

Reckless, 1967; Reckless and Dinitz, 1967).

Unfortunately, their measure of self-concept

14
was found to be inadequate thus negating the

conclusions drawn from their data (see

Schwartz and Tangri, 1965; Tangri and Schwartz

1967; Orcutt, 1970; Schwartz and Stryker, 1970;

and Jensen, 1972a).

Schwartz and Tangri (1965) essentially replicated the Reckless study but with a much

improved self-concept measure. Their data

are interpreted as supporting the Reckless

contention that a positive self-concept

insulates the “good” boy in a high delinquency area. In a later study reported by

Schwartz and Stryker (1970) the data are less

clear in their support of the Reckless position. The data were taken from a predominantly black school and for reasons that are

unclear, racial comparisons produce an inconsistent picture. Self-concept for white boys

in this situation apprently does not serve as

an insulator against delinquency. It does

appear, however, that the Reckless hypothesis

is supported for black boys.

The evidence then for the self-concept as an

insulator against deviant behavior is inconclusive and demonstrates the need for additional work in this area. Therefore, the

condition of the self-concept antecedent to

apprehension cannot be determined with any

certainty from the preceding studies.

8 Self-Concept Antecedent to Drug Abuse

Next, the self-concept as an antecedent condition to drug abuse will be explored. Drug

abuse, particularly drug addiction, has been

treated in the literature, as Kaplan and

Meyerowitz (1970) note, as steaming from a

pathogenic environment. The general view is

that the “negative” environment fosters a

negative self-concept which in turn leads to

drug abuse. It should be stressed that this

view is derived mainly from data on the drug

addict although it tends to be generalized

to all drug abuse. The drug addict has been

seen as suffering various sorts of personality disorders (see, for example, Ausubel,

1948; Chein, Gerard, Lee, and Rosenfeld, 1964)

which imply a poor self-concept. Winick

(1957:19-20) contends that there “appears to

be no one kind of psychiatric diagnosis

which is common to drug addicts” and that “all

kinds of people can and do become drug addicts.”

While this statement would seem to allow for

antecedent conditions to drug addiction other

than pathological ones, Lindesmith (1965b)

indicates this is not the prevailing position

on the subject.

An astonishing variety of terms have

been employed in the attempt to characterize the addict, particular types

of addicts, and the addiction-prone

personality, usually with the assumption

that the attribute named has some etiologic significance. From a small segment

of the literature the following examples

have been gleaned: “alienated,”

“frustrated,” "passive psychopath,”

“aggressive psychopath,” “emotionally

unstable,” “nomadic,” “inebriate,”

“narcissistic,” “dependent,” “sociopath,”

“hedonistic,” “childlike,” “paranoid,”

“rebellious,” “hostile,” “infantile,”

“neurotic," “overattached to the mother,”

“retreatist,” “cyclothymic,” “constitutionally immoral,” “hysterical,”

“neurasthenic,” "hereditarily neuropathic,”

“weak character and will,” “lack of moral

sense," “self-indulgent,‘" “introspective,”

“extroverted,” “self-conscious,”

“motivational immaturity,” “pseudopsychopathic delinquent,” and, finally,

“essentially normal.”

He goes on to say:

It is of interest to observe that in this

list opposite traits are sometimes mentioned; that most of the same terms are

applied to other groups, such as alcoholics, prisoners, tramps, sex offenders,

and thieves; that almost all these descriptions are based on observations of

addicts in captivity or on secondhand

reports of such observations; that many

of the alleged attributes are clearly

effects or integral aspects of addiction,

rather than antecedents, and that all of

them are poorly defined concepts, frequently used simply as expressions of disapproval. The multiplicity of these char1 5
acterizations is scientifically embarrassing, and their number is increasing.

(Lindesmith, 1965b:132)

Lindesmith is correct to point out that a

major difficulty with studies of this type is

that they make after-the-fact assessments of

"caught" drug abusers (see, for example,

McGrath and Scarpitti, 1970:5-7 for comments

on this issue; see Seymour, 1972-74 for a

description of such a study). Simmons (1969)

aptly comments on this problem and draws our

attention to another issue.

probably the most widespread and deeprunning of these biases comes from generalizing about deviants after studying that special fraction of deviants

who have been caught or who have somehow volunteered for treatment.... This

special subgroup is most certainly

unrepresentative of all deviants.

To generalize about all deviants from

only those who have, some sense,

failed at deviance is as one-sided and

misleading as to portray school life

solely on the basis of dropouts.

(Simmons, 1969:7)

Not only are current characteristics of drug

abusers attributed to prior states, but this

is done with a highly select group! Ideally,

user characteristics should be known prior to

abuse and this information should be drawn

from a representative sample of abusers.

Despite these pitfalls there are some studies

that manage to minimize the problem of attributing current states of abusers to prior

states by using prior history data to impute

early self-concept levels. This literature

focuses on adolescent drug abuse as a means

of preserving a positive self-concept against

the onset of a flagging self-concept. In

general, adolescents are seen as using drugs

because they are having "problems growing up"

(Land, 1969:45).

problems are

Specific to the growing up

"inter-personal experiences

which are predictive of self-derogation"

(Kaplan and Meyerowitz, 1970:216), school

achievement problems (Gerard and Kornetsky,

1955:474; Kaplan and Meyerowitz, 1970:216),

and problems of status transition to adulthood (Schiff, 1959; Chein, Gerard, Lee, and

Rosenfeld, 1964; Chein, 1965; Rubington, 1967)

The preceding studies concerned themselves

mainly with drug addiction and thereby the

narcotic drugs. Grinspoon's (1971) comments

suggest that less serious and more transitory

adolescent problems may lead to the intensified use of another drug, marihuana.

.

16

A major loss frequently precedes a

period of intensified use of cannabis.

This loss may be of self-esteem

following examinations or a break-up

with a girlfriend, or it may be the

loss of old and cherished life-orienting

values which the student felt compelled

to abandon in his often lonely search

for truth and meaning. During such

periods, which are generally selflimited, the promise of euphoric

escape will increase his interest in

the use of marihuana.

(Grinspoon, 1971:180)

As trouble increases intensified marihuana

use may be supplemented by more serious drugs,

If a student is more troubled, he is

more likely to use marihuana frequently

and to experiment with other drugs as

well, particularly the "hallucinogens."

(Grinspoon, 1971:180)

Perhaps this pattern of drug use is peculiar

to Grinspoon's Harvard students. Nevertheless,

it is interesting to speculate that there may

be a relationship between the "seriousness" of

a youth's problem and the drug he elects to

use to cope with that problem. Regardless,

the evidence indicates that adolescent drug

abuse is, in part, a response to self-concept

problems. 

While some drug abuse, to an unknown extent,

may be precipitated by self-concept difficulties (see Brehm and Back, 1968). There is

evidence that marihuana users frequently have

quite different motives for use.

It is important, however, not to think

everyone who uses marihuana as having

some kind of problem. In fact, a very

strong case could be made on some

campuses today, that if a young man

goes through four years of college

without having tried marihuana, his

abstinence is suggestive of a rigidity

in his character structure and a fear

of his impulses that can hardly be

considered desirable.

(Grinspoon, 1971:180)

Plarihuana use appears to be an implied part of

an adolescent subcultural pattern of beliefs

and behavior. The dominant set of subcultural

beliefs has been called the "hang-loose" ethic

by Simmons and Winograd (1966).

One of the fundamental characteristics

of the hang-loose ethic is that it is
irreverent. It repudiates, or at least

questions, such cornerstones of conventional society as Christianity, “my

country right or wrong?” the sanctity

of marriage and premarital chastity,

civil obedience, the accumulation of

wealth, the right and even competence

of parents, the schools, and the government to head and make decisions for

everyone -- in sum, the Establishment.

(Simmons and Winograd,

1966:12

Suchman (1968) in a study of college students,

hypothesized that “the more the student

embraces the ‘hang-loose’ ethic (as opposed

to the so-called ‘Protestant ethic’) the more

frequently will he make use of drugs”

(Suchman, 1968: 147). While Suchman found that

taking LSl and drinking alcoholic beverages

were related to the hang-loose ethic, marihuana

was the drug most highly associated with the

ethic.

Our data would strongly suggest that

use of marijuana is predominantly a

social act favored by a sub-group in

our society which happens to be

disenchanted with the established

order and for whom such use has

become simply a normal preference

for their own particular recreational

drug.

(Suchman, 1968:154-155)

It might be argued by some that those who

subscribe to the hang-loose ethic are deviant

and suffer from a poor self-concept. Schrag

(1971) neatly summarizes this position in his

review of the social control or containment

perspective.

It is argued that self control implies

a healthy self concept, a positive

orientation towards socially approved

goals, high tolerance for frustration,

and firm commitment to legitimate norms,

rules, and values. To the extent that

these characteristics are for some

reason lacking, there is a weakening

of inner controls, and deviance is

more probable.

(Schrag , 1971: 83)

However, the social reformer, the rebel

leader, and the innovator all operate with a

strong belief in themselves and their causes.

Merton (Merton and Nisbet, 1971:829-832)

distinguishes between this kind of behavior,

which he calls “nonconforming behavior,” and

the “aberrant behavior” of the person whose

deviance is totally self-serving. Therefore,

the high sense of commitment to certain

ideals and a particular life style that involves the use of marihuana could well entail

a positive self-concept on the part of its

advocates.

It would appear from the evidence reviewed

that, typically, users of the narcotic drugs

are having some self-concept difficulties

prior to use. Prior to apprehension for use

their self -concept is apparently maintained

at a positive level due to use. It is highly

unlikely, however, that this is the case for

all addicts that are apprehended.

In the case of marihuana there is some evidence of use as a defense against lowered

self-concept. But the bulk of use appears to

be in a subcultural context by persons with

rebellious but intact self-concepts.

In sum, the self-concepts of drug abusers

antecedent to use and to apprehension by

officials are a mixed bag of theoretical

guesses, conjecture, and little empirical

evidence.

17
9 Drug Abuse

In the literature on drug abuse that bears on

the central concern of this paper, two drugs

receive the major attention of writers--

marihuana and heroin. Thus this paper has

drawn information mainly from studies of

"addicts" and from "marihuana users." Hopefully these two drug abuse styles and societal

response to them adequately represent the

major relationships of self-concept and behavior before and after apprehension by officials.

Marihuana and heroin use will be considered

separately, when possible, in terms of official response and the possible effects of

this response on user self-concept.

