Abstract
Since the 1970s, the number of women under correctional supervision has risen drastically. With the increase in women’s system-involvement, it is important to consider the impact that crime-focused labels may have on women’s self-perceptions and reentry. This study applies a feminist lens to labeling theory. Through phenomenological interviews and focus groups with 19 women under community supervision in a Northwestern State, women’s responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. Four major themes emerged highlighting the distinct contexts of women’s responses to labels and the impacts of such labels on their lives. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed.
Introduction
The number of women under institutional and community supervision in the United States has increased dramatically over the past 40 years (Kaeble et al., 2016; Sawyer, 2018) at a rate 50% higher than men (U.S. Sentencing Project, 2018). The causes of the stark increase in women’s system-involvement are attributed to punitive sentencing policies rather than changes in criminality (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013). Specifically, certain strict sentencing reforms during the Get Tough on Crime Movement in the 1970s to 1990s widened the net to include longer incarceration terms for more nonviolent drug and property offenses, which are the types of crimes more commonly committed by women (Chesney-Lind & Pasko, 2013; Harmon & Boppre, 2018).
Given the massive increase in the number of women under correctional supervision, it is important to examine the collateral consequences associated with their system-involvement (Clear & Frost, 2013). Formal assignment of the “felon” or “criminal” label carries distinct stigmatization as well as structural barriers to reintegration (e.g., employment, housing, and public assistance restrictions; Middlemass, 2017). Labeling theorists aim to understand how such labels impact system-involved persons after their initial contact with the legal system (e.g., Becker, 1963; Lemert, 1967).
The effects of labeling and stigma have largely been studied from a generalized or gender-neutral lens. The majority of research to-date has not considered labeling within a gendered context. Further, very few studies examined the manner in which crime-focused labels may affect women specifically (for exceptions, see Gunn et al., 2018; Sharpe, 2015). Understanding the impacts of labeling on women provides a unique and important contribution to identity and desistance literature.
The current study seeks to fill this gap in the literature by examining how women perceive and react to crime-focused labels. Using a qualitative phenomenological approach, 19 women on community supervision were interviewed and asked questions about whether they have experienced labeling, their feelings and reactions to such labels, how gendered/intersectional identities affect labeling, and contributions to recidivism. Their responses were analyzed thematically to develop four major themes. Focusing on system-involved women allows for a deeper understanding of labeling through a feminist lens.
Labeling Theory and Stigma
In the 1960s, labeling theory gained popularity, but the foundation of this perspective can be traced back to the early 1900s (Tannenbaum, 1938). The foundation of labeling perspectives is built upon symbolic interactionism (Blumer, 1969), which posits that social meaning is generated through the repeat use of social actions, objects, and language. Therefore, the definition of “deviant” behavior is socially constructed through a process of repeat interactions (Triplett & Upton, 2015). Within this process, meaning is given to labels by society as well as individuals themselves, through the repeat application and internalization of such labels (Matza, 1969; Schur, 1973).
Individuals may react to crime-focused labels in various ways—through acceptance, rejection, or defiance (Becker, 1963; Sherman, 1993). Such effects can be countered if shaming is reintegrative (Braithwaite, 1989) or if the punishment is perceived as justified (Sherman, 1993). Generally, labeling theorists predict that the labels applied through formal social control contribute to increased law-breaking behavior (Becker, 1963; Kavish et., 2014; Lemert, 1967; Tannenbaum, 1938). Such research has confirmed that as identities shift, opportunities are blocked, and interactions with “deviant” peers increase as a result of labeling, law-breaking behavior will persist (Bernburg et al., 2006; Chiricos et al., 2007; Restivo & Lanier, 2015; Wiley & Esbensen, 2016). Particularly, Lemert (1967) proposed that individuals continue to engage in law-breaking behavior through “secondary deviance” (primary deviance being the initial act) as a means of defense or adjustment to their label.
Relatedly, Becker’s (1963) work emphasized the process of labeling through one’s public identity as well as their internal self-identity. Consequently, a person’s master status becomes “criminal” when persons feel as though they have been deemed “outsiders” by general society. They may seek group acceptance from similarly outcasted subcultures consisting of others like them, or other “criminals,” further solidifying their criminal identity through subcultural group acceptance. Granovetter (1985) theorized that “social embeddedness,” or social capital early on helps to perpetuate success throughout one’s lifetime. Hagan (1993) extended Granovetter’s work by purporting that when persons become involved in the justice system early-on, their chances of success are severely diminished. This is due to their “criminal embeddedness,” or assimilation to deviant culture and gained capital.
More recent research revisited labeling theory with more nuanced examinations into stigma and structural implications. Stigma generally refers to negative perceptions associated with specific characteristics or behaviors (Creaney, 2012; Goffman, 1963). As discussed by Goffman (1963), three primary characteristics influence social stigma: physical deformities, blemishes of character (e.g., alcoholism, substance abuse), and tribal stigma (e.g., race, class, gender). In labeling theories, blemishes of character (committing an offense) and tribal stigma (an individual’s intersectional identity) are of particular importance. As evidenced in prior empirical work, crime-focused labels facilitate stigma through the othering of persons who have broken the law (Creaney, 2012; Denver et al., 2017). The social stigma associated with these labels increases in conjunction with the individual’s intersectional identity, such that, those who are marginalized in society (e.g., women, people of Color) face higher levels of social stigma as the result of law-breaking behavior (Becker, 1963; Crenshaw, 1993).
