Strain Theories and Labelling Theories: A Critical Examination through an Anti-Oppressive Lens PDF Free Download
1 / 21/21
100%
Critical Social Work
School of Social Work
University of Windsor
167 Ferry Street
Windsor, Ontario N9A 0C5
Email: cswedit@uwindsor.ca
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information can be found
at: https://ojs.scholarsportal.info/windsor/index.php/csw
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
76
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
Strain Theories and Labelling
Theories: A Critical Examination
through an Anti-Oppressive Lens
Critical Social Work 22(1)
Quan Huu Nguyen & Hieu Van Ngo
Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary
Author Note
We would like to thank Dan Wulff, Bruce McLaurin, Kathleen Sitter, Tam Truong Donnelly,
Yasmin Dean, and Ned Dean for their thoughtful support and feedback. We wish to thank
anonymous reviewers for their useful feedback. We also acknowledge Rosalia Falco for her
support.
We dedicate this publication to the memory of our wise, warm-hearted mentor, Mohammed
Nadhir (Ned) Dean, 1937-2020.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Quan Huu Nguyen, PhD
Candidate, Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary, 2500 University Dr. NW, Calgary
AB T2N 1N4. Phone: 1-587-834-1316. Email: quan.nguyen1@ucalgary.ca
Abstract
Informed by the intersectionality and social justice perspectives, this article examines two
prominent schools of thought in criminology, namely strain and labelling theories. Our analysis
reveals that strain and labelling theories have not adequately attended to social justice,
particularly systemic oppression, in their explanations of youth crime. We propose the use of
restorative justice as an alternative framework that may address the limitations of strain and
labelling theories.
Keywords: intersectionality, social justice, strain theories, labelling theories, restorative
justice, social work
77
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
Strain and labelling theories have been recognized as prominent schools of thought in
criminology. According to strain theories, when individuals experience personal and institutional
strains caused by dissatisfaction, particularly in achieving their desired life goals, they can
commit crime. The classical perspectives, led by several prominent American scholars including
Robert K. Merton, Albert. K. Cohen, Richard Cloward, and Lloyd Ohlin contend that deviance
may occur when an individual’s culturally determined aspirations for monetary success and the
opportunity to achieve them are unmet (Pals, 2015). The contemporary perspectives, championed
by such scholars as Steven F. Messner, Richard Rosenfeld, and Robert Agnew, tend to focus on
the macro-structural arrangements and extend their analyses to interactions between individual
behaviours and various sources of strain in society (Lily et al., 2015). Labelling theories, on the
other hand, have advanced the argument that when young people are involved in criminal
activities, they have often been labelled for their delinquent acts and subsequently treated
negatively by the public (Anderson & Dyson, 2002). Labelling theorists contend that youths who
have been labelled as juvenile delinquents or criminals continue to engage in unlawful activities
in response to prejudicial attitudes and discriminatory treatments from members of the public
(Lily et al., 2015).
While scholars from these two schools of thought dismiss the notion of born criminals
and view criminal involvement of individuals in specific societal contexts, they have primarily
avoided questioning the status quo in social arrangements. They have often overlooked systemic
oppression against norm-breaking young people. Our proposed use of the anti-oppressive lens,
with explicit attention to the principles of social justice and intersectional analysis, aims to
identify shortcomings in strain and labelling theories and extend their theoretical and practical
relevance in addressing criminal involvement among young people with intersecting social
identities and related life experience.
Locating the Lens of Intersectionality and Social Justice
An anti-oppressive lens attends to power analysis and considers cultural, social, economic, and
political contexts when examining oppression and injustice in society. The approach is grounded
in critical perspectives such as feminism, Marxism, and anti-colonial approaches (Baines, 2011;
Mullaly & West, 2018). Social workers who use this anti-oppressive lens scrutinize systems of
oppression in which vulnerable and marginalized groups are disadvantaged within societal
structures. They view oppression as the manifestation of dominant-subordinate relations, created
and reinforced by the amalgamation of social, political, cultural and economic structures, on the
basis of race, age, class, ethnicity, religious beliefs, and other social categories (Carastathis,
2014; Collins, 2015; Crenshaw, 1991; Ngo, 2008). Furthermore, the perspectives of
intersectionality and social justice consider the nature of oppression as plural, complex, and
socially constructed since such categories cannot be considered separately. Oppressions are
additive and fundamentally contribute equally in the process of impacting individual lived
experiences and social practices (Mattsson, 2014; McCall, 2005; Miller, 2018; Mullaly & West,
2018). This means that such realities are shaped by the interactions between systems of
oppression and magnify each other (Morgaine & Capous-Desyllas, 2015). The systems of
oppression contribute to establishing an individual’s multiple social identities and social
locations. This represents the image of oppressors and oppressed groups in a stratified society of
power, privilege, and oppression (Carastathis, 2014; Dominelli & Campling, 2002). The
transformative assumptions of intersectionality and social justice aim to critique the social
78
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
structural arrangements that bind marginalized and vulnerable groups through the interplay of
power and privilege, pursuing transformation for a more just society (Krumer-Nevo & Komem,
2015; Ramsay, 2014).
The lens of both intersectionality and social justice is essential when we examine
inequalities among people of diverse, intersecting social locations. They inform critical
examination of unfair distribution/redistribution of material and social goods (distributive
justice), and people’s access to decision-making processes, particularly in resource allocation
(procedural justice (Deustch, 2006; Morris, 2002; Nussbaum, 2002; Rawls, 1999). The
perspectives further put forward the notion of recognitive justice that emphasizes the recognition
of rights and human dignity of marginalized groups in the public sphere (Fraser & Honneth,
2003; Morgaine & Capous-Desyllas, 2015). Together, these critical dimensions of social justice
help identify, interrogate, and propose structural solutions for social inequalities and inequities,
which have been created by the oppressive relations and power imbalance between dominant and
subordinate groups in society-based race, sex, gender, or other social identities (Deustch, 2006).
Examining Strain Theories and Labeling Theories through the Lens of Intersectionality
and Social Justice
Strain Theories
Classical Strain Theories
Emile Durkheim, a leading French sociologist, studied the effect of anomie in Europe in the late
19th century and introduced an early version of strain theory. Anomie refers to a situation in
which conventional cultural norms break down due to modernization, urbanization, and
industrialization (Durkheim, 1951). According to DiCristina (2016), classical strain theories
postulated that changes in society could lead to the disorganization of societal structures and that
when economic institutions do not function, other institutions, such as family or educational
systems, are affected. Certain individuals, feeling disoriented during this time of change, do not
identify with societal norms and thus disobey social regulations and are more willing to be
involved in criminal activities (Anderson & Dyson, 2002).
