Secondary deviance is more permanent than primary deviance. At the same time, stuttering had an unusually high prevalence rate in the Inuit community. Lemert attributes this apparent contradiction to the prevalence of secondary deviance. Goffman (1963) also contributed to a seminal text for the study of secondary deviance with the publication of his book Stigma: Notes on the Management of a Spoiled Identity. This book examined the effects of stigma on people considered abnormal by society, whether because of their physical appearance, behavior, or sexuality. Primary deviance refers to actions that have not been publicly labeled and are therefore of little importance, while secondary deviance refers to deviance that is the result of the reaction of others that is significant. Lemert made another distinction between primary deviance and secondary deviance. Originally, there may not have been a respected group of “deviant” people, but we all move from deviant behavior[3] and a minority or individuals who begin actions that break the rules actually attract the attention of others. At this point, a person engages in secondary deviance and it is said that he begins to follow a more deviant path or career – would be a series of roles shaped by the reactions of others in different situations. His own identity is sensitive to all social judgments and criticisms, and once again we see the continuous interaction between mind, self and society.
[4] As Erving Goffman (1961, 1963) has shown, labeling an individual with a “discrediting” social attribute such as shyness can often serve as a permanent marker of his or her character. Primary deviance usually involves a relatively weak rule break. In fact, most people engage in acts of primal deviance. In contrast, secondary deviance usually involves a crime. Decriminalization, alternative models of conflict resolution, and deinstitutionalization are promising measures to prevent secondary deviance. The main criminal policy implication of labeling theories is that “law and order” and other intense and repressive forms of policing can have a paradoxical and unintended effect, i.e. lead to an increase rather than a decrease in crime rates. Instead of taking the definition of crime for granted, labeling theorists are interested in how certain acts are defined or characterized as criminal in the first place.
Red blood cells show the changes that are common in severe secondary anemia. Secondary deviance is triggered by reactions that follow primary deviance. The social reaction to deviant behaviour causes the deviant to be stigmatized. These social reactions include calling the dissident a criminal. However, this label contradicts the self-image of the designated person and is therefore not consistent with the role. To avoid the resulting cognitive dissonance, the individual eventually adopts the label “deviant” or “criminal” and adjusts their future behavior accordingly. In Becker`s formulation, the “master status” phase represents the final phase of secondary deviance, in which the subject`s self-identification as a deviant becomes his dominant conception of himself and prevails over any other notions of himself that he may possess. In this example, chronic stuttering (secondary deviance) is a reaction to parents` reaction to initial minor speech defects (primary deviance). Secondary deviance comes from the theory of deviance labeling, sometimes called social reaction theory. Secondary cyclone storms, as mentioned above, are called tornadoes. In his 1951 book Social Pathology, Lemert developed the concept of secondary deviance.
He developed this perspective later in his 1967 book Human deviance, social problems, and social control. Although Lemert himself preferred the concept of social reaction to labeling, Lemerst`s distinction between primary and secondary deviance is a crucial development in the formulation of labeling theory. At this point, a person who commits an act of deviance does not receive the “deviant” label of society, which does not cause a person to internalize a deviant identity. In addition, the influence of parents and peers is an important factor in primary deviance. Secondary deviance is a step in a theory of deviant identity formation. [1] Introduced in 1951 by Edwin Lemert, primary deviance is the first act of deviance, he later proposed that secondary deviance is the process of a deviant identity that integrates it into self-conceptions and eventually affects the individual in the long run. For example, if a gang that primarily exhibits deviant behavior, such as acts of violence, dishonesty, or substance abuse, subsequently moves on to legally deviant or criminal behavior such as murder, this would be the secondary deviance stage. Primary acts of deviance are common to all, but are rarely considered criminal acts. Secondary deviance is much more likely to be considered criminal in a social context. The act is likely to be labeled deviant and criminal, which can cause a person to internalize this label and act accordingly. [2] On the other side of the political spectrum, the approaches of Becker and Lemert are criticized because they assume the existence of primary deviance in the first place.