Additionally, crime-focused labels serve to dehumanize by reducing a person’s holistic self to their law-breaking history (Boppre & Hart-Johnson, 2019; Denver et al., 2017). As argued by Smith (2011), the dehumanization process of an individual allows society to remove their “human-ness” and treat them in ways that would not be seen as socially acceptable in everyday interactions. As social meaning is an interpretive process conducted by society at large (Blumer, 1969), system-involvement, and the labels associated with it, may lead to internalized stigma through the acceptance of stereotypes as well as anticipated stigma from others (Moore et al., 2016). As stigma becomes further internalized and entrenched into one’s identity, largely reinforced by societal expectations that the dehumanized “other” is able to be stereotyped and mistreated, there is an increased likelihood for continued system-involvement (Bernburg et al., 2006).
Goffman (1961) describes how an organizational context produces a “total institution.” Perceptions of one’s self are interwoven within the institution as they are isolated from mainstream society. As individuals are exposed to life in correctional settings, which are symbolically removed from the public, it is likely they will adopt the norms and subculture, including language and identity shifts. This process is known as prisonization (Clemmer, 1966).
Within U.S. carceral spaces, dehumanization and stigmatization are common practice. For example, it is common for correctional agencies to refer to clients as numbers or labels instead of their full names. This process serves to remove one’s previous identity and replace it with one reflective of the correctional agency. Thus, the environments of correctional facilities in the U.S., in which crime-focused labels are common practice, have specific implications for labeling and subsequent internalization.
On the other hand, identity shifts supportive of desistance can lead individuals to cease law-breaking behavior. Maruna’s (2001) work with system-involved men in the United Kingdom revealed that narratives related to redemption helped men desist from crime. Redemption narratives reflected the process in which men’s system-involvement provided insight and motivation to use their prior experiences to influence positive changes in society by helping others.
Beyond personal reactions to crime-focused labels, there are a host of external barriers individuals face in the community once they are formally labeled. When individuals reenter communities, the collateral consequences associated with the label continues to persist, through decreased access to opportunities, employment, housing, public assistance, education, and other forms of human and social capital needed to lead a non-lawbreaking lifestyle (Hadjimatheou, 2016; Middlemass, 2017). Aside from the explicit barriers to employment, research suggests there are implicit barriers from employers who may be unwilling to hire persons with a felony record (Decker et al., 2015).
To summarize, labeling theory suggests that persons formally labeled face negative consequences through internal and external stigmatization. As labels become more embedded into one’s identity, there is an increased likelihood for continued law-breaking behavior. As the majority of prior research has taken a generalized approach, it is important to consider the impacts of labels specifically on system-involved women.
Women and Crime-Focused Labels
The theoretical foundation discussed in the previous section is considered a general framework that can explain attitudes and behaviors across gender, race, class, and other distinctions. While some scholars recognized that gender differences in reactions to labeling may exist (Braithwaite, 1989; Fox, 1977), few studies have examined the impacts of labeling on women specifically (for exceptions, see Giordano et al., 2004; Gunn et al., 2018; McGrath, 2014). Due to the socially constructed nature of deviance (Becker, 1963), it is important to assess how definitions and the labels associated with them, differ upon the various axes of social identity (e.g., race, class, gender).
Due to the informal mechanisms of social controls stemming from women’s roles as caretakers, their law-breaking behavior in general is less than that of men (Steffensmeier & Allan, 1996) and is shaped by specific gendered contexts, including trauma and victimization, mental health issues, co-morbid substance use, dysfunctional relationships, and decreased social capital (for a summary, see Boppre et al., 2018). When women break the law, it is considered a violation of their gendered norms, to be nurturing, polite, and communal (for an overview, see Rivera & Veysey, 2014). This gender-specific context differs from that of men whose law-breaking behavior may be seen as a natural extension of their masculine identity (Messerschmidt, 1993, 2013).
The stigmatization of system-involvement may be even greater for women than men as women are more attentive to social relationships (Chiricos et al., 2007; Fox, 1977; Giordano et al., 2004; Gålnander, 2020; Rivera & Veysey, 2014). Women often consider their self-worth through their relationships and perceptions with others (Miller, 1976), thus they may feel distinct shame and conflict in violating such gendered norms (Leverentz, 2014). Labels could support desistance among women given the social consequences of continued system-involvement, yet there is mixed empirical evidence for this claim (McGrath, 2014). Giordano et al. (2004) posited that the greater social stigma associated with antisocial behavior among women could actually increase recidivism through limited opportunities to return to conventional gendered roles, such as providing care for their children who have been removed due to their system-involvement. As self-efficacy represents a major antecedent to women’s continued law-breaking behavior (Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009), considering how women interpret and react to labels is imperative.