Merton’s Strain Theory. Expanding on Durkheim’s observations of the effects of
anomie, Robert K. Merton, an American sociologist, examined the dynamics involved in and the
impact of rapid social changes, such as urbanization, mass immigration and industrialization in
American society in the early part of the 20th century (Lilly et al., 2015). Merton (1938, 1968)
explained deviance using psychological and structural facets. He proposed that achieving the
goal of an American Dream–living an affluent and luxurious life–was an individuals’ priority.
They may even commit crimes when they do not have access to resources to achieve this goal
(Merton, 1938, 1968). The author offered mechanisms to illustrate how an individual adapts to
the gap between goals and resources which includes: conformity, innovation, ritualism,
retreatism and rebellion. While conformity involves an individual’s acceptance of social
structures and their best efforts for achievement despite limited means and resources, innovation
explains an individual’s attempts to achieve the cultural norms for success, including the use of
illegal means (Merton, 1938, 1968). He then asserted that while rebellion involves working
against social norms and expectations, retreatism is the withdrawal of individuals from the
current social reality through substance abuse behaviours. Finally, he articulated that ritualism
79
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
highlights the common practice of going through the motions of daily life without regard for the
current social norms (Merton, 1938, 1968).
From the social justice perspective, classical strain theorists did not consider differential
opportunities among individuals in accessing resources as social injustice. For example, Murphy
and Robinson (2008) describe American society in the 1930s as stratified on the basis of race,
ethnicity and birthplace. However, in his study, Merton did not investigate how resources were
distributed among individuals belonging to diverse social categories. He simply assumed that the
middle and elite classes were entitled to the privilege of controlling means and resources in
society. Consequently, there was no attempt to deconstruct how those individuals occupying
positions of privilege or domination might have wielded power and resources at the expense of
those who were in subordinate positions in an unjust society. The assumption that individuals
will achieve their desired goals if they work hard does not always work in a socially stratified
society (Ngo, 2008).
In terms of procedural justice, classical strain theories did not advocate for the right of
citizens to participate in making decisions about the distribution of social goods. In intergroup
relations, those in positions of power and privilege, not always those who are hardworking,
dictate where and how to allocate resources that further reinforce or advance their own social
status (Pastrana, 2010). They can use tactics such as discrimination and exclusion to prevent
those belonging to subordinate groups from asserting influence in resource distribution or
redistribution. Furthermore, classical strain theories did not question structural inequities that
allow and perpetuate differential access of citizens to legal and economic resources. As
Anderson and Dyson (2002) pointed out, Merton was not critical in examining the role of
government in addressing social strains, but simply considered inequality as a cause of strain that
can result in individual rage or anger. In other words, disadvantaged individuals, no matter how
frustrated they are with social conditions and arrangements, were thought to have no right to
influence changes in societal structures and should simply follow those arrangements.
In addition, without examining these societal changes with the perspective of
intersectionality, the issues of multiple locations and social identities that create oppression
among social classes were ignored in Merton’s strain theory. As indicated, although the
stratifications of social structure into different classes (including elite, middle, working, and
lower classes) based on race, ethnicity, or birthplace were acknowledged, the imbalance in power
relations among classes based on these social categories was not further investigated. To
recognize this issue, the lens of intersectionality further requires a systematic examination of the
dynamics of power, privilege, oppression, and social locations, which are revealed through an
understanding of multiple identities occupied by individuals (Almeida et al. 2019; Hernández &
McDowell, 2010). It also requires an emphasis on the social relations involved in the process of
the uneven distribution of power among various social groups in order to understand the
intersection of privilege and oppression, resulting in multiple social identities that individuals
located in their social circumstances (Hernández & McDowell, 2010). Also, it is critical to
understand the process such social signifiers trigger with respect to various social inequalities
and injustice, which in turn affect multiple dimensions of an individual’s life as well as a
community (Hernández & McDowell, 2010). Therefore, the lens of intersectionality rejects a
fixed, determined way of perceiving a social structure and its stratification, as in Merton’s strain
perspective. Moreover, it allows for an open perception of multiple social identities that can be
80
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
acknowledged in order to examine intersectional social realities experienced by individuals, and
it interacts with broader social structures.
Subculture Theories. In light of Merton’s analytic gap, other scholars, including Albert
Cohen and Richard Cloward, attempted to address structural issues in social strains. Cohen
(1955), for instance, brought class analysis to his examination of criminal subcultures. According
to his middle class measuring rod theory, young people from a lower class often struggle to
achieve success in an educational system dominated by elite and middle class values; they thus
experience rejection and feel inferior (Cohen, 1955). They, along with other rejected lower-class
individuals, could form criminal subcultures in order to give meaning to their lives (Cohen,
1955).
Similarly, Cloward and Ohlin (1960) further elaborated on the concept of differential
opportunity, which explained that crime does not randomly occur across areas and that the
environment individuals grow up in would influence their chances for monetary success. They
illustrated the three paths that individuals who lived with limited opportunities would likely
pursue to experience success: 1) turn to crime in a neighbourhood that is stable and in which
opportunity for crime exists; 2) resort to conflict in socially disorganized areas to establish
dominance; 3) retreat or “drop-out” of society, seeking to gain status through separatist
subculture (Cloward & Ohlin, 1960).
If we consider this through the lens of intersectionality and social justice, although Cohen
(1955) and Cloward and Ohlin (1960) considered class differentials in their analyses, they simply
acknowledged the class divide as a fixed structure. They neither engaged in power analysis nor
suggested the need to eradicate power inequities in order to address the root causes of crime. The
issues of class struggle, and social stressors which motivate individuals to violate certain class-
biased norms, was not analysed. Their analysis failed to explain social inequalities in a
hierarchically stratified society (Onder, 2010; Strier, 2009). Although they acknowledge the
existence of power in creating the dynamic of systemic social relations in terms of inequality,
discrimination or exclusion is ignored (Wright, 2005).
