UR #2: Labelling Theory, Identity and America

These past two weeks, I have found that a common theme that threads together nationalism, identity and social exclusion is that of imagined truth. The nation is defined by imagined truths about boundary and nationhood, which then manifest themselves through physical borders and nationalistic patriotism. This patriotism is fuelled by an imagined identity that draws upon values and sentiments that cannot be seen or explained consistently, yet it comes to life through anthems, flags and cultural symbols. Together, these imagined truths create real experiences that impact various groups differently, shaped entirely by their social, cultural, economic and political positions in society. It is interesting to explore how these imagined truths have slowly transformed into modern-day beliefs that guide the way we approach “the other” in society, a concept which again, depends on our own social position.

I am particularly intrigued by how these imagined truths present themselves in Dylann Roof’s “manifesto”. In order to better understand this, I would like to take a small piece of sociological theory called labelling theory and connect it to the concepts of identity and race, creating a small palette of imagined truths that I believe contributed to painting Roof’s harrowing “manifesto”.

I begin with labelling theory. In simple terms, this theory claims that when somebody is labelled a deviant, it often leads to them perceiving themselves as deviant and then engaging in acts of social deviance. I would like to clarify that in this context, social deviance includes anything that strays from the established norm, and is not just limited to criminal deviance. When I first learned of this theory, my first reaction was to wonder why groups succumb to, or at least don’t resist, this external defining. However, as I mulled it over more, I came to realize that a lot of our identity is shaped by external sources, whether they are family members, teachers, professors, coworkers, or friends. If we extrapolate these individual experiences and apply them to numerous people that are perceived as being part of the same group, we can understand how this external labelling promotes and reproduces internalized behaviours associated with certain characteristics. In other words, imagined ideas about how people should act create expectations and treatment that indeed produce those ideas (read: self-fulfilling prophecy).

And so, with race as my frame of reference, I want to understand how Dylann Roof employs labelling theory and social definitions of groups to justify his “manifesto” and the associated murders. I would first like to explore what Roof reasserts as the established norm. In contemporary (and historical) US society, the norm is based on and caters to the heterosexual, the white, and the male experience for the most part, with other identities falling on the peripheries of social inclusion. For instance, as discussed in Devos & Mohamed’s work on American identity, the concept of “American” is most often associated with White Americans. Racialized minorities and immigrant groups, while being American, are not American “enough” in the full sense of the word. This begins the process of defining, where groups are othered and stereotyped on the basis of race, religion, nationality, and more.

These racially othered groups are Roof’s point of interest, with him relying heavily on stereotypes or one-sided interpretations of social phenomena. For instance, in the same few paragraphs, Roof draws upon stereotypes of Black people as being dangerous and violent, and moves on to point out that White families move to “safer” suburbs to escape issues associated with low-income families, particularly Black families. I found this blending of stereotypes and observable patterns to be extremely fascinating, because it furthers a cycle of creating claims and then using observable patterns or assumed beliefs as supplementary material or evidence to then support the claims. However, what I find most fascinating about Roof’s “manifesto” is also what I find most disturbing. His ability to selectively weave threads of imagined truth and observable social patterns together is extremely dangerous. Phenomena and behaviours that have separate social (amongst other disciplines) explanations are being used to justify and explain one another. It demonstrates the circular reasoning of “Why did they do X? Because they are Z. Why are they Z? Because they do X.”, an argument that is as dangerous just as it is nonsensical.

Through this application of labelling theory and its connection to stereotypes, I find that Roof draws upon existing imagined truths to justify his actions and beliefs, and in the process, creates more imagined truths that can be used to further disadvantage groups that possess the negative stereotypes in question.