Few studies have assessed the internalization process of crime-focused labels and subsequent stigma among system-involved women. Although such research is scant, prior studies have demonstrated stigmatization in relation to motherhood and substance abuse, in particular (Gålnander, 2020; Garcia-Hallett, 2019; Gueta & Chen, 2019; Gunn et al., 2018; Sharpe, 2015). Stigmas related to former incarceration and substance abuse counter women’s role expectations related to motherhood and romantic partners (Gunn et al., 2018; Sharpe, 2015). Gunn et al. (2018) found that women’s stigma management strategies (withdrawal, confrontation, or appropriation) within their relationships helped support desistance from crime. Sharpe’s (2015) findings led to similar conclusions related to motherhood and desistance due to the scrutiny placed on them from gendered norms associated with “good” mothers. Ultimately, managing stigmas within familial and romantic relationships reinforces prior research on relational theory, which emphasizes the importance of maintaining healthy relationships among system-involved women (Bloom et al., 2003; Miller, 1976).
The structural impacts may be even more salient for system-involved women as they tend to have less access to human and social capital than men, particularly related to economic gains (Heimer, 2000; Leverentz, 2014; Salisbury et al., 2016). For example, women typically have lower paying jobs, and even in equal positions, they tend to earn less income (Heimer, 2000). Also, women are more often sole providers for their children, adding an additional financial burden (Messerschmidt, 1986). The structural barriers related to economic status are heightened after system-involvement, contributing to women’s recidivism (Holtfreter et al., 2004) by creating barriers for desistance (Gueta & Chen, 2019; Leverentz, 2014).
Further, women may experience intersectional stigma associated with interconnected preconceptions about race, womanhood, and system-involvement (Boppre, 2018). Coined by Crenshaw (1993), “intersectionality” has been defined as “the interaction between gender, race, and other categories of difference in individual lives, social practices, institutional arrangements, and cultural ideologies and the outcomes of these interactions in terms of power” (Davis, 2008, p. 68). Intersectionality has since been applied to criminological contexts to understand how gender, race, social class, and other categories of difference shape women’s victimization and system-involvement (Burgess-Proctor, 2006; Chesney-Lind & Morash, 2013; Potter, 2013, 2015).
The effects of crime-focused labels may be more pronounced among women of Color as they may have additional barriers to social capital due to racialized class structures (Cobbina et al., 2012; Decker et al., 2015; Potter, 2008; Richie, 1996, 2012). As detailed by Glenn (2004), women of Color often have to engage in wage labor alongside their partners, while also engaging in child caring and housekeeping duties. The decreased opportunities for wage labor following an offense may increase stigma for women of Color as they are unable to fulfill the societal expectation of engaging in this dual-labor system. Further, the women in Gunn et al. (2018) study discussed compounded racialized and class-based stigmas resulting from stereotypes related to crime. As persons of Color have disproportionate police contact, system-involvement may be normalized and anticipated in women of Color’s family systems (Gunn et al., 2018).
Labeling also has implications for women’s reentry. Leverentz’ (2014) in-depth qualitative work demonstrated the significant structural barriers to women’s reentry and desistance. Women’s pathways to desistance were constrained by external factors, such as employment restrictions, stigma, and social inequalities. Their experiences were gender-specific as reentry was shaped by their social identities as mothers and caretakers. However, the manner in which correctional agencies and treatment services were framed toward individual agency conflicted with the realities of women’s circumstances and self-perceptions. Ultimately, Leverentz (2014) concluded that “social policies and stigma inhibit desistance” (p. 182), yet these realities are largely neglected by the individualized focus of the U.S. correctional system.
Notably, Leverentz (2014) and others indicate the correctional system plays an important role in women’s reentry experiences and desistance from law-breaking behavior. As discussed in a recent study with system-involved women in Sweden, rehabilitative practices (e.g., educational and employment services) have the potential to shift women’s identities from being viewed as “other” to “normal” (Gålnander, 2020). Further, Morash et al. (2015) found that when women have supportive relationships with their supervising officers in the community, the likelihood for recidivism decreases.
Similar to the findings on men’s desistance (Maruna, 2001), identity shifts may play a role in women’s continued law-breaking behavior. Stone et al. (2018) found that redemption narratives significantly reduced future arrests. Hence, the internalization of stigma or redemption can play an integral role in women’s desistance or persistence in law-breaking behavior.
In sum, crime-focused labels can have distinct impacts on system-involvement, but few studies have examined the distinct contexts of labels on women. Due to women’s gendered norms and roles related to caretaking, labeling may have specific implications for women’s perceptions and reactions. Thus, research examining the gender-specific effects of labeling is necessary to further expand labeling theory.
Method
The purpose of the current study is to provide a phenomenological description of how women experience, perceive, and react to labels. Phenomenology examines the lived experiences of a phenomenon among a specific person or group to comprehend their perceptions, perspectives, understandings, and subsequent meaning attached to such lived experiences (Birzer & Smith-Mahdi, 2006; Moustakas, 1994). The data collected for the current study were part of a larger project examining women’s intersectional experiences with the legal system (Boppre, 2018). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive convenience sample of 19 women on community supervision in a Northwestern State. Seven of the 19 women also participated in one of two “mini” focus groups. A feminist interviewing approach (Fontana & Frey, 2005) in both methods allowed for an empowering, empathetic, relationship-building conversational exchange, using trauma-informed protocol.