The subcultural meaning and use of drugs has

been strongly emphasized in the literature,

as noted by the preceding discussion of peer

group support for marihuana use. Evidently,

selected drugs may be chosen for use from the

entire range of drugs by a particular subcultural group and these drugs are considered

part of their "ethic" (Cavan, 1970). Davis.

and Munoz (1970) note that:

...drug use among the hippies has

profound ideological meanings and

forms an integral part of their

everyday life. It symbolizes attack

not only on the normal society but

also on the normal form of consciousness. Their opposition does not

usually involve a specific attack on

our society, but is rather a total

withdrawal and rejection of the

establishment's way of life. Hippies

move in a world of their own, generally disregarding this world, except

insofar as it occasionally impinges

upon their lives."

(Davis and Munoz,

1970:301)

One specific drug, marihuana, has been the

focus of much attention recently (see

Marihuana, 1972a). Many writers have noted

the strong subcultural peer group support or

"ethic" legitimating the use of marihuana

(Blumer, 1967; Carey, 1970a; Fort, 1970;

Zimmerman, 1971). As was stated earlier, such

support serves as an effective insulator of

the self-concept against the official labeling

process.

Johnson (1973a), on the other hand, describes

how drug use in a subculture may develop not

as part of an ethic or philosophy of life but

rather in competition with peers for status

and prestige.

Unconventional behavior will emerge

from peer group participation because

of the norm of veiled competition. To

the individual, a crucial measure of

success lies in what his friends (peers)

think of him. Yet, there is continued

competition for prestige within each

peer group. Despite a democratic ethos

maintaining that the peer group has and

wants no leader, the competition for

prestige in the group is concealed

"under a veneer of non-competitive

good-fellowhip and fun." This competitiveness leads individuals in the group

to experiment with new forms of behavior.

Such "operating innovations" frequently

depart from what adults want adolescents

to do but are an important way by which

an individual can claim higher status

within the group. If a particular

innovation, such as the smoking of

marihuana, is done by one person in a

peer group and no negative consequences

such as arrest or poor health occur, the

person can claim a higher status within

the group. Such activities are likely

to be repeated, with others in the group

participating. Once patterns of activity

develop, "they generate their own

morality, norms, standards and rewards."

Patterns of action that may not have been

18
permitted at an earlier time become

tolerated, then accepted, and

perhaps even demanded of those

participating in the peer group.

(Johnson, 1973a:7-8)

Once this sort of behavior is established in

the group, group support and various techniques of insulation and neutralization

guard the self-concept against official

response.

As previously noted, heroin use appears to

be less a group behavior phenomenon and more

of an individual response to personal difficulties. While a peer group "ethic" concerning the use of drugs may encourage the

adolescent to experiment with heroin, no

"heroin use ethic" exists comparable to what

might be called the "marihuana use ethic."

However, heroin use may occur in response to

achieving status and prestige in the peer

group (Johnson, 1973a). Feldman (1973) points

out that in the "street system" the use of

heroin serves a function quite different

from those mentioned heretofore.

What apparently has escaped the

scrutiny of psychiatrically oriented

practitioners are the positive

qualities of creativity, daring and

resourcefulness that provide the

impetus for the top-level solid guys

to rise to the top of the street

hierarchy. Rather than retreating

from the demands of their environment, they utilize the risks of

heroin use to insure (or strive

toward) a leadership position.

Their use of heroin solidifies a

view of them as bold, reckless,

criminally defiant -- all praiseworthy qualities from a street

perspective. Rather than undermining their influence, efforts

to limit their heroin use through

legal sanctions merely serve to

secure or enhance their status

positions on the streets by providing them with opportunities

for risk-taking adventures that

previous generations of solid guys

never knew or even imagined.

(Feldman, 1973:38)

In this particular environment the drug use

preference is determined by the person's

position in the street system's status

hierarchy and by the local ranking of drugs.

According to Feldman, the drugs are ranked

by risk components of physical harm, addiction potential, and discovery by parents or

police (Feldman, 1973:35). Heroin ranks

highest followed by the other opiates while

diet pills ranked next to last with marihuana

in last place (Feldman, 1973:35). It should

be noted that other forms of risk-taking

behaviors were used to gain and maintain

high status in the street system and therefore, not all the "solid guys" chose this

behavior. However, the point to be made here

is that heroin use, like marihuana use, may

be stimulated and supported by the peer group.

And as Feldman notes, apprehension for drug

abuse under these conditions serves as a

status enhancing device.

10 Drug Abuse and Drug Laws

At the beginning of this paper the reasons

for the public response to drug abuse were

explored. That point will be briefly repeated now. All drug abusers tend to be

lumped together in the public mind as

immoral and dangerous. Several writers have

attributed this public image to the "propaganda" of various law enforcement agencies

in the United States (see Lindesmith, 1940)

Barber, 1967; Chambliss and Seidman, 1971).

In addition, Lindesmith (1940) and others

have pointed to the effects of the drug laws

and their enforcement in producing to some

extent a "self-fulfilling" prophecy.

...it is not the effect of the drug

that produces the alleged deterioration of character in the addict, but

rather the social situations into

which he is forced by the law and by

the public's conception of addiction

which does the damage. Well-to-do

addicts who are in a position to

protect themselves against these

influences often live useful and

productive lives.

(Lindesmith, 1940:203)

19
Thus Lindesmith describes the "dope fiend"

mythology that surrounds the users of the

opiate drugs.

The use of marihuana, as noted previously,

seems to be caught up more in a peer group

life style than most of heroin use. In the

case of marihuana, it is the life style that

seems to be more objectionable than the

effects of this drug compared, say, to the

addictive qualities of heroin. The basic

objection to marihuana use then is thought

to symbolize "not only the war on drugs, but

also the attempt to destroy a life-style--

the so-called irresponsibility, escapism,

radicalism, immorality, long hair and dirty

clothes of the pot-smokers--felt to threaten

the values of society at large" (Kaplan, 1970:

front flap of dustjacket; see also, McIntyre,

1968; Fort, 1970; Clausen, 1971; Young, 1971).

Drug laws in the United States have been much

criticized by many writers (see, for example,

Lindesmith, 1940; Ausubel, 1948, 1958; Schur,

1965; O'Donnell and Ball, 1966; Fort, 1969;

Schur, 1969a). Some of these criticisms will

be briefly reviewed. One major objection to

the laws for drug addiction is that drug

addiction should be seen as a disease and

not as a crime (Ausubel, 1948, 1958; O'Connell

and Ball, 1966:196). Ausubel comments on

this issue.

The chief social anachronism retarding

the treatment of drug addiction today

is its legal status as a criminal offense despite official recognition of

the personality disturbances that

underlie it. This is more than a

matter of academic importance. In

consequence of such legal provision,

gross inequalities in the status of

the various types of addicts have

resulted; the drug addiction hospital

has acquired an unmistakable prison

atmosphere; and the rehabilitation of

the treated drug addict is impeded by

the social stigma attached to "ex-convicts."

For the same "crime" of using drugs, a

patient may be voluntarily admitted to

a federal hospital (to be discharged on

request whether or not he has completed

treatment); receive a probationary

sentence usually requiring six months

treatment at the hospital; or receive an

actual sentence ranging from one to five

years. If any offense is to be considered

a crime, it is certainly a mockery of

justice to base penal punishment solely

on the criterion of whether the individual

involved has voluntarily confessed his

guilt, or has been apprehended by officers

of the law.

(Ausubel, 1948:238)

In handling addiction both as a crime and a

disease (by virtue of the treatment program),

the door is open to whimsical and unjust

dealings with the apprehended addict by the

criminal justice agencies. Such inconsistent

treatment creates a sense of injustice in the

addict and often serves to reinforce his drug

behavior.

Another objection to the drug laws is documented by Chayet (1967).

In surveying state and federal action,

one sees a legislative spectrum running

from imposition of the harshest penalties

to complete indifference and failure to

enact any legislation at all. The

majority of states approach the legislative control of all drugs in a uniform

manner, totally ignoring varying physiological and psychological effects on the

body.

The federal legislation, unlike the state

acts based on the uniform law, distinguished between the "hard" drugs (opium,

morphine, etc.) and the "soft" drugs

(marijuana). Many states subsequently

followed the lead of the federal government, but only to the extent of this

simplistic division of "hard" and "soft"

drugs. The states continued to use the

"soft" drug classification when the

depressant and stimulant drugs as well as

the hallucinogens came into popularity.

The effect of this was an incongruous

jumble of statutory provisions in no way

relating punishment to the potentiality

for physical harm.

(Chayet, 1967:93)

Only recently an effort has been made by the

Federal government to distinguish between drug

addicts and drug abusers for treatment programs

in correctional institutions [Narcotic Treatment

Programs in Correctional Institutions, 1971).

Fort (1969) points to the problem of inconsistencies in the drug laws and their neglect

of more common "drugs."

It almost totally neglects the enormous

and well-documented abuses of alcohol

and tobacco; treats amphetamines and

LSD more leniently than marijuana,

which has far less potential for abuse;

puts drugs with similar chemistry and

pharmacology in entirely different

penalty categories; primarily attacks

and criminalizes user-possessors; and

ignores civil penalties in favor

of criminal ones.

(Fort, 1969:76)

20
A primary objection to the drug laws is their

“criminalizing” effect on those who are

apprehended [for example, see Schur 1965,

1969a: Drug Use in America, 1973a:253). This

criticism has grown as the nature of drug

abuse and abusers has changed over the years.

As Chambliss and Seidman (1971:69) point out,

drug abuse in years gone by was most prevalent in the lower classes in our society and

particularly among persons in the ghettos.

‘Ihe drugs used by these groups were typically

heroin and other narcotic drugs (Brecher,

1972). Law enforcement agencies were free to

crack down on the “dope fiend” menace. And

the “respectable” members of the community

who had drug habits managed to maintain them

and run little risk of arrest in so doing.

The social class differences in enforcement

activity and other applications of the law

have been commented on recently by Thio (1973:

5) and less recently by Shakespeare in his

play, King Lear.

Through tattered clothes small vices

do appear, robes and furred gowns hide all

Plate sin with gold and the strong lance

of justice hurtless breaks. Arm it in

rags, a pigmy’s straw does pierce it.

(IV. vi. 168-171)

More recently the pattern of drug abuse,

particularly marihuana, has appeared in the

middle and upper classes in our society.

Most of these users from the so-called

“respectable” segments of our society are not

otherwise deviant or lawbreakers .(McGlothlin,

1967:203; Drug Use in America, 1973:253).

Justifications for apprehending a criminal

dope fiend and addict in the ghetto do not

easily transfer in fact to middle-class,

marihuana-using, white suburbia. Chambliss

and Seidman (1971) trace this problem as law

enforcement officials are now experiencing it.

