Labeling Theory and Personal Construct Theory: Toward the Measurement of Individual Variation Joseph A

Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 68 Article 17 Issue 4 December

Winter 1977 Labeling Theory and Personal Construct Theory: Toward the Measurement of Individual Variation Joseph A. Scimecca

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons

Recommended Citation Joseph A. Scimecca, Labeling Theory and Personal Construct Theory: Toward the Measurement of Individual Variation, 68 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 652 (1977)

This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 68, No. 4 Copyright @ 1977 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A.

LABELING THEORY AND PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY: TOWARD THE MEASUREMENT OF INDIVIDUAL VARIATION*

JOSEPH A. SCIMECCA**

Labeling theory which, in the early 1960s, of these criticisms, I will argue, can be traced began to challenge the functionalist version of to the Labeling Theorist's failure to incorporate anomie as the dominant paradigm in crimino- a fully developed psychological conception of logical theory,' has recently come in for a spate the individual into their scheme of analysis. of criticism. 2 Indeed, the criticisms came so While lip-service is paid to George Herbert rapidly and were so abundant that by 1973 one Mead's notion of the development of self writer, Peter Manning, could speak of the (which is so well-known to social scientists that exhaustion of labeling as a theory.3 While the I will not dwell upon it here'), Labeling Theor- basic criticisms of labeling theory range from ists in general still posit an amorphous concep- the problem of limited applicability to its over- tion of self which almost precludes viable em- emphasis upon official as opposed to unofficial pirical research." Only by incorporating a fully reactions to deviance, 4 two major criticisms developed theory of psychological processes stand out above the rest. These are that Label- into Labeling Theory can the theory's propo- ing Theory has not been empirically validated5 nents overcome the criticisms raised against it. and that proponents of Labeling Theory have The psychological model of human behavior posited a deterministic view of the individual offered here, which I contend can satisfy this actor in the face of official stigmatization.6 Both need, is Personal Construct Theory as devel- * This is a revision of a paper presented to the oped by the late clinical psychologist, George American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada, Kelly. Such a synthesis of Labeling Theory and November, 1975. Personal Construct Theory will not only go a ** Associate Professor and Chair, Department of long way towards answering the major criti- Sociology, George Mason University. cisms leveled against Labeling Theory but will 1 For an analysis of the paradigmatic changes in provide a multivariable theory of criminal be- modern criminological theory, see Scimecca & Lee, Paradigm Changes in Criminology and the Sociology of havior, one which can take both subjective and Deviance: A Sociology of Knowledge Approach, in THE objective factors into consideration. OLD AND THE NEW CRIMINOLOGY, (E. Flynn ed., publication forthcoming). The Empirical Validation of Labeling Theory 'See E. SAGARIN, DEVIANTS AND DEVIANCE (1975); Akers, Problems in the Sociology of Deviance, 46 Soc. The basic proposition of Labeling Theory FORCES 455 (1968); Gibbs, Conceptions ofDeviantBehav- assumes "that societal reaction in the form of label- ior: The Old and the New, 9 PAC. Soc. REv. 9 (1966); ing or official typing, and consequent stigmatization, Manning, Survey Essay on Deviance, 2 CONTEMP. SOC. leads to an altered identity in the actor, necessitating 123 (1973); Wellford, Labelling Theory and Criminology: An Assessment, 22 Soc. PROB. 332 (1975). For responses a reconstitutionof self." However, since Labeling to criticisms of labeling theory, see H. BECKER, Theorists have concentrated for the most part Labeling Theory Reconsidered in THE OUTSIDERS (2d ed. 1973); Goode, On Behalf of Labelling Theory, 22 Soc. PROB. 570 (1975). Theory, 3 INT'L J. CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY 145 3 Manning, supra note 2, at 123. (1975); J. Quadagno & R. Antonio, An Extended 4 For an excellent summary of the criticisms leveled Model of Labelling Theory: The Case of Mental against labeling theory see E. SAGARIN, supra note 2, Illness (paper presented to the Society for the Study at 121. of Social Problems, Montreal, Canada, 1974). 5 In particular, see E. SAGARIN, supra note 2, at 7 For a statement of Mead's social-psychology, see 121; Gove, The Labelling Theory of Mental Illness: A G. MEAD, MIND, SELF AND SOCIETY (1934). Reply to Scheff, 40 AM. Soc. REV. 242 (1975); Scheff, 8 For a limited exception, see Rotenberg, Self-La- Reply to Chauncy and Gove, 40 AM. Soc. REV. 252 belling Theory: Preliminary Findings among Mental Pa- (1975); Scheff, The Labelling Theory of Mental Illness, tients, 15 BRIT.J. CRIMINOLOGY 360 (1975). 39 Am. Soc. REV. 444 (1974); Wellford, supra note 2. 9 6 Davis, Labelling Theory in Deviance Research: A See Scimecca, The Implications of the Sociology of Critiqueand Reconsideration, 13 Soc. Q. 447, 460 (1972) Knowledge of C. Wright Mills for Modern Criminological (emphasis in original). 1977] LABELING THEORY