During the interviews, participants were asked broad open-ended questions about labels and their reactions to such labels. The main question asked of participants was, “Have you been called a “criminal,” “felon,” “convict,” offender,” “inmate” or any other term used to refer to those involved in the criminal justice system?” If participants answered in affirmation, probe questions were utilized to expand upon initial responses or clarify the researcher’s interpretations. Such questions included, “How did being labeled as (label[s] indicated by participant) make you feel?” “Do you consider yourself (label[s] indicated by participant)?” “Do you think being a (self-identity established at the beginning of the interview) has affected how society has treated you as a criminal or felon?” and “Do you think being labeled a (label[s] indicated by participant) is different for women who have other identities?”
During the focus groups, women were asked broader questions about women’s system-involvement. Women were asked, “Generally, have you noticed that certain women are treated differently based upon identifying characteristics such as race, social class, sexual orientation, or other distinctions?” and “What contributes to women’s recidivism?” Women discussed differential treatment in broader society related to gender, race, and social class. These findings are summarized by Boppre (2018). For the current study, women’s responses related specifically to labels are presented below.
Interviews and focus groups occurred at the participants’ local community supervision office in a private room. Participants were given a consent form and filled out a brief online questionnaire measuring demographic characteristics (i.e., age, biological sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, racial/ethnic identity, immigrant-status, religious beliefs, social class). Women were given categories to choose from but could also provide open-ended responses or skip questions. Women were also asked to provide a pseudonym of their choice in the questionnaire, which are used in the results of this study. With consent, participants’ Women’s Risk Needs Assessment (WRNA) scores were also obtained to determine prior system-involvement, current offense type, employment, and educational attainment.
With consent, the interviews and focus groups were audio recorded to ensure accurate transcription and organic conversation. The interviews lasted approximately 90 min (the range was 25–109 min). The focus groups lasted approximately 60 min. Women were given compensation for participating in the interviews: a $20 gift card of their choice to a local vendor (i.e., McDonald’s, Starbucks, Subway, Dollar Store, TJ Maxx, or Target). In addition to compensation for their participation in the interview, women who participated in a focus group also chose a gift card for $15 to a local vendor. Lunch from Subway was provided at the beginning of each focus group, so women could eat throughout.
Participants
Participants were recruited using convenience and purposive sampling. All supervising officers at three major community supervision locations were given study interest sheets to provide to their women clients under community supervision (probation or parole). One location held an African American and gang programs unit, allowing for increased sampling of women with diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds. This was necessary for the original scope of the larger project, but also benefits the current study through increased perspectives from underrepresented women. Women indicated whether they were interested in participating by placing the sheets in a locked box near the exit of the office. The completed sheets were then scanned and provided to the primary researcher by one management staff member. If participants were not interested, they simply placed the blank form into the box. Each form had a specific ID number to track how many were provided to women. In total, 101 women were given an interest sheet over a 4-week span.
Of the 101 recruited women, 79 who submitted a form indicating they were interested in participating in the study. The interested women were then contacted by the primary researcher to schedule interviews. Of the 79 interested, only 19 women completed interviews. Women who were initially interested either did not respond to the call or email to schedule or did not show up to their scheduled interview. Holding the interviews at participants’ local supervision office likely decreased accessibility in comparison to other studies in which the researchers met participants at a location of their choosing (Cobbina, 2009). The decision to hold the interviews at the supervising office was due to the agency’s request.
Eleven participants were on probation and eight were on parole. Supervision under probation is typically reserved for “less serious” nonviolent offenses. However, women on probation may still have histories of institutional supervision, in prison or jail, for previous convictions.
The demographic characteristics of the women interviewed are described in Tables 1 and 2. Ten women identified as White/Caucasian. The remaining women were racially diverse, many of which were biracial. Most women identified as within a lower socioeconomic status and none were of upper socioeconomic status. The average age was 32 years with a range of 20–46 years old. Most women were heterosexual (68%). The majority of women were mothers. Only six women had at least a GED or High School diploma and only five were employed (full or part-time). Most participants had felonies (58%) prior to their current charge. Under case planning for the WRNA, a criminal history score of seven or above is considered a criminogenic risk factor. Six women (32%) scored a seven or above. Participants’ criminal history score is important to consider as it provides contexts into their level of prior involvement with the legal system and potential for experiences with labeling.
Demographic Characteristics of Interviewees.
Sample Demographic Characteristics Individualized.
Note. *GB and Heaven both indicated that they often self-identify as Puerto Rican/Mexican/Native. Ella primarily identified as White.
Chloe primarily identified as Native American.
Of the 19 interviewees, seven also participated in one of two focus groups. Three women participated in Focus Group 1 (Carrie, Chloe, and Vikki) and four in Focus Group 2 (Angelface, GB, Heaven, and Sincerity). The average age of women in Focus Group 1 was 35. Two were on probation and one was on parole. The average age of women in Focus Group 2 was 34. Three women were on parole and one was on probation.
Analyses
All analyses and data management were facilitated with MAXQDA software. Responses from both the interviews and focus groups were analyzed collectively, similar to prior research (Pollack, 2000). As outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), a thematic analysis approach was used for the current study. The coding and analysis styles were largely inductive to develop a phenomenological description of women’s experiences and responses to labeling. To increase the trustworthiness and validity of the findings, all themes were discussed and agreed upon by all members of the research team (Padgett, 2008).
