|
중화기술이론(中和技術理論, techniques of naturalization theory)
Ⅰ. 개념(definition)
Techniques of neutralization are a theoretical series of methods by which those who commit illegitimate acts temporarily neutralize 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. In simpler terms, it is a psychological method for people to turn off 'inner protests' when they do, or are about to do something they themselves perceive as wrong.
중화기술은 일시적으로 위법행위를 저지르는 사람들이 보통은 도덕, 준법의무 등과 같은 행위를 수행하지 못하게 하는 내면의 어떤 가치관을 중화시키는 이론적인 일련의 방법들이다. 더 간단하게 이것은 사람들이 스스로 나쁘다고 인식하는 무엇인가를 하거나 하려할 때 ‘내적 이의제기’를 저지하는 심리적 방법이다.
Ⅱ. 이론(The theory)
The idea of such techniques was first postulated by David Matza (born May 1, 1930) and Gresham Sykes (born 1922) during their work on Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association in the 1950s. While Matza and Sykes were at the time working on juvenile delinquency, they theorized that the same techniques could be found throughout society and published their ideas in Delinquency and Drift 1964.
이러한 기술의 관념은 1950년대의 Edwin Sutherland의 차별적 접촉(분화적 접촉, Differential Association)에 대한 연구중 David Matza (1930.5.1~)와 Gresham Sykes (1922~)에 의하여 처음으로 주장되었다. Matza와 Sykes는 당시에 청소년비행을 연구하고 있는 동안 동일한 기술들이 사회전반에서 확인할 수 있다고 이론화하고 1964년 비행과 표류(Delinquency and Drift 1964)에서 그들의 사고를 발표하였다.
Matza and Sykes' theory states that people are always aware of their moral 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.
Matza와 Sykes의 이론은 사람들은 언제나 법을 준수할 도덕적 의무를 알고 있으며 그들은 위법행위를 피할 내면의 동일한 도덕적 의무가 있다고 명확히 제시하고 있다. 이리하여 사람들은 위법해위를 범했을때 그들은 이들 도덕적 의무를 따를 압박을 묵살할 일종의 메커니즘을 사용한다고 추론하였다.
This theory rejects other theories which suggested that groups containing delinquents have set up their own permanent moral code which completely replaces moral obligations. Thus, Matza and Sykes were able to explain how offenders 'drift' from illegitimate to legitimate lifestyles repeatedly, as they retain the moral code rather than wipe it clean to be replaced by a more illegitimate one as previous theories suggested.
이 이론은 비행자들을 포함하고 있는 집단들은 도덕적 의무를 완전히 대체할 그들 고유의 항구적 도덕규약을 확립했다고 시사하는 다른 이론들을 받아들이지 않는다. 이리하여 Matza와 Sykes는 범죄자들은 앞서의 이론들이 시사한대로 보다 더 위법한 규약으로 대체되도록 그것를 완전히 없애기보다는 오히려 도덕규약을 유지하므로 어떻게 범죄자들이 반복적으로 위법적에서 합법적 생활양식까지 표류하는지를 설명할 수 있었다.
Ⅲ. 기술(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.
These theories were brought from positivistic criminology which looked at epistemological perspectives of delinquency.
이 이론은 네가지 관찰정보에 입각하였다. 비행자들은 그들의 불법행위에 대하여 죄의식을 나타냈다. 비행자들은 자주 정직하고 법을 지키는 개인들을 존경한다. 그들이 피해자로 할 수 있는 사람들과 할 수 없는 사람들은 구별된다. 비행자들은 준봉의 요구에 영향을 받지 않는다. 이 이론들은 비행의 인식론적 관점을 고찰한 실증주의범죄학자들로부터 도입되었다.
From these, Matza and Sykes created the following methods by which, they believed, delinquents justified their illegitimate actions:
이것들로부터 Matza와 Sykes는 그들이 믿기로 비행자들이 그들의 위법행위를 정당화하는 다음의 방법들을 안출하였다.
1. Denial of responsibility.
The offender will propose that they were victims of circumstance or were forced into situations beyond their control.
責任의 否定(denial of responsibility, Die Ablehnung der Verantwortung)
범죄자들은 자신들은 주어진 환경의 피해자이거나 마지못해 제어할 수 없는 상황에 처해졌다고 말할 것이다.
"It wasn't my fault" “그것은 내 잘못이 아니야” (~ 때문에 어쩔 수 없어서 ― 비행원인을 외부요인에 전가함).
2. Denial of injury.
The offenders insist that their actions did not cause any harm or damage.
加害의 否定(denial of injury, Die Verneinung der Unrechts)
범죄자들은 그들의 행동은 어떠한 손해나 피해도 야기하지 않았다고 주장한다.