on labelers and those already labeled, there is to almost preclude viable empirical research. A virtually no substantiation of the assumption prime example of how this vagueness of terms that a reconstitution of self occurs when one affects research can be seen in the works of becomes, to use Lemert's term, a "secondary Walter Reckless and his associates. 3 deviant." Indeed, Lemert himself takes the Briefly stated, Reckless et al. examined the notion of altered status as given in his definition "self-concepts" of teenage boys to see whether of what constitutes secondary deviation. variations in their conceptions of themselves accounted for specific patterns of behavior, in Secondary deviation refers to a special class of this case, delinquency. The initial study by socially defined responses which people make Reckless, Dinitz and Murray, investigated 125 to problems created by the societal reaction to "good" boys as defined by their teachers and their deviance. These problems are essentially normal problems which revolve around stigma- substantiated by official records and self-evalu- tization, punishments, segregation, and social ative item questionnaires, and found that the "good" boys had "good" self-conceptions.14 control. Their general effect is to differentiate the symbolic and interactional environment to Subsequent follow-up studies of "good" and which the person responds, so that early or "bad" boys showed that self-conceptions were adult socialization is categorically affected. They generally predictive of deviant behavior. Spe- become central facts of existence for those ex- cifically, a much greater proportion of boys periencing them, altering psychic structure, with "poor" concepts had juvenile court rec- producing specialized organization of social ords, than did boys with "good" self-concep- roles and self-regarding attitudes. Actions which 1 s have these roles and self-attitudes as their refer- tions. While the methodological problems ents make up secondary deviance. The second- with the Reckless studies are apparent-in par- ary deviant, as opposed to his actions, is a ticular the failure to use parallel groups as a person whose life and identity are organized control-in terms of our concerns, the major around the facts of deviance.10 weakness is the insufficient definition of "self." Schwartz and Stryker, summarizing this prob- Concepts, such as "self," "self-attitude," "self- lem in Reckless's work, write: concept" are never fully defined, and attempted definitions are usually tautological. A critical analysis of the work of Reckless and For instance, one definition which just about his associates ... leads to the conclusion that, all Labeling Theorists would subscribe to is: while their belief that self and deviance are related in particular ways may be sound, their "self-concept is a term used to refer to a methods in seeking to validate it are weak in- person's organization of his self-attitudes.* n deed. In particular (and this is hardly peculiar But how does one organize one's self-attitudes, to them), they offer no ground rules for differ- indeed what are self-attitudes? What we are entiating between the subject's self-relevant re- left with is a dilemma subsequently reflected in sponses to instruments designed to elicit infor- the research. For as GaryJensen points out: mation from them and their responses which are not self-relevant. Nor do they supply ground [S]elf-concept variables are sometimes treated rules for differentiating the particular aspects as independent and sometimes as dependent of self that "make a difference" with respect to variables, with some theorists and researchers deviance in general or delinquency in particular. focusing on the consequences of deviance for one's self-image, others focusing on the conse- 13 See Dinitz, Scarpitti, & Reckless, Delinquency Vul- quences of one's self-image for deviance, and nerability: A Cross Group and Longitudinal Analysis, 27 12 others focusing on both. AM. Soc. REv. 515 (1962); Reckless & Dinitz, Pioneer- ing with Self-Concept as a Vulnerability Factor in Delin- The implications are apparent. The defini- quency, 58J. CRIM. L.C. & P.S. 515 (1967); Reckless, tions of self and self-attitude are so unclear as Dinitz & Kay, The Self-Component in Potential Delin- quency and Potential Non-Delinquency, 22 AM. Soc. REv. 566 (1957); Reckless, Dinitz & Murray, Self- 10 E. LEMERT, HUMAN DEVIANCE, SOCIAL PROB- Concept as an Insulator Against Delinquency, 21 AM. LEMS, AND SOCIAL CONTROL 40-41 (1967). Soc. R~v. 744 (1956); Scarpitti, Murray, Dinitz & 11Videbeck, Self-Conception and the Reaction of Oth- Reckless, The "Good" Boy in a High Delinquency Area: ers, 23 SOCIOMETRY 351 (1960). FourYears Later, 25 AM. Soc. REv. 555 (1960). 12 Jensen, Delinquency and Adolescent Self-Conception: 14 See Reckless, Dinitz & Murray, supra note 13. A Study of the PersonalRelevance of Infraction, 50 Soc. 1 See Scarpitti, Murray, Dinitz & Reckless, supra FORCES 84n (1972). note 13; Dinitz, Scarpitti & Reckless,supra note 13. JOSEPH A. SCIMECCA [Vol. 68