Results
This section will discuss the four major themes that emerged from the data: gendered/intersectional stigmatization, internalization, dehumanization, and employment barriers. Within each theme, three-four subthemes with relevant narrative quotes will be provided and situated in the context of previous research and theory. Figure 1 provides each theme with a list of women whose responses were coded within each theme.
Thematic analysis results.
Of the 19 women interviewed, 17 women explicitly indicated they had experienced some form of formal labeling. The most common terms encountered were “inmate,” “felon,” and “criminal.” Although during her interview Vikki stated she was not formally labeled, she discussed the gendered effects of labeling during Focus Group 1. Smiles did not discuss any responses to being labeled. This is likely because she had a low criminal history score stemming only from her young age, not prior supervision or felonies.
“She’s Just a Drug Addicted Black Woman:” Gendered/Intersectional Stigmatization
A total of 12 women (Abby, Angelface, Carrie, Chloe, Ella, Elsie, Jordyn, MJ, Sincerity, Supergirl, Taren, and Vikki) discussed stigmatization associated with labels. Five of these women (Carrie, Chloe, Ella, Elsie, Jordyn, Vikki) discussed the specific stigma associated with being a woman with system-involvement. Some women noted that the stigma associated with women’s system-involvement is worse than that of men, due to societal perceptions of appropriate feminine behavior. Elsie explained,
Sometimes men get away with bad behavior, but as a woman, you’re thought of as trashy if you commit crimes. You’re expected to be polite. If you’re a woman that’s engaging in criminality, you’re not as feminine. There’s definitely a stigma for women who are involved in criminality to reach out for help because there’s that fear of being judged as not being feminine.
Elsie notes that the gendered stigma may even impact women’s likelihood to reach out for assistance. Thus, when shaming is not reintegrative, it can actually hinder support for desistance.
Five women (Angelface, Chloe, Elsie, MJ, and Sincerity) described additional stigma associated with being a mother who is system-involved. As primary caregivers, women may feel additional pressure or responsibility to set positive examples for their children. Chloe stated,
I’m supposed to be a good example for my children. [System-involvement] is not what I want for my children. My son has already been to prison. That’s hard. I’m sure [my children] hear stuff like, “You’re going to be just like your mom.” In jail, I heard officers say, “You have children. What are you doing here? Why don’t you take care of your kids?”
Chloe also mentioned how the loss of custody of her young children due to her system-involvement contributed to her continued substance use,
After I lost, my son, I went off the deep end. If I’m not a mother, what am I?
I went into my addiction for five years straight and couldn’t get out.
Chloe’s discussion of questioning her identity as a mother due to her system-involvement reflects a shift in her master status. As indicated by Becker (1963), an individual’s master status is the defining feature of their personal identity. As motherhood is a heavily emphasized gender role for women (Lindsey, 2011), it is evident that the stigma associated with her system-involvement, and failure to maintain a gendered role, led Chloe to adopt an “outsider” status and spiral into further substance use with methamphetamines and heroin.
Five women (Angelface, MJ, Sincerity, Supergirl, and Taren) discussed how being a woman of Color holds a specific stigma. Women noted that this stemmed from common stereotypes and perceptions associated with race and crime. Sincerity described the experience of being Black and system-involved as “double” prejudice. She noted the stigmas associated with drug use, motherhood, and being a Black woman:
[There is a] stigma about Black people, like she’s just a drug addicted Black woman. It’s impacted my life a lot because drug addiction has impacted my life. Crack was mainly a Black drug. I come from a huge family, who has a history with the police over years and generations, so there’s a stigma on my family. One time I was pregnant and then the police came into a drug house, and they were like, “Ew, you’re bringing another so and so into the world? Oh God, we don’t need no more of you.”
As mentioned by Sincerity, there are general stereotypes and perceptions related to race, gender, and system-involvement, yet the reactions of the sanctioning agent (i.e., the police officers) furthered her sense of stigma and shame associated with being a Black woman with substance use issues.
Supergirl also attested to the specific stigma associated with being Latina. In relation to her intersectional identity, she indicated that Latinas are “seen as way more high-profile or high-risk than a White girl, or even a woman of Color.” She further explained,
Latina women are always known to be a little bit more capable of pulling off the kind of things that men do. You don’t see most White girls running with their crowd of dudes doing the things that I do. It’s a certain toughness that comes with [being Latina].
To summarize, women in the current study discussed the gendered and intersectional contexts related to stigma. Women described facing distinct stigmas in relation to being a woman or mother, as well as increased stigma associated with their intersectional identities. These descriptions of increased stigma upon the basis of intersectional identities inform Sherman’s (1993) theoretical propositions. Furthermore, and more related to the labeling paradigm overall, it is clear that stigma associated with “criminal” labels is increased for women of Color in comparison to White women. This was found in previous research as well (Gunn et al., 2018).
“It Just Makes You Feel Bad:” Internalization
A total of 12 women (Abby, Angelface, Carrie, Chloe, Elsie, GB, Jordyn, Kelly, MJ, Molly, Supergirl, and Taren) discussed the internalization of labels. Internalization is the process of focusing negative perceptions or behaviors inward. These can result in emotional reactions or modified self-perceptions. In the current study, four women (Chloe, Elsie, Jordyn, and Taren) described feeling shame or discouragement in response to labels. Jordyn stated,
[Being labeled] made me feel bad about the choices I made. [It made me recognize] that I have a felony. It just makes you feel bad, because you messed up. It’s discouraging.
