Home » Howard S. Becker
Category Archives: Howard S. Becker
Homelessness: Outsiders and Surviving on the Street: A snapshot of my undergraduate dissertation.
As the wait until graduation dissipates, I thought I may outline my dissertation and share some of the interesting notions I discovered and the events I experienced throughout the process of creating potentially the most extensive research project each of us has conquered so far.
What was my research about?
As we all know, the issue of homelessness is rife throughout the streets of Northampton and across the UK. I wanted to explore two main areas of homelessness that I understood to be important: the Victimisation of the homeless and the Criminalisation of the homeless. Prior research suggested that the homeless were victimised more frequently than the general public; they are more invisible victims, ignored and abused. There is a lack of reporting of the victimisation they face, partially explained by the lack of trust and lack of embracing victim identity, therefore, a lack of understanding of the victimisation this group faces. They are treated as outsiders, so they act as outsiders, the out-group whose behaviour is deemed ‘deviant,’ resulting in exclusionary tactics such as Hostile Architecture and legislation to hinder their ability to survive. Statistics do suggest that a large number of the homeless population have previously engaged in criminal activity, but the reasonings behind the criminality are distinct. There is an understanding that the criminal behaviour engaged in by the homeless population is survival in nature and only conducted to sustain themselves on the street. The crimes they commit may be due to the ‘criminogenic’ situation they find themselves in where they have to conduct these behaviours due to the environment, society and the economy.
What did I do?
My research was conducted in The Hope Centre, a homeless and hardship charity located in Northampton. Within the centre, I conversed with 7 service users about their experiences living on the street, engagement with criminal activity and the events they have faced. I based my research around an interpretivist lens to capture their experiences and ensure they are subjective and connected to that individual.
What did I find?
The conversations produced a multitude of different reoccurring themes, but the three I believe to be the most stand-out and important are Survival, Cynicism and Labelling, and Outsiders.
Within the survival theme, numerous individuals spoke of the criminality that they have engaged in whilst being on the street, from shoplifting to drug dealing. Still, there was a variety of different justifications used to rationalise their behaviour. Some individuals explained that the crime was to be able to sustain themselves, eat, sleep, etc. For some, the criminality was rationalised by softening the victim’s stance by suggesting they were faceless or victimless if they targeted large corporations. For some, the rationale was to purchase drugs, which, although deemed a commodity and a luxury by some, is also a necessity by others, needing a particular substance to be able to live through the night.
Within the Cyclicism theme, a common topic was that of the society that these individuals reside in; the homeless that have sometimes been released from prison are let out into a society with a lack of job opportunities (due to criminal records) and a drug culture that forces them into other money-making ventures such as criminality, resulting in a total loop back into the prison system. Some participants were under the assumption that the prison system was designed this way to create money by pushing them back into it.
One final theme was that of labelling and outsiders, this is the situation whereby individuals the participants were perceived negatively regardless of what they did and how they acted. They suggested that they were seen as ‘dirty’ even if they had showered. Due to this, they were excluded from society for being an outlier and seen as different to the ‘in-group’ with no control over changing that. This led to some participants attempting to change their behaviour and look to fit in with societal norms. There is also a perception from the homeless about other homeless individuals, specifically the divide between those who beg and those who do not. Some believe that those who beg, harass people and give the entire community a ‘bad rep.’
My dissertation did not aim to drive a specific conclusion due to the individual nature of the conversations. However, it is my hope and aim to potentially change the perceptions and actions of each individual who has read my dissertation regarding this neglected group in society.
Share this:
In Praise of Howard S. Becker (1928-2023)
Three months ago, Howard S. Becker died at the age of 95, some of the Criminology Team reflect below on his impact.
I re-read Becker’s Outsider’s during the covid-19 pandemic. It reminded me of how Becker’s critical take on criminology helped me to understand and articulate the world in which I grew up in. Yes, street crime happens, and yes it causes victims to suffer but street crime seemed to be a survival response from the powerless aka ‘the deviants’ who were oppressed by the disciplining State and its police force. Becker’s work must have been groundbreaking at the time that it was published, and it continues to resonate within more contemporary critical theories surrounding intersectional oppressions that I am most interested in today…what a game changer!
