- Key People:
- Gresham M. Sykes
- Related Topics:
- criminology
- delinquency
Neutralization theory
What is neutralization theory?
Who developed neutralization theory and when?
What are the five techniques of neutralization?
What are some criticisms of Gresham Sykes and David Matza’s neutralization theory?
How has neutralization theory been applied beyond juvenile delinquency?
Neutralization theory, theory of criminal behavior proposed by criminologist Gresham Sykes and sociologist David Matza in the late 1950s that suggests that many young people who engage in delinquent behavior, or criminal offenses, generally subscribe to the mores of society but use justifications to neutralize any societal or self-disapproval and to preserve their self-image.
Sykes and Matza argued that many people who engage in juvenile delinquency—a term considered pejorative in some contexts today and replaced by such terms as youth crime and children in conflict with the law—do feel guilt in some form, contrary to other theories that pointed toward the existence of a “delinquent subculture” in which young offenders view illegal acts as morally correct. Sykes and Matza also noted that these youths usually show respect for law-abiding figures, demonstrate boundaries in who they think can and cannot be victimized, and continue to participate, to a degree, in some conventional social institutions, such as schools and churches. Young people who engage in criminal behavior, they concluded, are influenced by conventional subcultures as well and are mostly aware of what is wrong.
Sykes and Matza presented their theory in the paper “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency,” published in the American Sociological Review in 1957. They posited that despite being able to tell right from wrong, many delinquents commit an offense because prior to the act, they had used certain techniques to justify their behavior or to shift blame from themselves. These techniques allow individuals to drift back and forth between delinquent and law-abiding behavior. The five techniques Sykes and Matza described are:
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
- Denial of responsibility: The offender excuses the illegal action by claiming it was unintentional or caused by factors beyond their control. An example would be an individual who was under the influence of drugs when committing an illegal act and claimed impeded judgment because of the chemical effects.
- Denial of injury: The offender claims the action did not cause any real injury and was harmless in nature. An example would be an individual who was caught stealing from a classmate but justified the action as just having “borrowed” the money.
- Denial of the victim: The offender recognizes the action caused harm but claims the harmed person deserved it and is not really a victim by conventional standards. An example would be an individual who vandalized school property but claimed that it was fair because a teacher had been unfair.
- Condemnation of the condemners: The offender justifies the action by comparing it with the condemner’s actions and pointing out that the condemner has done worse. An example would be an individual who was in trouble with the authorities for fraudulent behavior but claimed that police personnel are also corrupt.
- Appeal to higher loyalties: The offender claims the action was committed out of loyalty to a group or clique or under the command of another person. An example would be an individual who participated in a brawl and caused injury to someone but claimed to be motivated by loyalty to a group member.
Strengths and limitations
Neutralization theory provides a useful framework to understand deviant behavior. It has been cited in numerous studies of criminal behavior over the years and incorporated into wider criminological theories, including control theory and reintegrative shaming theory. Its applications have also expanded to adult offenses and less serious deviance. Researchers have pointed out that neutralization theory can, in fact, be applied to any situation where there is a difference between what one believes in and how one acts. However, they argue that the theory has somewhat stagnated and has not evolved to reflect more recent advancements in the study of self-narratives and cognitive factors in human behavior—developments from which the study of deviance and criminology has largely remained isolated.
Researchers contend that neutralization theory is limited in its explanation of criminal etiology, but it may play an important role in explaining the persistence of criminal behavior. The theory focuses on the internal justifications one finds for deviant behavior but ignores external factors such as social and regulatory inadequacies. Moreover, not all offenders view their deviant acts as criminal, so neutralization does not apply to those scenarios. Neutralization theory cannot be used to explain all aspects of deviance, and it is difficult to find empirical evidence that supports Sykes and Matza’s claim that young offenders engage in neutralization prior to participating in criminal behavior.