While shaming can be a useful tool in the reintegrative process (Braithwaite, 1989) it is clear from these narratives that the process of shaming itself, coupled with women’s’ experiences of system-involvement, function to further stigmatize them. These negative self-perceptions further the feelings of isolation and otherness which push the labeled person toward the outskirts of society (Becker, 1963).
On the other hand, some women felt angry about being labeled. Four women (Carrie, GB, MJ, and Taren) discussed feeling anger in response to labels. MJ stated,
[Being labeled] made me feel angry. It made me feel disrespected. Sure, I got convicted of a crime, but nobody’s perfect. I’m sure everybody has done something [illegal]. It’s the circumstances. [You and I] could have done the same things and I would have got caught for it and you didn’t. That doesn’t make you any better or any above.
In Lemert’s (1967) explanation of secondary deviance, anger and bitterness, particularly toward the labeler, is a key component.
Another component of secondary deviance is defiance. Persons may adopt labels as a form of defiance to mainstream culture (Sherman, 1993). Only two women (Carrie and Chloe) discussed acceptance and subsequent defiance associated with labels. Carrie stated,
When people do call [me] a criminal, or a repeat offender, it tends to make me feel like, well, screw it then. “If you want to see a criminal, I’ll show you one.” There’s that defensiveness and that pride that comes up.
While various women discussed reactions related to internalization, six women (Abby, Angelface, Molly, Carrie, Kelly, and Supergirl) in the current study described owning labels and brushing off the impact. Similar to other women in this study, Angelface’s reaction to labels is very matter of fact. Angelface stated,
[I’ve been referred to as a label] in a joking manner by [staff at] the jails [such as] the deputies that walk around. [They would say] “Quiet down, criminals, you silly convicts,” that kind of thing, but not in a demeaning way. In a sense, it’s the truth. If anybody was to get sensitive about that, the truth hurts. The fact is that we’ve all done something, regardless of what it was or circumstances. We broke the law. Therefore, we are criminals. We did something to associate with that labeling. I have thick skin. Trust me, a convict is not the worst thing I’ve been called.
In sum, most of the interviewed women felt that the labels placed upon them isolated them from general society. These narratives support the overarching labeling paradigm as labels shifted women’s self-perceptions (Becker, 1963). Some women felt anger, which aligns with Lemert’s (1967) theory. Notably, an equal number of women felt negative emotions such as shame or discouragement. This finding makes sense through a gendered lens as women are generally more likely to generate negative self-perceptions related to anxiety and depression (internalization) than anger (externalization; Rosenfield & Smith, 2012). Some women internalized these labels as part of their identity. Two women indicated they were willing to act out the label as a means of defying the labeling entity (Sherman, 1993). Women also mentioned that many in society commit illegal behavior, but only some are caught and formally labeled. This perspective further supports a social constructivist view on crime and labeling.
“I’m Not a Number, I’m a Human Being:” Dehumanization
Ten women discussed the dehumanization associated with labels (Carrie, Chloe, Ella, Elsie, GB, Heaven, MJ, Molly, Scarlet, and Sincerity). Six of these women (Chloe, Ella, Elsie, GB, MJ, and Sincerity) indicated the experience of being called an “inmate,” “felon,” or “criminal” made them feel like less of a person. Beyond the actual labels, women also reported being called by their inmate identification number. The dismissal of their given name replaced with labels and numbers made these women feel dehumanized. When asked how she felt about being labeled, Sincerity summarized this experience:
It made me feel like I was less than human: like a statistic [instead of] a person. I was just a number. But I’m not a number. I’m a human being with struggles.
Four women (Carrie, Chloe, MJ, and Scarlet) explained this process in more detail in terms of how the label was not indicative of who they were as a person. Scarlet indicated the labels made her feel as though she was pre-judged while other women felt they were no longer seen as the person they were prior to system-involvement. In other words, they felt the system views them as their crime, and not as an individual. Chloe described this experience as follows:
It feels like [the correctional system] is taking who you are away and giving you this label that’s not necessarily you. It’s what you’re doing, maybe. It’s your acts, but it doesn’t mean that that’s who you are as a person. It’s hard to separate those two things.
Two women (Heaven and Molly) also emphasized how the term “inmate” was used by correctional staff to classify them as a group. Therefore, labeling de-individualized women and placing them into a “criminal” group as a whole. Molly summarized this experience,
[The term] inmate is used to generalize all of us and keep us all in one group. It prevents [staff] from individualizing us.
Women’s reports of dehumanization, in this study, align with general research on the impacts of labels. A major component of labeling is the dehumanization effect as incarcerated persons are essentially stripped of their identities and referred to as a number or label (Smith, 2011). The use of labels in lieu of women’s true identities made them feel less human and de-individualized. Women noted that such labeling occurred most often in jail or prison rather than in the community or among relatives. This dehumanization process illustrates the ways in which an individual shifts from a member of society toward an “outsider” position (Becker, 1963).
