Labelling theorists stress the point of seeing deviance from the viewpoint of the deviant individual. They claim that when a person becomes known as a deviant, and is ascribed deviant behaviour patterns, it is as much, if not more, to do with the way they have been labelled, as the deviant act they are said to have committed.

Howard S. Becker, one of the earlier interaction theorists, claimed that, "social groups create deviance by making the rules whose infraction constitutes deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labelling them as outsiders". According to Becker, after the individual has been labelled as deviant, they progress down the path of a 'deviant career' and it becomes hard to shake off the deviant label as others see it as a master status of the individual. He points out in "Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance" 1963 , however, that when studying 'deviant people' one should not take their deviance for granted, as one "cannot assume that these people have actually committed a deviant act or broken some rule, because the process of labelling theory may not be infallible", that is to be labelled deviant does not necessarily mean that the individual is, or has been deviant in the past.

Kai T. Erikson, in "Notes on the Sociology of Deviance", also highlights the way social reaction affects the deviant individual. He reinforces what Backer had previously said: "deviance is not a property inherent in certain forms of behaviour, it is a property conferred upon these forms by the audiences which directly or indirectly witness them". He suggests, however, that deviance is necessary to society's stability, rather than being responsible for its breakdown, as the deviant individual serves as a marker of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, and as Erikson writes, "in doing so, he shows us the difference between the inside of the group and the outside". He goes on to bring forward the question of whether, if deviance, or more specifically, the labelling of deviant individuals, can be said to be necessary in holding the society together, can it be assumed that in order to perpetuate this, "societies are organised in such a way as to promote this resource", that is, can it be said that the procedure of creating deviant individuals , although unfair, must continue, as scapegoats are necessary for the 'moral safety' of the rest of society.

Aaron V. Cicourel, in "The Social Organisation of Juvenile Justice" 1968 , explains the treatment of delinquents in two similar California cities by using labelling theory. He claims that a difference in juvenile justice can be accounted for by different policies of the police, and by the ability of middle class parents to negotiate justice. He concludes by stating that some individuals are more likely than others to be labelled as deviant, due to their status in life. This theory was reinforced by E.M. Schur, in "Labelling Deviant Behaviour: Its Sociological Implications" 1971 , where he discusses the drug addiction of many doctors, or the likelihood of bank tellers to misappropriate funds. Schur suggests that in both cases, the actor has legitimate access to the drugs or money, which gives them some protection against discovery, as opposed to the case of an addict buying drugs on the street, or an armed robber holding up he bank. In this way, he says, "resistance to negative labelling is built into 'opportunity'". Therefore, Schur pointed out, "opportunity structures may determine initial deviation, but societal reactions to such deviation will significantly determine future opportunities".

However, labelling theorist have had their work criticised on many levels, and these criticisms must be examined before any evaluation of the contribution of the labelling theorists to the sociology of deviance can be made. Becker himself examines some of the criticisms made of the theory in "Labelling Theory Reconsidered" 1974 . Firstly, however, he points out that, rather than being an all-encompassing theory of deviance, labelling 'theory' was created as "a way of looking at a general area of human activity". It is not, he claims "a theory, with all the achievements and obligations that go with the title, nor focused so exclusively on the act of labelling as some have thought". However, this aside, Becker mentions some of the criticisms given of the theory, for example, he states how "interactionist theories have been accused or giving aid and comfort to the enemy, be the enemy those who would upset the stability of the existing order or the Establishment". In reply to this, however, we have already mentioned the suggestion of Erikson that deviance is a necessary part of society, showing the difference between right and wrong, and encouraging the majority of society to 'toe the line' at the expense of the 'deviant' minority.

A further criticism mentioned by Becker is that given by many conservative critics, although other non-conservative critics have also noted this that is, that "interactionist theories of deviance openly or covertly attack conventional morality". Becker acknowledges this, suggesting that "intentionally or otherwise, they are corrosive of conventional modes of thought and established institutions". In "Whose Side Are We On ", Becker goes as far as to say that the labelling theorist must side with the deviator, as it is up to the sociologists to remedy unfair situations. However, not all theorists would see the work of Becker and the other labelling theorists as quite so radical. Schur notes one particular criticisms of the conservative nature of labelling theory. Suggesting that although the "sociology of the underdog" is indispensable in the alleviation of the unnecessary suffering of the 'deviant' individual, the labelling theorists are guilty of "romanticizing certain non-political deviations and avoiding a truly radical critique of the social system as a whole".

One of the major criticisms of labelling theory, is that it is deterministic, and that it treats the individuals as if they were no more than passive organisms, herded into behaviour by the act of labels being given to it, and following behaviour patterns as a mere result of behaviour patterns being ascribed to it. Rotenberg, for example, believes that "labelling theory...largely ignores the actors perspective". Blumer, however, would disagree with this criticism, suggesting in "Sociological Implications of the thought of George Herbert Mead" 1969 , that "the human being is seen as an active organism in his own right, facing, dealing with, and acting toward the objects he indicates".