"It wasn't a big deal. They could afford the loss “그것은 대단한 일 아니야. 그들은 손해를 감수할 수 있어.”(피해가 없잖아 ― 마약복용, 매춘, 보험에 가입된 물건에 대한 방화)
3. Denial of the victim.
The offenders believe that the victim deserved whatever action the offender committed.
被害者의 否定(denial of the victim, Ablehnung des Opfers)
범죄자들은 피해자는 피해자가 행한 행동에 대해 받아 마당했다고 믿는다.
"They had it coming" “그들은 그래도 싸다”.(그 피해자는 피해받아 마땅하다 ― 매국노 처단, 고리사채업자에 대한 응징 등 도덕적 복수)
4. Condemnation of the condemners.
The offenders maintain that those who condemn their offense are doing so purely out of spite, or are shifting the blame off of themselves unfairly.
非難者의 非難(condemnation of the condemners, Die Verdammendung des Verdammenden)
범죄자들은 그들의 범죄를 비난하는 사람들은 순전히 악의로 그렇게 하고 있거나 부당하게 고 스스로 책임을 회피하고 있다고 주장한다.
"You were just as bad in your day "너는 단지 운이 않좋았어 “.(넌 깨끗하냐, 다 그런데 왜 나만 비난하느냐, 네가 뭔데 그래, 부모의 권위 부정)
5. 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.
보다 높은 忠誠心에의 呼訴(appeal to higher loyalties, Berufung auf seine höhere Instanz)
범죄자는 자신의 범죄는 보다 더 바람직한 일을 위한 것이어서 장기적 결과로서 친구의 보호와 같은 그들의 행동을 정당화시킨다고 암시한다.
"My friends needed me. What was I going to do?" “내 친구들은 내가 필요했어. 내가 무엇을 하려고 했겠어 ”(친구간의 의리 때문에 폭행에 가담했다, 가족의 생계를 위해 절도했다, 자유를 위해 폭력시위를 했다 ― 주관적으로 상위에 있는 근거를 끌어들임).
이 다섯 가지 중화방법들은 대체로 다음과 같은 논거의 형태로 나타난다.
Ⅳ. 수용과 비판
Acceptance
Further research in the theory has produced inconclusive results. Offenders have been found both with a solid belief in their moral obligations, and without. Travis Hirschi, a social bond theorist, also raised the question as to whether the offenders develop these techniques to neutralize their qualms regarding offending before or after they actually commit the offense.
수용
이 이론에서의 후속연구는 결론에 이르지 못하는 결과를 초래하였다. 범죄자들은 도덕적 의무에서의 확고한 신념이 있기도 하고 없기도 한 것으로 드러났다. 사회연대이론가 Travis Hirschi는 범죄자들은 그들이 실제로 범죄를 범하기 전후로 범죄에 대한 양심의 가책을 중화할 기술을 발현하는지에 대해서 또한 의문을 제기한다.
Neutralization Theory was introduced by Sykes and Matza in 1957, facing the then prevailing criminological wisdom that offenders engage in crime because they adhere to an oppositional subcultural rule set that values law breaking and violence, they rejected this perspective. Subsequent research revealed that the original formulation of the Sykes and Matza's theory explains only the behavior of "conventionally attached individuals" not those of "nonconventionally oriented individuals" such as "criminally embedded street offenders". Professor Volkan Topalli, at Georgia State University, in his article The Seductive Nature of Autotelic Crime: How Neutralization Theory Serves as a Boundary Condition for Understanding Hardcore Street Offending, explains that for those groups "guilt is not an issue at all because their crimes are not only considered acceptable, but attractive and desirable".
중화기술은 1957년 Sykes와 Matza에 의하여 발표되었다. 범죄자들은 법률위반과 폭력을 소중히 하는 반항적 부문화규칙군을 고수하기 때문에 범죄에 관여한다는 그 당시 널리 유행하는 범죄학적 지식에 맞서 그들은 이 관점을 거부하였다. 뒤이은 연구는 Sykes와 Matza 이론의 원래의 공식화는 “범죄적으로 내재된 거리범죄자들”과 같은 “비인습적 개인들”의 행동이 아닌 “인습적으로 애착된 개인들의 행동”만을 설명한다고 밝혀주었다. Georgia State University의 Volkan Topalli 교수는 자기목적적 범죄의 유혹적 성격 : 중화이론이 어떻게 핵심 거리범죄이해를 위한 경계적 조건에 소용되는가(The Seductive Nature of Autotelic Crime: How Neutralization Theory Serves as a Boundary Condition for Understanding Hardcore Street Offending)라는 글에서 그들의 범죄들은 수용될 뿐만 아니라 매력적이고 바람직하기까지도 하므로 그러한 집단들에게는 “유죄는 전혀 쟁점이 아니다”라고 설명한다.