“I Just Want to Get a Job:” Employment Barriers
A major collateral consequence of system-involvement is the decreased access to gainful employment after release due to a felony record (Leverentz, 2014; Middlemass, 2017). Seven women (Abby, Carrie, Chloe, Ella, Heaven, Sincerity, and Vikki) discussed barriers to employment associated with criminal labels. Women in Focus Group 1 (Carrie, Chloe, and Vikki) discussed the gendered distinctions of finding employment after release. Employers for the types of jobs some women had prior to system-involvement were not supportive of felony records. For example, Chloe stated,
Men’s jobs are different. Men can go be loggers. [They] can go do construction and [employers] don’t care if they’re felons. Women [should have] the opportunity to be successful. I’m good at working with children with autism, but I have this barrier, so I can’t do that right now. I don’t know if I can ever get [my record] expunged enough to where I can do that. How long do we have to be punished for these things? I’m used to making 18 bucks an hour, but now I’m going down to this [low-paying] job where I’m like, “What am I doing?”
Carrie and Chloe mentioned that difficulty finding employment also depended on the type of crime. In certain situations, the crime-type can make potential employers even more hesitant. Carrie provided her experience with her record:
I used to work at banks. My resume looks great. Then [employers] get to the background check and see my actual crimes. They’re like, “A banker who used to be a thief? That sounds extra spicy. I don’t have enough Tums for that.” [Potential employers] are looking at the facts of the crimes. I have petty thefts [on my record]. I can’t explain my side; that I’ve never committed identity thefts and that people can trust me with their information.
Similarly, Abby and Ella as well as Sincerity and Heaven during Focus Group 2 described their internal discouragement and anxiety about finding employment with a felony record. Abby was struggling to find employment at the time of her interview. She discussed her own experiences,
It’s my criminal history. I do really well in interviews. I know what to say. I’ve been hired on the spot at a few jobs. Then my criminal history comes through. They’re like, “No, I’m sorry. We can’t hire you.” It’s like, “Fuck, I just want to get a job.” You know? It’s really disappointing and disheartening because I just want a job. I just want to move forward in my life, but it seems like I fucking can’t.
Hence, women experience structural barriers due to the stigma associated with a record of law-breaking behavior. Stigma emerges from agents of the legal system as well as potential employers as labeling entities. Such experiences frustrated participants and led them to question the legal system as an effective reintegrative mechanism (Braithwaite, 1989; Sherman, 1993). Women discussed such barriers specifically in relation to employment. These struggles may be specific to women due to the types of careers women typically pursue related to child or medical care. Interestingly, as highlighted by the women in Focus Group 1, such labels further reduced their opportunities to engage in traditional feminine career roles.
Discussion
The current study contributes to the literature on labeling and collateral consequences of system-involvement. Similar to generalized theories in criminology, women’s experiences have been largely neglected in research on labeling theory. The results of this study indicate the need for a feminist or gendered lens within the labeling perspective, which is important given the increasing number of women under correctional supervision in the U.S.
While some labeling theorists argued that shame can function in a pro-social, reintegrative manner (Braithwaite, 1989), the current structure of the U. S. correctional institution is characterized by stigmatization and dehumanization that persists beyond release from a facility. As such, this process facilitates the continued adoption and internalization of labels (Becker, 1963) and further marginalizes system-impacted women. Women in this study discussed the process of dehumanization how labels aided stigmatization. Such practices contribute to the “othering” of system-involved women, as mentioned in previous research (Gålnander, 2020).
Women in this study referenced specific contexts of gendered stigma. They discussed distinct stigma associated with violating gender norms. Other research has documented such effects in sentencing outcomes (Steffensmeier & Demuth, 2006). Yet, the current study indicated that system-involved women themselves have an awareness of the violation of gendered expectations, similar to prior research (Garcia-Hallett, 2019; Gunn et al., 2018; Sharpe, 2015). Such violations are especially pronounced among mothers as they are expected to be providers and positive role models for their children.
Importantly, the impacts of labeling were distinct among women of Color who noted the normalization of system-involvement, but also additional stigmatization due to stereotypes and generalizations related to race and crime. Therefore, an intersectional lens is imperative as women’s experiences are holistically shaped by gender and race (Boppre, 2019). Such findings relate to prior work as well (Gunn et al., 2018).
In this study, women varied in their responses to labels. Some felt anger and defiance toward the sanctioning agent while others felt shame and discouragement. These internal reactions to labeling are important mechanisms within the process, as they lead system-involved women to feel further outcasted by society (Gålnander, 2020; Sherman, 1993; Smith, 2011). On the other hand, some women brushed off or accepted labels. The total institution (Goffman, 1961) and prisonization process in U.S. carceral spaces normalize the use of crime-focused labels. Women may become accustomed such dehumanizing practices over time.
The collateral consequences of system-involvement must also be considered through a gendered lens. As participants discussed, the types of jobs more common among women (e.g., childcare and medical care) have increased restrictions on those with felony records. Women also discussed issues with losing and regaining custody of their children due to their system-involvement. Prior studies have similarly demonstrated such barriers to reentry for women (Leverentz, 2014; Cobbina et al., 2014), yet this study raised new concerns related to the careers specific to women in comparison to men and the importance of caretaking roles.
