COMMENTS AND REPUES

55

gagedand engagement is certainly a pre- want to interpret Sullivan, Gilderbloom, requisite for learning^when I give assign- and Donald's recent silence on this matter ments that allow them to engage the social as indicating they agree with me. I'm sure world critically. In the class, I try to build the pages of Teaching Sociology remain open upon my students' experience of and interest to them, or to their allies, should they care in society, with the belief that if theology can to carry this conversation forward. be defmed as "faith seeking understanding," this approach to sociology might best be described as "experience seeking underREFERENCES standing." Before concluding, let me address one Scott, Robert, and Arnold Shore. 1979. Why Sociolog Does Not Apply: A Study of the Use of Sociology in point on which Professor SchefFand I seem Public Policy. New York: to diverge somewhat. While Scheff is correct Yamane, David. 1994a. ' T h Elsevier. from Below: A e View that conflict between teaching and research Student's Response to Profscam" Teaching Sociolis not inevitable, I maintain that there is no intrinsic, necessary relationship between do. 1994b. "Professional Socialization for AXTiar?" ASA Footnotes (March): 14. ing the type of research Scheff suggests and teaching better. Teaching about society can be done just as badly as teaching about sociology (though perhaps it is easier to THE LABELING teach strictly disciplinary work badly). PERSPECTIVE IS FAR FROM I think the best way to describe the relaABANDONED IN MODERN tionship between the practically oriented CRIMINOLOGY: COMMENT research Scheff advocates and teaching well ON WRIGHT is as an elective affinity. I suspect that there is an elective affinity between the disposition HUGH D . BARLOW of faculty members who choose to do that Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville sort of research and the disposition of those who choose to develop the ability to teach. 1 HE JANUARY 1994, ISSUE OF TEACHING SOCIThe conjunction of these two dispositions and acquired talents in a single person is ology contained a lengthy review essay by highly desirable in my view, characteristic of Richard A. Wright on 20 criminology texts the faculty member who is neither a mere published from 1990 to 1992, and a single researcher nor solely a teacher but is a book review by Judith A. Harris of the sixth scholar. And I should say that Thomas edition of one of these texts, published in Scheff is one of the few professors I know 1993. As the author of the latter text, I found it very interesting to have my work who can rightly bear that designation. In closing, I would again like to express reviewed twice in the same issue. Though my appreciation for Professor Scheff's effort both reviews were more or less positive ones, to continue the conversation on the rela- not surprisingly the authors made different tionship between teaching and research into criticisms and came to somewhat different which I intervened recently. Unfortunately, conclusions. I am obviously pleased that Judith Hara dialogue between Scheff and myself cannot but come to the dead end of mutual ris had only "minor" criticisms of the sixth adoration; we simply ^ree on too much. As edition of my text, and that she believed I much as I welcome his comments, I would had met my goal of producing a comprewelcome even more replies by Sullivan, Gil- hensive, up-to-date, and well-referenced derbloom, and Donald (the original TS re- introduction to the field that is also interviewers of Profscani), or others who agree esting and challenging to students. This with them. Then we might have a more was good news because Wright was only provocative and sustainable dialogue. mildly enthusiastic about the fifth (1990) Though they declined an earlier offer to edition, which he had reviewed. I work comment on my essay, I certainly do not hard to improve every new edition over the

56
preceding one, and it is therefore unfortunate that Wright did not have the latest edition at hand for his review essay. Oh well, c'est la vie. I was more troubled (and perplexed), however, by Wright's "alarm" that "Barlow continues to embrace a labeling orientation on crime and the criminal law, even though this approach has fallen from grace in modern criminological thinking" (Wright 1994:91). Judging from this comment I believe the reviewer is not as up-todate in his criminology as the author. To be sure, labeling theory has come in for its share of criticismperhaps even a disproportionate sharebut it is far from dishonored as a theoretical perspective on crime, nor is it about to be abandoned by the field. Consider Braithwaite's (1989) theory of reintegrative shaming. Braithwaite clearly takes labeling theory seriously, giving it a prominent place in his own integrative theory of crime. Whenever shaming is stigmatizing, the predictions of labeling theory can be applied: crime is likely to increase and criminal tendencies to harden (see also, Akers 1994:135-37). Don Gibbons (1994:37) has recently observed, furthermore, that "labeling themes can be identified in some of the 'new criminologies' (feminist views, realist criminology, and critical approaches)." This is hardly an indication that the labeling orientation has fallen from grace or is anachronistic! Why, in any case, is Wright so alarmed? Nowhere in my text is labeling theory advanced as the explanation of crime, nor in my judgment do I slight other theoretical perspectives in any ardent defense of it. On the contrary, it is my intent to provide readers with a comprehensive overview of prominent criminological theories that draw from sociological perspectives. If anything, I slight biological and psychological theories, and I say hardly much more about labeling theory than I do about these perspectives. What I do emphasize about the labeling perspective early in the text is its important contribution to how criminologists think about crime. Unusual as it seems to many students, crime can be thought of as status rather than simply as activity. No matter how well the labeling orientation survives

