Subversion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subversion

 

Subversion (from Latin subvertere 'overthrow') refers to a process by which the values and principles of a system in place are contradicted or reversed in an attempt to sabotage the established social order and its structures of power, authority, tradition, hierarchy, and social norms. Subversion can be described as an attack on the public morale and, "the will to resist intervention are the products of combined political and social or class loyalties which are usually attached to national symbols. Following penetration, and parallel with the forced disintegration of political and social institutions of the state, these tendencies may be detached and transferred to the political or ideological cause of the aggressor".

Subversion is used as a tool to achieve political goals because it generally carries less risk, cost, and difficulty as opposed to open belligerency. Furthermore, it is a relatively cheap form of warfare that does not require large amounts of training. A subversive is something or someone carrying the potential for some degree of subversion. In this context, a "subversive" is sometimes called a "traitor" with respect to (and usually by) the government in power. Subversion is also often a goal of comedians, artists and people in those careers. In this case, being subversive can mean questioning, poking fun at, and undermining the established order in general.

Terrorist groups generally do not employ subversion as a tool to achieve their goals. Subversion is a manpower-intensive strategy and many groups lack the manpower and political and social connections to carry out subversive activities. However, actions taken by terrorists may have a subversive effect on society. Subversion can imply the use of insidious, dishonest, monetary, or violent methods to bring about such change. This is in contrast to protest, a coup d'état, or working through traditional means in a political system to bring about change. Furthermore, external subversion is where, "the aggressor state attempts to recruit and assist indigenous political and military actors to overthrow their government by coup d’état". If subversion fails in its goal of bringing about a coup it is possible that the actors and actions of the subversive group could transition to insurrection, insurgency, and/or guerrilla warfare.

The word is present in all languages of Latin origin, originally applying to such events as the military defeat of a city. As early as the 14th century, it was being used in the English language with reference to laws, and in the 15th century came to be used with respect to the realm. The term has taken over from 'sedition' as the name for illicit rebellion, though the connotations of the two words are rather different; sedition suggesting overt attacks on institutions, subversion something much more surreptitious, such as eroding the basis of belief in the status quo or setting people against each other.

Definition

The problem with defining the term subversion is that there is not a single definition that is universally accepted.^[8] Charles Townshend described subversion as a term "so elastic as to be virtually devoid of meaning, and its use does little more than convey the enlarged sense of the vulnerability of modern systems to all kinds of covert assaults." What follows are some of the many attempts to define the term:

"Subversion is the undermining or detachment of the loyalties of significant political and social groups within the victimized state, and their transference, under ideal conditions, to the symbols and institutions of the aggressor."

"Subversion — Actions designed to undermine the military, economic, psychological, or political strength or morale of a governing authority."

"Subversive Activity — Anyone lending aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence is subversive and is engaged in subversive activity. All willful acts that are intended to be detrimental to the best interests of the government and that do not fall into the categories of treason, sedition, sabotage, or espionage will be placed in the category of subversive activity."

"Subversive Political Action — A planned series of activities designed to accomplish political objectives by influencing, dominating, or displacing individuals or groups who are so placed as to affect the decisions and actions of another government."

Subversion — "A destructive, aggressive activity aimed to destroy the country, nation, or geographical area of your enemy... [by demoralizing the cultural values and changing the population's perception of reality].

Subversion — Roger Trinquier defined subversion as a term that could be lumped together under the name modern warfare, "as being interlocking systems of actions, political, economic, psychological and military that aims at the overthrow of established authority in a country."

Conceptual understanding

Defining and understanding subversion means identifying entities, structures, and things that can be subverted. Furthermore, it may help to identify practices and tools that are not subversive. Institutions and morals can be subverted, but ideology on the other hand cannot. The fall of a government or the creation of a new government as a result of an external war is not subversion. Espionage does not count as subversion because it is not an action that leads directly to an overthrow of a government. Information gathered from espionage may be used to plan and carry out subversive activities.

To gain an understanding of what is considered to be subversive requires understanding the intent of those taking action. This makes defining and identifying subversion a difficult process. As Laurence Beilenson points out, "To criticize a government in an effort to reform it or to change its policies is not subversion, even though such criticism may contribute to overthrow. But criticism intended to help a projected overthrow becomes subversive without regard to whether it is right or wrong."

Types

Subversion can generally be broken down into internal and external subversion, but this distinction is not meant to imply that each follows a specific set of unique and separate tools and practices. Each subversive campaign is different because of the social, political, economic, cultural, and historical differences that each country has. Subversive activities are employed based upon an evaluation of these factors. This breakdown merely clarifies who the actors are. While the subversive actors may be different, the soon to be subverted targets are the same. As Paul W. Blackstock identifies, the ruling and political elites are the ultimate targets of persuasion because they control the physical instruments of state power.

Internal subversion is actions taken by those within a country and can be used as a tool of power. In most cases the use or threat of force is the last step of internal subversion.

External subversion is actions taken by another country in cooperation with those inside the subverted country and can be used as a tool of statecraft. Foreign volunteers from another country are not enough to qualify for external subversion. The reason for this is that the individuals may legitimately share the cause of the internal subversive dissidents and have legitimately volunteered. Only when the government itself furnishes a nation with money, arms, supplies, or other help to dissidents can it be called external subversion.

Tools and practices

See also: Propaganda and Deception

Subversive actions can generally be grouped into three interrelated categories:

• Establishing front groups and penetrating and manipulating existing political parties
• Infiltrating the armed forces, the police, and other institutions of the state, as well as important non-government organizations
• Generating civil unrest through demonstrations, strikes, and boycotts.

Other factors, while not specifically falling into these categories, may also be useful to subversive dissidents. Additionally, many tools may overlap into other groups of tools as well. As an example, subversives may infiltrate an organization for cultural subversion more so than for control. Civil unrest may be used to provoke the government into a violent response.

Infiltration and establishing front groups

In order for a group to be successful in subverting a government, the group itself and its ideas must be seen as an acceptable alternative to the status quo. However, groups that work toward subverting a government, in many cases, follow ideas and promote goals that on their surface would not receive the support of the population. Therefore, "to gain public credibility, attract new supporters, generate revenue, and acquire other resources, groups need to undertake political activities that are entirely separate, or appear separate, from the overtly violent activities of those groups. Sometimes this is achieved by infiltrating political parties, labor unions, community groups, and charitable organizations." Infiltrating organizations is an important tool because these institutions are already seen as legitimate in the eyes of the people and provide a platform to express their ideas. When infiltrating, the dissident identifies needs of the organization and then links those needs to solutions that his ideology can provide. This was a technique that the Communist Party USA employed. Once the organization has been co-opted, the dissident can then move on to establishing ties with other groups. Furthermore, in addition to gaining possible legitimacy for its ideas the infiltration of these groups can "bolster political allies, attack government policies, and attract international support." If some organizations are too difficult to infiltrate, it may be necessary to create new organizations that appear to be independent but are actually under the direction of the subversive group.

The infiltration of state organizations can provide subversive groups the opportunity to do many things to achieve their goals. The infiltration of security forces can provide information about the government's capabilities and how they plan to address the group's activities. Infiltration also provides the opportunity to plant false information, lead the government to misallocate resources, to steal funds, weapons, equipment, and other resources, and ultimately aid in weakening and delegitimizing the government. The targets of infiltration are not limited to the groups and institutions mentioned above. Economic industries and universities have also been the target for infiltration. In the case of universities, the liberal arts departments are more prone to subversion than the hard sciences.

Russian and French methods

Dominique Poirier, former employee and specialist in communication warfare in the French intelligence service, DGSE, describes extensively subversion in a book on the practices and methods of this agency published in 2019,^[25] yet he rarely uses the noun "subversion", remarkably. While presenting and describing extensively the Russian and French methods of subversion and counter-subversion, he explains that the French intelligence community in particular uses the term guerre de l’information, or "information warfare". Then information warfare subsumes a number of other nouns, sometimes of Russian origin, each denoting a specific action that may actually describe an action of subversion or counter-subversion. Coming to add to the latter difference in perception of the action of subversion, he further says that information warfare in the French intelligence community is ruled itself by active measures that the DGSE, acting as leading intelligence agency in France, adopted as an "all-encompassing" doctrine. Indeed, active measures in France would regulate not only all intelligence and counterintelligence activities, but also foreign affairs and diplomacy, domestic politics, and even the activities of the major industrial and business companies and groups in this country, since a period he locates between 1980 and 1982. For all the latter would be logically called to partake in a common and coherent effort in intelligence, counterintelligence, influence, and counterinfluence on the French soil as abroad. Actually, the French intelligence community, and the DGSE in particular, always use the nouns "interference" (French: ingérence) and "counterinterference" (contre-ingérence) to name "subversion" and "counter-subversion" respectively. The DGSE and one other intelligence agency of this country at least are particularly active in subversive activities abroad, often in a joint effort with the Russian foreign intelligence service, SVR RF, with a focus on the United States, Dominique Poirier specifies from firsthand knowledge and experience spanning the years 1980 to c. 2001. In the latter context, the main methods of subversion he presents as "actions of influence" and their expected results are the followings.