Moreover, their analyses do not take into consideration the intersectionality of class, race,
gender, ethnicity, immigration and so forth, and its relationship to differential access to privilege
and power among social groups (Morgaine & Capous-Desylla, 2015). Therefore, they simplified
or ignored the impact of oppressive relations among these social classes. When examining
systemic oppression, the impact of interactions between these social categories cannot be
distinguished separately among classes. Therefore, thecomplexity of oppressive experiences for
members of vulnerable groups is not reduced (Carastathis, 2014). As Miller (2018) articulated,
separating an individual’s oppressive experiences (micro-level) and the dynamic of a system of
power and privilege (macro-level) is not possible in the intersectionality perspective since it not
only examines all of the multiple identities and the intersections experienced by individuals but
also considers connections to broader social structures with corresponding policies and practices,
which in turn shape their identities. This argument is also backed up by Crenshaw and other
feminist scholars in their article discussing the focus of intersectional research: “…This framing–
conceiving categories not as distinct but as always permeated by other categories, fluid and
changing, always in the process of creating and being created by dynamic power…” (Cho et al.,
2013, p. 795).
81
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
Instead, classical strain theorists promoted the capitalistic and class-biased view that
monetary success is the absolute life purpose of individuals in society (Merton, 1938, 1968).
This leads to the assumption that social norms and values held by the dominant elite and middle
class are acceptable. Individuals who do not belong to the middle or upper class are expected to
unconditionally subscribe to these values and obey these norms. Such a biased view reinforced
the status quo and denied the legitimacy of any form of social disruption (Breen, 2005). It
strengthened a perception that crime only occurs among members of the lower class; therefore, it
failed to examine criminal involvement among middle- or upper-class members (Anderson &
Dyson, 2002). These assumptions reinforce the politics of difference, and therefore reinforce
systemic oppression at the personal, structural, and cultural levels (Mullaly & West, 2018).
Classical strain theories generally do not discuss any requirements for structural changes
in society. They adhere to the functionalist orientation, which accepts social conditions and the
existence of a class divide as necessary for the promotion of social stability and consensus, and
strongly advocates individual functions and adaption (Baines, 2011; Poulter, 2005). There is no
critique of the social injustices against non-dominant groups; in particular, their lack of access to
resources and their lack of participation in the decision-making processes that influence resource
distribution (Mullaly, 2007). The assumption that access to material and financial goods is
dependent on an individual’s capacities overlooks the collective experiences of
disenfranchisement facing diverse groups based on race, ethnicity, immigration, gender, and
other social categories (Mullaly & West, 2018).
To sum up, classical strain theories are incongruent with the perspective of
intersectionality and social justice. Although scholars in the classical school of thought
recognized the class divide, their analyses failed to examine inequalities in the abilities of
individuals to have access to resources, particularly based on their membership in social groups.
Their class-biased, functionalist orientation primarily assigned blame to those in the lower class
for their incapacity to achieve monetary success and ignored criminal involvement among those
in the middle or upper class. Moreover, the nature of stressors as a consequence of oppressive
relations among social groups is completely disregarded.
Contemporary Strain Theories
Despite their prominence in criminology in the 1950s and 1960s, classical strain theories were
heavily critiqued in the 1970s, particularly for their attention to structural issues. The 1980s
witnessed the revival of strain theories, notably institutional-anomie theory and general strain
theory.
Institutional-Anomie Theory. Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld developed
institutional-anomie theory (IAT) in 1994 (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2007). While their theories
drew heavily from Merton’s strain theory, Messner and Rosenfeld incorporated a
macro-structural perspective. The analysis of social structures was extended beyond social class,
and they examined: 1) the system of institutions, such as the economy, education and the family;
2) the institutional norms that regulate behaviours; and 3) the interplay and functions of
institutional norms, and their influences on the functioning of individuals (Messner et al., 2008).
They argued that the cultural values embedded in the notion of the American Dream
(such as an emphasis on individual achievement, individualism, universalism, and aspiration for
82
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
monetary success) make the economic institution dominant in relation to other institutions,
weaken social control functions in other non-economic institutions, and give rise to an egoistic
form of individualism (rather than the moral and cooperative form) that is conducive to criminal
involvement (Messner & Rosenfeld, 2007). With a macro-level perspective on the social
determinant of crime, they predicted how specific configurations of social institutions and the
accompanying value orientations might create a social environment that is conducive to criminal
behaviour. They linked high levels of criminal violence to an interplay between economic
dominance in the institutional balance of power and the deterioration of individualism (Messner
et al., 2008). As we can see, IAT focuses on the interplay between social institutions and its
impact on individual behaviours. At first glance, it is a potential breakthrough in examining
structural injustice. However, the focus on interactions between institutions is not the same as the
focus on interactions between members of diverse social groups and how they have shaped
dominant institutions. While IAT draws attention to the dominance of the economic institution
and its embedded values, it does not question how each institution–whether it be the economy,
politics or education–has been established and maintained, particularly in the context of
intergroup relations.
The existence of dominant-subordinate relationships on the basis of social categories,
such as race, class, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or level of education, and relationships
within the dominant groups reinforce their privilege and control in all institutions (Mullaly &
West, 2018). In this regard, IAT points out the dominance of capitalistic values reflected in the
dominance of the economic institution, but fails to expose power differentials and related
dominant-subordinate relationships among individuals of diverse social locations. Specific
experiences facing racial minorities in many countries, including the US and Canada, are often
neglected in the analyses of crime using the IAT (Ngo el al., 2015).
Although IAT provides an analysis of social institutions, its acceptance of predetermined
social structures reinforces the notion that they are necessary for a stable, consensual society,
which concurs with the functionalist orientation (Poulter, 2005). IAT is critical of the dominance
of the economic institution, yet it still assigns blame to individuals who are perceived to fail to
meet the expectations identified with it. Breaking the law is thus associated with personal
failures to honour collective moral norms. In intergroup relations, this biased view would not
even consider an individual questioning or resisting dominant norms.
