Techniques of neutralization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Techniques of neutralization are a series of methods by which, it is believed, those who commit illegitimate acts temporarily neutralise certain values within themselves which would normally prohibit them from carrying out such acts, such as morality, obligation to abide by the law, and so on.

1 The theory
2 The techniques
3 Acceptance
4 See also
5 References

[edit] The theory

The idea of such techniques was first postulated by David Matza (b.May 1, 1930) and Gresham Sykes (b. 1920) during their work on Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association in the 1960's. While Matza and Sykes were working on juvenile delinquency, they theorised that the same techniques could be found throughout society and published their ideas in Delinquency and Drift 1964.^[1]

Matza and Sykes argued that people are always aware of their morale obligation to abide by the law, and that they have the same moral obligation within themselves to avoid illegitimate acts. Thus, they reasoned, when a person did commit illegitimate acts, they must employ some sort of mechanism to silence the urge to follow these moral obligations.

This theory rejects other theories which suggested that groups containing delinquents have set up their own permanent morale code which replaces the aforementioned moral obligations. Thus, Matza and Sykes were able to explain how offenders 'drift' from illegitimate to legitimate lifestyles repeatedly, as they retain the morale code rather than wipe it clean to be replaced by a more illegitimate one.

[edit] The techniques

The theory was built up upon four observations:

Delinquents express guilt over their illegal acts.
Delinquents frequently respect and admire honest, law-abiding individuals.
A line is drawn between those whom they can victimise and those they cannot.
Delinquents are not immune to the demands of conformity.

From these, Matza and Sykes created the following methods by which, they believed, juveniles justified their illegitimate actions:

Denial of responsibility. The offender will propose that they were victim of circumstance or were forced into situations beyond their control.

Denial of injury. The offender insists that their actions did not cause any harm or dammage.

Denial of the victim. The offender believes that the victim deserved whatever action the offender committed.

Condemnation of the condemners. The offenders maintain that those who condemn their offence are doing so purely out of spite, or are shifting the blame off of themselves unfairly.

Appeal to higher loyalties. The offender suggests that his or her offence was for the greater good, with long term consequences that would justify their actions, such as protection of a friend.

These five methods of neutralization generally manifest themselves in the form of arguments such as

"It wasn't my fault"
"It wasn't a big deal, they could afford the loss"
"they had it coming"
"You were just as bad in your day"
"My friends needed me, what was I going to do?"^[2]

[edit] Acceptance

Further research in the theory has produced inconclusive results. Offenders have been found both with a solid belief in their morale obligations, and without. Travis Hirschi, a social bond theorist, also raised the question as to whether the offender develops these techniques to neutralise their qualms regarding offending before or after they actually commit the offence^[3]. The theory also suffers as it does not explain why some offenders drift into the illegitimate lifestyles whereas others do not.