Most French and Russian actions of subversion, and of domestic influence alike, actually are governed by the notion of minority influence as initially defined by social psychologist Serge Moscovici. However, the DGSE in particular designs all such actions in accordance with fundamentals of a scientific approach akin to behaviorism, called "behavioral biology" (French: biologie comportementale) initially established in the early 1980s by French military scientist Henri Laborit. Additionally, the narrative, or "formal aims" of the action of subversion — when there is one, as behavioral biology focuses on acting on the unconscious, or id, locating in the reptilian brain as defined by Paul D. MacLean — is defined in accordance with fundamentals in epistemology, another Russian import in French information warfare and active measures.

The expression "awareness raising" "was a Soviet import that occurred in France during the preparatory stage of the riots and general strikes of May 1968. It happened in the early months of the latter year, first as a sophisticated technique in agitprop known in the Soviet KGB under the name сенсибилизация (siencibilizatz’iya), otherwise used in the other field of epistemology in Soviet Union. In France, the latter Russian word was given definitively the translation 'sensibilisation' (without equivalent in English) circa March 1968, as this word, sounding similar, already existed with other meanings in this country. The latter facts explain why sensibilisation / 'awareness raising' is the same in its principle as the other method of 'minority influence' in agitprop." "An action of awareness raising in active measures may aim to influence the opinion of the public in one's own country or that of a foreign country or both, and its goal is to make masses of people receptive to a concern that may be either true and founded, or false and ill-founded in reality, or neither entirely true and founded nor entirely false and ill-founded but "somewhere between these two absolutes." The latter hypothesis, which often is expected in active measures, is explained and ruled by the disciplines of fuzzy logic and chaos theory, and generally aims to breed doubt, confusion, or inhibition, and then angst, discontent, or fear in the minds of people.

Remarkably, French experts in domestic influence and subversion use colloquially the noun "sleepwalkers" (French: somnanbules) to call "all ordinary people composing the masses. The reason justifying the choice of this noun, pejorative in a sense, is that an overwhelming majority of ʻordinary peopleʼ are unable to tell the difference between neutral, objective information (news) and propaganda intended to influence. As seen from the viewpoint of specialists, the whole population behaves as millions of 'sleepwalkers' ready to believe anything the media, authors, and agents of influence tell and write, indifferently. The reason explaining the naïveté is that people tend to believe at its face value everything is formally published and broadcast, by wrongly attributing some official and unanimously approved virtue to media such as print and audiovisual periodical publications, books, and similar. Then the greater the number of people truly or apparently involved in the publishing / broadcasting of a fact or fallacy is, the truer it seems to be in the understanding of the masses. Additionally, the greater the known number of people who watched, listened, or read the fact or fallacy is, the greater the probability is that ʻit is true indeed,ʼ still in the understanding of the masses. ... Moreover, in France, specialists in influence and counter-influence are tasked to prevent the masses of people / 'sleepwalkers' from "waking up" and understanding that they actually are thus fooled permanently, and by which methods and tricks they are so, since their own country fabricates and spreads fallacies for them either. In other words, about the latter explanation, teaching the masses on methods and techniques in foreign influence would be effective and salutary, doubtless, but at the same time it would reveal to them the influence and propaganda that their own government tailors and spreads for them. ... In the DGSE, a rule alluding colloquially to this particular definition of sleepwalker says, Ils dorment ; ne les réveillez pas ('They [the masses] sleep, don't wake them up'). Edgar Morin, French communist philosopher, sociologist, intelligence officer, and founder of modern methods and techniques of mass influence and manipulation is at the origin of this particular use of the word sleepwalker. Morin often said, "Eveillés, ils dorment" ('Awaken, they sleep'), quoting his own way Greek philosopher Heraclitus. Thus, Morin implied that, as taken collectively, ordinary people who constitute the masses are too stupid to make the difference between the truth, influence, propaganda, and disinformation. For the record, the exact and complete English translation of Morin's quote above is, "All men do walk in sleep, and all have faith in that they dream: for all things are as they seem to all, and all things flow like a stream."

Economics

Economics can be both a tool of the internal and external subversive. For the external subversive simply cutting off credit can cause severe economic problems for a country. An example of this is the United States' relations with Chile in the early 1970s. In an attempt to get Salvador Allende removed from office, the United States tried to weaken the Chilean economy. Chile received little foreign investments and the loss of credit prevented Chile from purchasing vital imports. An economic pressure of this kind prevents an economy from functioning and reduces a country's standard of living. If the reduction is too great, the people may become willing to support a change in the government's leadership. The main objective of economic pressures is to make it difficult for the country to fulfill its basic obligations to the citizenry either by cutting off trade or by depriving it of resources.

The internal subversive can also use economics to put pressure on the government through use of the strike. An example of this is the Chilean Truckers' Strike during the 1970s. The strike prevented the transport of food staples and forced nearly 50% of the national economy to cease production. Activities of these kinds create human, economic, and political problems that, if not addressed, can challenge the competency of the government.

Agitation and civil unrest

As defined by Laurence Beilenson, agitation is "subversive propaganda by action such as mass demonstrations or the political strike, that is, a strike not intended to benefit the union or workers in the ordinary sense, but intended instead against the government." Furthermore, propaganda and agitation, even when they are legal forms of freedom of speech, press, and assembly can still be classified as subversive activity. These tools further demonstrate the need to determine intent of those taking action to identify subversive activities.

Civil unrest creates many of the problems that an insurgency campaign does. First of all it is an affront to government authority, and if the government is unable to quell the unrest it leads to an erosion of state power. This loss of power stems from the people's lack of trust in the government to maintain law and order. In turn, the people begin to question whether or not new leadership is needed. Discrediting, disarming, and demoralizing the government is the goal of these activities and the cause of the government's loss of power. Civil unrest depletes resources as the government is forced to spend more money on additional police. Additionally, civil unrest may be used to provoke a response from the government. In the 1940s, during strikes against the Marshall Plan, communists in France would "deliberately provoke the police and gendarmerie into acts of repressive violence in order to exploit the resulting 'martyrs to the cause' for propaganda purposes." These martyrs and subsequent propaganda can be useful in turning political and social groups against each other. The less violent forms of unrest, "such as worker absenteeism, passive resistance, boycotts, and deliberate attempts to cripple government agencies by 'overloading the system' with false reports, can have powerfully disruptive effects, both economically and politically."

Offensive terror

Offensive terror can be defined as the killing of people, destruction of property, kidnapping, etc. It is usually a minor part of subversion and "is used not to exert force in the transfer of state power, but is meant to cower the people or ruler." Force used in this manner is meant to reinforce other forms or persuasion in addition to cowering the people or leaders. Additionally, much like civil unrest and agitation, it raises the question of whether or not the state can provide security for the population. Terror also provides a practical motivation of physically removing political opponents. The assassination of an organization's leader may open the door to a successor that is more friendly to the subversives position or possibly someone that has successfully infiltrated the organization and is in fact one of the subversives.

Bribery

Bribery is one of the most common tools of subversion. Most societies see bribery as a form of corruption, and it used as a subversive tool because it "implies the undermining of existing rules of political or moral conduct." It can also be one of the less reliable tools as well. Bribed officials are only useful if they take action. However, actions taken over a period of time draw suspicion from the public. The official must be able to carefully conceal their actions or perform only key functions and action. For these reasons, bribed officials are most effective when they are asked to take immediate action. In the case of external subversion, bribery is usually used for influence rather than for actions.

Subverting cultural hegemony

Recent writers, in the post-modern and post-structuralist traditions (including, particularly, environmentalist and feminist writers) have prescribed a very broad form of subversion. It is not directly the parliamentary government which should be subverted in their view, but the dominant cultural forces, such as patriarchy, individualism, and scientism. This broadening of the target of subversion owes much to the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, who stressed that communist revolution required the erosion of the particular form of 'cultural hegemony' within society.

Theodor Adorno argued that the culture industry and its shallow entertainment was a system by which society was controlled through a top-down creation of standardized culture that intensified the commodification of artistic expression; in 1938, he said that capitalism has colonized every aspect of life so much that "every pleasure which emancipates itself from the exchange-value takes on subversive features."

Using culture to bring about change to a political system through integration of political warfare and political action and the targeting of cultural vehicles and institutions is another tool of subversion. The use of the arts or more broadly culture is primarily a tool for external subversives, as internal subversives are generally citizens of the country and share the same culture. It is a tool that takes a longer period of time to implement and its effects are revealed over time, as opposed to those of a terrorist attack or civil unrest. Therefore, one could classify this tool as an element of strategic subversion. The targets of cultural subversive activities are traditionally film, literature, popular music, educational institutions, mass media, religious organizations, charitable organizations, and other forms of art. The intended results of these activities are to persuade or co-opt publics, discredit the ideas of enemies and splitting factions within the enemy's camp.

The state is charged with the protection of the civilizational values of society (liberty, equality, comradeship, compassion, democracy, education, the family, religion, rule of law, human and civil rights, etc.), "including the cultural/aesthetic values that enhance the quality of life and maintain its legitimacy." In situations where the government is not being a good steward in protecting these values, the use of tools like literature, film, music can be used as a reminder of these values, as well as a forum to protest and question the government's legitimacy. Additionally, art and culture allow people to connect on an emotional level that could soften negative perceptions one may be believed to have. Once the stigma has been removed, the target may be more receptive to other messages conveyed. This individual or group would no longer be seen as being completely different from them. Another example of how culture can be subversive is seen in Iran. Western culture, media, art, etc. is popular among the country's youth, but certain elements are banned or curtailed. As the exportation of Western culture continues, conflict between the state and its citizens is created. The government is then seen as unresponsive or out of touch with its people.

