Schur suggests that in both cases the actor has legitimate access to drugs or money, which gives them some protection against being discovered, as opposed to the case of an addict buying drugs on the street, or an armed robber holding up the bank. He suggests that "resistance to negative labelling is built into opportunity'" (1971). Schur claims that "opportunity structures may determine initial deviation, but societal reactions to such deviation will significantly determine future opportunities". However, labelling theorists have had their work criticised on many levels, and these criticisms must be examined before any evaluation of the contribution of the labelling theorists to the sociology of deviance can be made. CRITICISMBecker examines some of the criticisms and feels that labelling theory was created as "a way of looking at a general area of human activity" (1963). However, it is not "a theory, with all the achievements and obligations that go with the title, nor is it focussed exclusively on the act of labelling as some have thought". Moreover, Becker does mention some of the criticisms given to labelling theory. For example, he states how "interactionist theories have been accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, be the enemy those who would upset the stability of the existing order of the Establishment". In essence, we have already mentioned the suggestion of Erikson that deviance is a necessary part of society, showing the difference between right and wrong, and encouraging the majority of society to "toe the line" at the expense of the deviant minority. A further criticism mentioned by Becker is that given by many conservative critics (although other non-conservative critics have also noted this) that is, that "interactionist theories of deviance openly or covertly attack conventional morality". Becker acknowledges this, suggesting that "intentionally or otherwise, they are corrosive of conventional m...