Without the foundations of intersectionality and social justice, IAT also fails to address
the issue of structural oppressions against vulnerable groups that create stressors. These
structural oppressions reveal the inequalities disadvantaged groups face due to their multiple
social identities (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). As a result, this leads to inequalities in political
orientations and practices toward different social groups, as well as inequalities when
marginalized groups are discriminated against and are not heard (Crenshaw, 1991; Verloo,
2006). In this way, a specific group is privileged to access resources due to their social locations
and is thereby in a position to exercise power over other groups (Tew, 2002). Resources help
them to retain legitimacy in their dominant position and therefore impose an on-going process of
oppression over the powerless (Fook, 2016). If we consider the negative influence of media as an
example, when social insinuations are dominated and manipulated by powerful groups, they
continue to reinforce their privilege through the distorted image of oppressive experiences or by
83
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
reflecting a negative impression of vulnerable groups in cultural imagery, mainly through mass
media and public perception (Crenshaw, 1991).
Agnew’s General Strain Theory. In contrast to the macro-structural approach that is
evident in IAT, Robert Agnew (1992) continued to focus on individual behaviours but expanded
on the sources of strain in society. In his general strain theory (GST), Agnew (1992) argued that
strains or stressors increase the likelihood of negative emotions, such as anger and frustration,
and that these emotions could create pressure to alleviate the strain, and crime is one possible
response. He characterized three main categories of strains: 1) strains as goal blockages that
prevent individuals from achieving positively valued goals; 2) strains as the removal of
positively valued stimuli from individuals, such as the loss of a close friend or end of a
relationship; and 3) strains as the presence of negative stimuli such as child abuse and neglect.
Crime, in this context, could be a method for correcting a situation, for protecting or retrieving
positive stimuli, for neutralizing negative stimuli or as a reaction to the inability to achieve,
protect or retrieve positively valued goals (Agnew, 2001; Pals, 2015).
Agnew (2001) further clarified that strains could be objective or subjective. Whereas
objective strains involve events or conditions that are disliked by most individuals (such as lack
of adequate food and shelter), subjective strains refer to events and conditions that are disliked
by the person who has or is experiencing them. He pointed out that an individual’s emotional
response to events or conditions is closely linked to subjective strains and that the same
subjective strain may result in rather different emotional reactions for different individuals.
Agnew (1992) argued that stressful events and conditions do not always lead to crime and that
whether they result in crime depends on an individual’s lack of skills and resources to cope with
strains in an appropriate manner. Given the focus on an individual’s ability to behave
appropriately in response to life stressors, regardless of the social structures that are assumed to
provide a stable, consensual society, GST aligns with the functionalist orientation (Poulter,
2005).
In terms of social justice, Agnew did not attempt to contextualize an individual’s
capacities and access to resources in collective group experiences. The emphasis of GST on an
individual’s response to strains has undermined the need for a critical examination of stressors in
the dominant-subordinate relations among social groups. Social strains, through the
intersectionality and social justice lens, can be either oppressive and/or a negative impact of
systemic oppression. When a society is stratified on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, class,
and other social categories, powerful groups can establish unjust structures which not only fortify
or advance their privilege but also exploit members of a subordinate group. Through various
oppressive mechanisms, including systemic violence, they can encourage stressful events and
conditions that block members from subordinate groups from their aspired goals (Barata et al.,
2013). They can create negative feelings among members of a disadvantaged social group–not
due to personal frustration with the incapacity to adapt, but due to the resentment of a social
injustice. For example, without acknowledging and challenging dominant-subordinate relations
among social groups and their role in creating strains, solutions for the disproportionate
representation of racial minorities in the justice system could easily be limited to individual
reform in specific ethnic communities, and ignore confronting the structural barriers that have
prevented racial minorities from accessing resources to achieve life success (Ngo et al., 2015;
Shade et al. 2011; Shannon & Hess, 2019).
84
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
Labelling Theories
Social Tagging and Its Typology of Deviance
Tannenbaum (1938) and Lemert (1951) provided the foundational themes of this approach. From
their observations of the treatment of deviant youth, these two scholars explain how the process
of labelling occurs for youth through the concept of social tagging and suggest the mechanism
that leads them to recommit crime.
Frank Tannenbaum, in his book Crime and Community published in 1938, observed
attention to interactions between the community and youth when they engaged in delinquent acts
that violated community standards. He indicated that when youth committed delinquent
activities, the community would tag them as delinquent, and they would consequently receive
adverse treatment (Tannenbaum, 1938). The delinquent tag would impact their self-identity and
act as a catalyst, driving the youth to recommit criminal activities (Tannenbaum, 1938). To
illustrate the phenomenon, he coined the term “dramatization of evil” to describe the process of
marginalizing youth offenders. He explained the process of making a criminal as “… a process
of tagging, defining, identifying, segregating, emphasizing, making conscious and self-
conscious; it becomes a way of stimulating, suggesting, emphasizing, and evoking the very traits
that are complained of...” (Tannenbaum, 1938, pp.19-20). At this time, Tannenbaum (1938)
argued that the delinquent labels or the tags given by society to youth offenders did not intend to
change their self-image and self-concept. The label should serve as society’s response to the
activities but not to the delinquent youths themselves. However, if the youth’s self-concept and
self-identity are weak, they would likely recommit criminal activities (Anderson & Dyson,
2002).
While Tannenbaum provided a foundation for the labelling process, Edwin Lemert
(1951), an American sociologist, further offered his explanations for the mechanism of deviant
activities in such a process, which includes primary and secondary deviance. According to the
author, when committing the initial acts of offence, referred to as primary deviance, youth do not
self-identify as offenders; instead, they try to rationalize criminal activities (Lemert, 1951). At
this stage, the labelling process occurs and starts affecting individuals. As such, the label would
not have an important effect on their self-identity and self-concept. However, if the youth’s self-
identity and self-concept are weak, this will lead to their response in the second stage, referred to
as secondary deviance. The more negatively intensified societal reactions the youth offender is
exposed to, the more they re-engage the first offences, which fit the delinquent labels given by
community and society (Lemert, 1951).
The labelling theories developed by Tannenbaum and Lemert focused on explaining the
consequences of the labelling process rather than the context within which deviant activities
occur (Anderson & Dyson, 2002). They both agree that there is a significant possibility that
labelled youth recommit crime if their self-identifications are weak (Lemert, 1951; Tannenbaum,
1938). Examining this from the lens of intersectionality and social justice, these assumptions
have significantly simplified the interactions of individuals who have committed crimes with
social structural arrangements and therefore illustrate noteworthy incongruencies.
