Neutralization theory

Neutralization theory is an important principle in modern criminology. Criminologists David Matza and Gresham Sykes developed the theory in the 1950s and 1960s based on the works of previous sociologists. This theory relates to the ways in which criminals perceive themselves and their own actions. By neutralizing the motives, nature, or severity of a crime, a criminal may avoid feelings of guilt or responsibility for their actions.

Brief History

Scientists and philosophers have long studied the workings of the human mind. Early on, many contemplations of psychology involved virtuous behaviors. Few people considered the roots of negative and criminal behaviors, instead ascribing them to supernatural influences or genetic deficiencies.

By the twentieth century, scientists, psychologists, and law enforcement officials were learning more about the mind and its effects upon negative behaviors. This increased interest led to a variety of discoveries and the birth of modern criminology. It also enabled experts to identify some reasons behind deviant behaviors in the hopes of reducing or eliminating these behaviors.

One of the pioneers of twentieth-century criminology was American sociologist Edwin Sutherland. Sutherland’s studies helped to categorize crimes, such as so-called white-collar crimes committed by wealthy people like investors and business owners. Sutherland also attempted to establish psychological causes of criminal activity. One of his main theories, differential association, suggested that criminal motives and attitudes developed through interaction with other people. His theory of rationalization went on to suggest ways criminals viewed and attempted to justify their misdeeds.

Although Sutherland worked primarily with the wealthy perpetrators of white-collar crimes, some of his peers and students explored more common crimes. Sociologist Donald Cressey used the similar theory of adjustment to explain how many offenders talk themselves into believing that negative behaviors are justified or otherwise acceptable. That way, the offenders free themselves from feelings of guilt.

Neutralization theory developed in the 1950s through the work of criminologists David Matza and Gresham Sykes. Matza and Sykes specialized in juvenile delinquency, the study of young people who commit crimes and other socially unacceptable acts. Although their subjects differed from those of Sutherland, Matza and Sykes saw many parallels between their own studies and Sutherland’s theories.

The juvenile offenders frequently demonstrated the same sorts of differential association and rationalization behaviors as did the white-collar criminals. This finding led Matza and Sykes to suggest that Sutherland’s theories were correct but not applied broadly enough. It seemed that the self-deluding techniques of criminals occurred among young offenders and many or most other criminals of varying ages, races, genders, backgrounds, jobs, and economic levels.

Overview

Matza and Sykes published their work in the mid-1960s, establishing the theory of neutralization. At first, the researchers applied the theory mainly to the juvenile offenders they were studying. They noted that the offenders invested great energy in justifying their actions to escape feelings of guilt. This energy took the form of many mental activities that Matza and Sykes termed the “techniques of neutralization.”

The term neutralization refers to the mental and emotional process of making aberrant behaviors seem less offensive to social norms, standards, and laws. Whereas most people are brought up with a basic sense of right and wrong, people who commit wrongdoings may create a perception of their actions that make the actions seem harmless (neutral) or even positive. Building on and embracing these questionable attitudes, and passing them along to other people, can break down social restraints and cause crime and criminal attitudes to increase dramatically.

Sykes and Matza identified five specific techniques of neutralization that contribute to crime. These techniques were denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeal to higher loyalties.

In denial of responsibility, a criminal claims that they were forced by circumstances to commit the crime in question. For that reason, the criminal does not feel personally responsible for the crime or its effects. A common appeal in this category would be a criminal claiming to have been coerced by other people to perform an unacceptable action, even if this was not actually true.

Denial of injury refers to a criminal insisting that their actions were not harmful and thus not a true misdeed. This form of argument often arises in cases in which the victim is not immediately clear, such as online piracy. A person may illegally download movies or music, for instance, and not feel guilt because any harmful effects of the action are not immediately evident. People might also claim that malicious pranks or offensive language were meant as a joke, even if they caused harm.

Condemnation of the condemners refers to the reflection of criticism or punishment. A criminal may insist that they were falsely or unfairly blamed for spiteful reasons. One common argument in this category might involve a young person claiming an older authority has no right to judge because the authority likely committed youthful indiscretions in the past.

The final tool of neutralization involves an appeal to higher loyalties. In this case, a criminal may claim that negative or illegal actions were justified because they contributed to a positive end. For example, someone stealing merchandise or money might claim that he was doing so to support a sick child. In that person’s mind, the crime is not truly criminal because it was done for a greater good.

The theory of neutralization has become an important facet of modern criminology. Criminologists seeking to understand the mental and emotional states of criminals find great insight in studying how criminals view themselves and their actions. Through this study of criminal self-perception, experts hope to dismantle inaccurate and misleading beliefs to both rehabilitate criminals and potentially reduce future crimes.

Bibliography

Copes, Heith, and J. Patrick Williams. “Techniques of Affirmation: Deviant Behavior, Moral Commitment, and Subcultural Identity.” Deviant Behavior, vol. 28, 2007, pp. 247–72.

“Gresham Sykes and David Matza: Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency.” Italian Association of Interactive-Constructivist Psychology and Sociology, www.scienzepostmoderne.org/DiversiAutori/Matza/TechniquesOfNeutralization.html. Accessed 11 Dec. 2018.

Kaptein, Muel. "A Model of Neutralization Techniques." Deviant Behavior, vol. 40, no. 10, 2019, pp. 1260–1285, doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2018.1491696. Accessed 11 Sept. 2024.

Lilly, J. Robert, et al. Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences. 4th ed., Sage Publications, 2007.

Mackenzie, Simon. “Techniques of Neutralisation and the Market for Antiquities.” Future Learn/University of Glasgow, www.futurelearn.com/courses/art-crime/0/steps/11867. Accessed 11 Dec. 2018.

Stadler, William A., and Michael L. Benson. “Revisiting the Guilty Mind: The Neutralization of White-Collar Crime.” Criminal Justice Review, vol. 37, no. 4, 2012, pp. 494–511.

Sykes, Gresham, and David Matza. “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency.” American Sociological Review, vol. 22, 1957, pp. 664–70.

Ulsperger, Jason S., et al. “Pirates on the Plank: Neutralization Theory and the Criminal Downloading of Music among Generation Y in the Era of Late Modernity.” Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture, vol. 17, no. 1, 2010, 124–51.

Zito, Nicole, and Patrick J. McQuillan. “‘It’s Not My Fault’: Using Neutralization Theory to Understand Cheating by Middle School Students.” Current Issues in Education, vol. 13, no. 3, 2011, cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/download/190/110/. Accessed 11 Dec. 2018.