The activities of the law-enforcement

agencies in expanding these laws,

because they anticipated that this

was in their own bureaucratic interests,

did not at the time appear to commit

them to a program that would involve

arresting persons who could cause them

“trouble.”

The situation has not turned out to be

exactly as anticipated. Marijuana and

a host of other so-called drugs have

been adopted as part of the way of life

of students. in colleges and high schools.

As a consequence, the police have

frequently been exposed for using

time-tested techniques of entrapment

and general harassment of “drug users”

in law-enforcement efforts. Since

these techniques have been used

against the children of the middle

and upper classes, considerable

criticism has been leveled at the

police which they would normally

have avoided.

There is currently underway a strong

movement to eliminate marijuana and

some other drugs from the list of

harmful drugs prohibited by law.

This movement, although originally

opposed by the law-enforcers, is

gaining favor with them precisely

because the enforcement of these

laws against middle and upper class

youths has not brought forth praise

and rewards for the enforcement

agencies. On the contrary, it has

exposed them to a great deal of

criticism. In the last analysis

it is likely that this fact, and

not scientific evidence demonstrating

that marijuana is less harmful to

users than alcohol, will bring about

changes in the laws in question.

(Chambliss and Seidman,

1971: 69)

McGlothlin suggests that the police will

move more and more toward selective enforcement of the drug laws with the lower socioeconomic groups receiving the brunt of the

enforcement (McGlothlin, 1967:203- 204) .

Enforcement activities for marihuana use in

student communities at least, appear to be

minimal. Barter, Mizner, and Werme (1971)

report that in the university community they

studied illegal drug use went 99 percent

undetected (Barter, Mizner, and Werme, 1971:

197). Other similar studies (see Zimmerman

and Wieder, 1971:13-14) report that the

youths’ perception of low risk of apprehension for drug abuse is an accurate one. Often

enforcement officials view the penalties for

marihuana use as too severe and defer apprehension on that account (McGlothlin, 1967:

203). However, even on this issue of marihuana use, Packer notes “the law in action

is far more lenient toward these new and

respectable users than it is toward the more

traditional objects of its attention” (Packer,

1968:340). It appears therefore that the

criminal justice system and middle-class

community are moving in the direction of

“patterned evasion” (Williams, 1960) in dealing with drug abuse and marihuana in particular.

The National Commission on Marihuana and

Drug Abuse notes this movement (see also

Packer, 1968:340).

2 1
From this analysis of enforcement

behavior, it appears that the law

enforcement community has adopted

a policy of containment. Although

effort is sometimes expended to seek

out private marihuana use, the trend

is undoubtedly to invoke the marihuana

possession laws only when the behavior

(possession) comes out in the open.

We were told by police officials in

some cities, for example, that arrests

are made only when marihuana use is

flaunted in public.

(Marihuana, 1972a:112)

While "overlegislation" Of "victimless crimes"

may lead to disrespect for laws in general

(see Schur, 1969a), the literature focuses

on the drug laws specific to marihuana.

Perhaps this is because marihuana may be

considered the adopted drug of the decade

among "respectable" persons. In any event,

the marihuana laws are the target of discontent and disrespect for many youths and

adults (Kadish, 1967; Packer, 1968; Kaplan,

1970; Clausen, 1971). Part of this attitude

may be traced to the official scare stories

about marihuana versus the experience of the

user (Brecher, 1972:497-498). Also college

youths are said to be exercising their critical and analytical skills to conclude that

marihuana use is not immoral but that the law

itself is immoral (Linn, 1971).

11 Drug Abuse, Apprehension, Self-Concept

and Subsequent behavior

Given current attitudes toward the drug laws

and their enforcement, what effect will

apprehension most likely have on the adolescent's self-concept and subsequent behavior?

Using Chambliss's (1967) approach to deterrent

effects on various types of deviance, one

could say that the drug user who has a high

commitment to drug abuse as a "way of life"

will not be deterred from subsequent use by

apprehension. However, the casual experimenter with a low degree of commitment to

abuse will most likely discontinue use as

the result of apprehension. Rut, the compounding factor of apprehension lies with the

success of the labeling process in placing

the person outside the conventional society.

If the label does not permit 'Ye-entry"

(Simmons, 1969; Payne, 1973) the "deviant"

will be literally forced, and indeed prefer,

to associate with other "deviants" (Freedman

and Doob, 1968). In so doing, a pattern of

secondary deviance (Lemert, 1951) is established and a commitment to drug abuse or

'other deviant behaviors might be adopted. In

order to avoid the secondary deviance of

successful labeling, re-entry or delabeling

(see Trice and Roman, 1970) must occur.

The commitment of the heroin user is a commitment of physiological addiction as well as

psychological factors. Therefore, the effect

of apprehension (with treatment) on subsequent

drug abuse behavior should only result in

making the abuser more cautious about being

caught again. The canmitmentof the marihuana

user, on the other hand, is highly variable.

It may be the firm commitment of "habituation"

(Fort, 1970:324) or the minimal commitment of

experimentation. The relationship between

apprehension and subsequent behavior of the

marihuana user, as noted, will vary considerably with commitment to use or to an ideology

that encourages use.

The tie-in of commitment to drug abuse with

attitudes toward drug laws is probably one of

high commitment to drug abuse and a negative

attitude toward the drug laws. Again; this

seems to be the case particularly for marihuana. The variable patterns of drug law

enforcement no doubt serve to increase the

high commitment person's negative views of

the drug laws.

22
In light of the current disrespect for the

marihuana laws and presumably drug laws in

‘general, apprehension for a drug law violation

should have little or no impact on the adolescent’s self-concept. Current attitudes

toward the drug laws and the lack of uniform

enforcement tend to aid the adolescent in

seeing himself a “victim” of an unjust system.

Such a view could act as a neutralizing device

against threats to the self-concept. The

various techniques of neutralization and

insulation against the labeling process have

been reviewed and will not be repeated.

General feelings about the drug laws may

simply be added to this listing of selfconcept preservers.

Most of this discussion has been in terms of

marihuana laws and marihuana users, since the

literature emphasizes this drug for the issues

under discussion. However, Gibbons (1965)

gives some insight into the view of the heroin

user or narcotic addict on these issues.

Although narcotic addicts recognize that

drug use is defined as illegal and criminal

in nature, they view themselves as a rather

special kind of criminal. They argue that

narcotic use is not really a criminal act

similar to most forms of crime. Instead,

it is viewed as a relatively innocuous

personal vice which should not be regarded as criminal in nature, in the same way

the use of alcohol or tobacco is not an

illegal act. Consequently, although

addicts define themselves as “hypes” and

addicts, they see themselves as the

victims of a capricious and unjust

legal system.

(Gibbons, 1965: 124)

In sum, it would appear that drug abusers,

when apprehended, view themselves as “victims”

of society’s criminal “justice” system. As

such, the labeling process is unlikely to be

effective except to alter the abuser’s relationships with conventional society.

Becoming an “outsider” may have some longrange implications for the self-concept

which, empirically, are not clear at this

time.

12 Concluding Remarks

This paper has reviewed the literature relevant to the effect of arrest and identification of an adolescent “addict” or “drug

abuser” on his or her self-image and subsequent behavior. The most relevant approach

to view this problem was the labeling perspective. The labeling perspective looks at

This perspective tends to overlook the effects

of labeling by informal groups of significant

others as well as self-labeling which could

well insulate the person from the effects of

official or formal labeling. Furthermore,

the labeling process works in a positive

direction as well.

societal reaction to behavior it specifies as

Indeed, official labelers

“deviant” and the impact of this definition

may well provide an adolescent with a posion the person so labeled. The typical labeltive label in his referent peer group rather

ing approach may be seen as the ascription of

than with the intended negative label whose

a negative status “deviant” or “criminal” by

referent is the larger conventional society.

official representatives of society. Supposedly societal reaction socializes the

labelee to fulfill the role expectations of

Many factors serve to neutralize the labeling

process. Some of these factors are socializathe status “deviant.” The symbolic inter- tion to deviant norms, deviant reference

actionist position from which labeling is groups, various “techniques of neutralization,

derived, notes that the self-concept is forged

in interaction with others. Therefore, the

the giving of “accounts!” negotiating reality,

and the support of significant others. As

labeled “deviant” is thought to assume a the labeling process is neutralized one might

negative self-concept commensurate with his expect little or no significant changes to

deviant status. occur in self-concept or behavior.

23
Two empirical studies were reviewed. One

explored the impact of apprehension for delinquent behavior on subsequent delinquent

behavior and the other explored the relationships between perception of self as delinquent , self-esteem, and official apprehension.

Subsequent delinquent behavior was found to

be increased by apprehension. One explanation is that the labeling process is working;

a second possibility is that the delinquent

peer group, rather than apprehension, may

have had the effect of producing increased

delinquent behavior. The perception of self

as delinquent was found to be weakly related

to official apprehension (positive correlation) and to self-esteem (negative correlation), while self-esteem was found to be

unrelated to apprehension. The reported

weak effect of official labeling on the perception of self as delinquent was lessened by

parental and peer support. The self-esteem

of those who accepted the delinquent label,

as well as those who were insulated against

it, was essentially unaffected. In explaining the lack of relationship between selfesteem and official apprehension, various

intervening neutralization techniques may

have been invoked or perhaps significant

others, in different ways, served to preserve

self-esteem. The interpretation of these

findings for the purpose of this review remains unclear.

Turning to drug abuse, it was noted that the

literature deals primarily with addiction

(usually heroin use) and with marihuana use.

The state of the self-concept prior to the

use of a drug was explored. The onset of

heroin use was frequently noted to accompany

a need to preserve a positive self-esteem

which was under attack. In some cases,

marihuana and other drugs are said to be

employed to narcotize against temporary difficulties such as a transient lowering of

self-esteem. Evidence of the effects of apprehension for drug abuse on the self-concept

could only be implied from the information

available. Heroin users, to the extent they

were co-opted by society in their treatment

programs, may well come to view themselves as

true “deviants” and thereby lower their selfesteem. Those using marihuana as part of the

“hang-loose” ethic and symbolizing their discontent with various societal laws are unlikely to be convinced of anything but the

rightness of their cause upon apprehension.

Given the sporadic enforcement policies and

the proportionately small number of apprehensions for marihuana use, the apprehended

user is also likely to feel a strong sense of

unfairness and injustice. In sum, the marihuana user committed to an ethic or ideology

which views drug abuse positively should be

unaffected by apprehension. The one-time

or experimental user, however, may experience

a loss in self-esteem as the result of apprehension. He typically has far less insulating or neutralizing capability than the more

regular user.