Laws

Subversive activity

Subversive activity is the lending of aid, comfort, and moral support to individuals, groups, or organizations that advocate the overthrow of incumbent governments by force and violence. All willful acts that are intended to be detrimental to the best interests of the government and that do not fall into the categories of treason, sedition, diversion, sabotage, or espionage are placed in the category of subversive activity.

Mainland China

See also: Inciting subversion of state power

Subversion (Chinese: 颠覆; pinyin: Diānfù) is a crime in Mainland China. The Government of the People's Republic of China prosecutes subversives under Articles 102 through 112 of the state criminal law. These articles specify the types of behavior that constitute a threat to national security and China has prosecuted many dissidents including Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo using these laws. Of these, Articles 105 and 111 are the ones most commonly employed to silence political dissent. Article 105 criminalizes organizing, plotting, or carrying out subversion of the national order, or using rumor mongering or defamation or other means to incite subversion of the national order or the overthrow of the socialist system. Article 111 prohibits stealing, secretly collecting, purchasing, or illegally providing state secrets or intelligence to an organization, institution, or personnel outside the country.

Hong Kong

Subversion was criminalised in Hong Kong on 30 June 2020 by Hong Kong national security law.

Italy

Subversion is a crime in Italy (Attentato alla Costituzione) under Article 283 of Italian criminal law (Codice penale italiano) and Associazione sovversiva under Articles 270 and 270-bis.

United Kingdom

Main article: Sedition

There is no crime defined as "subversion" (as opposed to treason) in British constitutional law. Attempts have been made to introduce definitions but there is no general consensus among political and legal theorists.

Historically MI5 were entrusted with the legal investigative powers for concerns of threats to national security by subversion, but in the Security Service Act 1989, subversion was not mentioned, and according to the official MI5 website, subversion is no longer investigated, due to a reduced threat as a result of the end of the Cold War and of associated political situations since the 1980s.

United States

In federal law, 18 U.S.C. ch. 115 covers "Treason, Sedition, and Subversive Activities."

As related above, members of the Communist Party were supposed by legislators to be subversives, especially after the Russian Revolution. The House Un-American Activities Committee was formed in 1938 in order to investigate alleged disloyalty and subversive activities on the part of private citizens, public employees, and those organizations suspected of having Communist ties. Senator Joseph McCarthy became the most visible public face of a period in which Cold War tensions fueled fears of widespread Communist subversion. The term "McCarthyism," coined in 1950 in reference to McCarthy's practices, including public attacks on the character or patriotism of political opponents, was soon applied to similar anti-communist activities. Senator Pat McCarran sponsored the McCarran Internal Security Act of 1950 and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, both of which were hotly contested in the law courts, and by Harry Truman, who went so far as to veto the former; however, the veto was overridden in the Senate by a margin of 57 to 10.

In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that an avowed publisher of the Communist doctrine could be naturalized a citizen of the United States in Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118 (1943).

Aptheker v. Secretary of State tested in 1964 whether a passport could be disallowed to a Communist. Aptheker won.

Elfbrandt v. Russell involved questions concerning the constitutionality of an Arizona Act requiring an oath from state employees. William O. Douglas wrote in 1966 for a strongly divided court the majority opinion that the State could not require the oath and accompanying statutory gloss.

The Warren court ruled by 5–4 majority in Keyishian v. Board of Regents (of SUNY) to strike down New York State law that prohibited membership by professors in any organization that advocated the overthrow of the US government or any organization that was held by the Regents to be "treasonous" or "seditious." The Regents also required teachers and employees to sign an oath that they were not members of the Communist Party.

Iran

Subversion (Persian: براندازی, romanized: barandāzi) is a crime in Iran. The government of Islamic Republic of Iran prosecutes subversives under Articles 498 through 500, 507 and 508 of Iran's criminal laws.

Constructive neutral evolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_neutral_evolution 

Constructive neutral evolution (CNE) is a theory that seeks to explain how complex systems can evolve through neutral transitions and spread through a population by chance fixation (genetic drift). Constructive neutral evolution is a competitor for both adaptationist explanations for the emergence of complex traits and hypotheses positing that a complex trait emerged as a response to a deleterious development in an organism. Constructive neutral evolution often leads to irreversible or "irremediable" complexity and produces systems which, instead of being finely adapted for performing a task, represent an excess complexity that has been described with terms such as "runaway bureaucracy" or even a "Rube Goldberg machine".

The groundworks for the concept of CNE were laid by two papers in the 1990s, although first explicitly proposed by Arlin Stoltzfus in 1999. The first proposals for the role CNE was in the evolutionary origins of complex macromolecular machines such as the spliceosome, RNA editing machinery, supernumerary ribosomal proteins, chaperones, and more. Since then and as an emerging trend of studies in molecular evolution, CNE has been applied to broader features of biology and evolutionary history including some models of eukaryogenesis, the emergence of complex interdependence in microbial communities, and de novo formation of functional elements from non-functional transcripts of junk DNA. Several approaches propose a combination of neutral and adaptive contributions in the evolutionary origins of various traits.

Many evolutionary biologists posit that CNE must be the null hypothesis when explaining the emergence of complex systems to avoid assuming that a trait arose for an adaptive benefit. A trait may have arisen neutrally, even if later co-opted for another function. This approach stresses the need for rigorous demonstrations of adaptive explanations when describing the emergence of traits. This avoids the "adaptationist fallacy" which assumes that all traits emerge because they are adaptively favoured by natural selection.

Principles

Excess capacity, presuppression, and ratcheting

Conceptually, there are two components A and B (e.g. two proteins) that interact with each other. A, which performs a function for the system, does not depend on its interaction with B for its functionality, and the interaction itself may have randomly arisen in an individual with the ability to disappear without an effect on the fitness of A. This present yet currently unnecessary interaction is therefore called an "excess capacity" of the system. A mutation may then occur which compromises the ability of A to perform its function independently. However, the A:B interaction that has already emerged sustains the capacity of A to perform its initial function. Therefore, the emergence of the A:B interaction "presuppresses" the deleterious nature of the mutation, making it a neutral change in the genome that is capable of spreading through the population via random genetic drift. Hence, A has gained a dependency on its interaction with B. In this case, the loss of B or the A:B interaction would have a negative effect on fitness and so purifying selection would eliminate individuals where this occurs. While each of these steps are individually reversible (for example, A may regain the capacity to function independently or the A:B interaction may be lost), a random sequence of mutations tends to further reduce the capacity of A to function independently and a random walk through the dependency space may very well result in a configuration in which a return to functional independence of A is far too unlikely to occur, making CNE a one-directional or "ratchet-like" process.

Biases on the production of variation

CNE models of systematic complexification may rely crucially on some systematic bias in the generation of variation. This is explained relative to the original set of CNE models as follows:

In the gene-scrambling and RNA pan-editing cases, and in the fragmentation of introns, the initial state of the system (unscrambled, unedited, unfragmented) is unique or rare with regard to some extensive set of combinatorial possibilities (scrambled, edited, fragmented) that may be reached by mutation and (possibly neutral) fixation. The resulting systemic bias drives a departure from the improbable initial state to one of many alternative states. In the editing model, a deletion:insertion mutational bias plays a subsidiary role. In the gene duplication model, as well as in the explanation for loss of self-splicing and for the origin of protein dependencies in splicing, it is assumed that mutations that reduce activity or affinity or stability are much more common than those with the opposite effect. The resulting directionality consists in duplicate genes undergoing reductions in activity, and introns losing self-splicing ability, becoming dependent on available proteins as well as trans-acting intron fragments.

That is, some of the models have a component of long-term directionality that reflects biases in variation. A population-genetic effect of bias in the introduction process, which appeared as a verbal theory in the original CNE proposal, was later articulated and demonstrated formally  (see Bias in the introduction of variation). This kind of effect does not require neutral evolution, lending credence to the suggestion  that the components of CNE models may be considered in a general theory of complexification not specifically linked to neutrality.

Subfunctionalization

A case of CNE is subfunctionalization. The concept of subfunctionalization is that one original (ancestral) gene gives rise to two paralogous copies of that gene, where each copy can only carry out part of the function (or subfunction) of the original gene. First, a gene undergoes a gene duplication event. This event produces a new copy of the same gene known as a paralog. After the duplication, deleterious mutations are accrued in both copies of the gene. These mutations may compromise the capacity of the gene to produce a product that can complete the desired function, or it may result in the product fully losing one of its functions. In the first scenario, the desired function may still be carried out because the two copies of the gene together (as opposed to having only one) can still produce sufficient product for the job. The organism is now dependent on having two copies of this gene which are both slightly degenerated versions of their ancestor. In the second scenario, the genes may undergo mutations where they lose complementary functions. That is to say, one protein may lose only one of its two functions whereas the other protein only loses the other of its two functions. In this case, the two genes now only carry out the individual subfunctions of the original gene, and the organism is dependent on having each gene to carry out each individual subfunction.