In brief, given the absence of ground rules, enabling the investigator to sum ratings in anything an actor says or does is "self," and the terms of three major dimensions: evaluative, chances of reaching very precise conclusions by potency and activity. There is a major statistical means of a construct of such spacious dimen- problem with the Semantic Differential in that sions are virtually nil. 16 whether two particular scales correlate posi- Schwartz and Stryker, themselves, then try tively or negatively is to a large degree a func- to overcome these weaknesses in Reckless's notion of the particular concepts rated on the tion of self-concept and posit the following as scales. Serious questions can be raised, there- basic premises for a definition of self: fore, as to whether the findings of orthogonal- I. Persons seek to create and maintain stable, ity between major factors, which Osgood used coherent identities. as the basis of his instrument are invalid, since 2. They prefer identities with positive affect; in they are based on a matrix of inter-correlations other words, people prefer to think well of which in themselves, most likely, do not mean- themselves. ingfully reflect the true state of affairs, but are 3. Identities are motivational forces; they are instead a pooling of errors. 20 Thus, when imperatives to behavior which enact or sym- Schwartz and Stryker write that, "we do not bolize them. believe that the gap between our theory and 4. Identities develop in the process of social our findings is to be accounted for by the interaction. Shared expectations of behavior, methods 2 they emerge from the relationship of person we used," ' to justify their inconclusive and others with whom he is embedded in findings concerning self-conceptions of blacks networks of social interaction. and delinquency, I would seriously question 5. Concretely, behavior is a function of a role- this interpretation. making process. All behavior, including that There is certainly a gap between their theory which is deviant, involves the interplay of and their method because their method does definitions of self and reactions of others; not allow for the fact that individuals are con- or, to state it in another way, the interplay of stantly reconstructing their meaning struc- claims of identity and the verification or ture-that this meaning structure cannot be denial. adequately measured by a pre-determined 6. Identities are fixed or stabilized by commit- ments. The actor's investment in his network framework. As presently constituted the Se- of social relationships reinforces the signifi- mantic Differential simply cannot examine the manner in which an individual organizes and cance to him of 7the identity on which his network is based.1 creates his/her way of viewing the world and self. Implicit in its use is a view of the indiviu- They then use Osgood's and associates'18 dal, not as Mead envisioned him/her-as one measure of the Semantic Differential, claiming who actively engages in a creative dialogue as a theoretical justification an affinity between with social reality- but simply as one who reacts Osgood's analysis of the development of mean- to social stimuli. In short, Schwartz and Stryker ing and Mead's analysis of the development of base their study on a view of the individual as a the self.' 9 passive agent, a view they share with the over- In brief, the Semantic Differential is an in- whelming majority of Labeling Theorists. strument which uses a seven-point, bipolar rating scale. The major difference between the Perhaps the most important empirical test of labeling has been attempted by Mordechai Ro- Semantic Differential and other rating devices tenberg 2 As Rotenberg points out, "Any the- is that its rating scales are based on an extensive ory of social labeling which does not provide series of factor analytic studies. The Semantic the conceptual framework for analyzing the Differential thus offers an opportunity for properties of self-labeling accompanying cross comparisons of the meanings of two dif- the social process is incomplete." ' Seeking to em- ferent words for one subject, or the meanings pirically answer the question of what, from the of the same words for a number of subjects, by 16 M. SCHWARTZ & S. STRYKER, DEVIANCE, 20 D. BANNISTER & J. MAIR, THE EVALUATION OF SELVES AND OTHERS 18 (1970). PERSONAL CONSTRUCTS 127 (1968). 