Ⅴ. 발전
1. 潛在價値理論(subterranean value theory)
가. Matza와 Sykes의 中和技術理論은 잠재가치이론으로 다시 표류이론(drift theory)으로 발전하였다.
나. 잠재가치(subterranean values)
공개적으로 인정되는 가치관과 표리관계를 이루나 잠재적․사적으로만 존재하는 모형과 thrill을 구하는 마음, 노동의 천시, 남성의 증거로서의 공격성의 찬양, 일확천금을 노리는 마음, 성급한 성공의 꿈과 같은 가치체계를 말한다.
다. 일반 사회문화 속에 잠재하는 유한계급가치관이 배후에서 작용함을 지적하고 잠재가치가 비행자의 가치관 및 태도와 밀접한 관계 있음을 논하였다.
2. 漂流理論(drift theory)
가. Matza와 Sykes 등이 이론화하였다
나. 漂流(drift)
청소년들은 완전한 자유와 완전한 통제 사이에서 방황하는데 이들은 이를 표류라고 표현하였다. 표류란 소년들은 나이가 들어 청소년 말기나 성인단계에 이르면 비행을 청산하고 준법적인 생활에 정착하게 되는 현상을 말한다. 이와 관련하여 Matza와 Sykes는 범죄자나 비행자들은 자신들의 비행행위가 도덕적으로 잘못되었다는 점은 인정하지만 정상참작 사유가 있기 때문에 자신들의 비행행위는 죄가 없다고 생각하고 자신들의 법위반행위에 대하여 독특한 정당화사유를 생성한다고 주장하였다. 非行少年은 非行과 善行의 생활양식 사이를 표류하는 존재라고 보는 이론이다.
Ⅵ. 참고문헌(References)
-------------------
David Matza (1964) Delinquency and Drift and British Studies.
Introduction
This American sociologist has attacked some of the assumptions on which sub-cultural and structural theories are based, and provided his own explanation. These deterministic views were in particular attacked. Matza claimed that delinquents are similar to everyone else in their values and voice similar feelings of outrage about crime in general as the majority of society. Matza’'s theory also brings in an element of the action approach, which focuses on the way behaviour is adaptable and flexible and involves dimensions of choice and free will.
Thus Matza is suggesting that male delinquents to be……
Committed to the same values and norms as other members of society.
Society has a strong hold on them and prevents them from being delinquent, most of the time. He exemplifies this point by noting that delinquents often express ‘'regret’' and ‘'remorse’' at what they have done. And when in ‘'training school’' shows disapproval to crimes such as mugging, armed robbery, fighting with weapons and car crime.
Far from being deviant this group are...casually, intermittently, and transiently immersed in a pattern of illegal activity to put it into Matza’'s words. They drift into deviant activities. In other words, there is a lot of spontaneity and impulsiveness in deviant actions.
Subterranean Values
The first point that Matza made is that we all hold two levels of values.
1. Conventional Values, roles such as father, occupation
2. Subterranean Values values of sexuality, greed and aggressiveness. These are however, generally controlled, but we all hold them, and we all do them. Matza thus suggests that delinquents are simply more likely than most of us to behave according to subterranean values in ‘'inappropriate’' situations.
-------------------------------------
Techniques of Neutralisation
If delinquents are as much committed to conventional values as anyone else and, furthermore, express condemnation of crimes similar to the ones they themselves commit, why do they commit them at all?
Matza suggests that delinquents justify their own crimes as exceptions to the rule.
‘'Yes, what I did was wrong, but...’'
They are thus able to convince themselves that the law does not apply to them on this particular occasion. Deviance becomes possible when they use techniques of neutralisation. Matza identified five such justifications of neutralisation....
1. Denial of Responsibility: it’'s not the culprit’'s fault - something made him or her do it. I.e. I was pissed! It was my upbringing! It is the area.
2. Denial of the Victim: the crime in general is wrong but the victim in this case deserved it. I.e. I Hate Whites.
3. Denial of Injury: The victim is supposed not to be harmed by the crime. They can afford it.
4. Condemnation of Condemns: This is where delinquents argue that the accusers are no different from themselves, for example, ‘'Yeah, I was driving when drunk, but so does everyone else’'
5. Appeal to Higher Loyalties: The delinquent claims that he or
she had to do it because of some general ‘' moral standard’' for example, I could not leave my mates (during a fight).