Paralogues that functionally interact to maintain the ancestral function can be termed "paralogous heteromers". One high-throughput study confirmed that the rise of such interactions between paralogous proteins as one possible long-term fate of paralogues was frequent in yeast, and the same study further found that paralogous heteromers accounted for eukaryotic protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. One specific mechanism for the evolution of paralogous heteromers is by the duplication of an ancestral protein interacting with other copies of itself (homomers). To inspect the role of this process in the origins of paralogous heteromers, it was found that ohnologs (paralogues that arise from whole-genome duplications) that form paralogous heteromers in Saccharomyces cerevisiae (budding yeast) are more likely to have homomeric orthologues than ohnologs in Schizosaccharomyces pombe. Similar patterns were found in the PPI networks of humans and the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana.

Examples of CNE

Identification and testability

To positively identify features as having evolved through CNE, several approaches are possible. The basic notion of CNE is that features which have evolved through CNE are complex ones but do not provide an advantage in fitness over their simpler ancestors. That is to say, an unnecessary complexification has occurred. In some cases, phylogeny can be used to inspect ancestral versions of systems and to see if those ancestral versions were simpler and, if they were, if the rise in complexity came with an advantage in fitness (i.e. acted as an adaptation). While it is not straight forward to identify how adaptive the emergence of a complex feature was, some methods are available. If the more complex system has the same downstream effects in its biochemical pathway as the ancestral and simpler system, this suggests that the complexification did not carry with it any increase in fitness. This approach is simpler when analyzing complex traits of which evolved more recently and are taxonomically restricted in a few lineages because "derived features can be more easily compared to their sisters and inferred ancestors". The 'gold standard' approach for identifying cases of CNE involves direct experimentation, where ancestral versions of genes and systems are reconstructed and their properties directly identified. The first example of this involved analysis of components of a V-ATPase proton pump in fungal lineages.

RNA editing

RNA editing systems have patchy phylogenetic distributions, indicating that they are derived traits. RNA editing is required when a genome (most often that of the mitochondria) needs to have its mRNA edited through various substitutions, deletions, and insertions prior to translation. Guide RNA molecules derived from separate semicircular strands of DNA provide the correct sequence for the RNA editing complex to make the corresponding edits. The RNA editing complex in Kinetoplastida can comprise over 70 proteins in some taxonomically restricted lineages, and mediate thousands of edits. Another taxonomically restricted case of a different form of RNA editing system is found in land plants. In kinetoplastids, RNA editing involves the addition of thousands of nucleotides and deletion of several hundreds. However, the necessity of this highly complex system is questionable. The large majority of organisms do not rely on RNA editing systems, and in the ones that do have it, the need for it is unclear as the optimal solution would be for the DNA sequence to not contain the wrong (or missing) nucleotides at several thousand sites to begin with. Furthermore, it is difficult to argue that the RNA editing system emerged only in response and to correct a genome faulty to this degree, as such a genome would have been highly deleterious to the host and eliminated through purifying (negative) selection to begin with. However, a scenario where a primitive RNA editing system gratuitously arose prior to the introduction of errors into the genome is more parsimonious. Once the RNA editing system arose, the original mitochondrial genome would be able to tolerate previously deleterious substitutions, deletions, and additions without an effect on fitness. Once a sufficient number of these deleterious mutations took place, the organism would by this point have developed a dependency on the RNA editing system to faithfully correct any inaccurate sequences.

Spliceosomal complex

Few if any evolutionary biologists believe that the initial spread of introns through a genome and within the midst of a variety of genes could have functioned as an evolutionary benefit for the organism in question. Rather, the spread of an intron into a gene in an organism without a spliceosome would be deleterious, and purifying selection would eliminate individuals where this occurs. However, if a primitive spliceosome emerged prior to the spread of introns into a hosts genome, the subsequent spread of introns would not be deleterious as the spliceosome would be capable of splicing out the introns and so allowing the cell to accurately translate the messenger RNA transcript into a functional protein. The five small nuclear RNAs (snRNAs) that act to splice out introns from genes are thought to originate from group II introns, and so it may be that these group II introns first spread and fragmented into "five easy pieces" in a host where they formed small trans-acting precursors to five modern and main snRNAs used in splicing. These precursors had the capacity to splice out other introns within a gene sequence, which then enabled introns to spread into genes without a deleterious effect.

Microbial communities

Over the course of evolution, many microbial communities have emerged where individual species are not self-sufficient and require the mutualist presence of other microbes to generate crucial nutrients for them. These dependent microbes have experienced "adaptive gene loss" in the face of being able to derive specific complex nutrients from their environment instead of having to synthesize it directly. For this reason, many microbes have developed complex nutritional requirements that have prevented their cultivation in laboratory conditions. This highly dependent state of many microbes on other organisms is similar to how parasites undergo significant simplification when a large variety of their nutritional needs are available from their hosts. J. Jeffrey Morris and coauthors explained this through the "Black Queen Hypothesis". As a counterpart, W. Ford Doolittle and T. D. P. Brunet proposed the "Gray Queen Hypothesis" to explain the emergence of these communities with CNE. Initially, loss of genes required for synthesizing important nutrients would be detrimental to the organism and so eliminated. However, in the presence of other species where these nutrients are freely available, mutations that degenerate the genes responsible for synthesizing important nutrients are no longer deleterious because these nutrients can simply be imported from the environment. Therefore, there is a "presuppression" of the deleterious nature of these mutations. Because these mutations are no longer deleterious, deleterious mutations in these genes freely accumulate and render these organisms now dependent on the presence of complementary microbes for supplying their nutritional needs. This simplification of individual microbial species in a community gives rise to a higher community-level complexity and interdepence.

Null hypothesis

CNE has also been put forwards as the null hypothesis for explaining complex structures, and thus adaptationist explanations for the emergence of complexity must be rigorously tested on a case-by-case basis against this null hypothesis prior to acceptance. Grounds for invoking CNE as a null include that it does not presume that changes offered an adaptive benefit to the host or that they were directionally selected for, while maintaining the importance of more rigorous demonstrations of adaptation when invoked so as to avoid the excessive flaws of adaptationism criticized by Gould and Lewontin.

Eugene Koonin has argued that for evolutionary biology to be a strictly "hard" science with a solid theoretical core, null hypotheses need to be incorporated and alternatives need to falsify the null model before being accepted. Otherwise, "just-so" adaptive stories may be posited for the explanation of any trait or feature. For Koonin and others, constructive neutral evolution plays the role as this null.

Transgender sexuality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_sexuality

 

Sexuality in transgender individuals encompasses all the issues of sexuality of other groups, including establishing a sexual identity, learning to deal with one's sexual needs, and finding a partner, but may be complicated by issues of gender dysphoria, side effects of surgery, physiological and emotional effects of hormone replacement therapy, psychological aspects of expressing sexuality after medical transition, or social aspects of expressing their gender.

Sexual orientation

Historically, clinicians labelled trans people as heterosexual or homosexual relative to their sex assigned at birth. Within the transgender community, sexual orientation terms based on gender identity are the most common, and these terms include lesbian, gay, bisexual, asexual, queer, and others.

Sexual orientation distribution

In the United States, transgender respondents to one 2015 survey self-identified as queer (21%), pansexual (18%), gay, lesbian, or same-gender-loving (16%), straight (15%), bisexual (14%), and asexual (10%). A second study found 23% reported being gay, lesbian, or same-gender-loving, 25% bisexual, 4% asexual, 23% queer, 23% straight and 2% something else.

Transgender women

A 2015 survey of roughly 3,000 American trans women showed that at least 60% were attracted to women and 55% were attracted to men. Of the trans women respondents 27% answered gay, lesbian, or same-gender-loving, 20% answered bisexual, 19% heterosexual, 16% pansexual, 6% answered asexual, 6% queer, and 6% did not answer.

Transgender men

Foerster reported a 15-year successful relationship between a woman and a trans man who transitioned in the late 1960s.

In the 20th century, trans men attracted to women struggled to demonstrate the existence and legitimacy of their identity. Many trans men attracted to women, such as jazz musician Billy Tipton, kept their trans status private until their deaths.

Until the mid-2010s, medical textbooks commonly suggested that most transgender men were straight. However, a 2015 survey of roughly 2000 American trans men showed more variation in sexual orientation or sexual identity among trans men. 23% identified as heterosexual or straight. The vast majority (65%) identified their sexual orientation or sexual identity as queer (24%), pansexual (17%), bisexual (12%), gay/same-gender loving (12%), asexual (7%), and 5% did not answer. Author Henry Rubin wrote that "[i]t took the substantial efforts of Lou Sullivan, a gay FTM activist who insisted that female-to-male transgender people could be attracted to men." Matt Kailey, author of Just Add Hormones: An Insider's Guide to the Transsexual Experience, recounts his transition "from 40-something straight woman to the gay man he'd always known himself to be." Researchers eventually acknowledged the existence of this phenomenon, and by the end of the 20th century, psychiatrist Ira Pauly wrote, "The statement that all female-to-male transgender are homosexual [Pauly means attracted to women] in their sexual preference can no longer be made."