Initially, although the two authors could have potentially provided an examination based
on age, they considered age a non-critical factor in their analyses. However, age discrimination is
85
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
critical when examining systemic oppression where the process of labelling impacts
disadvantaged youth (Mullaly & West, 2018). The oppressive relations between labelled youth
and dominant groups had not been examined as sources of marginalization and exclusion by
Lemert and Tannenbaum. Therefore, this process could create devastatingly oppressive situations
that trigger the sequencing process of recidivism for labelled youth after experiencing
discrimination, punishment, and negative attitudes from adults and the community. In their
analyses, these kinds of oppression were not recognized as a source which forces youth to
recommit crimes that fit the labels. Instead, the youth’s weak self-determination is considered to
motivate their deviant actions. In other words, labelled youth themselves were responsible for
their behaviours (Kenney, 2002; Miller, 1996).
Labelling theory is simplistic when explaining the process of recidivism, and thus ignores
the complexity and diversity of oppressions that labelled youth would have to face. It reinforces
the dominant power of social structures that encourage the negative attitudes of the public (i.e.,
the conventional norms of community standards). Leaning toward the functionalist orientation
(Poulter, 2005), this analysis monopolized the power of social structures that force youth to fall
into the process of re-engaging in criminal activities. Therefore, the oppressive experiences
delinquent youths perceived from multiple sources were neglected. Due to this omission, the
work of Tannenbaum (1938) and Lemert (1951) failed to address the impacts of discrimination
and marginalization, which youth have to tackle when they are labelled after their primary
deviance. Judgement and negative discourse associated with the label can influence a youth’s
conduct in order to deal with its consequences. In transitioning to adulthood, negative labels will
trigger social exclusion and stigmatization (Asencio & Burke, 2011; Baron, 2017; Hadjimatheou,
2016).
With respect to social justice, labelling theories reinforce both distributive injustice and
cognitive injustice. According to Rawls (1999), social justice refers to the fairness in the
distribution of social goods, which include material and non-material resources. This process is
ensured by two leading principles of incorporating distributive social justice into societal
structures. The first principle is that individuals have equal rights to access social resources in a
liberal society; the second principle is that their governments guarantee these rights, and it is
necessary to consider the backgrounds of individuals in determining fairness and equality
(Rawls, 1999). In such a context, labelling theory ignores the negative impacts of social
structures around labelled youth that challenge their ability to access different resources and
support in the community. The limitations lead to a situation of blocked opportunities, reinforce
stigmatization, and fortify discrimination, which encourages recidivism. In other words, they
have limited access to support, services, or capital resources to develop their well-being and
capabilities. In addition, labelling theories do not critique the roles of social structure (e.g.,
community) in terms of protection of a youth’s right to access social goods (Deutsch, 2006;
Morris, 2002; Nussbaum; 2002).
Outsiders and Deviant Careers
Building upon earlier works, Howard Becker (1963) further elaborated on the process of
labelling in his book Outsider: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance published in 1963. Bringing
power differential into the analysis, Becker specified the process of labelling through the image
of outsiders, who were considered deviants for breaking the rules enacted by the dominant
groups and used the term deviant careers to predict how individuals engage in crimes (Becker,
86
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
1963). According to Becker (1963), there were several steps in the process, including (1)
committing nonconforming acts, (2) an individuals’ experiences of being caught and labelled a
deviant, and (3) subscribing to a different organized group.
When youth commit nonconforming acts that lead to violating regulations, the violations
are either unintended or intended (Becker, 1963). While unintended acts (such as when there was
a lack of awareness of the existence of regulations) did not lead to committing further acts of
greater deviance, intended nonconformity concerned individuals who confronted conventional
norms to achieve their aspirations, motivating them to commit more deviant acts (Becker, 1963).
In addition, when facing difficulties in achieving these aspirations, they are driven to engage and
maintain a longer pattern of intentional acts. Consequently, labelling encourages the different
motivations and rationalization of their acts (Becker, 1963). The author then contended that
being caught and considered as deviants are significant steps in the process of labelling, and this
is a two-way impact process (Becker, 1963). He pointed out that when intentional deviant acts
received judgements from society, the public would have the power to impose a newly negative
self-identity on the lawbreakers and treat them in a similar way. This explains why offenders
would act as the public expected (Becker, 1963). Finally, the subscription to organized deviant
groups implies that people who are labelled seek others with shared experiences, values, position
and a justification to deal with their discrimination in society, forming a subculture that provides
a safe place in which to rationalize their activities (Becker, 1963).
When examined through the lens of intersectionality and social justice, Becker’s work
initially analyzes the power differential when explaining the concept of an outsider as he
develops the foundations of dominant rules that make individuals commit criminal activities.
Becker acknowledged the power differential in a structurally stratified society of social class,
age, sex, ethnicity, race, citizenship, immigrant status, occupation and cultural foundations in the
context of the US. These social categories create differences in perceived values and norms that
impact on individuals in different social groups. The members of each group come to a common
agreement about the concept of deviance and regulations for unlawful activities. He contended
that dominant norms and values would be decided and enacted by social groups who are
economically and politically dominant in social structures (Becker, 1963).
However, as various scholars of his time, Becker’s analysis accepted the existence of
such arranged social stratifications with its dominance of economic and political relations over
other social relations. Although involving power differential in the analysis, Becker’s labelling
perspective illustrated incongruencies when considered through the lens of intersectionality and
social justice. The first reason is that he accepts the power differential as a non-critical part of
social life; the dominations based on the differential are not considered as sources of oppression.
This perception reinforces the situation where disadvantaged people must accept the economic
and political power relation that exists in society, and obey the regulations controlled by the
economic and political groups. Therefore, his analysis failed to examine how particular
economic and political relationships created oppression and inequalities, not only in terms of
economic and political aspects but also how the dominance affected different social categories.
Becker’s perception of labelling continued to reinforce the privilege of dominant groups
with the goal of maintaining their dominating position. This further advocated the class bias that
powerful groups are entitled to create a criminal label for those who belong to disadvantaged
social identities. Moreover, the proposition reinforces the politics of difference to create systemic
87
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
oppression, which further diminishes vulnerable groups by promoting the assumptions that youth
in oppressed groups should be labelled (Fook, 2016; Mullaly & West, 2018). Becker’s analysis
did not consider that diversity among social categories could create oppression. According to
Mullaly and West (2018), the concept of the politics of difference had a profound effect on
creating oppression since it was being used as justification to reinforce and strengthen the
privileges of the dominant group. In labelling theory, this promotes the discrimination and
negative labels against socially disadvantaged members.