17 Id. at 15. 21 M. SCHWARTZ & S. STRYKER, supra note 16, at 18 C. OSGOOD, G. Suci & P. TANNENBAUM, THE 124. MEASUREMENT OF MEANING (1957). 22 Rotenberg, supra note 8. '9 M. SCHWARTZ & S. STRYKER, sUpra note 16, at 3. 23 Rotenberg, Self-Labeling: A Missing Link In the 19771 LABELING THEORY actor's perspective, makes a label stick,2 Roten- occurred is that Mead's conflict between inde- berg offers a conceptual scheme which argues terminancy and determinancy has been re- that self-labeling among mental patients varies solved, in practice, by an acceptance, among according to the incorporation of specific be- Labeling Theorists, of determination. As Paul liefs and cultural roots that underlie major Schervish so aptly phrased it, "Unfortunately Western and Eastern labeling systems. 25 Using for the long-range development of the labeling a sample of forty adult Israeli mental patients perspective, the situation that imposed the few- diagnosed as schizophrenic, Rotenberg found est methodological problems for research were, that those who were of Western origin per- not surprisingly, the ones in which individuals ceived their label as an a priori categorical became formed rather passively into secondary ascription, one that was innate and irreversible, deviants."'31 The split over methodology that what he called "indicative labeling."' New pa- characterized the two major strands of Sym- tients of Eastern origin, on the other hand, bolic Interactionism, Herbert Blumer and the were more likely to see their label as externally Chicago School as opposed to Manfred Kuhn induced, and which could be curable, or and the Iowa School, has manifested itself in changed ("transmutive labeling").27 As time of the notion of self adhered to by Labeling hospitalization increased, however, the Eastern Theorists. Bernard Meltzer and John Petras 2 patients came to accept "indicative labeling. have summed up quite well these differences: Although Rotenberg's work can be used to support a deterministic and passive view of Blumer and Kuhn ascribe different qualities to labelees, such an interpretation is a risky one the self. Blumer contends that the self is a process of internal conversation, in the course at best, given that the role theory Rotenberg of which the actor can come to view himself in a uses leaves out too many unexplained variables new way, thereby bringing about changes in which might account for the initial differences himself... As Blumer writes, "The vital de- in "indicative" and "transmutive" labeling ac- pendancy of the attitude on the nature of the ceptance. More importantly, though, is the fact ongoing interaction suggests how fallacious it is that Rotenberg, like Schwartz and Stryker, of- to use the attitude to construct the scheme of fers a pre-determined framework for analyzing that interaction." Kuhn, on the other hand, self-labeling. It is no wonder then that his describes the self and human interaction as conclusions point, in the end, to an overdeter- structures. The organized set of self-attitudes pre-established mined conception of the individual. serves as a system of plans of action. And human association takes the form Labeling Theory's DeterministicView of the Individ- of fairly stable, ready-made patterns of role and ual Actor in the Face of Official Stigmatization counter-role prescriptions. Thus, for him behavior-prescriptions and behavior-predictions 32 As stated previously, a number of recent tend to coincide. writers have pointed to the implicit determinism of Labeling Theory. In brief, the argu- For Labeling Theory, the players are differ- ment states that Labeling Theory has done a ent but the game is the same. Labeling Theor- disservice to the work of George Herbert Mead, ists, for the most part, have chosen the Kuhn- by conveying a unilateral process which omits ian branch of Symbolic Interactionism and human choice.2 9 This determinism is a direct thereby opt for a deterministic view of man. result of Labeling Theory's overemphasis on This, in part, explains the almost exclusive successful labeling, its stress on the perfor- concentration upon the regulation of the de- mance of deviant roles, and its primary focus viant by some group. In Kuhn's perspective, if upon the social audience. 30 What seems to have we know the individual's reference groups, we