Trans gay men have varying levels of acceptance within other communities.

Trans-feminine third genders

See also: Third gender

Psychiatrist Richard Green, in an appendix to Harry Benjamin's 1966 The Transsexual Phenomenon, considers people who were assigned male at birth who have adopted a more feminine gender role. In this broad overview, entitled "Transsexualism: Mythological, Historical, and Cross-Cultural Aspects", Green argues that the members of these groups are mentally indistinguishable from modern western transsexual women. They have in common early effeminacy, adulthood femininity, and attraction to masculine males.

The Hijra of the Indian Subcontinent are people who were assigned male at birth but occupy a female sexual and/or gender role, sometimes undergoing castration. As adults, they occupy a female role, but traditionally Hijra describe themselves as neither male nor female, preferring Hijra as their gender. They often express their femininity in youth; as adults, they are usually sexually-oriented towards masculine men.

Mukhannathun were transgender individuals of the Muslim faith and Arab extraction who were present in Medina and Mecca during and after the time of Muhammad. Ibn Abd Al-Barh Al-Tabaeen, a companion of Aisha Umm ul-Mu'min'in who knew the same mukhannath as Mohammed, stated that "If he is like this, he would have no desire for women and he would not notice anything about them. This is one of those who have no interest in women who were permitted to enter upon women." That said, one of the Mukhannath of Medina during Muhammad's time had married a woman.

Cultural status

Beyond western cultures, sexual behavior and gender roles vary, which affects the place of gender variant people in that culture. Nadleehe of the North American Navajo hold a respected ceremonial position, whereas the Kathoey of Thailand experience more stigma comparatively.

In Iran, while sex change is somewhat accepted, the society is heteronormative. As homosexuality is punishable by death, it is more common to see a trans man being in a relationship with a woman and a trans woman in a relationship with a man.

Sexual practices

See also: Human sexual activity

Mira Bellwether's self-published 2010 'zine Fucking Trans Women was a landmark work in its focus on the perspectives and experiences of trans women, and has been described in Sexuality & Culture as "a comprehensive guide to trans women's sexuality". It focuses in particular on sex acts possible with flaccid penises and on the innervation of pre-op and non-op trans women's genital areas. It both named and popularized the act of muffing, or stimulating the inguinal canals through an invaginated scrotum, which can offer those with genital dysphoria a way to be penetrated from the front.

Cultural studies scholar J.R. Latham wrote the first definitive analysis of trans men's sexual practices in the journal Sexualities.

Few documentaries have been produced exploring transgender people's sexual practices. Since 2013, creator Tobi Hill-Meyer has been working on a series of projects related to transgender peoples sexualities titled Doing it Again.

Research in areas of sexual behavior and experience is ongoing. One study from 2020 conducted in Spain analyzed the sexual health and behaviors of 260 participants.

Naming the body

Further information: Terminology of transgender anatomy

Many transgender individuals choose to not use the language that is typically used to refer to sexual body parts, instead using less gendered words. The reason for this practice, is that hearing the typical names for genitalia and other sexual body parts can cause severe gender dysphoria for some trans people.

Not all transgender people choose to rename their bodies. Those that choose not to rename their body, are often less uncomfortable with their body and/or do not associate their sexual body parts with a gender that differs from the one that they identify with. Ultimately, the decision of what language a trans person chooses to use for their body, and wants others to use, is up to the individual whose body is being named.

Transgender women

Some trans women choose to refer to their anuses as a vagina, pussy, or cunt. (Cunt may also refer to either inguinal canal.) Terms used for the penis include junk, strapoff, strapless, clit, and hen.

Transgender men

Some trans men refer to their vaginas as their front holes because they find that term less gendered; some use terms like man cave, bonus hole, or boy cunt. Terms used for the clitoris include the dick, cock, dicklet, while the breasts may be called the chesticles.

Effects of transitioning

Effects of feminizing hormone therapy

For transgender women, taking estrogen stimulates the development of breast tissue, causing them to increase in both size and sensitivity. This increased sensitivity can be pleasurable, painful, or both, depending on the person and the type of stimulation. Furthermore, for those taking estrogen and who have male genitalia, estrogen can (and often does) shrink the external male genitalia and decrease the production of semen (at times bringing the sperm count to zero), and can decrease the ability for the male genitalia to become erect. In addition to these changes, some transgender women going through hormone therapy (HRT) can experience changes in the way their orgasms feel. For example, some people report the ability to experience multiple orgasms.

HRT can cause decrease in sex drive or a change in the way arousal is experienced by trans women. A study published in 2014 found that 62.4% of trans women surveyed reported a decrease in sexual desire after hormone therapy and/or vaginoplasty. A 2008 study reported hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in as many as one in three post-operative trans women on HRT, while around a quarter of the cisgender female controls were judged to have the disorder. There was no difference between the two group's reported sexual desire.

Some trans women and healthcare providers anecdotally report the use of progestogens increasing libido.

A 2009 pilot study tested the effectiveness of two treatments for HSDD in trans women: transdermal testosterone and oral dydrogesterone (a progestin). After six weeks of treatment, the group treated with testosterone reported improved sexual desire, while the group treated with the progestin reported no change.

Effects of masculinizing hormone therapy

For transgender men, one of the most notable physical changes that many taking testosterone experience, in terms of sexuality and the sexual body, is the stimulation of clitoral tissue and the enlargement of the clitoris. This increase in size can range anywhere from just a slight increase to quadrupling in size. Other effects can include vaginal atrophy, where the tissues of the vagina thin and may produce less lubrication. This can make sex with the female genitalia more painful and can, at times, result in bleeding. Transgender men taking testosterone are likely at increased risk of developing urinary tract infections, especially if they have receptive vaginal intercourse.

Other effects that testosterone can have on transgender men can include an increase in their sex drive/libido. At times, this increase can be very sudden and dramatic. Like transgender women, some transgender men also experience changes in the way they experience arousal.

Effects of gender-affirming surgery

See also: gender-affirming surgery

Trans women who have undergone vaginoplasty must dilate in order to properly shape and form the neovagina. After several months, sexual intercourse can replace dilation, but if not sexually active, dilation is required again, for the rest of the patient's life.

Sexual orientation and transitioning

Some trans people maintain a consistent orientation throughout their lives, in some cases remaining with the same partner through transition.

A 2013 study found that 58.2 percent of its 452 transgender and gender-nonconforming respondents experienced sexual attraction changes during their lives, with trans masculine people more likely to experience "sexual fluidity". For transgender people who socially transitioned (about half of the total sample), 64.4 percent experienced attraction changes after transitioning, with trans feminine people more likely to experience sexual fluidity. A 2014 study of 70 trans women and 45 trans men had similar results, with trans women more likely to experience a change in sexual orientation (32.9 percent experienced changes versus 22.2 percent of trans men). In both groups of the 2014 study, trans people initially more attracted to the opposite of the sex they were assigned at birth were significantly more likely to experience sexual orientation changes (i.e. trans men initially attracted to men and trans women initially attracted to women changing their orientations). These sexual orientation changes could occur at any point in the transition process.

Some gynephilic trans women self-report that after transitioning, they became sexually oriented towards males, and explain this as part of their emerging female identity. Kurt Freund hypothesized that such reports might reflect the desire of some trans women to portray themselves as "typically feminine" or, alternatively, might reflect their erotic interest in the validation provided by male partners, rather than representing a genuine change in preference. A 2005 study which relied upon vaginal photoplethysmographies to measure blood-flow in the genitalia of postoperative trans women found they had arousal patterns which were category specific (i.e. androphilic trans women were aroused by males, gynephilic trans women were aroused by females) in a similar fashion to natal males, and argue that vaginal photoplethysmographies are a useful technology for measuring the validity of such reports. The one trans woman in the study who reported a change in sexual orientation had arousal responses consistent with her pre-reassignment sexual orientation.

While undergoing hormone therapy, some trans men report experiencing increased sexual attraction to cisgender men. This change can be confusing for those who experience it because it is often not a change that they expect to happen.

However, gender transition does not always mean sexual orientation changes will happen. A 2021 study of 469 transgender women and 433 transgender men found that sexual orientation did not change over time or with hormonal transition.

Transvestic fetishism

The DSM once had a diagnosis of "transvestic fetishism". Some therapists and activists sought to de-pathologize this category in future revisions. DSM 5, which was released in 2013, replaced the transvestic fetishism category with "transvestic disorder".

Following the example of the Benjamin Scale, in 1979 Buhrich and McConaghy proposed three clinically discrete categories of fetishistic transvestism: "nuclear" transvestites who were satisfied with cross-dressing, "marginal" transvestites who also desired feminization by hormones or surgical intervention, and "fetishistic transsexuals", who had shown fetishistic arousal but who identified as transsexuals and sought sex reassignment surgery.

