Often, people view the study of Deviance and Criminology synonymously. Though the two are related, they are not the same. Yes, those who commit crimes (criminals), are considered deviant by those who do not commit crimes. Yet, the members of any given ‘criminal’ subculture (i.e. gangs, organized crime etc.) do not necessarily consider themselves deviant, rather it is their way of life, just as the law-abiding citizens consider their own behaviour to be just and normal. Whether or not a criminal is considered a deviant is a matter of perspective. To the criminal, committing crimes is usually seen as normal whereas this type of activity is considered deviant to the non-criminal (Young, 1999). As we will see below, this is often also the core of the discussion we will meet in our search of ‘How the notion of ‘the self’ might be interpreted in criminological research?’ Therefore, in this context, ‘criminological research’ is to be viewed as concerning both crime and deviance.

Becker's approach has its roots in the symbolic interaction foundation of Cooley and Mead. Charles Cooley's Human Nature and the Social Order (1902) examines the personal perception of oneself through studies of children and their imaginary friends. Cooley develops the theoretical concept of the looking glass self, a type of imaginary sociability (Cooley 1902). People imagine the view of themselves through the eyes of others in their social circles and form judgements of themselves based on these imaginary observations (Cooley 1902). The main idea of the ‘looking glass self’ is that people define themselves according to society's perception of them (Department of Sociology and Anthropology, ‘no date’). Cooley's ideas, coupled with the works of Mead, are very important to labelling theory and its approach to a person's acceptance of labels as attached by society.

We can see the relationship between the social context in which interaction takes place and the ability of people to (theoretically at least) behave in any way imaginable by examining the two parallel parts of the self, ‘I’ and ‘Me’.

2) that deviant labels are best understood as symbols that differentiate those who are labelled as deviant, and

o main schools of thought in defining and understanding deviance; Deviance as Objective Reality and Deviance as Subjective Experience.

Some topics in this essay:
Sociology Anthropology, Symbolic Interactionism, Control Theory, Self Society’, Subjective Experience, Deviance Criminology, Howard Becker, Nature Social, Conflict Theory, Self Society, ‘the self’, notion ‘the, notion ‘the self’, symbolic interaction, social context, crime deviance, self’ interpreted criminological, labelling theory, mead argued, symbolic interactionism, labelled deviant, deviance subjective experience, ‘the self’ interpreted, considered deviant, perspective reactions labelled,