"Societal Reaction" Theory of Deviance, 22 Soc. REV. "1Schervish, The Labeling Perspective: Its Bias and 335, 339 (1974). Potential in the Study of Political Deviance, 8 Am. Soci- 24 Rotenberg, supra note 8, at 360. OLOGiST 47, 48 (1973). 2Id. at 360-67. 32 Meltzer & Petras, The Chicago and Iowa Schools of 26/d. Symbolic Interactionism, in SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM: 27 Id. at 365-66. A READER IN SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 43, 53 (J. Manis & 2,8Id. at 373. B. Meltzer eds. 1972) (quoting Blumer, Pyschological 29 Quadagno & Antonio, supra note 6. Import of the Human Group in GROuP-RELATIONS AT 30Id. THE CROSSROADS (M. Sherif & M. Wilson eds. 1953)). JOSEPH A. SCIMECCA [Vol. 68 can predict his self-attitudes and hence his theory, Personal Construct Theory, can pro- behavior. What is missing, though, from such vide the necessary means of investigating the a perspective, is the reflexive nature of the subjective side of deviant behavior, something self. Given the theoretical justification for La- that has been conspicuous by its absence in beling Theory (Meadian social-psychology), Labeling Theory. there is no reason for assuming that the deviant As was shown in this section, Labeling The- label is accepted. The premise that an individ- ory lacks an adequate psychological base, a ual may simply reject or fight back against the viable, researchable notion of self that does not labeling process is as likely an outcome as one sacrifice the active, volitional side of the indi- which posits complete acceptance. Two recent vidual. In the following sections, I will argue studies, one based on empirical data, the other that Personal Construct Theory as developed more of an analytical scheme, call attention to by George Kelly can provide just such a base. the process of rejection of deviant labels and This is so, because according to Personal Con- are therefore worth mentioning here. The struct Theory, individuals come to know some- first, by Quadagno and Antonio,n shows how thing about the world in which they live only mental patients use certain techniques in order insofar as they can make interpretations of it. to resist labeling and maintain a normal iden- Man can only come to know the world by means tity, when faced with official stigmatization. As of the constructions he places upon it and he the authors put it, "The labeling process is will be bound by events to the extent that his neither automatic nor self-fulfilling-even for ingenuity limits his possibilities for reconstruct- those who have undergone official labeling and ing these events. Each man erects for himself a institutionalization. '34 The second work, by representational model of the world which al- Rogers and Buffalo, 5 offers nine possible ways, lows him to make sense out of it and which enables him to chart a course of behavior in ranging from repudiation to alteration, which 3 to it. 7 individuals use to fight back against being la- relation beled a deviant. The Formal Content of PersonalConstruct Theory-n In short, Mead's theory of the development of self points to a reflexive interpretation of George Kelly proposed, as the "Fundamental the individual action. However, because his Postulate" of his theory, that a person's processes overall scheme is undeveloped, Labeling are psychologically channelized by the ways in which Theorists have taken the easy way out (both he anticipates events. Eleven corollaries are elab- methodologically and politically)36 and offered orated from this fundamental postulate. They an "over-determined conception of man." start from the assumption that individuals an- What is needed, if Labeling Theory is to answer ticipate events by construing their replications its critics, is a view of self that gives primary and evolve for themselves a construction system, emphasis to the active, exploratory side of the which allows them to test these anticipations. individual without at the same time sacrificing Human beings can only come to know the the methodological rigor necessary for an ex- world by means of the constructions they place planatory theory of deviant behavior. In short, upon it and are bound by events to the extent the answer to Labeling Theory's weaknesses that their ingenuity limits their possibilities for reconstructing these events. In short, all indi- lies in a theory of self that goes beyond Mead - a fully developed, empirically sound view of viduals erect for themselves a representational model of the world which allows them to make the individual seen as one who is actively en- gaged in the act of trying to control his/her sense out of it and further enables them to own destiny. Such a theory, I will argue in the chart a course of behavior in relation to the next section of this paper, already exists. This representational model or construct system. A construct is essentially two-ended, involv- 33 Quadagno & Antonio, supra note 6. 3 4 ing a particular basis for considering likeness 1d. I Rogers & Buffalo, FightingBack: Nine Models of and difference and at the same time for exclud- Adaptation to a Deviant Label, 22 Soc. PROB. 101 (1974). 37 D. BANNISTER &J. MAIR, SUpra note 20, at 6. 36 See Schervish, supra note 31, for an analysis of 38For a full statement of Personal Construct The- the political implications of determinism in labeling ory, see G. KELLY, THE PYSCHOLOGY OF PERSONAL theory. CONSTRUCTS: A THEORY OF PERSONALITY (1955). LABELING THEORY

