However, "by the very emphasis on the deviant and his identity problems and subculture, the opposite effect may have been achieved" (Liazos,1972). Secondly, he suggests that while considering the more usual, everyday types of deviance, such as homosexuality, prostitution, and juvenile delinquency, the labelling theorists have totally ignored a more dangerous and malevolent type of deviance, what Liazos himself terms "covert institutional violence". He suggests that this type of violence "leads to such things as poverty and exploitation, the war in Vietnam, unjust tax laws, racism, sexism, and so on..." (1972). However, it is questionable whether labelling theorists should even attempt to discuss forms of deviance such as this in the same way as more commonplace individual crimes, or whether the two should be kept totally separate, being so different in subject matter. Liazos also criticises the labelling theorists as they do not consider the extent of the importance of power in their substantive analysis, although all stress its importance. He says that "the really powerful, the upper classes and the power elite", those that could be referred to as the "top dogs", are not considered in any great detail by the labelling theorists. A further criticism of the labelling theory is that of Jack Gibb (1966). He questions the success of the labelling theorists in terms of how they interpret the defining of behaviour as deviant, as well as, how much study is actually done in this area. In addition, Becker (1963) goes out of his way to explain the underlying problems of labelling theory. First of all, he suggests that there are "not enough studies of deviant behaviour". He further implies that there are "not enough studies of enough kinds of deviant behaviour". Finally, he insists that another deficiency of the labelling theory is that they "don't have enough studies in which the persons doing the research achieve close contact with...