Notably, Becker’s power differential analysis did not successfully address the complexity
of oppression created by intergroup dominant-subordinate relationships when accepting the
dominance in intergroup social relationships as a non-critical dimension. These intergroup
oppressions were only considered individually when each category requires examination. Even
within powerful dominant groups in society, there are multiple social identities within its
membership that create oppressions (Carastathis, 2014; Mattsson, 2014; McCall, 2005).
The aspect of complexity in power differentials, which creates systemic oppression,
requires we accept the overlap from multiple social categories that trigger oppressions (Hulko,
2009). This can be perceived through useful approaches/principles that consider the complexity
of intersectionality: anti-categorical complexity, inter-categorical complexity, and intra-
categorical complexity (McCall, 2005). On the one hand, anti-categorical complexity requires
deconstructing analytical categories, which create oppressions from sources that are diverse
(McCall, 2005). On the other hand, inter-categorical complexity requires the adoption of existing
analytical categories producing oppression in order to examine its dynamic among vulnerable
groups. Intra-categorical complexity focuses on categories of the process that create inequalities
within social groups. This means that when examining the system of oppression, it is essential to
not only unpack traditional perspectives that impact social categories but also use the perceived
classifications to determine the dynamics of establishing such oppressions among and within the
social groups.
In addition, the power differential can be further analyzed when emphasizing three more
aspects of oppression, including simultaneity, irreducibility, and inclusivity (Carastathis, 2014).
Simultaneity suggests that the experiences of oppression are simultaneous since the individual
lives in a convergence, co-constitution, imbrication or interwovenness of a systems’ oppression
(Hulko, 2009). This means that all of the oppressions are multiple and interlinked through
interactions with various social structures that determine individual social locations (Carastathis,
2014). As a result of simultaneity and complexity, irreducibility rejects singular foundations
when examining oppressions because its causalities are multiple. Inclusivity then makes an
essential attribution to significant corrective actions against the dominant power in construction,
fostering political solidarity (Carastathis, 2014).
Restorative Justice as an Alternative to Conventional Retributive Justice
Our critical examination of the limitations of strain and labelling perspectives points to the need
to extend criminal justice systems beyond a retributive orientation. As McCold and Wachtel
(2003) pointed out, the punitive approach has asserted high control, provided low support and
perpetuated blaming, shaming, and retribution. Indeed, existing criminal justice systems have
predominantly simplified crime responses through punishment by either incarceration or
rehabilitation (Choi et al., 2011). As discussed above, a focus on stressor factors or
88
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
stigmatization would be insufficient in explaining and finding solutions to address crime.
Punitive approaches would not support offenders to become productive citizens once they return
to their communities (Svensson, 2003). Restorative justice would offer an alternative justice
system that commits to intersectional analyses and social justice driven solutions.
Restorative justice emerged in the early 1960s as both academic and social movements
(Maglione, 2019; McCold & Wachtel, 2003). Early advocates of restorative justice challenged
the conventional approach to criminal justice with disproportionate emphases on punishment,
retribution, negative labeling, blaming, and shaming (Braithwaite, 2002; Gavrielides, 2014). In
subsequent decades, restorative justice has grown into a social movement that seeks solutions to
underlying inequalities and inequities in criminal offending as well as responses to crimes
(Braithwaite, 2002; Daly, 2016). Indeed, proponents of restorative justice have challenged the
oppressive state structures and functions, particularly their inhuman reliance on prisons and
related punitive correctional measures (Braithwaite, 2002).
With respect to the social construction of crime, champions of the restorative justice
approach would not simply rely on the pre-determined justice structures to determine criminal
offences. In considering criminal conduct, they would attend to the personal, social, political and
economic contexts, the perspectives of impacted community members and the harms to
relationships among relevant stakeholders (Ward et al., 2015). According to their views,
solutions to crime do not lie in reinforcement of punitive law and othering. Rather, they can be
achieved through engaging victims, offenders, and supporters in extending community dialogues
about harms and harm reparation, supporting both victims and offenders to experience healing,
and mobilizing diverse community members to confront and to address societal inequalities and
inequities (Leonard & Kenny, 2010; Pfander, 2020; Ward et al. 2015). Maglione (2019) noted
that restorative justice promotes a democratic process that engages diverse community
stakeholders in critical reflection on the historical, social, economic, and political realities of
crime, and in collective action to confront and to address injustices.
It is important to point out that while the restorative justice approach is critical of the
existing structural arrangement, it also attends to existential wellbeing and interpersonal
interactions among community members. Criminal behaviours can embody internalized
oppression through socialization and externalize its negative impacts onto other community
members. Proponents of restorative justice, therefore, support offenders to develop critical
consciousness and provide mediation between victims and offenders in order to repair and to
rebuild their relationships through forgiveness, reconciliation and integration (Chartlot et al.,
2008; Payne & Welch, 2015; Witvlie et al. 2008).
With a strong grounding in the recognitive, procedural and distributive social justices,
restorative justice can address the theoretical and practical gaps in the strain and labelling
perspectives. Its recognition of the construction of crime could help deconstruct inequitable
social, political, and economic realities facing marginalized community members. Its
commitment to intersectional analyses would offer a more nuanced understanding of intersecting
identities and related experiences, particularly in examining access of community members to
resources and decision-making processes. At the same time, strong attention to relationships
among victims, offenders and the community of supporters would promote understanding,
89
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
forgiveness and healing, and create possibilities for transforming societal inequalities and
equities through collective actions (Cook et al., 2006; Maglione, 2019).
Implications for Social Work
Our analysis has highlighted the usefulness of the strain and labelling perspectives in explaining
crime. Social workers can draw on the strain perspective to assess and to address the complex
interactions between individuals and systems that have created stressors. They can further
employ labelling theories to deconstruct the institutionalized process and mechanisms that have
created and reinforced stigmatization against individuals. An integrated use of the strain and
labelling theories could advance structural social work practice. It could inform social workers’
assessment and intervention strategies to identify and address stressors in interactions between
individuals and societal institutions, and to disrupt the process of othering community members.