How apprehension for a drug law violation

impacts on adolescent psychological development cannot be answered directly by the

available literature. There is a need to

explore this issue in a careful and systematic fashion. Self-concept ideally should be

measured prior to the onset of drug abuse,

during the abuse phase, and prior to apprehension. Self-concept should be measured

again after apprehension, along with some

measure of post apprehension drug abuse. All

the foregoing measures also should be taken

from appropriate control groups. Additional

variables such as those explored in this paper

would need to be included to aid in assessing

the impact, if any, of the labeling process.

24
SELECTED

BlBLlOGRAPHY

25
Ageton, Suzanne S. and Delbert S. Elliott.

The effects of legal processing on delinquent orientations. Social Problems, 1974,

22, 87-100.

Akers, Ronald L. Problems in the sociology of

deviance: Social definitions and behavior.

Social Forces, 1968, 46, 455-465.

Alvarez, Walter. Your health - All dope once

legal in U.S. The Durham Sun, January 11,

1974, 6-B.

Antonio, Robert J. On Ignoring the Subtle

Dimensions of Labeling: The Case of Mental

Disorder. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the Society for the Study of

Social Problems, 1973.

Ausubel, David P. The psychopathology and

treatment of drug addiction in relation to

the mental hygiene movement. Psychiatric

Quarterly Supplement, 1948, 22, 219-250.

Ausubel, David P. Drug Addiction: Physiological, Psychological, and Socioiogical

Aspects. New York: Random House, 1958.

Back, Kurt W. Policy enthusiasms for untested

theories and the role of quantitative evidence: Labeling and mental illness. In

Demerath, III, N.J., Otto Larsen, and Karl

F. Schuessler (eds.). Social Policy and

Sociology. New York: Academic Press, 1975,

135-147.

Balch, Robert W. Negative Reactions to

Delinquent Labels in a Junior High School.

Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon, 1972.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Ball, John C. Social Deviancy and Adolescent

Personality. Louisville, Kentucky: University of Kentucky Press, 1962.

Barber, Bernard. Drugs and Society. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation, 1967.

Barron, Frank, Motivational patterns in LSD

usage. In DeBold, Richard C. and Russell C.

Leaf (eds.). LSD, Man and Society. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University

Press, 1967, 3-19.

Barter, James T., George L. Mizner, and Paul

H. Werme. Pattern of Drug Use hong

College Students in the Denver-Boulder Metropolitan Area. An Epidemiological and Demographic Survey of Student Attitudes and

Practices, Washington, D. C.: U. S. Department of Justice, 1971.

Bazelon, David L. Drugs that turn on the law.

The Journal of Social Issues, 1971, 27, 47-52.

26

Bean, Philip. The Social Control of Drugs.

New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1974.

Becker, Howard S. Outsiders. New York: Free

Press, 1963.

Becker, Howard S. (ed.) The Other Side:

Perspectives on Deviance. New York: Free

Press, 1964.

Berger, Peter L. Invitation to Sociology.

Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1963.

Bilek, Arthur J. America's criminal justice

system -- a diagnosis and prognosis. In

The Change Process in Criminal Justice.

National Institute of Law Enforcement and

Criminal Justice. Washington, D. C.: U. S.

Government Printing Office, 1973, 85-110.

Bloomquist, Edward R. Marijuana. Beverly

Hills, California: Glencoe Press, 1968.

Bloomquist, Edward R. Marijuana: The Second

Trip. Beverly Hills, California: Glencoe

Press, 1971.

Blum, Richard H. and Associates. Society and

Drugs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1969.

Blum, Richard H. and Associates. Horatio

Alger's Children. San Francisco: JosseyBass, 1972.

Blumer, Herbert. The World of Youthful Drug

Use. Berkeley, California: School of

Criminology, University of California, 1967.

Blumstein, Philip W. et al. The honoring of

accounts. American Tozological Review,

1974, 2, 551-566.

Bogg, Richard A., Roy G. Smith, and Susan D.

Russell. Drug Dependence in Mighigan.

Lansing, Michigan: Michigan House of

Representatives, 1968.

Brecher, Edward El. Licit and Illicit Drugs.

Mount Vernon, New York: Consumers Union,

1972.

Brecher, Edward M. and the Editors of Consumer

Reports. Marijuana: The health questions.

Consumer Reports, 1975, 40, 1943-149.

Bredemeier, Harry C. and Richard M. Stephenson.

The Analysis of Social Systems. New York:

Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962.

Brehm, Mary L. and Kurt W. Back. Self image

and attitudes toward drugs. Journal of

Personality, 1968, 36, 299-314.
Briar, Scott and Irving Piliavin. Delinquency, situational inducements, and commitment to conformity. Social Problems,

1965, 13, 35-45.

Brotman, Richard and Frederick Suffet.

Youthful Drug Use. Washington, D. C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1970.

Brown, James W. Passage through the expressive student subculture: The initiation

and cessation of marijuana use. Los Angeles,

California: University of Southern California, 1971. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Brown, James W. A test of a three-stage

learning model of drug use. Criminology,

1972, 2, 449-466.

Brown, James W., Daniel Glaser, Elaine Waxer,

and Gilbert Geis. Turning off: Cessation

of marijuana use after college. Social

Problems, 1974, 21, 527-538.

Brown, James W., Roger S. Mazze, and Daniel

Glaser. Narcotics: Knowledge and Nonsense

- Programmed Disaster Versus a Scientific

Model. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger

Publishing Company. 1974.

Bustamante, Jorge A. The "wetback" as deviant: An application of labeling theory.

American-Journal of Sociology, 1972, 77,

706-718.

Caditz, Sylvan B. Effect of a training

School experience on the personality of delinquent boys. Journal of ConsuIting

Psychology, 1959, 23, 501-509.

Carey, James T. Involvement in the drug

scene. In Douglas, Jack D. (ed.) Observations of Deviance. New York: Random

House, 1970a, 288-300.

Carey, James T. Marijuana use among the new

bohemians. In Smith, David E. (ed.) The

New Social Drug. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970b, 91-104.

Cavan, Sherri. The hippie ethic and the

spirit of drug use. In Douglas, Jack D.

(ed.) Observations of Deviance. New York:

Random House, 1970, 314-326.

Chambliss, William J. Types of Deviance and

the effectiveness of legal sanctions.

Wisconsin Law Review, 1967, 3, 703-719.

Chambliss, William J. (ed.) Crime and the

Legal Process. New York: McGraw-Hill,

1969.

27

Chambliss, William J. and Robert B. Seidman.

Sociology of the Law: A Research Bibliography. Berkeley, California: The

Glendessary Press, 1970.

Chambliss, William J. and Robert B. Seidman.

Law, Order, and Power. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1971.

Chapel, James L. and Daniel W. Taylor. Drugs

for kicks. In Reed, John P. and Fuad Baali

(eds.). Faces of Delinquency. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972,

64-75.

Chayet, Neil L.

LSD usage.

Social and legal aspects of

In DeBold, Richard C. and

Russell C. Leaf (eds.). LSD, Man and

Society. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan

University Press, 1967, 92-124.

Chein, Isidor. The use of narcotics as a

personal and social problem. In Wilner,

David M. and Gene G. Kassebaum (eds.).

Narcotics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965,

103-117.

Chein, Isidor, Donald Gerard, Robert S. Lee,

and Eva Rosenfeld. The Road to H: Narcotics,

Delinquency, and Social Policy. New York:

Basic Books, 1964.

Chiricos, Theodore G., Phillip D. Jackson, and

Gordon P. Waldo. Inequality in the imposition of a criminal label. Social Problems,

1972, 19, 553-572.

Cicourel, Aaron V. The Social Organization of

Juvenile Justice. New York: John Wiley &

Sons, 1968.

Clark, John P. and Eugene P. Wenninger. The

attitude of juveniles toward the legal institution. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1964, 55, 482-489.

Clarke, James W. and E. Lester Levine. Marijuana use, social discontent and political

alienation: A study of high school youth.

The American Political Science Review, 1971,

65, 120-130.

Clausen, John A. Social and psychological

factors in narcotics addiction. Law and

Contemporary Problems, 1957, 22, 34-51.

Clausen, John A. Drug use. In Merton, Robert

K. and Robert Nisbet (eds.). Contemporary

Social Problems. Third Edition. New York:

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971, 185-226.

Coates, Robert B.,

E. Ohlin.

Alden D. Miller, and Lloyd

The labeling perspective and innovation in juvenile correctional systems.
In Hobbs, Nicholas (ed,) Issues In The

Classification of Children. Volume II.

San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass,

1975, 123-149.

Cohen, Albert K. Delinquent Boys; The Culture of the Gang. Glencoe, Illinois:

Free Press, 1956.

Cohen, Sidney. The Drug Dilemma. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1969.

Cohen, Stanley (ed.). Images of Deviance.

Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books, 1971.

Consumers Union. Marijuana: The legal

question. Consumer Reports, 1975, 40,

265-266.

Cooley, Charles Horton. Human Nature and the

Social Order. New York: Schocken Books,

1964.

Coopersmith, Stanley. The Antecedents of

Self-esteem. San Francisco, California:

W.H. Freeman, 1967.

Corrections. National Advisory Commission on

Criminal Justice Standards and Goals.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973.

Cortina, Frank M. Stroke a Slain Warrior.

New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.

Cressey, Donald R. and David A. Ward (eds.).

Delinquency, Crime, and Social Process.

New York: Harper Row, 1969.

Davis, Fred. Deviance disavowal: The management of strained interaction by the visibly

handicapped. Social Problems, l961, 9,

120-132.

Davis, Fred and Laura Munoz. Heads and

freaks: Patterns and meanings of drug use

among hippies. In Douglas, Jack D. (ed.)

Observations of Deviance. New York:

Random House, 1970, 301-313.

Davis, Keith (ed.). Drugs and Politics.

New York: E. P. Dutton, 1974.

Davis, Nanette J. Labeling theory in deviance

research: A critique and reconsideration.

The Sociological Quarterly, 1972, 13,

447-474.

Debold, Richard C. and Russell C. Leaf (eds.).

LSD, Man and Society. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1967.

DeFleur, Lois B. Biasing influences on drug

arrest records: Implications for deviance

research. American Sociological Review,

1975a, 40, 88-103.

DeFleur, Lois B. Problems of research in response to "national emergencies": Drugs

and addiction. In Demerath, III, N.J.,

Otto Larsen, and Karl F. Schuessler (eds.).

