In this essay I will discuss how relevant and useful the insights generated during the 1950s and 1960s are by deviance and labeling theorists and researchers labeling, and how they still make sense in the 21st century. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay With deviance, insights generated during the 1950s and 1960s show that subcultures exist within deviance which can be divided into three categories, as stated by Steve Case, these begin with the first where he says which “is justified by purely 'criminal values', and is therefore based on the pursuit of material rewards through illegitimate means.” He then goes on to state that the second category “is populated by those whose status is earned by exercising force and perpetrating domination through violent means.” And the third category mentioned by the Steve case is therefore “represented by alienation and withdrawal from conventional roles, which can be evident in drug cultures”. This is relevant to the 21st century because deviance still plays a huge role in criminology. They appear within the traditional norm, behavioral expectations and values. Although, as Merton pointed out in 1957, “the denial of regular opportunity or status and the attractiveness of alternative routes to some sort of social position apparently combine to offer routes into criminality, and even an alternative rebellious identity for young people who should they choose to follow it." course". This means that it is still relevant for the 21st century even if it is 50-60 years old, since many of those who follow deviance are young and that if they come from a certain social position it can mean that they will go to crime. Another reason why deviance is still relevant in the 21st century is because, depending on how someone is raised or whether a young person is subject to conformity, it would end up structuring the young person's life. With labeling theory it has a dual effect: process of falling back, so that the initial commission of a crime, which would be primary deviance, was subsequently compounded by the experience of being tried and then formally identified as an offender, this would then lead to secondary deviance McVie in 2007, drew on the findings of the "Edinburgh Study on Youth Transitions and Crime". The analysis conducted shows that the criminalization of young people would largely depend on selective police responses, in which "disadvantaged young people and children" would be discriminated against the police, in terms of the initial decision whether or not to press charges. The reason this is relevant in the 21st century is because younger men are classified as the “usual suspects” in crime. This means that they are more likely to be labeled as criminals and become deviants within society. In 1951, Edwin Lemert proposed that there were two types of deviance, calling them "primary and secondary deviance". It is stated that the primary type is temporary and would often be "secret". It would not result in any long-term harm to the perpetrator as the act does not “provoke a social reaction”, however, if it does, the reaction is not very strong or even stigmatising. With secondary deviance comes more profound long-term consequences, where in some cases the offender's act is then caused by the way he or she has come to think of himself. Where the impact would be socially labeled as criminal or deviant and could have a psychological impact on one's identity. This is therefore relevant for the 21st century to be with the.