@haleysread
I first encountered Becker’s (1963) Outsiders as an undergraduate, since then I have revisited many times. The book and the ideas within are so well-written, so accessible, allowing the reader to see criminality and criminal justice from an entirely different perspective. Although profound, it is not this Becker text which is closest to my heart, for that we go to 1967 and the publication of his article ‘Whose Side Are We On?‘ It is this succinct piece of writing that allowed me to understand that criminologists can never be neutral, they have to take a side. Furthermore, they must always be on the side of the powerless and never the powerful. The Criminal Justice System [CJS] and all of the agents within it, are working within and for the State and thus have plenty of supporters. Individuals in their engagement with the CJS, do not have the same support or protection, they are always outnumbered and out resourced. If we truly want to gain a holistic understanding of deviance and criminality, Becker (1967) is very helpful.
Alongside, his writing around crime and deviance, Becker also identifies the importance of language and writing style, to research practice. In Writing for Social Scientists (1986) and Tricks of the Trade (1998) and Telling About Society (2007) offers clear, practical guidance and comfort for uncertain scholars (whatever level of study).
Finally, we need to mention Becker’s music, his beloved jazz which provides the soundtrack to a scholarly life well lived, which means you can study his life’s work (both written and aural) simultaneously. A unique man, whose impact will be felt by criminologist and other social scientists for a very long time.
@paulaabowles
In 2006, during my undergraduate studies in sociology, I was introduced to Howard Becker’s labelling theory. While it marked a significant departure from the traditional explanation of deviance, it sparked lively debates among my peers. I distinctly recall vehemently opposing the theory’s practical application in Nigeria, my home country. Some of my peers argued passionately, citing numerous examples of deviance, including instances of crimes of the powerful. They contended that corruption and the misappropriation of public funds in Nigeria were products of eroding social values, driven by immense societal pressure on political officeholders to maintain an image of ‘big men.’ No doubt, Becker had a point on this and despite my initial reservations about labelling theory, Becker’s scholarly contributions have undeniably been influential in shaping both my sociological imagination and my criminological lenses. So long to a respected scholar!
@sallekmusa
It is impossible to list eminent criminologists without at least giving a nod to Howard Becker, although I would suggest a nod is far from sufficient. Becker it seems to me had the ability to write meaningful texts that could be understood by all. Of course his narrative in Outsiders is a product of its time but much of it is still applicable today. I first read Outsiders as part of my undergraduate degree and much of resonated and yet as with all great work, it doesn’t explain everything. What it does though is provide a very different perspective on deviance and society as a whole. In his later work Becker discussed labelling stating it wasn’t a theory. Well worth returning to the book then just to understand that statement alone.
@5teveh
This August 16, 2023, Howard Becker died. He was a 95 years old social scientist/sociologist (depending on who you will ask) with a long and significant legacy on his tome of work. My colleagues above predictably chose Outsiders as representative sample of his work. Not surprising really considering this was one of his seminal pieces of work that articulated the basis of theories that sociologists, criminologists and other social scientists based their own theories and understanding on social reality. His work on labelling theory became a significant influence on criminologists who tried to understand the relationship between postmodernity and deviance. It comes as no surprise that his influence to those who followed him in academia was so important.
What I thought most fitting was to concentrate on one of his latest papers written a few years ago when he was 91. In the midst of the pandemic with the lockdown and the great uncertainty it ensued Howard retreats to what he knows best; to be a social scientist and contextualise his observations the best way he knows. The paper in a praise of neighbourhood spirit and collective consciousness under the guise of urban sociology. Howard Becker is very reflective of his location, the history of the place and its social development and it is a testament of the importance of interactionism and positionality.
Using personal experience his paper “In San Francisco, when my neighborhood experiences pandemics” Becker retains his criticality as a social scientist, using observations and personal narratives to humanise an inhuman and repressive situation. People around him become actors in the crisis especially to those who as more in need and his impressions give us a snapshot of the time. In his own words “Those of us who do social science to be ready to observe life around us” a legacy to all of us that social situations continuously challenge us to explore things differently. That is because “social life does the experiment for us”. One of his last lessons on “life goes on” is so important to the sociology of everyday life.