Social Policy and Sociology. New York:

Academic Press, 1975b. 223-232.

DeLamater, John. On the nature of deviance.

Social Forces, 1968, 5, 445-455.

Denzin, Norman K. The self-fulfilling prophecy and patient-therapist interaction. In

Spitzer, Stephan P. and Norman K. Denzin

(eds.). The Mental Patient: Studies in

the Sociology of Deviance. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1968, 349-358.

Denzin, Norman K. Rules of conduct and the

study of deviant behavior: Some notes on

the social relationship. In Douglas, Jack

D. (ed.). Deviance and Respectability.

New York: Basic Books, 1970, 120-159.

Dickson, Donald T. Bureaucracy and morality:

An organizational perspective on a moral

crusade. Social Problems, 1968, 16,

143-156.

Dinitz, Simon, Russell R. Dynes, and Alfred

C. Clarke (eds.). Deviance: Studies in

the Process of Stigmatization and Societal

Reaction. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1969.

Dinitz, Simon, Frank R. Scarpitti, and Walter

C. Reckless. Delinquency vulnerability:

A cross group and longitudinal analysis.

American Sociological Review, 1962, 2,

515-517.

Douglas, Jack D. (ed.) Observations of

Deviance. New York: Random House, 1970a.

Douglas, Jack D. Deviance and respectability:

The social construction of moral meanings.

In Douglas, Jack D. (ed.) Deviance and

Respectability. New York: Basic Books,

1970b, 3-30.

Downes, David and Paul Rock. Social reaction

to deviance and its effects on crime and

criminal careers. British Journal of

Sociology, 1971, 22, 351-364.

Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective.

Second Report of the National Commission

on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1973a.

28
Scott, Robert A. and Jack D. Douglas (eds.)

Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance. New Galliher, John F., James L. McCartney, and

York: Basic Books, 1972, 93-116. Barbara E. Baum. Nebraska's marijuana

29

Freidson, Eliot. Disability as social deviance. In Sussman, Marvin B. (ed.)

Sociology and Rehabilitation. Washington,

D.C.: American Sociological Association,

1965, 71-99.

Freedman, Jonathan L. and Anthony N. Doob.

Deviancy: The Psychology of Being Different. New York: Academic Press, 1968.

Freedman, Howard E. and Ozzie G. Simmons.

The Mental Patient Comes Home. New York:

John Wiley & Sons, 1963.

Foster, Jack D., Simon Dinitz, and Walter C.

Reckless. Perceptions of stigma following

public intervention for delinquent behavior. Social Problems, 1972, 20, 202-

209.

Erikson, Kai T. Notes on the sociology of

deviance. In Becker, Howard S. (ed.)

The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance.

New York: Free Press, 1964, 9-21.

Erikson, Kai T. Wayward Puritans. New

York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966.

Fabrega, Horacio and Peter K. Manning. Disease, illness, and deviant careers. In

Emerson, Robert M. The Juvenile Court:

Labeling and Institutional Careers. Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis University,

1968. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Emerson, Robert M. Judging Delinquents:

Context and Process in Juvenile Court.

Chicago, Illinois: Aldine, 1969.

Duster, Troy. The Legislation of Morality:

Law, Drugs, and Moral Judgment. New

York: Free Press, 1970.

Eisner, Victor. The Delinquency Label: The

Epidemiology of Juvenile Delinquency.

New York: Random House, 1969.

Eldridge, William Butler. Narcotics and the

Law: A Critique of the American Experiment in Narcotic Drug Control. Second

Edition. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Foster, Jack D. The Labeling Hypothesis and

Perceptions of Social Liability Following

Delinquent Behavior. Columbus, Ohio:

The Ohio State University, 1971. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Fort, Joel. Social problems on drug abuse

and drug policies. The International

Journal of the Addictions, 1970, 2, 321-

333.

Forer, Lois G. "No One Will Lissen." New

York: Grosset and Dunlap, 1970.

Fort, Joel. The Pleasure Seekers: The Drug

Crisis, Youth and Society. New York:

Bobbs-Merrill, 1969.

Duncan, D. F. Stigma and delinquency. Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 1969,

4, 41-48.

Dumont, Matthew P. Purification rituals in

America. American Journal, 1973, 1,

20-25.

Fixx, James F. (ed.) Drugs. New York:

Arno Press, 1971.

Fitts, William H. and William T. Hamner. The

Self Concept and Delinquency. Nashville,

Tennessee: Nashville Mental Health Center, 1969.

Fisher, Sethard. Stigma and deviant careers

in school. Social Problems, 1972, 20,

78-83.

Feldman, Harvey. Street status and drug

users. Society, 1973, 10, 32-38.

Ferguson, Patricia, Thomas Lennox, and Dan

J. Lettieri (eds.). Drugs and Family/Peer

Influence. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1974.

Faust, Frederic L. Delinquency labeling:

Its consequences and implications. Crime

and Delinquency, 1973, 19, 41-48.

Drug Use in America; Problem in Perspective,

Patterns and Consequences of Drug Use.

Appendix: Volume I. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973b.

Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective,

Social Responses to Drug Use, Appendix:

Volume II. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1973c.

Drug Use in America; Problem in Perspective,

The Legal System and Drug Control. Appendix: Volume III. U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1973d.

Drug Use in America: Problem in Perspective,

Treatment and Rehabilitation. Appendix:

Volume IV. Government Printing Office,

1973e.
law: A case of unexpected legislative

innovation. Law and Society Review,

1974, 8, 441-455.

Garabedian, Peter G. and Don C. Gibbons (eds.).

Becoming Delinquent: Young Offenders

and the Correctional System. Chicago,

Illinois: Aldine, 1970.

Garfinkel, Harold. Conditions of successful

degradation ceremonies. American Journal

of Sociology, 1956, 61, 420-424.

Geis, Gilbert. Identifying delinquents in

the press. In Dinitz, Simon, Russell R.

Dynes, and Alfred C. Clarke (eds.).

Deviance: Studies in the Process of

Stigmatization and Societal Reaction.

New York: Oxford University Press, 1969,

567-575.

Geis, Gilbert. Social and epidemiological

aspects of marijuana use. In Smith,

David E. (ed.) The New Social Drug.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1970, 78-90.

Geis, Gilbert. Not the Law's Business? -

An Examination of Homosexuality, Abortion, Prostitution, Narcotics, and

Gambling in the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1972.

Gemignani, Robert J. Diversion of juvenile

offenders from the juvenile justice system. In New Approaches to Diversion and

Treatment of Juvenile Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1973, 8-38.

Gerard, Donald L. and Conan Kornetsky.

Adolescent opiate addiction: A study of

control and addict subjects. Psychiatric

Quarterly, 1955, 29, 457-486.

Gibbons, Don C. Changing the Lawbreaker.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1965.

Gibbs, Jack P. Conceptions of deviant behavior: The old and the new. Pacific

Sociological Review, 1966, 2, 9-14.

Gibbs, Jack P. Issues in defining deviant

behavior. In Scott, Robert A. and Jack

D. Douglas (eds.). Theoretica Perspectives on Deviance. New York: Basic

Books, 1972, 39-68.

Gimlin, Joan S. Legalization of marijuana.

Editorial Research Reports, 1967, 2,

578-596.

Glaser, Daniel. Social Deviance. Chicago,

Illinois: Markham, 1971.

Glass, A. J. Psychotherapy in the combat

zone. In Symposium on Stress. Washington, D.C.: Army Medical Service Graduate

School, 1953.

Glatt, Max M., David J. Pittman, Duff G.

Gillespie, and Donald R. Hills. The Drug

Scene in Great Britain. London, England:

Edward Arnold, 1967.

Glenn, William A. and Louise G. Richards.

Recent Surveys of Nonmedical Drug Use:

A Compendium of Abstracts. Washington,

D.C.: National Institute on Drug Abuse,

1974.

Goffman, Erving. The presentation of Self

in Everyday Life. Garden City, New York:

Doubleday, 1959.

Goffman, Erving. Asylums. Garden City, New

York: Doubleday, 1961.

Goffman, Erving. Stigma. Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963.

Gold, Martin. Undetected delinquent behavior.

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1966, 3, 27-46.

Gold, Martin. Delinquent Behavior in an

American City. Belmont, California:

Brooks/Cole, 1970.

Gold, Martin and Jay R. Williams. The effect

of "getting caught": Apprehension of the

juvenile offender as a cause of subsequent

delinquencies. Prospectus, 1969, 3, 1-12.

Goode, Erich. Marijuana and the politics of

reality. In Smith, David E. (ed.) The

New Social Drug. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970b, 168-186.

Goode, Erich. The Marijuana Smokers. New

York: Basic Books, 1970a.

Goode, Erich. Drugs in American Society.

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972.

Gove, Walter R. Societal reaction as an explanation of mental illness: An evaluation. American Sociologial Review, 1970a,

2, 873-884.

Gove, Walter R. Who is hospitalized: A

critical review of some sociological studies of mental illness. Jou.rnul of

Health and Social Behavior, 1970b, 11,

294-303.

30
Graham, James M. Amphetamine politics on

Capitol Hill. Transaction, 1972, 9, 14-

16, 18-22, 53.

Greenberg, Steven M. Compounding a felony:

Drug abuse and the American legal system.

In Inciardi, James A. and Carl D. Chambers (eds.). Drugs and the Criminal Justice System. Beverly Hills, California:

Sage Publications, 1974, 183-201.

Grinspoon, Lester. Marihuana Reconsidered.

Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Groves, W. Eugene. Patterns of college student drug use and lifestyles, In Josephson, Eric and Eleanor E. Carroll (eds.).

Drug Use: Epidemiological and Sociological

Approaches. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

1974, 241-275.

Grupp, Stanley E. The Marihuana Muddle.

Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Health

and Company, 1973.

Grupp, Stanley E. and Warren C. Lucas, The

"marihuana muddle" as reflected in California arrest statistics and dispositions.

Law and Society Review, 1970, 5, 251-269.

Gusfield, Joseph R. Symbolic Crusade. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois,

1963.

Gusfield, Joseph R. Moral passage: The

symbolic process in designations of

deviance. Social Problems, 1967, 15,

175-188.

Guskin, Samuel L., Nettie R. Bartel, and

Donald L. MacMillan. Perspective of the

labeled child. In Hobbs, Nicholas (ed.).

Issues in the Classification of Children.

Volume II, San Francisco, California:

Jossey-Bass, 1975, 189-212.

Hagan, John. Labelling and deviance: A case

study in the "sociology of the interesting."

Social Problems, 1973, 20, 447-458.

