Sociology & Criminology for a Changing World
With his work Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method (1969), Herbert Blumer laid the theoretical and methodological foundation of symbolic interactionism. As a student of George Herbert Mead, he not only coined the term for this school of thought but also shaped one of the most influential microsociological theories of the 20th century. Blumer’s approach places
Theories within this category approach crime as a culturally and emotionally meaningful form of social action. Rejecting explanations that reduce crime to structural deprivation, individual pathology, or rational calculation, these perspectives emphasize the situated meanings, symbolic dimensions, and affective dynamics that shape both criminal behaviour and the societal responses to it. Crime is thus understood
Interactionist and labelling approaches constitute a paradigm shift in criminological theory. Rather than explaining crime as the outcome of static individual pathologies or deterministic social factors, these perspectives emphasise the social construction of deviance through processes of interaction, attribution, and power. Crime, in this view, is not a self-evident act but an outcome of societal
Delinquency and Drift by David Matza (1964) represents a landmark critique of both positivist criminology (e.g., Lombroso) and contemporary theories of juvenile delinquency like Cloward & Ohlin’s differential opportunity theory and Cohen’s subcultural theory. Matza challenges the behavioral determinism in these approaches and argues instead for a nuanced, interactionist understanding of delinquency as a temporary,
Edwin M. Lemert’s concept of primary and secondary deviance is one of the most influential contributions to labelling theory. Building on symbolic interactionism and early ideas from Frank Tannenbaum’s „tagging“ concept, Lemert showed how social reactions to initial rule-breaking can shape identities and careers in deviance. Key Points Primary and Secondary Deviance Main Proponent: Edwin