This paper may not have the significance of some of his earlier work but it is a testament of what a restless mind can produce. He was able to record a situation that in years, decades to come, people will write about it and its impact. Yet, despite his age, his writing remained fresh, current and relevant. In academic terms he was the eternal teenager. Solon of Athens once said “Γηράσκω αεί διδασκόμενος” “I grow old while always learning” projecting that the pursue of knowledge is continuous and lifelong. In Howard Becker this seemed to have been the case. Thank you for your company all those years in the libraries, the seminars, the essays that we read you, thought of your ideas and talk about them. Goodbye to the social scientist, the thinker, the philosopher, the person.
@manosdaskalou
Share this:
“Things you need to know about criminology”: A student perspective – Natalie Humphrey, 1st Year student
We are all living in very strange times, not sure when life will return to normal...but if you're thinking about studying criminology, here is some advice from those best placed to know!
The most important module to my understanding of criminology is: At the beginning of the year I believed the True Crime module to be the most important in understanding why crimes are caused. However, I quickly learned that these are not always the best source of information! The Science module is the basis of Criminology in the first year, laying down where it emerged, with Lombroso and Bertillon. I believe these figures are important to understand to grasp criminology.
The academic criminology book you must read:
The SAGE dictionary of Criminology has helped me with the basics of the subject. If there was something I became stuck on, this book would usually have an explanation for it. It also has examples which make it much easier to apply
The academic journal article you must read:
Attitudes towards the use of Racial/Ethical Profiling to Prevent Crime and Terrorism, by Johnson, D et al.(2011)
I came across this article when researching my Independant Project on racial stereotyping. It goes into the systematic racism that black people face and how disproportionate racism truly is. With more recently, the George Floyd case, this is still a very prominent article that is true to date
The criminology documentary you must watch:
I am a lover of many true crime documentaries and am always first to watch the new one that has been added to Netflix! The famous ones, such as Ted Bundy’s confession tapes, are fascinating to me, Bundy especially. However, there are many injustices that need to be addressed, not just the notorious serial killers. Jeffrey Epstein’s new documentary is very important in understanding sexual abuse that happened to over 200 underage girls. Athlete A also shows the sexual abuse of underage girls who were part of USA gymnastics.
The most important criminologist you must read:
Becker stood out to me this year as a very important figure. Understanding how young people are so heavily influenced by the labels people and society give, so much so it can shape their lives. Even older people can be easily labelled. This was quite surprising to me at the beginning of my studies.
Something criminological that fascinates me:
DNA and fingerprinting are fascinating to me. I find the science behind the discovery of what occurred at a crime scene and how they unpick it very interesting. This is definitely something I would like to study further.
The most surprising thing I know about criminology is:
It is a much wider subject than I first thought, it involves so much more than you could imagine. It questions everything in society.
The most important thing I've learnt from studying criminology is:
I have learned how unjust our criminal justice system is and how much, we as individuals, stereotype every person we meet. I’ve become more aware of this and have a better understanding of what needs to change.
The most pressing criminological problem facing society is:
Racism is a massive problem today. The racism black people face, especially in the US, is hard to understand as a white woman, but difficult to even contemplate people are treated in such ways. George Floyd, as I mentioned before, was killed because of his race. Problems like this would not happen to a white male, especially when his alleged crime was not violent. Young black men are labelled by the media to be seen as a thug and dangerous, causing many to be assumed of acts they just would not commit. Jane Elliott’s experiment on racism and eye colour from the 1970s is still a lesson that needs to be learned today!
When family and friends ask, I tell them criminology is:
Its more than it seems. Most just think it's about crime, which yes it is, but there is so much more to it. It is not one subject, it is so many put together. Science, psychology, sociology for example.
Share this:
“Things you need to know about criminology”: A student perspective – Mary Adams, recent Graduate and mature student.
We are all living in very strange times, not sure when life will return to normal...but if you're thinking about studying criminology, here is some advice from those best placed to know!