Hall, Peter M. Identification with the delinquent subculture and level of selfevaluation. Sociometry, 1966, 2, 146-158.

Harlow, Eleanor, J. Robert Weber, and Fred

Cohen. Diversion from the Criminal Justice System. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1971.

Harris, Anthony R. Imprisonment and the expected value of criminal choice: A specification and test of aspects of the labeling

perspective. American Sociological Review,

1975, 40, 71-87.

Harris, David B. On differential stigmatization for predelinquents. Social Problems,

1968, 16, 507-508.

Harrison, G. B. (ed.) Shakespeare: The

Complete Works. New York: Harcourt,

Brace & World, 1952.

Hartung, Frank E. Crime, law and Society.

Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 1965.

Healey, Patrick F. and James P. Manak (eds.).

Drug Dependence and Abuse Resource Book.

Chicago, Illinois: National District

Attorneys Association, 1971.

Henley, James R. and Larry D. Adams. Marijuana use in post-collegiate cohorts:

Correlates of use, prevalence patterns,

and factors associated with cessation.

Social Problems, 1973, 20, 514-520.

Henshel, Richard L. and Robert A. Silverman

(eds.). Percept ion in Criminology. New

York: Columbia University Press, 1975

Hess, Albert G. Deviance theory and the history of opiates. The International Journal of the Addictions, 1971, 6, 585-598.

Hills, Stuart L. Marijuana, morality, and

the law. Crime and Delinquency, 1970,

16, 57-66.

Hills, Stuart L. Crime, Power and Morality.

Scranton, Pennsylvania: Chandler, 1971.

Hobbs, Nicholas. The Future of Children:

Categories, Labels, and Their Consequences.

San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass,

1975.

Hobbs, Nicholas (ed.) Issues in the Classification of Children. Volumes I and II.

San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass,

1975.

Hochman, Joel Simon. Marijuana and Social

Evolution. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Hyman, Herbert H., Janet Strokes, and Helen

M. Strauss. Occupational aspirations among

the totally blind. Social Forces, 1973,

51, 403-416.

Inciardi, James A. Drugs, drug-taking and

drug-seeking: Notations on the dynamics

of myth, change, and reality. In Inciardi,

James A. and Carl D. Chambers (eds.).

31
Drugs and the Criminal Justice System.

Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1974, 203-220.

Inciardi, James A. and Carl D. Chambers (eds.).

Drugs and the Criminal Justice System.

Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1974.

Jensen, Gary F. Delinquency and Adolescent

Self-Conceptions: A Study of the Personal Relevance of Infraction. Seattle,

Washington: University of Washington,

1972a. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Jensen, Gary F. Delinquency and adolescent

self-conceptions: A study of the personal relevance of infraction. Social

Problems, 1972b, 20, 84-103.

Jensen, Gary F. Parents, peers, and delinquent action: A test of the differential

association perspective. American Journal

of Sociology, 1972c, 78, 562-575.

Jessor, Richard, Shirley L. Jessor, and

John Finney. A social psychology of

marijuana use: Longitudinal studies of

high school and college youth. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology,

1973, 26, 1-15.

Johnson, Bruce D. Marihuana Users and Drug

Subcultures. New York: John Wiley &

Sons, 1973a.

Johnson, Bruce D. Neglected Themes in

Labeling Theories of Deviance. Paper

presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Society for the Study of Social Problems,

1973b.

Johnston, Lloyd. Drugs and American Youth.

Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social

Research, 1973.

Josephson, Eric. Trends in adolescent marijuana use. In Josephson, Eric and

Eleanor E. Carroll (eds.). Drug Use:

Epidemiological and Sociological Approaches. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

1974, 177-205.

Josephson, Eric and Eleanor E. Carroll (eds.).

Drug Use: Epidemiological and Sociological

Approaches. New York: John Wiley & Sons,

1974.

Kadish, Stanford H. The crisis of overcriminalization. Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science,

1967, 374, 157-170.

Kandel, Denise. Adolescent marihuana use:

Role of parents and peers. Science,

1973, 181, 1067-1070.

Kandel, Denise. Inter - and intragenerational

influences on adolescent marijuana use.

The Journal of Social Issues, 1974a, 30,

107-13s.

Kandel, Denise. Interpersonal influences on

adolescent illegal drug use. In

Josephson, Eric and Eleanor E. Carroll

(eds.). Drug Use: Epidemiological and

Sociological Approaches. New York: John

Wiley & Sons, 1974b, 207-240.

Kaplan, Howard B. and Joseph H. Meyerowitz.

Social and psychological correlates of

drug abuse: A comparison of addicted

and non-addict populations from the perspective of self-theory. Social Science

and Medicine, 1970, 4, 203-223.

Kaplan, John. Marijuana - The New Prohibition. New York: World, 1970.

Keniston, Kenneth. Heads and seekers. The

American Scholar, 1968, 38, 97-112.

King, Rufus. The Drug Hang-Up. New York:

N.W. Norton, 1972.

King, Rufus. 'The American System": Legal

sanctions to repress drug abuse. In

Inciardi, James A. and Carl D. Chambers

(eds.). Drugs and the Criminal Justice

Systems. Beverly Hills, California: Sage

Publications, 1974, 17-37.

Kirk, Stuart A. The impact of labeling on

rejection of the mentally ill: An experimental study. Journal of Health and

Social Behavior, 1974, 15, 108-117.

Kitsuse, John I. Societal reaction to deviant

behavior: Problems of theory and method.

Social Problems, 1962, 2, 247-256.

Klapp, Orrin E. Dynamics of self-tying. In

Rubington, Earl and Martin S. Weinberg

(eds.). Deviance: The Interactionist

Perspective. New York: Macmillan, 1968,

324-326.

Klein, Malcolm W. Labeling, deterrence and

recidivism: A study of police dispositions of juvenile offenders. Social

Problems, 1974, 22, 292-303.

Knight, R.C., J.P. Sheposh and J.B. Bryson.

College student marijuana use and societal

alienation. Journal of Health and Social

Behavior, 1974, 15, 28-35.

32
Land, Herman W. What You Can Do About Drugs

and Your Child. New York: Hart, 1969.

Laskowitz, David. Psychological characteristics of the adolescent addict. In Harms,

Ernest (ed.). Drug Addiction in Youth.

New York: Pergamon Press, 1965, 67-85.

Lemert, Edwin M. Social Pathology. New

York: McGraw-Hill, 1951.

Lemert, Edwin M. Human Deviance, Social

Problems, and Social Control. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

1967a.

Lemert, Edwin M. The juvenile court--quest

and realities. In Task Force Report:

Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime.

The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1967b, 91-106.

Lemert, Edwin M. Social Action and Legal

Change. Chicago, Illinois: Aldine,

1970.

Lemert, Edwin M. Instead of Court: Diversion in Juvenile Justice. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1971.

Lemert, Edwin M. Human Deviance, Social

Problems, and Social Control. Second

Edition. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Lemert, Edwin M. Beyond Mead: The societal

reaction to deviance. Social Problems,

1974, 21, 457-468.

Lennard, Henry L., Leon J. Epstein, Arnold

Bernstein, and Donald C. Ransom. Mystification and Drug Misuse. San Francisco,

California: Jossey-Bass, 1971.

Levine, Samuel F. Narcotics and Drug Abuse.

Cincinnati: W. H. Anderson, 1973.

Liazos, Alexander. Processing for Unfitness:

Socialization of "Emotionally Disturbed"

Lower-class Boys into the Mass Society.

Waltham, Massachusetts: Brandeis University, 1970. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Liazos, Alexander. The poverty of the

sociology of deviance: Nuts, sluts, and

perverts. Social Problems, 1972, 20,

103-120.

Lindesmith, Alfred R. "Dope fiend" mythology.

Journal of the American Institute of Cri33

minal Law and Criminology, 1940, 31, 199-

208.

Lindesmith, Alfred R. Opiate Addiction.

Bloomington, Indiana: Principia, 1947.

Lindesmith, Alfred R. Federal law and drug

addiction. Social Problems, 1959, 7,

48-57.

Lindesmith, Alfred R. The Addict and the Law.

Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University

Press, 1965a.

Lindesmith, Alfred R. Problems in the social

psychology of addiction. In Wilner,

David M. and Gene G. Kassebaum (eds.)

Narcotics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965b,

118-139.

Linn, Lawrence S. Social identification and

the use of marijuana. International

Journal of Addictions, 1971, 6, 79-107.

Lofland, John. Deviance and Identity. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1969.

Loomis, Charles P. and Zona K. Loomis. Modern

Social Theories. Princeton, New Jersey:

D. Van Nostrand, 1961.

Lorber, Judith. Deviance as performance:

The case of illness. Social Problems,

1967, 14, 302-310.

Lyman, Kay. Concept of Self in Interpersonal

Relationships as Perceived by Delinquent

and Non-Delinquent Youth. New York:

Columbia University, 1970. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation.

McGlothlin, William H. Toward a rational

view of marihuana. In Simmons, Jerry L.

(ed.) Marihuana: Myths and Realities.

North Hollywood, California: Brandon

House, 1967, 163-214.

McGlothlin, William H. (ed.) Chemical Comforts of Man: The Future. The Journal

of Social Issues, 1971, 21, 1-122.

McGrath, John H. and Frank R. Scarpitti (eds.)

Youth and Drugs. Glenview, Illinois:

Scott, Foresman, 1970.

MacIntyre, Alasdair. The cannabis taboo.

New Society, 1968, 12, 848.

Mangad, Moshe, Elizabeth Fong, and Susan Reed.

Drug Information Sources: A Survey of

Selected Drug-Related Repositories and

Information Services. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice, 1972.
Mankoff, Milton. Societal reaction and career

deviance: A critical analysis. The

Sociological Quarterly, 1971, 12, 204-218.

Manning, Peter K. On deviance. Contemporary

Sociology, 1973, 2, 123-128.

Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding:

First Report of the National Commission

on Marihuana and Drug Abuse. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1972a.

Marihuana: A Signal of Misunderstanding.

Appendix: Volume I and II. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,

1972b.

Marshall, Harvey and Ross Purdy. Hidden

deviance and the labeling approach: The

case for drinking and driving. Social

Problems, 1972, 19, 541-553.

Martin, John M., Joseph P. Fitzpatrick, and

Robert E. Gould. The Analysis of Delinquent Behavior: A Structural Approach.

New York: Random House, 1970.

Matza, David. Becoming Deviant. Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1969.

Meade, Anthony C. The Labeling approach to

delinquency: State of the theory as a

function of method. Social Forces, 1974,

2, 83-91.

