Tagging Theory (Tannenbaum)

Frank Tannenbaum’s concept of “tagging”, developed in his 1938 work CrimeActs or omissions that violate criminal laws and are punishable by the state. and the Community, is widely regarded as a foundational contribution to labelling theory. Long before Howard Becker or Edwin Lemert formalized the labelling approach, Tannenbaum argued that crime is not simply a quality of the act itself but emerges through social reactions and the application of deviant labels. His work laid crucial groundwork for the symbolic interactionist tradition in criminology by showing how definitions imposed by authorities and the community shape an individual’s deviant identity.

Key Points

Crime and the Community

Main Proponent: Frank Tannenbaum

First Publication: 1938

Country of Origin: United States

Core Idea: DevianceDeviance refers to behaviors, beliefs, or characteristics that violate social norms and provoke negative social reactions. is not inherent in the act but is created through social reactions that label individuals as deviant (“tagging”). The process of defining and reacting to crime plays a central role in producing criminal identities.

Foundation For: Interactionist approaches, Labelling Theory, Symbolic Interactionism in criminology

Theory

Tannenbaum’s core argument is famously summarized in his phrase: “The person becomes the thing he is described as being.” In Crime and the Community, he describes a social process he calls tagging, through which acts of youthful misbehavior are identified, defined, and publicly labeled as deviant or criminal. This labelling process, he argues, has profound consequences:

• Authorities and the community define certain behaviors as deviant, attracting attention and formal reactions.
• The young person is singled out, separated, and stigmatized through public identification as “delinquent.”
• Repeated labeling reinforces a deviant identity, pushing the individual away from conventional roles and groups.

Tannenbaum emphasized that the initial acts of misbehavior (often trivial or commonplace among youth) were not inherently criminal. Instead, crime results from the social reaction and the transformation of the individual’s self-concept under the weight of the label. This insight reframed crime as a social construction rather than a fixed attribute of the individual or the act itself.

Unlike theories that focused on the causes of crime within the individual (biological, psychological, or social deficits), Tannenbaum turned attention to the community’s role in creating crime through its responses. His work directly influenced later thinkers like Edwin Lemert (with the concept of secondary deviance) and Howard Becker’s development of labelling theory.

Implications for Criminal Policy

Tannenbaum’s analysis of tagging suggests that harsh, stigmatizing reactions to youth misbehavior can be counterproductive. Instead of preventing crime, punitive labeling can entrench deviant identities and alienate young people from conventional social bonds. Policies inspired by this approach advocate:

• Minimizing formal labeling, especially for minor infractions.
• Focusing on diversion, informal resolution, and community-based responses.
• Promoting reintegration and reducing the stigma associated with criminal justice contact.

These ideas have strongly influenced juvenile justice reforms, diversion programs, and restorative justice practices that aim to avoid the criminogenic effects of labeling.

Critical Appraisal & Relevance

Tannenbaum’s concept of tagging represents an early and influential break from positivist criminology’s search for internal causes of crime. By emphasizing the social construction of deviance, he redirected attention to power, definitions, and interactions within communities. His work anticipated key elements of symbolic interactionism in criminology, laying the conceptual foundations for Lemert’s distinction between primary and secondary deviance and Becker’s labelling theory.

Critics, however, have noted limitations. Tannenbaum offered little empirical detail on the conditions under which tagging escalates or is resisted, and his account can understate individual agency in resisting labels. Furthermore, some argue that the labelling perspective risks neglecting real harms or social inequalities that underlie deviant acts themselves.

Nevertheless, Tannenbaum’s insight remains highly relevant. Modern juvenile justice systems continue to wrestle with how best to respond to youth misbehavior without reinforcing criminal identities. His argument that social reactions can create crime by labelling remains a cornerstone of criminological thought.

Literature

Primary Literature

• Tannenbaum, Frank (1938). Crime and the Community. New York: Columbia University Press.

Secondary Literature

• Becker, Howard S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: Free Press.
• Lemert, Edwin M. (1951). Social Pathology. New York: McGraw-Hill.