The most important module to my understanding of criminology is: I would have to say they are all equally important for understanding different aspects of Criminology. In first year I loved The Science of Crime which showed how things have evolved over time, and that what we now see as funny was actually cutting edge in its day. True Crime also makes you look beyond the sensational headlines and separate fact from fiction. In second year Crime & Justice gave a brilliant grounding in the inner workings, and failings, of the criminal justice system. And in third year, the Violence module explores personal and institutional violence, which is especially relevant in current times
The academic criminology book you must read: Becker’s Outsiders and Cohen’s Folk Devils and Moral Panics are a must. I also found Hopkins-Burke’s An Introduction to Criminological Theory and Newburn’s Criminology essential reading for first year as well as Finch & Fafinski’s Criminological Skills. For second year I recommend Davies, Croall & Tyrer’s Criminal Justice. If you choose the Violence module in third year you will be grateful for Curtin & Litke’s Institutional Violence. And don’t forget Foucault’s Discipline & Punish!
The academic journal article you must read:
There are so many excellent journal articles out there, it’s difficult to choose! Some of my favourites have been:
'Alphonse Bertillon & the measure of man' by Farebrother & Champkin;
'Bad Boys, Good Mothers & the ‘’Miracle’’ of Ritalin by Ilina Singh';
'Detainee Abuse & the Ethics of Psychology' by Kathryn French;
'Attachment, Masculinity & Self-control' by Hayslett-McCall & Bernard;
'Grenfell, Austerity & Institutional Violence' by Cooper & Whyte;
'The Phenomenology of Paid Killing' by Laurie Calhoun;
'A Utilitarian Argument Against Torture Interrogation of Terrorists' by J. Arrigo.
The criminology documentary you must watch:
Without a doubt, a must-see is the Panorama documentary London Tower Fire: Britain’s Shame. I would also highly recommend the movie The Stanford Prison Experiment
The most important criminologist you must read:
Of course you must read Lombroso, Beccaria & Bentham. I also enjoyed reading work by feminist criminologists like Pat Carlen, Carol Smart & Sandra Walklate. And of course, Angela Davis is a must!
Something criminological that fascinates me:
What fascinates me is how the powers that be, and a good proportion of the public, cannot seem to realise that social injustice is one of the major factors behind why people commit crime. And the fact that putting more & more people in prison is seen as a ‘good’ thing is mind-boggling!
The most surprising thing I know about criminology is:
The fact that it is such a diverse subject & incorporates so many other disciplines
The most important thing I've learnt from studying criminology is:
Question everything! Don’t take anything at face-value. Try to look beyond the attention grabbing headlines to find out the real story. Read, read, read!
The most pressing criminological problem facing society is:
Unfortunately I think there are many pressing problems facing society today, the main ones being social injustice & inequality, systemic racism, institutional violence, and mass incarceration
When family and friends ask, I tell them criminology is:
Some people joke that I’m learning how to be a criminal! Others think it’s all about locking people up! I tell them it’s all about looking at the mechanisms in-built in our society that disadvantage & discriminate against whole groups of people, and that, unless we are part of the rich & powerful elite, any one of us could find ourselves in the ‘out’ group at any time. I also tell them to stop reading The Daily Mail, vote Labour, and question everything!!
Share this:
“Things you need to know about criminology”: A student perspective – Bonnie Middleton (2017-2020)
We are all living in very strange times, not sure when life will return to normal...but if you're thinking about studying criminology, here is some advice from those best placed to know! The most important module to my understanding of criminology is: All of them! Every module contributes to your understanding of Criminology and all are different and enjoyable. Personally, my favourite module was Violence: From Domestic to Institutional in Year 3; this module ties together everything you know about Criminology; the reasons why we are subjective as criminologists and our ability to look beyond the scope of what we know. The academic criminology book you must read: Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance (1963) by Howard Becker. Albeit a dated book, its ideas are relevant and relate to many criminological such as; how and why criminals are labelled and stigmatised; why are the youth demonised; why people reject the norms and values of society and become criminals in doing so. The academic journal article you must read: This is a hard one. Articles are great for discovering new ideas and methodologically testing theories. I would recommend reading: Arrigo, J. (2004). A Utilitarian Argument Against Torture, Interrogation of Terrorists. Science and Engineering Ethics. 