Sex work

In many cultures, transgender people (especially trans women) are frequently involved in sex work such as transgender pornography. This is correlated with employment discrimination. In the 2011 National Trans Discrimination Survey, 11% of respondents reported having done sex work for income, compared to 1% of cisgender women in the US. According to the same survey, 13% of transgender Americans are unemployed, almost double the national average. 26% had lost their jobs due to their gender identity/expression. Transgender sex workers have high rates of HIV. In a review of studies on HIV prevalence in trans women working in the sex industry, over 27% were HIV positive. However, the review found that trans women engaged in sex work were not more likely than trans women not engaged in sex work to be HIV positive. Studies have found that in the United States HIV is especially prevalent amongst transgender sex workers of color, particularly black trans women, a problem that has been identified by academics and members of the transgender community.

The subject of transgender sex workers has attracted attention in the media. Paris Lees, a British trans woman and journalist, wrote an article in June 2012 for the Independent defending criticism of Ria, star of Channel 4 documentary Ria: Teen Transsexual, who was seventeen at the time and depicted as working as a prostitute at a massage parlor, saying that the choice to engage in sex work is a matter of bodily autonomy and pointing out reasons that young trans women often turn to sex work such as low self-esteem and severe employment discrimination. A review by GLAAD of its archives of transgender-inclusive television episodes from 2002 to 2012 found that 20% of transgender characters were depicted as sex workers. A 2020 Netflix documentary, Disclosure, explores this in more depth.

History

Classifying transgender people by sexual orientation

Historically, transgender people were unable to access gender affirming care unless they would be considered heterosexual post surgery. For much of the early 1900s, transgender persons were conflated with being either an invert or homosexual; as such, non-heterosexual sexual orientation data for transgender people is limited. In the 1980s, Lou Sullivan was instrumental in allowing non-heterosexual transgender people access to surgical care and hormones.

Sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld first suggested a distinction based on sexual orientation in 1923. A number of two-type taxonomies based on sexuality have subsequently been proposed by clinicians, though some clinicians believe that other factors are more clinically useful categories, or that two types are insufficient. Some researchers have distinguished trans men attracted to women and trans men attracted to men.

The Benjamin Scale proposed by endocrinologist Harry Benjamin in 1966 used sexual orientation as one of several factors to distinguish between "transvestites", "non-surgical" transsexuals, and "true transsexuals".

In 1974, Person and Ovesey proposed dividing transsexual women into "primary" and "secondary" transsexuals. They defined "primary transsexuals" as asexual persons with little or no interest in partnered sexual activity and with no history of sexual arousal to cross-dressing or "cross-gender fantasy". They defined both homosexual and "transvestic" trans people to be "secondary transsexuals".

Dr Norman Fisk noted those entering his clinic seeking reassignment surgery comprised a larger group than fit into the classical transsexual diagnosis. The article notes that effeminate gay men and heterosexual fetishistic transvestites desire surgery and could be considered good candidates for it.

In the DSM-II, released in 1968, "transsexualism" was within the "paraphilias" category, and no other information was provided.

In the DSM-III-R, released in 1987, the category of "gender identity disorder" was created, and "transsexualism" was divided into "asexual", "homosexual", "heterosexual" and "unspecified" sub-types.

In the DSM-IV-TR, released in 2000, "transsexualism" was renamed "gender identity disorder". Attraction specifications were to male, female, both, or neither, with specific variations dependent on birth sex.

In the DSM-V, released in 2013 and currently used in the United States and Canada, "gender identity disorder" is now "gender dysphoria", and attraction specifications are either gynephillic or androphillic.

Labeling theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory 

A brief representation of the idea behind labeling theory

Labeling theory posits that self-identity and the behavior of individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used to describe or classify them. It is associated with the concepts of self-fulfilling prophecy and stereotyping. Labeling theory holds that deviance is not inherent in an act, but instead focuses on the tendency of majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from standard cultural norms. The theory was prominent during the 1960s and 1970s, and some modified versions of the theory have developed and are still currently popular. Stigma is defined as a powerfully negative label that changes a person's self-concept and social identity.

Labeling theory is closely related to social-construction and symbolic-interaction analysis. Labeling theory was developed by sociologists during the 1960s. Howard Saul Becker's book Outsiders was extremely influential in the development of this theory and its rise to popularity.

Labeling theory is also connected to other fields besides crime. For instance there is the labeling theory that corresponds to homosexuality. Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues were the main advocates in separating the difference between the role of a "homosexual" and the acts one does. An example is the idea that males performing feminine acts would imply that they are homosexual. Thomas J. Scheff states that labeling also plays a part with the "mentally ill". The label does not refer to criminal but rather acts that are not socially accepted due to mental disorders.

Theoretical basis

George Herbert Mead

One of the founders of social interactionism, George Herbert Mead, focused on the internal processes of how the mind constructs one's self-image. In Mind, Self & Society (1934), he showed how infants come to know persons first and only later come to know things. According to Mead, thought is both a social and pragmatic process, based on the model of two persons discussing how to solve a problem. Mead's central concept is the self, the part of an individual's personality composed of self-awareness and self-image.

Frank Tannenbaum

Frank Tannenbaum first introduced the idea of "tagging." Kerry Townsend (2001) writes about the revolution in criminology caused by Tannenbaum's work:

"The roots of Frank Tannenbaum's theoretical model, known as the 'dramatization of evil' or labeling theory, surfaces in the mid- to late-thirties. At this time, the 'New Deal' legislation had not defeated the woes of the Great Depression, and, although dwindling, immigration into the United States continued. The social climate was one of disillusionment with the government. The class structure was one of cultural isolationism; cultural relativity had not yet taken hold. 'The persistence of the class structure, despite the welfare reforms and controls over big business, was unmistakable.'

"One of the central tenets of the theory is to encourage the end of labeling process. In the words of Frank Tannenbaum, 'the way out is through a refusal to dramatize the evil", the justice system attempts to do this through diversion programs. The growth of the theory and its current application, both practical and theoretical, provide a solid foundation for continued popularity."

Tannenbaum discusses criminal behavior, with a focus on those who commit crimes professionally or as a career. He classifies criminals into six types: occasional, financially motivated, vagrants, unintentional, mentally ill, and professional. Frank Tannenbaum's explanation of Labeling Theory highlighted the negative consequences of police interactions with children which argues that arresting youth leads to a "dramatization of evil". His research indicated that youth being arrested and labeled as criminals shapes their self-perception to fit that label.

Edwin Lemert

Edwin M. Lemert was an influential American sociologist and criminologist known for his contributions to labeling theory and the study of social deviance. He introduced the concepts of primary and secondary deviance—primary deviance being minor, initial acts of rule-breaking that don't alter self-identity, and secondary deviance occurring when an individual internalizes the deviant label imposed by society, leading to further deviant behavior. Lemert’s work emphasized how societal reactions to deviance can reinforce and escalate it, shaping an individual’s identity as deviant. Lemert's popular books, such as "Social Pathology" (1951) and "Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control" (1967), have had a lasting impact on criminology and sociology. Edwin Lemert writes: "His acts are repeated and organized subjectively and transformed into active roles and become the social criteria for assigning status.…When a person begins to employ his deviant behavior or a role based on it as a means of defense, attack, or adjustment to the overt and covert problems created by the consequent societal reaction to him, his deviation is secondary."

Howard Becker

While it was Lemert who introduced the key concepts of labeling theory, it was Howard Becker who became their successor. He first began describing the process of how a person adopts a deviant role in a study of dance musicians, with whom he once worked. He later studied the identity formation of marijuana smokers. This study was the basis of his Outsiders published in 1963. This work became the manifesto of the labeling theory movement among sociologists. In his opening, Becker writes:

"…social groups create deviance by making rules whose infraction creates deviance, and by applying those rules to particular people and labeling them as outsiders. From this point of view, deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by other of rules and sanctions to an 'offender.' The deviant is one to whom that label has been successfully applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label."

While society uses the stigmatic label to justify its condemnation, the deviant actor uses it to justify his actions. He wrote: "To put a complex argument in a few words: instead of the deviant motives leading to the deviant behavior, it is the other way around, the deviant behavior in time produces the deviant motivation."

Becker's immensely popular views were also subjected to a barrage of criticism, most of it blaming him for neglecting the influence of other biological, genetic effects and personal responsibility. In a later 1973 edition of his work, he answered his critics. He wrote that sociologists, while dedicated to studying society, are often careful not to look too closely. Instead, he wrote: "I prefer to think of what we study as collective action. People act, as Mead and Blumer have made clearest, together. They do what they do with an eye on what others have done, are doing now, and may do in the future. One tries to fit his own line of action into the actions of others, just as each of them likewise adjusts his own developing actions to what he sees and expects others to do."

Francis Cullen reported in 1984 that Becker was probably too generous with his critics. After 20 years, Becker's views, far from being supplanted, have been corrected and absorbed into an expanded "structuring perspective."

Albert Memmi

In The Colonizer and the Colonized (1965), Albert Memmi described the deep psychological effects of the social stigma created by the domination of one group by another. He wrote:

The longer the oppression lasts, the more profoundly it affects him (the oppressed). It ends by becoming so familiar to him that he believes it is part of his own constitution, that he accepts it and could not imagine his recovery from it. This acceptance is the crowning point of oppression.

