odes of thought and established institutions". Becker (1967) goes as far as to say that the labelling theorist must side with the deviator, as it is up to the sociologists to remedy unfair situations. However, not all theorists would see the work of Becker and the other labelling theorists as quite so radical. As a matter of fact, many sociologists view labelling theory as an untestable and untrue theory. Furthermore, Becker (1963) acknowledges that his labelling theory is a theoretical approach, not a true theory. As well, Becker suggests that sociologists should attempt establishing empirical tests for his approach. The conservative nature of labelling theory was also criticized, specifically by E. M. Schur. He suggested that although the "sociology of the underdog" is indispensable in the alleviation of the unnecessary suffering of the deviant individual, the labelling theorists are guilty of "romanticizing certain non-political deviations and avoiding a truly radical critique of the social system as a whole" (1971). However, one of the major criticisms of labelling theory is that it is deterministic. As a matter of fact, it specifically treats the individuals as if they were no more than passive organisms, herded into behaviour by the act of the labels being given to it. As well, further criticism is given due to the fact that, following behaviour patterns is the mere result of the behaviour patterns being ascribed to it. For instance, Herbert Blumer (1969) suggests that "the human being is seen as an active organism in his own right, facing, dealing with, and acting toward the object he indicates". On the other hand, Alexander Liazos (1972) provides for three criticisms based on the work of labelling theorists. First of all, he notes that although a labelling theorists aim is to "humanise" the deviant individual and show that he or she is no different than other individuals, except perhaps in terms of opportunity....