ing certain things as irrelevant to the construct struct relationships and hierarchical status. involved.39 Constructs are elicited from the subject by Kelly emphasized that people choose for asking him/her to supply names to fit various themselves that alternative in a dichotomized role titles. Role titles, for example, range from construct through which they anticipate the self to mother to successful person. The subject greater possibility for the elaboration of their is then asked to suggest some important ways system, and that a construct is convenient for in which two of the people mentioned are alike the anticipation of a finite range of events and different from a third. Through the use 40 only. of the grid method, the manner in which a person organizes his/her own behavior is elic- Construct Theory and Labeling Theory: A Synthesis ited. When a person uses himself or herself as By combining Kelly's Personal Construct a datum in forming new constructs, these con- Theory with Labeling Theory, the major criti- structs act as tight controls on his/her behav- cisms raised in the preceding section against ior.43 For example, a person who includes him- the latter can be answered. self in the context of the construct, powerful- Generally speaking, efforts to test and vali- weak, binds himself to assess his/her own behav- date the notion of "secondary deviance" have ior in relation to that dimension. 44 The person largely resulted in negative findings. Follow- has ordered his/her world along these con- up studies made of juveniles who were proc- structs and sees him/herself in terms of them. essed by official agencies, when compared to It requires only a slight alteration of Kelly's others who were released to their homes, indi- methods to elicit constructs which take the key cate that processing does not result in any dimensions of Labeling Theory into account. greater amounts of recidivism, serious delin- In particular, those constructs pertaining to quency or adult criminality among those who authority and stigmatized roles would readily had been officially labeled than among those lend themselves to analysis. While I am ob- who were not.4 1 These studies have not, how- viously only pointing out the direction that an ever, actually tested the psychological state of altered Repertory Grid Test might take, nev- the labeled individual. That behavior follows ertheless the implications are quite clear. The self-conception is simply assumed. If the indi- whole problem of why some individuals accept vidual does not think of himself as a labeled and others reject negative labels becomes ex- deviant, he will not engage in deviant action. plainable. In the course of interpreting the This may or may not be true, but what is world, the individual as an active agent tests apparent is that Labeling Theorists, by eschew- out his/her interpretations. The methodology ing psychological variables, have not tested the of Personal Construct Theory enables the in- subjective state of the individual. Personal Con- vestigator to analyze the direction this testing struct Theory enables the researcher to do just takes. Of particular importance, given the hi- this. George Kelly developed various methods erarchical and bi-polar nature of individual for eliciting and measuring the self-conceptions constructs, are superordinate constructs (those of individuals -what he called their personal that include others in its context); permeable construct systems. The most elaborate measure constructs (those to which new elements can be is the grid form of his Role Construct Reper- tory Test.42 Personal Construct Theory places considerable stress on the notion that each teacher, rejected teacher, boss, successful person, happy person, ethical person, neighbor. These would person erects for him or herself a hierarchically be correlated on a grid with such constructs as kind - organized system of interrelated constructs. cruel, frightening - gentle, carefree - conscientious, The repertory grid test investigates both con- understands me -unsympathetic, confident - anxious and simple - intellectual. In a completed matrix low 39 D. BANNISTER &J. MAIR,supra note 20. scores represent negative associations and high 40 G. KELLY, supra note 38, at 104-05. scores, positive ones. G. KELLY, supra note 38, at 41 E. SAGARIN, supra note 2, at 134. 266-77. For a description of studies which have 42 Examples of specific role titles would be self, validated the Role Construct Repertory Grid, see D. mother, father, brother, sister, spouse, ex-flame, BANNISTER MAIR, 43 & J. supra note 20. best friend, ex-friend, rejecting Id. at 27. person, pitied per- 44 son, threatening person, attractive person, accepted Id. JOSEPH A. SCIMECCA [Vol. 68