Prior research indicates that the correctional system plays an important role in shifting women’s identities and subsequent law-breaking behavior (Gålnander, 2020; Leverentz, 2014; Morash et al., 2015). Shifting correctional practices and informal communication to humanizing, supportive, and strength-based alternatives could further aid desistance among women (Leverentz, 2014; Stone et al., 2018). These approaches are supported by existing literature (Bloom et al., 2003; Salisbury et al., 2016).
There is a growing movement to use person-centered language instead of crime-focused labels (Boppre & Hart-Johnson, 2019; Denver et al., 2017). The stigma and personal harm discussed by most women in the current study support this shift in terminology. Practitioners, as well as scholars, need to be mindful of the terms used to refer to those who have broken the law. Willis (2018) points out, “To this day, we continue to refer to men and women in the legal system by the very behavior we do not want them repeating” (p. 2). Instead of “offender,” “inmate,” or “prisoner,” preferred terms include, “women who were/are incarcerated” or “system-involved/impacted.” This language is purposefully modeled throughout this article. The potential for person-centered language to be used in conjunction with a reentry process centered on reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1989) should be further explored.
Notably, the negative effects of labeling depend on the stigma attached to the word(s) and terminology. These consequences are socially constructed and are not static (Tietjen & Kavish, 2020). Decisions on preferred terminology will be a fluid process and system-impacted people should be consulted.
Humanized, supportive approaches align with gender-responsive correctional strategies (Bloom et al., 2003). As indicated by the results of this study, women’s reentry and desistance processes are impacted by their social circumstances. Gender-responsive assessment and treatment are aimed to address women’s specific needs (Bloom et al., 2003; Salisbury et al., 2016).
Inevitably, the U.S. must confront the implications of its imprisonment binge on women (Owen, 2000). While a shift toward humanizing alternatives is a start, de-carceration would ultimately reduce the potential harms of crime-focused labeling. Providing more resources as well as preventative and restorative measures in the community, would decrease the nation’s reliance on incarceration (Brown et al., 2015). We urge academics, practitioners, and advocates to critically assess the impacts of laws and policies on women as the social consequences of incarceration extend beyond those who are system-involved. There are distinct adverse effects of maternal incarceration on children, including mental health issues, educational deficits, and future system-involvement (Burgess-Proctor et al., 2016; Huebner & Gustafson, 2007; Trice & Brewster, 2004).
Limitations and Future Research
Phenomenology typically uses small samples with as few as six participants (Morse, 1995). The interview process in phenomenology is usually more intensive than other interviewing approaches. This study used in-depth interviews that lasted on average 90-min. Nonetheless, a larger sample size may have revealed additional themes.
As the purpose of phenomenology is to provide a detailed description of participants’ experiences, issues related to saturation are not applicable. Grounded theory approaches (Charmaz, 2006) seek to develop theory, and therefore, require theoretical sampling with the goal of saturation. Future research should build upon the current study through more theoretically-aimed methods to develop a theory of women’s responses to labeling.
Interviewees represented women who were willing to participate, which was only 19% of those who were recruited. Therefore, women who completed an interview likely differ from women who did not. These results provide in-depth insight to women’s experiences, but do not represent the views of all system-impacted women.
While most women in this study had some experience institutionally, whether serving time in jail or prison, women on community supervision often have less contact with correctional staff and potential labels. Future research should examine the impacts of labeling on women with extensive histories of system-involvement. Such studies would inform how the length of system-involvement influences the adoption of a “criminal” master status as well as the temporal occurrence of joining an “outsider” subculture (Becker, 1963).
This study focused solely on the experience of labeling among women. Future research should sample both men and women across diverse backgrounds to further build an intersectional context. Just as it is important to center gender in women’s experiences, it is imperative to do so among men as well (Miller, 2014). Assessing women and men’s experiences of stigmatization and labeling comparatively may illuminate different trajectories in the traditional labeling framework. This may be particularly true in instances in which men and women engage in “deviant” behaviors that do not align with traditional gender norms, for example, when men fail to fulfill the “breadwinner” role or women fail to uphold a caregiving role due to their system-involvement (Lindsey, 2011). This has been demonstrated in prior research with system-involved men (Anderson, 1999; Winnick & Bodkin, 2009), but a comparative lens would benefit labeling theory as the labeling process may have differential effects on participants’ master status and subculture acceptance across gender identities.
Also, this study focused on women who were cisgender. Those who are gender non-conforming or trans* 1 face an increased level of marginalization and stigma by the legal system (Goodmark, 2013). Future research should consider the distinct contexts of system-involvement and labeling among gender non-conforming and trans* individuals (Jenness & Gerlinger, 2020).
Conclusion
The collateral consequences of system-involvement have distinct negative implications for women’s self-perceptions and interactions with the legal system. As demonstrated from this study, crime-related labels can perpetuate such effects. Women in this study recalled the harms of such language both introspectively and through external barriers associated with a felony record. Future research must continue to examine the effects of labeling, particularly through a feminist lens. Ultimately, a humanistic approach and de-carceration would mitigate the negative impacts of labeling.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the 19 women who participated in this study and shared their experiences. We would also like to acknowledge and thank Cassandra Boyer and Saleena Alverez for their assistance with data collection and entry.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by funding awarded to Breanna Boppre by the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV): President’s Foundation Graduate Fellowship, Summer Doctoral Research Fellowship, and Graduate Processional & Student Association Research Funding Sponsorship.