In Dominated Man (1968), Memmi turned his attention to the motivation of stigmatic labeling: it justifies the exploitation or criminalization of the victim. He wrote:

Why does the accuser feel obliged to accuse in order to justify himself? Because he feels guilty toward his victim. Because he feels that his attitude and his behavior are essentially unjust and fraudulent.… Proof? In almost every case, the punishment has already been inflicted. The victim of racism is already living under the weight of disgrace and oppression.… In order to justify such punishment and misfortune, a process of rationalization is set in motion, by which to explain the ghetto and colonial exploitation.^{[16]: 191–3}

Central to stigmatic labeling is the attribution of an inherent fault: It is as if one says, "There must be something wrong with these people. Otherwise, why would we treat them so badly?"

Erving Goffman

Perhaps the most important contributor to labeling theory was Erving Goffman, President of the American Sociological Association (ASA), and one of America's most cited sociologists. His most popular books include The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Interaction Ritual, and Frame Analysis.

His most important contribution to labeling theory, however, was Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity published in 1963.

Goffman's key insights

The modern nation state's heightened demand for normalcy. Today's stigmas are the result not so much of ancient or religious prohibitions, but of a new demand for normalcy:

"The notion of the 'normal human being' may have its source in the medical approach to humanity, or in the tendency of large-scale bureaucratic organizations such as the nation state, to treat all members in some respects as equal. Whatever its origins, it seems to provide the basic imagery through which laymen currently conceive themselves."

Living in a divided world, deviants split their worlds into: (1) forbidden places where discovery means exposure and danger; (2) places where people of that kind are painfully tolerated; and (3) places where one's kind is exposed without need to dissimulate or conceal. Dealing with others is fraught with great complexity and ambiguity:

"When normals and stigmatized do in fact enter one another's immediate presence, especially when they attempt to maintain a joint conversational encounter, there occurs one of the primal scenes of sociology; for, in many cases, these moments will be the ones when the causes and effects of stigma will be directly confronted by both sides." "What are unthinking routines for normals can become management problems for the discreditable.… The person with a secret failing, then, must be alive to the social situation as a scanner of possibilities, and is therefore likely to be alienated from the simpler world in which those around them apparently dwell."

Society's demands are filled with contradictions:

On the one hand, a stigmatized person may be told that he is no different from others. On the other hand, he must declare his status as "a resident alien who stands for his group." "One has to convey the impression that the burden of the stigma is not too heavy yet keep himself at the required distance. "A phantom acceptance is allowed to provide the base for a phantom normalcy."

Familiarity need not reduce contempt. In spite of the common belief that openness and exposure will decrease stereotypes and repression, the opposite is true:

"Thus, whether we interact with strangers or intimates, we will still find that the fingertips of society have reached bluntly into the contact, even here putting us in our place."

David Matza

In On Becoming Deviant (1969), sociologist David Matza gives the most vivid and graphic account of the process of adopting a deviant role. The acts of authorities in outlawing a proscribed behavior can have two effects, keeping most out of the behavior, but also offering new opportunities for creating deviant identities. He says the concept of "affinity" does little to explain the dedication to the behavior. "Instead, it may be regarded as a natural biographical tendency born of personal and social circumstances that suggests but hardly compels a direction or movement."

What gives force to that movement is the development of a new identity:

"To be cast as a thief, as a prostitute, or more generally, a deviant, is to further compound and hasten the process of becoming that very thing."

"In shocked discovery, the subject now concretely understands that there are serious people who really go around building their lives around his activities—stopping him, correcting him, devoted to him. They keep records on the course of his life, even develop theories on how he got that way.... Pressed by such a display, the subject may begin to add meaning and gravity to his deviant activities. But he may do so in a way not especially intended by agents of the state."

"The meaningful issue of identity is whether this activity, or any of my activities can stand for me, or be regarded as proper indications of my being. I have done a theft, been signified a thief. am I a thief? To answer affirmatively, we must be able to conceive a special relationship between being and doing—a unity capable of being indicated. That building of meaning has a notable quality."

The "criminal"

Criminology and penology

As an application of phenomenology, the theory hypothesizes that the labels applied to individuals influence their behavior, particularly the application of negative or stigmatizing labels (such as "criminal" or "felon") promote deviant behavior, becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, i.e. an individual who is labeled has little choice but to conform to the essential meaning of that judgment. Consequently, labeling theory postulates that it is possible to prevent social deviance via a limited social shaming reaction in "labelers" and replacing moral indignation with tolerance. Emphasis is placed on the rehabilitation of offenders through an alteration of their labels. Related prevention policies include client empowerment schemes, mediation and conciliation, victim-offender forgiveness ceremonies (restorative justice), restitution, reparation, and alternatives to prison programs involving diversion. Labeling theory has been accused of promoting impractical policy implications, and criticized for failing to explain society's most serious offenses.

The "mentally ill"

The social construction of deviant behavior plays an important role in the labeling process that occurs in society. This process involves not only the labeling of criminally deviant behavior, which is behavior that does not fit socially constructed norms, but also labeling that which reflects stereotyped or stigmatized behavior of the "mentally ill". In 1961 Thomas Szasz, in The Myth of Mental Illness, asked, "Who defines whom as troublesome or mentally sick?... [the one] who first seizes the word imposes reality on the other; [the one] who defines thus dominates and lives; and [the one] who is defined is subjugated and may be killed." Thomas J. Scheff in Being Mentally Ill challenged common perceptions of mental illness by claiming that mental illness is manifested solely as a result of societal influence. He argued that society views certain actions as deviant and, in order to come to terms with and understand these actions, often places the label of mental illness on those who exhibit them. Certain expectations are then placed on these individuals and, over time, they unconsciously change their behavior to fulfill them. Criteria for different mental illnesses are not consistently fulfilled by those who are diagnosed with them because all of these people suffer from the same disorder, they are simply fulfilled because the "mentally ill" believe they are supposed to act a certain way so, over time, come to do so. Scheff's theory had many critics, most notably Walter Gove who consistently argued against Scheff with an almost opposite theory; he believed that society has no influence at all on "mental illness". Instead, any societal perceptions of the "mentally ill" come about as a direct result of these people's behaviors. Most sociologists' views of labeling and mental illness have fallen somewhere between the extremes of Gove and Scheff. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to deny, given both common sense and research findings, that society's negative perceptions of "crazy" people has had some effect on them. It seems that, realistically, labeling can accentuate and prolong the issues termed "mental illness", but it is rarely the full cause.

Many other studies have been conducted in this general vein. To provide a few examples, several studies have indicated that most people associate being labeled mentally ill as being just as, or even more, stigmatizing than being seen as a drug addict, ex-convict, or prostitute (for example: Brand & Claiborn 1976). Additionally, Page's 1977 study found that self declared "ex-mental patients" are much less likely to be offered apartment leases or hired for jobs. Clearly, these studies and the dozens of others like them serve to demonstrate that labeling can have a very real and very large effect on the mentally ill. However, labeling has not been proven to be the sole cause of any symptoms of mental illness.

Peggy Thoits (1999) discusses the process of labeling someone with a mental illness in her article, "Sociological Approaches to Mental Illness". Working off Thomas Scheff's (1966) theory, Thoits claims that people who are labeled as mentally ill are stereotypically portrayed as unpredictable, dangerous, and unable to care for themselves. She also claims that "people who are labeled as deviant and treated as deviant become deviant." This statement can be broken down into two processes, one that involves the effects of self-labeling and the other differential treatment from society based on the individual's label. Therefore, if society sees mentally ill individuals as unpredictable, dangerous and reliant on others, then a person who may not actually be mentally ill but has been labeled as such, could become mentally ill.

The label of "mentally ill" may help a person seek help, for example psychotherapy or medication. Labels, while they can be stigmatizing, can also lead those who bear them down the road to proper treatment and (hopefully) recovery. If one believes that "being mentally ill" is more than just believing one should fulfill a set of diagnostic criteria (as Scheff – see above – would argue), then one would probably also agree that there are some who are labeled "mentally ill" who need help. It has been claimed that this could not happen if "we" did not have a way to categorize (and therefore label) them, although there are actually plenty of approaches to these phenomena that do not use categorical classifications and diagnostic terms, for example spectrum or continuum models. Here, people vary along different dimensions, and everyone falls at different points on each dimension.

Proponents of hard labeling, as opposed to soft labeling, believe that mental illness does not exist, but is merely deviance from norms of the social order, causing people to believe in mental illness. They view them as socially constructed illnesses and psychotic disorders.

The "homosexual"

The application of labeling theory to homosexuality has been extremely controversial. It was Alfred Kinsey and his colleagues who pointed out the big discrepancy between the behavior and the role attached to it. They had observed the often negative consequences of labeling and repeatedly condemned labeling people as homosexual:

It is amazing to observe how many psychologists and psychiatrists have accepted this sort of propaganda, and have come to believe that homosexual males and females are discretely different from persons who respond to natural stimuli. Instead of using these terms as substantives which stand for persons, or even as adjectives to describe persons, they may better be used to describe the nature of the overt sexual relations, or of the stimuli to which an individual erotically responds.… It would clarify our thinking if the terms could be dropped completely out of our vocabulary.

Males do not represent two discrete populations, heterosexual and homosexual.… Only the human mind invents categories and tries to force facts into pigeonholes. The living world is a continuum in each and every one of its aspects.