10(3), pp. 543-572. This article poses many questions for a criminologist which enlightens you to think subjectively and challenge your own views; which is what Criminology is all about. From reading this article you will learn to think critically when faced with a challenging dilemma; the rights of a terrorist and how can the law can be tailored to fit the crime. The criminology documentary you must watch: Where do I begin? Louis Theroux and Stacey Dooley are both great journalists and documentary makers. If I had to pick one, I would recommend watching the BBC’s documentary on Grenfell If you watch this documentary you must consider; the government’s response; who is accountable; why are the residents of Grenfell still in temporary accommodation. These are the sorts of questions you should be asking as someone studying Criminology. The most important criminologist you must read: Familiarise yourself with the ideas of Lombroso, this will aid your understanding on how criminological theory and ideas have developed overtime through biological, psychological and sociological standpoints. Something criminological that fascinates me: Domestic abuse. I had done my dissertation on this as I have a great interest in male dominance and power over women, especially in intimate relationships. Gender plays a key role in this which when examined in depth, will change your view on gender paradigms. The most surprising thing I know about criminology is: Criminality was believed by Lombroso to be inherited and that criminals possessed physical defects, criminality would be measured by the size and shape of particular body parts; this was later discredited. I can remember learning this in first year and it fascinated me. The most important thing I've learnt from studying criminology is: To not judge a book by its cover and to not take everything at face value. Do not be afraid to challenge other’s standpoints and beliefs. Thinking critically is the most important skill to have, search deeper into issues and apply your own thoughts and experiences. The most pressing criminological problem facing society is: Mass incarceration and reoffending rates. The UK is yet to move away from the ‘tough on crime’ approach favouring law and order and punishment. The penal system needs to be reformed to ensure offenders are rehabilitated to break the cycle of criminality; definitely educate yourself on political party’s manifesto’s and what they say about crime and justice before voting. When family and friends ask, I tell them criminology is: I tell family and friends that criminology is such a broad field of study; we look at law, psychology, science, sociology, politics, penal systems, criminal justice organisations, media and much more. From this, you attain the ability to think critically and reflect, it can help you in many situations not just criminological issues. It is an incredibly insightful and enlightening field to study; it opens up many opportunities.
Share this:
Ask the expert, if you can find one
It was around four years ago I discovered the title of ‘Doctor’ extended beyond medical staff. I’m not sure many people outside of the academic world fully understand or have any reason to know the order in which post nominal letters are awarded or titles are given. Gaining the title of ‘doctor’ at the very beginning of any academic journey, seems so distantly part of any future plan, its barely imaginable. Some career paths seem wildly ambitious. Wanting to be an ‘expert’ in your field for the humble student, feels much like aspiring to become an astronaut midway through a physics degree.
Once you enter the world of academia, the titles people hold seem to determine an awful lot of their credibility. It’s rare to find a university lecturer who isn’t working towards doctoral qualification, most already have one. The papers, books and research journals are filled with the knowledge of individuals who once were nothing more than students. I often wonder though, at what point someone becomes an expert? At what point, (if ever) do the most academically qualified individuals refer to themselves as experts within a narrow area of their field.
The government often talks about relying on ‘expert’ evidence. Watching the experts stand beside the PM discussing the current pandemic, they appear uneasy, particularly when questions are raised about a different expert having a contradicting opinion. One thing I feel quite sure of is that experts seem to rarely agree. As Bertrand Russell (1927/42) states, “even when all the experts agree, they may well be mistaken” . Maybe that’s because it’s questionable if anyone can ever truly know everything on a given subject area.
The scientific committee seems to be buzzing with accusations that the experts are not quite what they seem. The ‘data scientists’ advising government and sitting on SAGE are not all from a background which comfortably implies they are qualified to discuss virology or immunology. In the background lingers the fact with such a new virus, with so little known about it, expert knowledge in a narrow sense, is undoubtedly in its infancy and will probably require some degree of hindsight later on.
In the past week one of the UK’s leading experts has resigned from his job after breaking his own guidance. Meanwhile the public watched Matt Hancock ‘snap’ at an opposition MP in parliament. A woman who despite being no more of an ‘expert’ than himself, at least has experience as a qualified A&E doctor to base her opinions and views on. It seems last week’s experts and heroes are this week’s victims in the ongoing witch-hunt for someone to blame.