Mercer, Jane R. Social system perspective

and clinical perspective: Frames of

reference for understanding career patterns

of persons labelled as mentally retarded.

Social Problems, 1965, 13, 21-34.

Mercer, Jane R. Labeling the Mentally Retarded.

Berkeley, California: University of

California Press, 1973.

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social

Structure. Revised and Enlarged Edition.

Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1957.

Merton, Robert K. and Robert Nisbet (eds.).

Contemporary Social Problems. Third

Edition. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich, 1971.

Milbauer, Barbara and Gerald Leinwand (eds.).

Drugs. New York: Washington Square

Press, 1970.

Miller, Henry. On hanging loose and loving:

The dilemma of present youth. The Journal

of Social Issues, 1971, 27, 35-46.

Millspaugh, Arthur. The politics of drugcontrol: Its early history. In Silver,

Isidore (ed.). The Crime-Control Establishment. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall, 1974, 54-57.

Murtagh, John M. Dilemma for drug addicts.

America, 1963, 108, 740-742.

Musto, David F. The American Disease. New

Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press,

1973.

Narcotic Treatment Programs in Correctional

Institutions. House of Representatives,

92nd Congress, 1st Session, Report No.

92-581, 1971.

Newman, Graeme R. Acts, actors, and reactions

to deviance. Sociology and Social Research, 1974, 5, 434-440.

Noblit, George W. Delinquency and Access to

Success: A Study of the Consequences of

the Delinquency Label. Eugene, Oregon:

University of Oregon, 1973. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation.

Nuehring, Elane and Gerald E. Markle. Nicotine and norms: The re-emergence of a

deviant behavior. Social Problems, 1974,

21, 513-526.

O'Connor, Gerald G. The impact of initial

detention upon male delinquents. Social

Problems, 1970, 18, 194-199.

O'Donnell, John A. and John C. Ball (eds.).

Narcotic Addiction. New York: Harper

 Row, 1966.

Orcutt, James D. Self-concept and insulation

against delinquency: Some critical notes.

The Sociological Quarterly, 1970, U1,

381-390.

Orcutt, James D. Societal reaction and the

response to deviation in small groups.

Social Forces, 1973, 52, 259-267.

Orcutt, James D. Deviance as a situated

phenomenon: Variations in the social

interpretation of marijuana and alcohol

use. Social Problems, 1975, 22, 346-356.

Orlando, Frank A. and Jerry P. Black. The

Juvenile court. In Hobbs, Nicholas (ed.).

Issues in the Classification of Children.

Volume I. San Francisco, California:

Jossey-Bass, 1975, 349-376.

Packer, Herbert L. The Limits of the Criminal

Sanction. Stanford, California: Stanford

University Press, 1968.

34
Palmer, Stuart. The Prevention of Crime.

New York: Behavioral Publications, 1973.

Payne, William D. Negative labels: Passageways and prisons. Crime and Delinquency,

1973, 19, 33-40.

Perito, Paul L., Robert G. Pinco, and William

A. Duerk. Treatment alternatives to nonincarceration for drug-abusing defendants.

University of Baltimore Law Review, 1973,

2, 187-219.

Phillips, Derek L. Rejection: A possible

consequence of seeking help for mental

disorders. American Sociological Review,

1963, 28, 963-972.

Piliavin, I. and S. Briar. Police encounters

with juveniles. American Journal of

Sociology, 1964, 70, 206-214.

Platt, Anthony M. The Child Savers. Chicago,

Illinois: The University of Chicago Press,

1969.

Priest, Thomas Brian and John H. McGrath, III.

Techniques of neutralization: Young

adult marijuana smokers. Criminology,

1970, 8, 185-194.

Prus, Robert. Labeling Theory: A reconceptualization and propositional statement

on typing. Sociological Focus, 1975, 8,

79-96.

Quinney, Richard (ed.). Crime and Justice

in Society. Boston, Massachusetts:

Little, Brown, 1969.

Quinney, Richard. The Social Reality of

Crime. Boston, Massachusetts: Little,

Brown, 1970.

Rains, Prudence M., John I. Kitsuse, Troy

Duster, Eliot Freidson. The labeling

approach to deviance. In Hobbs, Nicholas

(ed.). Issues in the Classification of

Children. Volume I. San Francisco,

California: Jossey-Bass, 1975a, 88-100.

Ray, Oakley S. Drugs, Society, and Human

Behavior. Saint Louis, Missouri: The

C.V. Mosby Company, 1972.

Ray, Oakley S. and John T. Wilson. Drugtaking behavior. In Hobbs, Nicholas (ed.).

Issues in the Classification of Children.

Volume I. San Francisco, California:

Jossey-Bass, 1975, 393-412.

Reckless, Walter C. The Crime Problem.

Fourth Edition. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1967.

Reckless, Walter C. and Simon Dinitz. Pioneering with self-concept as a vulnerability factor in delinquency. Journal

of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police

Science, 1967, 58, 515-523.

Reckless, Walter C., Simon Dinitz and

Barbara Kay. The self component in potential delinquency and potential nondelinquency. American Socio logica1

Review, 1957, 22, 566-570.

Reckless, Walter C., Simon Dinitz, and Ellen

Murray. Self concept as an insulator

against delinquency. American Sociological Review, 1956, 21, 744-746.

Reckless, Walter C., Simon Dinitz, and Ellen

Murray. The 'good' boy in a high

delinquency area. Journal of Criminal

Law, Criminology and Police Science, 1957,

48, 18-25.

Reed, John P. and Fuad Baali (eds.). Faces

of Delinquency. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

Reiss, Albert J., Jr. The social integration of queers and peers. In Becker,

Howard S. (ed.) The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance. New York: Free

Press, 1964, 181-210.

Richards, Louise G. and John H. Langer.

Drug-Taking in Youth. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

Rogers, Joseph W. and M. D. Buffalo. Fighting back: Nine modes of adaptation to a

deviant lable. Social Problems, 1974,

22, 101-118.

Roman, Paul M. and H. M. Trice. The sick

role, labelling theory, and the deviant

drinker. International Journal of Social

Psychiatry, 1968, 14, 245-251.

Roman, Paul M. and Harrison M. Trice.

Normalization: A Neglected Complement

to Labeling Theory. Paper presented at

the Annual Meeting of the American

Sociological Association, 1971.

Rooney, Elizabeth A. and Don C. Gibbons.

Social reactions to "crimes without vic410.

tims." Social Problems, 1966, 13, 400-

Rosenberg, Morris. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press, 1965.

Rosenthal, Michael P. Legal controls of mindand mood-altering drugs. The Journal of

35
Social Issues, 1971, 3, 53-72.

Rosenthal, Robert and Lenore Jacobson. Pygmalion in the Classroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupils' Intellectual Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston, 1968.

Rubington, Earl. Drug addiction as a deviant career. The International Journal

of the Addictions, 1967, 2, 3-20.

Rubington, Earl and Martin S. Weinberg (eds.).

Deviance: The Interactionist Perspective.

New York: Macmillan, 1968.

Rubington, Earl and Martin S. Weinberg (eds.).

Deviance: The Interactionist Perspective.

Second Edition. New York: Macmillan, 1973.

Rushing, William A. (ed.) Deviant Behavior

and Social Process. Chicago, Illinois:

Rand McNally, 1969.

Salem, Richard G. and William J, Bowers.

Severity of formal sanctions as a deterrent to deviant behavior. Law and Society

Review, 1970, 5, 21-40.

Salmon, Robert. An analysis of public marijuana policy. Social Casework, 1972,

53, 19-29.

Saxton, Stanley L., Jr. Societal Reaction

Theory: An Organizing Framework for the

Social Psychological Study of Status

Transformation. Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the Midwest Sociological Society, 1972.

Scarpitti, Frank R., Ellen Mn-ray, Simon

Dinitz, and Walter C. Reckless. The

"good" boy in a high delinquency area:

Four years later. American Sociological

Review, 1960, 25, 555-558.

Scheff, Thomas J. Being Mentally Ill.

Chicago, Illinois: Aldine, 1966a.

Scheff, Thomas J. Typification in the diagnostic practices of rehabilitation

agencies. In Sussman, Marvin B. (ed.)

Sociology and Rehabilitation. Cleveland,

Ohio: American Sociological Association,

1966b, 139-147.

Scheff, Thomas J. Negotiating reality: Notes

on power in the assessment of responsibility

Social Problems, 1968, 16, 3-17.

Scheff, Thomas J. The labelling theory of

mental illness. American Sociological

Review, 1974, 39, 444-452.

36

Schepses, Erwin. A note on labels. Crime

and Delinquency, 1965, 11, 162-166.

Schervish, Paul G. The labeling perspective:

Its bias and potential in the study of

political deviance. The American Sociologist, 1973, 8, 47-57.

Schiff, Stanley M. A Self-Theory Investigation of Drug Addiction in Relation to

Age of Onset. New York: New York University, 1959. Unpublished doctoral

dissertation.

Schofield, Michael. The Strange Case of Pot.

Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971.

Schrag, Clarence. Crime and Justice: American Style. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern

ment Printing Office, 1971.

Schur, Edwin M. Narcotic Addiction in Britain and America: The Impact of Public

Policy. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana

University Press, 1962.

Schur, Edwin M. Attitudes toward addicts:

Some general observations and comparative

findings. American Jourruil of Orthopsychiatry, 1964, 34, 80-90.

Schur, Edwin M. Crimes Without Victims -

Deviant Behavior and Public Policy: Abortion, Homosexuality, Drug Addiction.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1965.

Schur, Edwin M. Law and Society: A Sociological View, New York: Random House,

1968.

Schur, Edwin M. Our Criminal Society. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

1969a.

Schur, Edwin M. Reactions to deviance.

American Journal of Sociology, 1969b, 75,

309-322.

Schur, Edwin M. Labeling Deviant Behavior.

New York: Harper Row, 1971.

Schur, Edwin M. Radical Non-Intervention:

Rethinking the Delinquency Problem. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

1973.

Schur, Edwin M. and Hugo Adam Bedau. Victimless Crimes: Two Sides of a Controversy.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1974.

Schwartz, Michael and Sheldon Stryker. Deviance, Selves and Others. Washington,
D.C.: American Sociological Association, Simmons, Jerry L. Public stereotypes of de1970. viants. Social Problems, 1965, 13,

223-232.

Schwartz, Michael and Sandra S. Tangri. A

note on self-concept as an insulator

against delinquency. American Sociological Review, 1965, 30, 922-926.