added as a means of organizing future events); that participants do not share the distinction core constructs (which govern the individual's sociologists make" 47 is not a problem; it is taken maintenance process); and tight constructs for granted. (which lead to unvarying predictions). These What we have, then, is a way of analyzing four constructs along with their bi-polar oppo- how the individual looks at himself/herself-a sites, subordinate, impermeable, peripheral and way that entails freedom of choice. For as Kelly loose constructs can be analyzed to indicate the states: acceptance or rejection of specific ideological constraints by a given individual. At the ex- There are always some alternative's construc- pense of sounding simplistic, a Repertory Grid tions available to choose among in dealing with the world. No one needs to paint himself into a given to a "secondary deviant" would elicit corner; no one needs to be completely hemmed acceptance of authority and stigmatization as in by circumstances; no one needs to be the superordinate and core constructs, and in terms victim of his biography. We call this philosophi- of future behavioral patterns, permeable and cal position constructive alternativism.4 tight as his/her base for anticipating future events. Potential rejection of deviant labels, on Individuals seek to understand this world the other hand, would manifest a high level of through an infinite series of approximations - potential for change on superordinateconstructs. anticipation of events. The Repertory Grid Personal Construct Theory can thus get at Test elicits how the individual anticipates the changes in how an individual views him/herself, course of events which make up his/her world, thereby providing a processual measure of per- be he/she labeled a deviant or a conformist. sonality-something that Labeling Theory cur- The Repertory Grid differs in this manner rently lacks. This process works in the following substantially from the Semantic Differential, manner: whenever an individual is confronted which I criticized earler, because the Semantic with the opportunity for making a choice, he/ Differential defines the conceptual structure of she will tend to choose those alternatives which the subject in terms of three prescribed nom- seem to provide the best basis for anticipating othetic dimensions derived from pooled data, the ensuing events. 4 This view is thereby com- while the Grid does not impose preconceived patible with the more radical criticisms of La- categories upon the individual, allowing the beling Theory which see the acceptance of the individual to generate a unique psychological label of deviant as being related to a condition portrait of himself/herself. of powerlessness. 46 Powerless individuals, lower Implications also arise for treatment and class individuals, would of necessity see less rehabilitation (another criticism raised against opportunity for resisting a negative label, and Labeling Theory) ,49 in that those who manifest hence would be more likely to construe alter- permeable constructs in relation to stigmatiza- natives which take this notion of reality into tion would be better risks for rehabilitation. In account. Viewing deviance in this manner al- short, Personal Construct Theory, by positing lows the positing of choice to the actor, but at a viable psychological model-one that shows the same time realistically notes that those in how individuals interpret, inquire about, and positions of power have more choice than the actively construct their world-while at the powerless. Such a view also rules out any value- same time offering a methodology capable of judgment on the part of the theorist. No objec- assessing this construction, provides an insight tive moral judgment is made that the deviant is into the "reciprocal relationship between actor "bad." It is the actor's subjective judgment that and reactor, stimulus and response, and most is elicited. Acceptance of a deviant label may importantly, between preexisting differences simply be a matter of construing it as the best and 'reaction effects.' "5" Personal Construct alternative among other more limited ones. In Theory, by providing the psychological model the end, it is the individual's construction of 47 Id. 48 at 574. self, that is focused upon. Further, "the fact G. KELLY, Supra note 45, at 15. 49E. SAGARIN,Supra note 2, at 139. " G. KELLY, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF PERSONALITY 10Hagan, Labeling and Deviance: A Case Study in the CONSTRUCTS 64 (1963). "Sociology of the Interesting," 20 Soc. PROB. 447, 456 46 Goode, supra note 2, at 578. (1973). 1977] LABELING THEORY

for Labeling Theory, provides an answer to individual variation is now possible. If Labeling Tangri and Schwartz's call for "designs in delin- Theorists can overcome their reticence in using quency which are analyses of variance de- psychological variables, a viable theory of crim- 51 signs." A Labeling Theory which can measure inal behavior is theirs for the taking. If not, 51Tangri & Schwartz, Delinquency Research and the given the spiral of criticism leveled against it, Self-Concept Variable, 58 J. CRIM. L.C. & P.S. 182 Labeling Theory will most likely go the way of (1967). anomie theory, a fate it does not deserve.