TEACHING SOCIOLOGY as a theory or explanation of crime, raising important questions about definitions of crime and the sociopolitical context in which those defmitions exist is not the same as an explanation, although we can all agree that such questions infiuence the construction of theory. I want students to appreciate that crime can (alright, should) be studied both as a status acquired by individuals and events through the labeling actions of others, and as a behavior or set of actions or events that some people engage in. To make sure that this point was clear, I added the following comment in the 1990 version of my opening chapter:
The criminologist who focuses only on crime as status and on the people to whom the label has been applied looks at merely a part of the crime scene. Crime is also behavior in the sense that it constitutes a human activity. The criminologist is therefore interested in explaining the occurrence of that behavior. Why do people kill? Why are some people more likely to be killed than others? How is the behavior we call crime distributed throughout the population? (Barlow 1990:16)

In the sixth (1993) edition, I changed Chapter One considerably, mainly to incorporate a fairly detailed discussion of crime policy (another realm where a labeling orientation is very useful). However, the thrust of my treatment of defmitions of crime is the same, and I end it this way:
The labeling perspective runs the risk of ignoring the content of criminal activities and events, that is, the what, who, and why of crime. This text tries to strike a balance between the two perspectives by exploring crime as both behavior and status. How and why people commit crimes are no less important questions than how and why authorities react to people and events as criminal. (Barlow 1993:13)

I fully intend to maintain this balance in the seventh, and any future editions of my text. Wright's review makes some good points, which I think he would agree have been addressed in the sixth edition. Ironically, in his comments on my discussions of crime theories, Wright (1994:91) observes that the section on labeling theory is "conspicuously weak" and "omits entirely any mention of Howard Becker." He sees this as a "particularly curious" omission, given my "sympathy for labeling arguments." Wright is simply wrong. On page

COMMENTS AND REPLIES 84, I cite Becker as one of the sociologists who promoted the labeling or societal reactions approach, and earlier on page 9, during my discussion of definitions of crime, I quote Becker's famous definition of deviance beginning "deviance is not a quality ofthe act the person commits." Wright is also wrong when he observes in the same paragraph that while I review Lemert's work on secondary deviation, I do so "without noting and defining primary deviation." On the contrary, on page 85, I use Lemert's own words to describe the sequence of interaction leading from primary to secondary deviation, and 1 include a parenthetical definition of primary deviation. I also note the idea of primary deviation in the first paragraph on page 86. Wright really should have been more careful.

57

accuracy of these criticisms. Barlow should know better. Now for a few specifics. Barlow claims that I'm out-of-date in my criticisms of the labeling perspective. He calls to my attention three "new" references: Braithwaite (1989), Gibbons (1994), and Akers (1994). If Barlow took the time to read the latter from cover-to-cover (the way that I read books), he would note this in the acknowledgements: "Richard Wright...oflFered extremely helpful general and detailed comments on the manuscript" (Akers 1994:vi). I'm the only reviewer of the book thanked in this fashion. Ifindit hilarious that Barlow recommends a book that I'm thanked in the acknowledgements for reviewing! (Who's the careless reader, Hugh?) . As for the quality of Barlow's recommendations for what I should be reading, he clearly misses the best defense ofthe labeling REFERENCES perspective: Paternoster and Iovanni (1989). (Come on, Hugh! If you're going to give me Akers, Ronald L 1994. Criminological Theories: Intro- a reading list, please don't assign secondary duction and Fvaluation. Los Angeles: Roxbury. sources!) As for criticisms of the labeling Barlow, Hugh D. 1990. Introduction to Criminology. 5th ed. Glenview, II: Scort, Foresman/Little, perspective, I recommend "Labeling Theory: When Strong Convictions Meet Weak Brown. . 1993. Introduction to Criminology. 6th ed. Data" in Wright (1994a: 137^5). If Barlow New York: HarperCollins. bothers to read this, he might find that I'm Braithwaite, John. 1989. Crime, Shame andReintegra- reasonably current on the pros and cons of tion. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University labeling theory after all. Press. As for Barlow's other comments, I stand Gibbons, Don C. 1994. Talking about Crime and by what I said about his book (and the Criminals: Problems and Issues in Theory Development in Criminology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- other 19 that I reviewed), with one minor Hall. qualification: While I wrote that Barlow Wright, Richard A. 1994. 'Twenty Recent Criminol- (see 1990:84-86) "omits entirely any menogy Textbooks: Continued Diversity Without tion of Howard Becker" (Wright: Currency or Quality." Teaching Sociology 22:87- 1994b:91) in his review of labeling theory, 104. it would be more accurate to say that he "omits entirely any discussion of Becker's work." (Yes, Becker is mentioned in passREPLY T o BARLOW ing among several sociologists who helped to develop the perspective; see Barlow RICHARD A. WRIGHT 1990:84). Let me reiterate my general University ofScranton point, though, that the neglect of any discussion of Becker's (1963) work in a criminology textbook that endorses labeling 1 READ PROFESSOR BARLOW'S COMMENTS ON my review essay of criminology textbooks thinking is "particularly curious" (Wright (Wright 1994b) with a mixture of amuse- 1994b:91). In a study that ranked the most ment and disdain. Criminology textbook cited social scientists in criminology textauthors have accused me of many things in books (see Shichor 1982), Becker tied for the past (see Wright 1994b: 103), but never fifi:h overall (behind only Edwin Sutherfor being out-of-date and careless! As for the land, Donald Cressey, Marvin Wolfgang,