Simmons, Jerry L. (ed.) Marijuana: Myths

and Realities. North Hollywood, California: Brandon House, 1967.

Schwartz, Richard D. and Jerome Skolnick.

Two studies of legal stigma. Social

Problems, 1962, 10, 133-142.

Schwitzgebel, Ralph K. Development and Legal

Regulation of Coercive Behavior Modification Techniques with Offenders. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1971.

Scott, Marvin B. and Stanford M. Lyman.

Accounts. American Sociological Review,

1968, 33, 46-62.

Scott, Peter D. Juvenile courts: The juveniles' point of view. British Journal

of Delinquency, 1959, 2, 200-211.

Scott, Robert A. The Making of Blind Men:

A Study of Adult Socialization. New York:

Russell Sage Foundation, 1969.

Scott, Robert A. A proposed framework for

analyzing deviance as a property of social

order. In Scott, Robert A. and Jack D.

Douglas (eds.). Theoretical Perspectives

on Deviance. New York: Basic Books,

1972, 9-35.

Scott, Robert A. and Jack D. Douglas (eds.).

Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance.

New York: Basic Books, 1972.

Scull, Andrew. Social control and the amplification of deviance. In Scott, Robert A.

and Jack D. Douglas (eds.). Theoretical

Perspectives on Deviance. New York:

Basic Books, 1972, 282-314.

Seymour, Whitney North, Jr. The Young Die

Quietly: The Narcotics Problem in

America. New York: William Morrow, 1972.

Simmons, Jerry L. Deviants. Berkeley, California: The Glendessary Press, 1969.

Simmons, Jerry L. and Barry Winograd. It's

Happening: A Portrait of the Youth Scene

Today. Santa Barbara, California: MarcLaird Publications, 1966.

Simmons, Luiz R.S. and Martin B. Gold (eds.).

Discrimination and the Addict. Beverly

Hills, California: Sage Publications, 1973.

Skolnick, Jerome H. Justice Without Trial.

New York: John Wiley, 1966.

Smith, David E. (ed.) The New Social Drug.

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrenticeHall, 1970.

Smith, Geoffrey R. W. Possession of marijuana

in San Mateo county: Some social costs of

criminalization. Stanford Law Review,

1969, 22, 101-125.

Smith, Roger C. U.S. marijuana legislation

and the creation of a social problem.

In Smith, David E. (ed.) The New Social

Drug. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall, 1970, 105-117.

Snyder, Eloise C. The impact of the juvenile

court hearing on the child. Crime and

Delinquency, 1971, 3, 180-190.

Solomon, David (ed.). The Marihuana Papers.

New York: The New American Library, 1966.

Spitzer, Stephan P. Labeling the Deviant Act:

Toward a General Theory of Deviant Behavior. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Sociological

Association, 1972.

Shoham, Shlomo. The Mark of Cain: The

Stigma Theory of Crime and Social Deviation. Dobbs Ferry, New York: Cceana

Publications, 1970.

Shover, Neal. The civil justice process as

societal reactions. Social Forces, 1973,

52, 253-258.

Silver, Isidore (ed.). The Crime-Control

Establishment. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1974.

Spitzer, Stephan P. and Norman K. Denzin (eds.).

The Mental Patient: Studies in the

Sociology of Deviance. New York: McGrawHill, 1968.

Stebbins, Robert A. Commitment to Deviance:

The Nonprofessional Criminal in the Community. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1971.

Steffensmeier, Darrell J. and Robert M. Terry.

Deviance and respectability: An observational studv of reactions to shoplifting.

37
Social Forces, 1973, 51, 417-426.

Stephenson, Richard M. Involvement in deviance: An example and some theoretical

implications. Social Problems, 1973, 21,

173-190.

Stem, Gerald. Marihuana and the law: Will

the real issues please stand up. Criminology, 1973, 11, 275-282.

Stimson, Gerry V. Heroin and Behaviour.

New York: John Wiley, 1973.

Strauss, Anselem (ed.). George Herbert Mead

on Social Psychology: Selected Papers.

Chicago, Illinois: The University of

Chicago Press, 1964.

Suchman, Edward. The "hang-loose" ethic and

the spirit of drug use. Journal of

Health and Social Behavior, 1968, 2,

146-155.

Sussman, Marvin B. (ed.) Sociology and Rehabilitation. Cleveland, Ohio: American

Sociological Association, 1966.

Sykes, Gresham M. and Thomas E. Drabeck (eds.)

Law and the Lawless: A Reader in Criminology. New York: Random House, 1969.

Sykes, Gresham M. and David Matza. Techniques

of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review,

1957, 22, 664-670.

Tangri, Sandra S. and Michael Schwartz.

Delinquency research and the self-concept

variable. The Journal of Criminal Law,

Criminology and Police Science, 1967, 58,

182-190.

Tannenbaum, Frank. Crime and the Community.

New York: Ginn, 1938.

Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and

Youth Crime. The President's Commission

on Law Enforcement and Administration of

Justice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967.

Task Force Report: Narcotics and Drug Abuse.

The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1967.

Taylor, Ian, Paul Walton, and Jock Young.

The New Criminology: For a Social Theory

of Deviance. London: Routledge & Kegan

Paul, 1973.

3 8

Tec, Nechama. Grass is Green in Suburbia.

Roslyn Heights, New York: Libre

Publishers, 1974.

Terry, Robert M. The Strength of Juvenile

Offenders: A Study in the Societal

Reaction to Deviant Behavior. Madison,

Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin,

1965. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Thio, Alex. Class bias in the sociology of

deviance. The American Sociologist,

1973, 8, 1-12.

Thomas, W. I. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. New York:

Alfred A. Knopf, 1928.

Thorsell, Bernard A. and Lloyd W. Klemke.

The labeling process: Reinforcement and

deterrent? Law and Society Review, 1972,

6, 393-403.

Tittle, Charles R. Institutional living

and self-esteem. Social Problems, 1972,

20, 65-77.

Tittle, Charles R. Deterrents or labeling?

Social Forces, 1975, 53, 399-410.

Toch, Hans (ed.). Legal and Criminal

Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart,

and Winston, 1961.

Toch, Hans. The care and feeding of typologies and labels. Federal Probation,

1970, 34, 15-19.

Trice, Harrison M. and Paul M. Roman. Delabeling, relabeling, and Alcoholics

Anonymous. Social Problems, 1970, 17,

538-546.

Trojanowicz, Robert C. Juvenile Delinquency:

Concepts and Control. Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1973.

Turk, Austin T. Criminality and Legal Order.

Chicago, Illinois: Rand McNally, 1969.

Turk, Austin T. Legal Sanctioning and Social

Control. Rockville, Maryland: National

Institute of Mental Health, Center for

Studies of Crime and Delinquency, 1972.

Voelcker, P. M. W. Juvenile courts: The

parents' point of view. British Journal

of Criminology, 1960, 1, 154-166.

Volkman, Arthur P. A matched-group personality comparison of delinquent and nondelinquent juveniles. Social Problems,

1958-59, 6, 238-245.
Wahrman, Ralph. Status, deviance and sanctions. Pacific Sociological Review, 1970,

13, 229-240.

Wahrman, Ralph. Status, deviance and sanctions: A critical review. Comparative

Group Studies, 1972, 3, 203-223.

Walton, Robert P. Marihuana: America's New

Drug Problem. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania:

J.B. Lippincott, 1938.

Ward, Richard H. The labeling theory: A

critical analysis. Criminology, 1971,

9, 268-290.

Warren, Carol A.B. The use of stigmatizing

social labels in conventionalizing deviant

behavior. Sociology and Social Research,

1974, 58, 303-311.

Warren, Carol A.B. and John M. Johnson. A

critique of labeling theory from the phenomenological perspective. In Scott,

Robert A. and Jack D. Douglas (eds.).

Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance.

New York: Basic Books, 1972, 69-92.

Wechsler, Henry. Marihuana, alcohol, and

public policy. The New England Journal

of Medicine, 1972, 87, 515-516.

Wellford, Charles. Labelling theory and

criminology: An assessment. Social

Problems, 1975, 22, 332-345.

Werthman, Carl. The function of social definitions in the development of delinquent

careers. In Task Force Report: Juvenile

Delinquency and Youth Crime. The

President's Commission on Law Enforcement

and Administration of Justice.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government

Printing Office, 1967, 155-170.

Wheeler, Stanton and Leonard S. Cottrell.

Juvenile Delinquency: Its Prevention

and Control. New York: Russell Sage

Foundation, 1966.

Whyte, William Foote. Street Corner Society.

Chicago, Illinois: The University of

Chicago Press, 1955.

Widmann, D. Faye. Antecedents of Drug Abuse.

Research Report No. 1. California Youth

Authority, Division of Research and

Development, 1973.

Wilkins, Leslie T. Social Deviance. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,

1965.

Williams, Robin M. American Society. Second

Edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1960.

Wilner, David M. and Gene G. Kassebaum (eds.).

Narcotics. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965.

Winick, Charles. Narcotics addiction and

its treatment. Law and Contemporary

Problems, 1957, 22, 9-33.

Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept. Lincoln,

Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press,

1961.

Wylie, Ruth C. The present status of self

theory. In Borgatta, Edgar F. and William

W. Lambert (eds.). Handbook of Personality Theory and Research. Chicago,

Illinois: Rand McNally, 1968.

Young, Jock. The Drugtakers: The Social

Meaning of Drug Use. London, England:

MacGibbon & Kee, 1971a.

Young, Jock. The role of the police as

amplifiers of deviancy, negotiators of

reality and translators of fantasy. In

Cohen, Stanley (ed.). Images of Deviance.

Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books,

1971b, 27-61.

Zimmerman, Donald H. and Donald L. Wieder.

The Social Bases for Illegal Behavior in

the Student Community: First Year Report.

San Francisco, California: Scientific

Analysis Corporation, 1971.

Zinberg, Norman E. and John A. Robertson.

Drugs and the Public. New York: Simon

and Schuster, 1972.

39
DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE

ALCOHOL, DRUG ABUSE, AND

MENTAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

5600 FISHERS LANE

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND 20852

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for private use, $300

POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF H.E.W.

HEW 389

NOTICE OF MAILING CHANGE

Check here if you wish to discontinue receiving this type of publication.

Check here if your address has changed and you wish to continue receiving this

type of publication. (Be sure to furnish your complete address including zip code.)

Tear off cover with address label still affixed and send to:

Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration

Printing and Publications Management Section

5600 Fishers Lane (Rm. 6-105)

Rockville, Maryland 20852

DHEW Publication No. (ADM) 76-320

Printed 1976