I’ve started to wonder if labelling someone an ‘expert’ is something other people do to install confidence that a piece of research being relied upon is credible, rather than the experts referring to themselves that way. There’s almost an assumption of arrogance for anyone who dares to protest that their knowledge should be recognised with a title, outside of the academic world anyway. Maybe people simply don’t understand what it took to reach that level of knowledge in the first place.
I’ve looked a lot at ‘labelling’ within the criminological context and it seems to me the labels that are attached to us, almost always seem to come from someone else. In an age of self-proclaimed ‘internet experts’ the real experts, it seems are hard to find.
Reference
Russell, Bertrand (1927/1942) cited in The Collected Papers of Bertrand Russell: A Fresh Look at Empiricism, 1927-42, edited by by John Slater and Assisted by Peter Köllner, (London: Routledge)
Share this:
Have you been radicalised? I have
On Tuesday 12 December 2018, I was asked in court if I had been radicalised. From the witness box I proudly answered in the affirmative. This was not the first time I had made such a public admission, but admittedly the first time in a courtroom. Sounds dramatic, but the setting was the Sessions House in Northampton and the context was a Crime and Punishment lecture. Nevertheless, such is the media and political furore around the terms radicalisation and radicalism, that to make such a statement, seems an inherently radical gesture.
So why when radicalism has such a bad press, would anyone admit to being radicalised? The answer lies in your interpretation, whether positive or negative, of what radicalisation means. The Oxford Dictionary (2018) defines radicalisation as ‘[t]he action or process of causing someone to adopt radical positions on political or social issues’. For me, such a definition is inherently positive, how else can we begin to tackle longstanding social issues, than with new and radical ways of thinking? What better place to enable radicalisation than the University? An environment where ideas can be discussed freely and openly, where there is no requirement to have “an elephant in the room”, where everything and anything can be brought to the table.
My understanding of radicalisation encompasses individuals as diverse as Edith Abbott, Margaret Atwood, Howard S. Becker, Fenner Brockway, Nils Christie, Angela Davis, Simone de Beauvoir, Paul Gilroy, Mona Hatoum, Stephen Hobhouse, Martin Luther King Jr, John Lennon, Primo Levi, Hermann Mannheim, George Orwell, Sylvia Pankhurst, Rosa Parks, Pablo Picasso, Bertrand Russell, Rebecca Solnit, Thomas Szasz, Oscar Wilde, Virginia Woolf, Benjamin Zephaniah, to name but a few. These individuals have touched my imagination because they have all challenged the status quo either through their writing, their art or their activism, thus paving the way for new ways of thinking, new ways of doing. But as I’ve argued before, in relation to civil rights leaders, these individuals are important, not because of who they are but the ideas they promulgated, the actions they took to bring to the world’s attention, injustice and inequality. Each in their own unique way has drawn attention to situations, places and people, which the vast majority have taken for granted as “normal”. But sharing their thoughts, we are all offered an opportunity to take advantage of their radical message and take it forward into our own everyday lived experience.
Without radical thought there can be no change. We just carry on, business as usual, wringing our hands whilst staring desperate social problems in the face. That’s not to suggest that all radical thoughts and actions are inherently good, instead the same rigorous critique needs to be deployed, as with every other idea. However rather than viewing radicalisation as fundamentally threatening and dangerous, each of us needs to take the time to read, listen and think about new ideas. Furthermore, we need to talk about these radical ideas with others, opening them up to scrutiny and enabling even more ideas to develop. If we want the world to change and become a fairer, more equal environment for all, we have to do things differently. If we cannot face thinking differently, we will always struggle to change the world.
For me, the philosopher Bertrand Russell sums it up best
Thought is subversive and revolutionary, destructive and terrible; thought is merciless to privilege, established institutions, and comfortable habits; thought is anarchic and lawless, indifferent to authority, careless of the well-tried wisdom of the ages. Thought looks into the pit of hell and is not afraid. It sees man, a feeble speck, surrounded by unfathomable depths of silence; yet it bears itself proudly, as unmoved as if it were lord of the universe. Thought is great and swift and free, the light of the world, and the chief glory of man (Russell, 1916, 2010: 106).
Reference List:
Russell, Bertrand, (1916a/2010), Why Men Fight, (Abingdon: Routledge)
Thoughts from the criminology team 