THE BASIC PROPOSITION OF LABELING THEORY ASSUMES THAT SOCIETAL REACTION IN THE FORM OF LABELING OR OFFICIAL TYPING, AND CONSEQUENT STIGMATIZATION, LEADS TO AN ALTERED IDENTITY IN THE ACTOR, NECESSITATING A RECONSTITUTION OF SELF. UNFORTUNATELY, CENTRAL CONCEPTS SUCH AS 'SELF,' SELF-ATTITUDE,' AND 'SELF-CONCEPT' ARE NEVER FULLY DEFINED; THEY ARE SO UNCLEAR AS TO PRACTICALLY PRECLUDE VALID EMPIRICAL RESEARCH. SEVERAL WRITERS HAVE CRITICIZED THE THEORY'S IMPLICIT DETERMINISM; IT CONVEYS A UNILATERAL PROCESS WHICH OMITS HUMAN CHOICE. IT DOES NOT CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MAY REJECT OR RESIST THE LABELING PROCESS, RATHER THAN PASSIVELY ACCEPT IT. WHAT LABELING THEORY LACKS IS AN ADEQUATE PSYCHLOGICAL BASE -- A RESEARCHABLE NOTION OF SELF THAT DOES NOT SACRIFICE THE ACTIVE, VOLITIONAL SIDE OF THE INDIVIDUAL. THE AUTHOR ARGUES THAT PERSONAL CONSTRUCT THEORY CAN PROVIDE SUCH A BASE. THIS THEORY STATES BASICALLY THAT A PERSON'S PROCESSES ARE PSYCHOLOGICALLY CHANNELED BY THE WAYS IN WHICH HE ANTICIPATES EVENTS. THE THEORY PROVIDES THE RESEARCHER WITH PSYCHOLOGICAL VARIABLES AND THUS ENABLES HIM TO TEST THE SUBJECTIVE STATE OF THE INDIVIDUAL, WHICH THE LABELING THEORY ALONE IS UNABLE TO DO. (VDA)