Liazos, in "The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts and Perverts", suggests three criticisms of the work of the labelling theorists. Firstly, he notes that although their aim is to "humanise" the deviant individual, showing that he is no different to other individuals, except perhaps in terms of opportunity, "by the very emphasis on the 'deviant' and his identity problems and subculture, the opposite effect may have been achieved".

Secondly, he suggests that while considering the more usual, everyday types of deviance, such as homosexuality, prostitution and juvenile delinquency for example, the labelling theorists have totally ignored another, more dangerous and malevolent type of deviance, what Liazos himself terms "covert institutional violence" and which he suggests "leads to such things as poverty and exploitation, the war in Vietnam, unjust tax laws, racism and sexism, and so on..." It is questionable, however, whether labelling theorists should even attempt to discuss forms of deviance such as this in the same way as more commonplace individual crimes, or whether the two should be kept totally separate, being so different in subject matter.

Liazos also criticises the labelling theorists as they do not consider the extent of the importance of power in their substantive analysis, although all stress its importance. He says that "the really powerful, the upper classes and the power elite", those that could be referred to as the 'top dogs', are not considered in any great detail by the labelling theorists.

A further criticism of the labelling theory is that of Jack Gibb, in Conceptions of Deviant Behaviour: The Old and the New" 1966 . He questions the success of the labelling theories in answering questions such as why "a given act is considered deviant and or criminal in some but not all societies...." or why "a certain kind of reaction may identify behaviour as deviant...".

However, Becker goes some way to explain the underlying problems of labelling theory in the previously mentioned "Outsiders". He suggests that firstly there are "not enough studies of deviant behaviour", and furthermore there are "not enough studies of enough kinds of deviant behaviour". Another deficiency of the labelling theory is that they "don't have enough studies in which the persons doing the research has achieved close contact with those he studies, so that he can become aware of the complex and manifold character of the deviant activity".

There is also, claims Becker, the difficulty of secrecy. In many cases, the deviant individual performs deviant acts in secrecy, and does not wish this behaviour to become universally known. This can be seen in the results found by Humphreys in his study of the 'Tearoom Trade'. In many cases the individuals partaking in homosexual behaviour in the tearooms, were married with children, and therefore, when asked later in questionnaires about their view on homosexuality, very few admitted their own visits to the tearooms. In many cases of deviance, then this secrecy will create problems when researching. It is also very difficult for the researcher to observe the deviant individuals in their everyday lives, perhaps in dangerous areas of society, as there are not only the problems of infiltration and gaining the trust of what may be in some cases, violent or dangerous people. It may also be difficult for the researcher to observe impartially, or to continue to observe without being drawn in to either commit the crimes themselves, or to try to prevent the crimes being committed. This can be seen in Parker's "View from the Boys" 1974 , where he studied boys in an area of Liverpool. Parker was able to gain acceptance only because he had previously met some of the boys at a country holiday centre for Liverpool's deprived children. He says however,

"If I had not been young, hairy, boozy, willing to keep long hours, accept permissive standards, the liaison would never have worked".

Parker himself admits, however, that his presence affected the behaviour of the boys, for example, on occasions he stopped them form committing crimes and helped them out when they were caught.

Becker also outlines problems of morality. He questions where the researcher's sympathies should lie. Should one, he asks, side with the "underdog", or should one judge criminal behaviour as inherently wrong He stresses the difficulties of the sociologist on this point, claiming that the researcher, "whether taking either side, will be accused of taking a one-sided and distorted view, but how is it possible to see the situation from both sides simultaneously "

In attempting to evaluate the contribution of the labelling theorists to the study of the sociology of deviance, it can be said that it depends on how the theory is viewed. If the theory is considered as "a theory, with all the achievements and obligations that go with the title", then its flaws are many. Yet if, as Backer suggests, we attempt to consider the theory as it were intended, that is, as a mere way of looking at deviance, then the contribution can be said to be weighty, as it opened up a whole new study of the individual after he has committed an act of deviance. At this point it must be mentioned that labelling theorists do not merely consider the after-effects of the deviant act, as it is sometimes suggested. Becker, for example, considers the individual and how he begins to smoke marijuana. As Schur sums up, labelling theory "is not a revolutionary new approach to the analysis of social problems but rather a recording or emphasis of such analysis, a reordering that may help us to view deviance and control in a realistic, comprehensive, and sociologically meaningful light". As such, one can conclude that labelling theory continues in its usefulness, as long as deviant behaviour continues to exist.