or broken some rule, because the process of labelling theory may not be infallible". In other words, to be labelled deviant does not necessarily mean that the individual is, or has been deviant in the past. In addition, Kai T. Erikson (1966) also highlights the way social reaction affects the deviant individual. He reinforces what Becker had previously suggested saying that "deviance is not a property inherent in certain forms of behaviour, it is a property conferred upon these forms by the audiences which directly or indirectly witness them" (Erikson,1966). He suggests that deviance is necessary to society's stability, rather than being responsible for its breakdown, as the deviant individual serves as a marker of the difference between good and evil, right and wrong, and as Erikson writes, "in doing so, he shows us the difference between the inside of the group and the outside". He goes on to bring forward the question of whether or not the labelling of deviant individuals is necessary in holding society together. As well, is it fair to say that in order to perpetuate this, "societies are organised in such a way as to promote this resource". In other words, is it possible that the procedure of creating deviant individuals, although unfair, must continue, as scapegoats are necessary for the "moral safety" of the rest of society? NEGATIVE LABELLINGAaron V. Cicourel (1968), explains the treatment of delinquents in two similar Californian cities by using labelling theory. He claims that a difference in juvenile justice can be accounted for by different policies of the police, and by the ability of middle class parents to negotiate justice. He concludes by stating that some individuals are more likely than others to be labelled as deviant, due to their status in life. This theory was reinforced by E. M. Schur(1971), who discusses the drug addiction of many doctors, or the likelihood of bank tellers to misappropriate funds. ...
