Sykes, Gresham M., and David Matza: Techniques of Neutralization

Theoretical Foundation

Sykes and Matza's influential article began with a critique of subcultural theorists of the time. Subcultural theorists argued that delinquent boys rebelled against the dominant social order by [Page 920]rejecting middle-class standards and replacing them with a new, often delinquent, set of values. Sykes and Matza disagree, contending that subcultural theorists overstated the extent to which delinquents rejected conventional values. They argue that everyone, even lower-class delinquent gang members, retains some commitment to the dominant value system of society.

They base their argument on four key points. First, if delinquent subcultures do exist, then delinquents should view their criminal behavior as morally correct. Therefore, they should not experience guilt or shame for engaging in the act or for being caught doing so. Second, delinquents should value the opinions and lifestyles of those promoting similar delinquent lifestyles and dismiss the opinions of conventional others. Third, if offenders unconditionally accept crime, then it would be expected that they would treat all victims equally. Fourth, offenders should be immune to the demands of conformity. Critiquing each of these claims, Sykes and Matza argue that delinquents do often feel guilt and shame for participating in illegal behaviors; show respect and admiration for honest, law-abiding others; make clear distinctions about who can and cannot be victimized; and still participate in the same social functions that law-abiding citizens do (including church, school, and family activities). Together, these factors suggest that delinquents are able to distinguish between right and wrong and are subject to influences of both conventional and delinquent subcultures. That is, young offenders are well aware of the wrongfulness of their actions.

Yet, if delinquents maintain at least minimal commitments to the dominant social order, then how are they then able to violate its norms? If people are committed to the social order, they typically experience guilt or shame for violating, or even contemplating violating, social norms. This guilt, and its potential for producing a negative self-image, helps to dissuade most people from engaging in criminal or deviant acts. Therefore, in order to participate in deviant behavior under such conditions, people must find ways to rationalize their actions or to neutralize the guilt associated with them. People do this by relying on linguistic devices that when invoked, blunt the moral force of the law and neutralize the guilt of criminal participation. Through the use of these techniques social and internal controls that serve to check or inhibit deviant motivational patterns are blocked, allowing individuals to engage freely in delinquency without serious damage to their self-image. In this way, offenders can remain committed to the dominant normative system and interpret their deviant actions as acceptable or proper.

...