The classification of sexual behavior as masturbatory, heterosexual, or homosexual, is, therefore, unfortunate if it suggests that only different types of persons seek out or accept each kind of sexual activity. There is nothing known in the anatomy or physiology of sexual response and orgasm which distinguishes masturbatory, heterosexual, or homosexual reactions.

In regard to sexual behavior, it has been possible to maintain this dichotomy only by placing all persons who are exclusively heterosexual in a heterosexual category and all persons who have any amount of experience with their own sex, even including those with the slightest experience, in a homosexual category.… The attempt to maintain a simple dichotomy on these matters exposes the traditional biases which are likely to enter whenever the heterosexual or homosexual classification of an individual is involved.

Erving Goffman's Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity distinguished between the behavior and the role assigned to it:

The term "homosexual" is generally used to refer to anyone who engages in overt sexual practices with a member of his own sex, the practice being called "homosexuality." This usage appears to be based on a medical and legal frame of reference and provides much too broad and heterogenous a categorization for use here. I refer only to individuals who participate in a special community of understanding wherein members of one's own sex are defined as the most desirable sexual objects, and sociability is energetically organized around the pursuit and entertainment of these objects.

Labeling theory was also applied to homosexuality by Evelyn Hooker and by Leznoff and Westley (1956), who published the first sociological study of the gay community. Erving Goffman and Howard Becker used the lives of gay-identified persons in their theories of labeling and interactionism. Simon and Gagnon likewise wrote: "It is necessary to move away from the obsessive concern with the sexuality of the individual, and attempt to see the homosexual in terms of the broader attachments that he must make to live in the world around him." British sociologist Mary McIntosh reflected the enthusiasm of Europeans for labeling theory in her 1968 study, "The Homosexual Role:"

"The vantage-point of comparative sociology enables us to see that the conception of homosexuality as a condition is, itself, a possible object of study. This conception and the behavior it supports operate as a form of social control in a society in which homosexuality is condemned.… It is interesting to notice that homosexuals themselves welcome and support the notion that homosexuality as a condition. For just as the rigid categorization deters people from drifting into deviancy, so it appears to foreclose on the possibility of drifting back into normalcy and thus removes the element of anxious choice. It appears to justify the deviant behavior of the homosexual as being appropriate for him as a member of the homosexual category. The deviancy can thus be seen as legitimate for him and he can continue in it without rejecting the norm of society."

Sara Fein and Elaine M. Nuehring (1981) were among the many who supported the application of labeling theory to homosexuality. They saw the gay role functioning as a "master status" around which other roles become organized. This brings a whole new set of problems and restrictions:

Placement in a social category constituting a master status prohibits individuals from choosing the extent of their involvement in various categories. Members of the stigmatized group lose the opportunity to establish their own personal system of evaluation and group membership as well as the ability to arrive at their own ranking of each personal characteristic.… For example, newly self-acknowledged homosexual individuals cannot take for granted that they share the world with others who hold congruent interpretations and assumptions; their behavior and motives, both past and present, will be interpreted in light of their stigma.

Perhaps the strongest proponent of labeling theory was Edward Sagarin. In his book, Deviants and Deviance, he wrote, "There are no homosexuals, transvestites, chemical addicts, suicidogenics, delinquents, criminals, or other such entities, in the sense of people having such identities."Sagarin's position was roundly condemned by academics in the gay community. Sagarin had written some gay novels under the pseudonym of Donald Webster Cory. According to reports, he later abandoned his gay identity and began promoting an interactionist view of homosexuality.

A number of authors adopted a modified, non-deviant, labeling theory. They rejected the stigmatic function of the gay role, but found it useful in describing the process of coming out and reconciling one's homosexual experiences with the social role. Their works includes:

• Homosexuals and the Military (1971);
• "Coming Out in the Gay World" (1971);
• "Homosexual Identity: Commitment, Adjustment, and Significant Others" (1973);
• Male Homosexuals: Their Problems and Adaptations (1974);
• Identity and Community in the Gay World (1974);
• "Components of Sexual Identity" (1977);
• Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (1978);
• "On 'Doing' and 'Being' Gay: Sexual Behavior and Homosexual Male Self-Identity" (1978);
• "Homosexual Identity Formation: A Theoretical Model" (1979, Cass identity model);
• "Becoming Homosexual: A model of Gay Identity Acquisition" (1979);
• Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women (1981); and
• "Developmental Stages of the Coming Out Process" (1982).

Barry Adam (1976) took those authors to task for ignoring the force of the oppression in creating identities and their inferiorizing effects. Drawing upon the works of Albert Memmi, Adam showed how gay-identified persons, like Jews and blacks, internalize the hatred to justify their limitations of life choices. He saw the gravitation towards ghettos was evidence of the self-limitations:

A certain romantic liberalism runs through the literature, evident from attempts to paper over or discount the very real problems of inferiorization. Some researchers seem bent on 'rescuing' their subjects from 'defamation' by ignoring the problems of defeatism and complicit self-destruction. Avoidance of dispiriting reflection upon the day-to-day practice of dominated people appears to spring from a desire to 'enhance' the reputation of the dominated and magically relieve their plight. Careful observation has been sacrificed to the 'power of positive thinking.'

Strong defense of labeling theory also arose within the gay community. Dan Slater of the Los Angeles Homosexual Information Center said, "There is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle. There is no such thing as gay pride or anything like that. Homosexuality is simply based on the sex act. Gay consciousness and all the rest are separatist and defeatist attitudes going back to centuries-old and out-moded conceptions that homosexuals are, indeed, different from other people." In a later article, Slater (1971) stated the gay movement was going in the wrong direction:

Is it the purpose of the movement to try to assert sexual rights for everyone or create a political and social cult out of homosexuality? …Persons who perform homosexual acts or other non-conforming acts are sexually free. They want others enlightened. They want hostile laws changed, but they resent the attempt to organize their lives around homosexuality just as much as they resent the centuries-old attempt to organize their lives around heterosexuality.

William DuBay (1967) describes gay identity as one strategy for dealing with society's oppression. It solves some problems but creates many more, replacing a closet of secrecy with one of gay identity. A better strategy, he suggests, is to reject the label and live as if the oppression did not exist. Quoting Goffman, he writes, "But of course what is a good adjustment for the individual can be an even better one for society."

DuBay contends that the attempt to define homosexuality as a class of persons to be protected against discrimination as defined in the statutes has not reduced the oppression. The goal of the movement instead should be to gain acceptance of homosexual relationships as useful and productive for both society and the family. The movement has lost the high moral ground by sponsoring the "flight from choice" and not taking up the moral issues. "Persons whom we confine to back rooms and bars other societies have honored as tenders of children, astrologers, dancers, chanters, minstrels, jesters, artists, shamans, sacred warriors and judges, seers, healers, weavers of tales and magic."

DuBay refers to the "gay trajectory," in which a person first wraps himself in the gay role, organizing his personality and his life around sexual behavior. He might flee from his family and home town to a large gay center. There, the bedeviling force of the stigma will introduce him to more excessive modes of deviance such as promiscuity, prostitution, alcoholism, and drugs. Many resist such temptations and try to normalize their life, but the fast lanes of gay society are littered with the casualties of gay identity. Some come to reject the label entirely. "Accomplishing the forbidden, they are neither gay nor straight. Again learning to choose, they develop the ability to make the ban ambiguous, taking responsibility and refusing explanations of their behaviors."

John Henry Mackay (1985) writes about a gay hustler in Berlin adopting such a solution: "What was self-evident, natural, and not the least sick did not require an excuse through an explanation.… It was love just like any other love. Whoever could not or would not accept it as love was mistaken."

Modified labeling theory

Bruce Link and colleagues (1989) had conducted several studies which point to the influence that labeling can have on mental patients. Through these studies, taking place in 1987, 1989, and 1997, Link advanced a "modified labeling theory" indicating that expectations of labeling can have a large negative effect, that these expectations often cause patients to withdraw from society, and that those labeled as having a mental disorder are constantly being rejected from society in seemingly minor ways but that, when taken as a whole, all of these small slights can drastically alter their self concepts. They come to both anticipate and perceive negative societal reactions to them, and this potentially damages their quality of life.

Modified labeling theory has been described as a "sophisticated social-psychological model of 'why labels matter.'" In 2000, results from a prospective two-year study of patients discharged from a mental hospital (in the context of deinstitutionalization) showed that stigma was a powerful and persistent force in their lives, and that experiences of social rejection were a persistent source of social stress. Efforts to cope with labels, such as not telling anyone, educating people about mental distress/disorder, withdrawing from stigmatizing situations, could result in further social isolation and reinforce negative self-concepts. Sometimes an identity as a low self-esteem minority in society would be accepted. The stigma was associated with diminished motivation and ability to "make it in mainstream society" and with "a state of social and psychological vulnerability to prolonged and recurrent problems". There was an up and down pattern in self-esteem, however, and it was suggested that, rather than simply gradual erosion of self-worth and increasing self-deprecating tendencies, people were sometimes managing, but struggling, to maintain consistent feelings of self-worth. Ultimately, "a cadre of patients had developed an entrenched, negative view of themselves, and their experiences of rejection appear to be a key element in the construction of these self-related feelings" and "hostile neighbourhoods may not only affect their self-concept but may also ultimately impact the patient's mental health status and how successful they are."