At the same time, our analysis has pointed out the need to strengthen the grounding of
strain and labelling theories in the principles of social justice and intersectional analysis. Social
workers could extend the strain and labelling perspectives beyond its limited focus on
distributive and redistributive injustices experienced by individuals. They could use the
recognitive and procedural justice lenses to differentiate how people of marginalized groups,
rather than as individuals, have experienced inequalities and inequities in their access to
resources and decision-making processes. With an emphasis on intersectionality, social workers
could offer nuanced analyses of how individuals of diverse, intersecting identities have
experienced multiplicities of marginalization and stigmatization, and offer multi-pronged
intervention strategies to address systemic criminalization of subordinate group members.
As an invitation to social workers to explore just alternatives, our analysis highlights the
potential use of restorative justice to augment the strain and labelling theories when working
with victims, offenders, and community members to understand and address crime. While the
restorative justice perspective holds offenders accountable for their actions, it requires social
workers to examine retributive-biases and discrimination, often leading to mistreatment against
offenders (Schettet et al., 2015). It can guide social workers in their efforts to support community
dialogue and actions that promote critical understanding of the construction and socialization of
crime, acknowledgement of harms, and authentic commitment to harm reparation and
reconciliation. It would offer social workers a paradigm shift to assess the gaps and
insufficiencies of current services and supports to advocate for structural changes (Holtzhausen,
2011). Conclusion
Grounded in the tenets of intersectionality and social justice, this paper critically examined the
two prominent schools of criminology, namely strain theories and labelling theories. Our
analysis contended that these perspectives are functionalist in their orientation and have failed to
recognize and examine the oppressive relations among social groups. It pointed out the need to
situate understanding of stressors experienced by criminally involved individuals in the context
of dominant-subordinate group membership and interactions, and to interrogate institutionalized
processes and mechanisms that have created, reinforced, and stigmatized inequalities and
90
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
inequities in the construction of crime and enforcement of law and order. The identified points of
tension can be addressed with explicit attention to recognitive, distributive and procedural justice
when examining individual behaviours in the context of their diverse, intersecting group
memberships and intergroup relations. Critically, extending the use of strain and labelling
theories, along with explicit integration of restorative justice, in social work practice in the field
of criminal justice could strengthen services and contribute to advocacy and criminal justice
reforms.
91
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and
delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
9125.1992.tb01093.x
Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general strain theory: Specifying the types of
strain most likely to lead to crime and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 38(4), 319-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427801038004001
Almeida, R., Werkmeister Rozas, L., Cross-Denny, B., Lee, K., & Yamada, A. (2019).
Coloniality and intersectionality in social work education and practice. Journal of
Progressive Human Services, 30(2), 148-164.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10428232.2019.1574195
Anderson, J. F., & Dyson, L. (2002). Criminological theories: Understanding crime in America.
University Press of America.
Asencio, E., & Burke, P. (2011). Does incarceration change the criminal identity? A synthesis of
labeling and identity theory perspectives on identity change. Sociological
Perspectives, 54(2), 163-182. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2011.54.2.163
Baines, D. (Ed.). (2011). Doing anti-oppressive practice: Social justice social work. Fernwood
Publishing.
Barata, R., Ribeiro, M., Silva, Z., & Antunes, J. (2013). Social class: Concepts and
operationalization models in health research. Revista De Saude Publica, 47(4), 647-655.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-8910.2013047004396.
Baron, S. (2017). Street youth, social schemas, and crime. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 44(12), 1620-1638. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817726805
Becker, H. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. Free Press.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Setting standards for restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology,
42(3), 563-577. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/42.3.563
Breen, R. (2005). Foundations of a neo-Weberian class analysis. In E. O. Wright (Ed.),
Approaches to class analysis (pp. 31-50). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, W. (2015). An intersectional approach to criminological theory: Incorporating the
intersectionality of race and gender into Agnew's general strain theory. Ralph Bunche
Journal of Public Affairs, 4(1), 1-6. https://digitalscholarship.tsu.edu/rbjpa/vol4/iss1/6/
Carastathis, A. (2014). The concept of intersectionality in feminist theory. Philosophy Compass,
9(5), 304-314. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12129
Cho, S., Crenshaw, K., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory,
applications, and praxis. Signs, 38(4), 785-810. https://doi.org/10.1086/669608
Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent
gangs. Free Press.
Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. Free Press.
Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality's definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of
Sociology, 41(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142
Cook, A., Drennan, G., & Callanan, M. M. (2015). A qualitative exploration of the experience of
restorative approaches in a forensic mental health setting. The Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry & Psychology, 26(4), 510-531.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14789949.2015.1034753
92
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
Choi, J. J., Green, D. L., & Gilbert, M. J. (2011). Putting a human face on crimes: A qualitative
study on restorative justice processes for youths. Child & Adolescent Social Work
Journal, 28(5), 335-355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560-011-0238-9
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of
Chicago Legal Forum, 8, 139-167.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Daly, K. (2002). Restorative justice. Punishment & Society, 4(1), 55–79.
https://doi.org/10.1177/14624740222228464
Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims &
Offenders, 11(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1107797
Deutsch, M. (2006). A framework for thinking about oppression and its change. Social Justice
Research, 19(1), 7-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-006-9998-3
DiCristina, B. (2016). Durkheim’s theory of anomie and crime: A clarification and elaboration.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(3), 311-331.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0004865815585391
Dominelli, L., & Campling, J. (2002). Anti-oppressive social work theory and practice. Palgrave
Macmillan.
Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide: A study in sociology. Free Press.
Fook, J. (2016). Social work: A critical approach to practice. Sage.
Fraser, N., & Honneth, A. (2003). Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical
exchange. Verso.
Gavrielides, T. (2014). Bringing race relations into the restorative justice debate: An alternative
and personalized vision of “the other”. Journal of Black Studies, 45(3), 216-246.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934714526042
Hadjimatheou, K. (2016). Criminal labelling, publicity, and punishment. Law and Philosophy,
35(6), 567-593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10982-016-9274-0
Hernández, P., & McDowell, T. (2010). Intersectionality, power, and relational safety in context:
Key concepts in clinical supervision. Training and Education in Professional
Psychology, 4(1), 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017064
Holtzhausen, L. (2011). Will the real social worker please stand up? Defining criminal justice
social work. South African Crime Quarterly, 37, 27-32. https://doi.org/10.17159/2413-
3108/2011/v0i37a856
Hulko, W. (2009). The time and context contingent nature of intersectionality and interlocking
oppressions. Affilia, 24(1), 44-55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109908326814
Kenney, J. (2002). Victims of crime and labeling theory: A parallel process? Deviant
Behavior, 23(3), 235-265. https://doi.org/10.1080/016396202753561239
Krumer-Nevo, M., & Komem, M. (2015). Intersectionality and critical social work with girls:
Theory and practice. British Journal of Social Work, 45(4), 1190-1206.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct189
Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systemic approach to the theory of sociopathic
behaviour. McGraw-Hill.
