Talk:Labeling theory: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Lots of missing information |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''''''''Lots of missing information'''''' |
|||
=...= |
|||
Labeling (The act of..) and Labeling theory are two entirely different discussions and in my opinion should not be merged. Also, no mention of Frank Tannenbaum (1938) and the "dramatixation of Evil" or the major works by Howard Becker (1963) which looked at the social control mechanisms? What about primary deviance vs. secondary deviance? There is a LOT omitted from Labeling Theory on here. For the record, "Crash" is not a good example of labeling theory. The study by William Chambliss called "The Saints and the Roughnecks" is a fair representation of Labeling Theory. |
Labeling (The act of..) and Labeling theory are two entirely different discussions and in my opinion should not be merged. Also, no mention of Frank Tannenbaum (1938) and the "dramatixation of Evil" or the major works by Howard Becker (1963) which looked at the social control mechanisms? What about primary deviance vs. secondary deviance? There is a LOT omitted from Labeling Theory on here. For the record, "Crash" is not a good example of labeling theory. The study by William Chambliss called "The Saints and the Roughnecks" is a fair representation of Labeling Theory. |
||
Revision as of 14:06, 26 April 2007
''''Lots of missing information'
Labeling (The act of..) and Labeling theory are two entirely different discussions and in my opinion should not be merged. Also, no mention of Frank Tannenbaum (1938) and the "dramatixation of Evil" or the major works by Howard Becker (1963) which looked at the social control mechanisms? What about primary deviance vs. secondary deviance? There is a LOT omitted from Labeling Theory on here. For the record, "Crash" is not a good example of labeling theory. The study by William Chambliss called "The Saints and the Roughnecks" is a fair representation of Labeling Theory.
209.173.24.179 14:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Dano
 | Sociology Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
What about adding Ethnic label?
I think it should be added, if not as a sepparate article, inside this article. Anyone thinks so? Onofre Bouvila 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
...
Has anyone seen the movie "Crash?" Would this be a good movie that shows the labeling theory?
If the two spellings are important enough to be mentioned in the introduction, why are they never explained? -Fsotrain09 01:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
The two spellings are simply US and UK forms of 'labelling', UK with two Ls and yanks with one. As such dont require explanation. Surprised to see no mention of or reference to Howard Becker, sometimes regarded as the father of labelling theory, or a link to his homepage <http://home.earthlink.net/~hsbecker/>. Good article, but could possibly benefit from a presentation overhaul? Keep up the good work. In response to the Crash comment, probably not, the theories are a bit too sociologically complex to be accurately illustrated in such a film.
i think crash is an excellent way to describe the labelling theory
good status
Probably not possible to nominate since this article is still pending review for neutrality. But as a former student of this theory, I am impressed - I would call this article 70% comprehensive. Some items are missing from the general discussion - a few more basic creators (Lemert, etc) and several other popular applications. Also, the often overlooked positive impacts of labeling might need a mention. Thanks. --Spesek 20:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
the OC?
removed some unnecessary references to popular tv shows. don't think anyone will miss 'em.