93
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
Leonard, L., & Kenny, P. (2010). The restorative justice movement in Ireland: Building bridges
to social justice through civil society. Irish Journal of Sociology, 18(2), 38-58.
https://doi.org/10.7227/IJS.18.2.4
Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2015). Criminological theory: Context and
consequences. Sage.
Maglione, G. (2019). The restorative justice apparatus: A critical analysis of the historical
emergence of restorative justice. Social & Legal Studies, 28(5), 650-674.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663918806561
Mattsson, T. (2014). Intersectionality as a useful tool: Anti-oppressive social work and critical
reflection. Affilia, 29(1), 8-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109913510659
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771-1800.
https://doi.org/10.1086/426800
McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2003, August 10-15). In pursuit of paradigm: A theory of
restorative justice [Paper presentation]. The XIII World Congress of Criminology, Rio de
Janeiro, RJ, Brazin. https://www.iirp.edu/pdf/paradigm.pdf
Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2007). Crime and the American dreams. Wadsworth.
Messner, S. F., Thome, H., & Rosenfeld, R. (2008). Institutions, anomie and violent crime:
Clarifying and elaborating institutional-anomie theory. International Journal of Conflict
and Violence, 2(2), 163-181. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00264.x
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-
682. https://doi.org/10.2307/2084686
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Free Press.
Miller, J. (1996). Crime and oppression: Structure and agency in the inner city. Critical
Criminology, 7(2), 123-128. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461118
Miller, R. (2018). Toward intersectional identity perspectives on disability and lgbt identities in
higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 59(3), 327-346.
http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0030
Morgaine, K., & Capous-Desyllas, M. (2015). Anti-oppressive social work practice: Putting
theory into action. Sage.
Morris, P. M. (2002). The capabilities perspective: A framework for social justice. Families in
Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 83(4), 365-
373. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.16
Mullaly, B., & West, J. (2018). Challenging oppression and confronting privilege: A critical
approach to anti-oppressive and anti-privilege theory and practice. Oxford University
Press.
Mullaly, R. P. (2007). The new structural social work. Oxford University Press.
Murphy, D. S., & Robinson, M. B. (2008). The maximizer: Clarifying Merton's theories of
anomie and strain. Theoretical Criminology, 12(4), 501-521.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480608097154
Ngo, V. H. (2008). A critical examination of acculturation theories. Critical Social Work, 9(1),
1-6. https://ojs.uwindsor.ca/index.php/csw/article/download/5762/4704?inline=1
Ngo, V. H., Calhoun, A., Worthington, C., Pyrch, T., & Este, D. (2015). The unravelling of
identities and belonging: Criminal gang involvement of youth from immigrant
families. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 18(1), 63-84.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-015-0466-5
94
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
Nussbaum, M. (2002). Capabilities and social justice. International Studies Review, 4(2), 123-
135. https://doi.org/10.1111/1521-9488.00258
Onder, N. (2010). Class analysis. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of
case study research (pp. 147-149). Sage.
Paik, L. (2017). Critical perspectives on intersectionality and criminology:
Introduction. Theoretical Criminology, 21(1), 4-10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480616677495
Pals, H. (2015). Classical strain theory. The Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, 1-4.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118519639.wbecpx091
Payne, A. A., & Welch, K. (2015). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on
restorative discipline. Youth & Society, 47(4), 539-564.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X12473125
Pastrana, A. (2010). Privileging oppression: Contradictions in intersectional politics. Western
Journal of Black Studies, 34(1), 53-63.
https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839415283.170
Pfander, S. M. (2020). Evaluating New Zealand’s restorative promise: the impact of legislative
design on the practice of restorative justice. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social
Sciences Online, 15(1), 170-185. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2019.1678492
Poulter, J. (2005). Integrating theory and practice: A new heuristic paradigm for social work
practice. Australian Social Work, 58(2), 199-212. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1447-
0748.2005.00204.x
Ramsay, N. (2014). Intersectionality: A model for addressing the complexity of oppression and
privilege. Pastoral Psychology, 63(4), 453-469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11089-013-
0570-4
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Scheyett, A., Pettus-Davis, C., McCarter, S., & Brigham, R. (2012). Social work and criminal
justice: Are we meeting in the field? Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 32(4), 438-450.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2012.705241
Schormair, M.J.L., & Gerlach, L. M. (2020). Corporate remediation of human rights violations:
A restorative justice framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), 475–493.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04147-2
Shade, K., Kools, S., Weiss, S. J., & Pinderhughes, H. (2011). A conceptual model of
incarcerated adolescent fatherhood: Adolescent identity development and the concept of
intersectionality. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 24, 98-104.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2011.00274.x
Shannon, C., & Hess, R. (2019). Out but in: Exploring juvenile re-entry through
Photovoice. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 7(1), 28-41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2017.1356774
Svensson, K. (2003). Social work in the criminal justice system: An ambiguous exercise of
caring power. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime
Prevention, 4(1), 84-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/14043850310011126
Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. Columbia University Press.
Tew, J. (2006). Understanding power and powerlessness: Towards a framework for
emancipatory practice in social work. Journal of Social Work, 6(1), 33-51.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017306062222
95
Nguyen & Ngo
Critical Social Work, 2021 Vol. 22, No. 1
Verloo, M. (2006). Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European Union. European
Journal of Women’s Studies, 13(3), 211-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350506806065753
Ward, T., Gannon, T. A, & Fortune, C. (2015). Restorative justice–informed moral
acquaintance. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 42(1), 45-57.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814550026
Willis, R. (2020). ‘Let’s talk about it’: Why social class matters to restorative
justice. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 20(2), 187-206.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895818804307
Witvliet, C. V., Worthington, E. L., Root, L. M., Sato, A. F., Ludwig, T. E., & Exline, J. J.
(2008). Retributive justice, restorative justice, and forgiveness: An experimental
psychophysiology analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(1), 10-25.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.01.009
Wright, E. (2005). Approaches to class analysis. Cambridge University Press.