출전 : http://www.sociology.org.uk/pcdevmm.pdf
-------------------------------------------
http://ethics.ucsd.edu/journal/2008/readings/NeutralizationTheory.pdf
From: M.M Lanier and S. Henry, Essential Criminology, Westview Press, 2004, pp. 168-176
Neutralization Theory: Learning Rationalizations as Motives
One very important element of the behavior learned in intimate social groups and considered by Sutherland was the rationalizations that accompany behavior. These rationalizations are related to Sutherland’'s ([1939] 1947) idea about how law violations can be defined as favorable or unfavorable, and they were especially important to Donald Cressey. Cressey (1953, 1970), in a study of the “"respectable”" crime of embezzlement, found that three key elements were necessary for a violation of financial trust to occur: (1) a nonsharable financial problem (meaning a problem the offenders feel embarassed totell others about, such as gambling debts); (2) the perception of their legitimate occupation as a solution to the problem, typically through using funds to which they have access; and (3) verbalizations, or words and phrases that make the behavior acceptable (such as “"borrowing”" the money and intending to pay it back). It is this third element and the possibility that such words and phrases may be found in the common culture that makes the crime possible. As Cressey (1970: 111) said: “"I am convinced that the words and phrases that the potential embezzler uses in conversations with himself are actually the most important elements in the process that gets him into trouble.”"
For Cressey, verbalizations were not simply rationalizations occurring after the fact of crime to relieve an offender of culpability. Instead, they were words and phrases that could, as C. Wright Mills (1940) had earlier argued, be “"vocabularies of motive.”" These could inhibit someone from engaging in a criminal act by showing the potential offender that using such excuses or justifications after a criminal act might not be honored as acceptable. Alternatively, the excuses and justifications could be honored by future questioners, allowing the potential offender a sense of “"freedom”" that it might be acceptable to violate the law under the particular situation or circumstances described. The most sophisticated development of these ideas came from David Matza (1964) and Gresham Sykes (Sykes and Matza, 1957; Matza and Sykes, 1961) in their studies of juvenile delinquency.
Drifting In and Out of Delinquency: Matza and Sykes’'s Neutralization Theory
In 1957, while at Princeton University, Gresham Sykes teamed up with his former student David Matza to develop a new theory of crime that extended Sutherland’'s learning theory (Sykes and Matza, 1957). The analysis originated in Sykes’'s studies of prison inmates and guards learning to rationalize rule breaking (Martin et al., 1990). Matza (1964) argued that existing theories, whether biological, psychological, or sociological, were too deterministic. These theories presented the adolescent as either committed to convention or committed to delinquency. Matza felt that not only was this an overstatement, but it also left out the classicist element of the choice to commit crime. He argued that existing theories predict too much crime. Most juvenile delinquents do not continue their criminal behavior into adulthood. If a biological or psychological factor “"caused”" crime, why would its influence diminish after adolescence? If delinquent subcultures were so compelling at socializing youths to define crime as acceptable, then what accounts for their maturational reform—-the tendency for juvenile delinquents to relinquish their delinquency as they age into their twenties and thirties? Matza sought to combine these observations to explain most delinquency (which he called mundane delinquency), arguing,
The image of the delinquent I wish to convey is one of drift; an actor neither compelled nor committed to deeds nor freely choosing them; neither different in any simple or fundamental sense from the law abiding, nor the same; conforming to certain traditions in American life while partially unreceptive to other more conventional traditions; and finally, an actor whose motivational system may be explored along lines explicitly commended by classical criminology—-his peculiar relation to legal institutions. (1964: 28)
How Matza sought to combine these many orientations was, in part, by making a case for soft determinism. According to Matza, positivistic criminology (the scientific study of crime that had prevailed since the late nineteenth century, as discussed in Chapter 4) “"fashioned an image of man to suit a study of criminal behavior based on scientific determinism. It rejected the view that man exercised freedom, was possessed of reason, and was thus capable of choice”" (1964: 5). Conversely, soft determinism argues “"that human actions are not deprived of freedom because they are causally determined”" (Matza, 1964: 9). The amount of freedom each person has varies. Some are more free than others and have a greater range of choices available. Moreover, this freedom varies according to circumstances, situations, and context.
Most important to understanding Matza and Sykes’'s argument is the concept of “"subculture of delinquency,”" which they prefer to the idea of “"delinquent subculture.”" As traditionally conceived, delinquent subcultures are considered separate and oppositional; their norms and values are different from those in the mainstream culture. The gang is the best example. For Matza and Sykes (1961), however, this was a false distinction. Most delinquents, they argue, are not full-fledged gang members but “"mundane delinquents,”" who express remorse over their actions. Many admire law-abiding citizens. Furthermore, most differentiate between whom they will victimize and whom they will not. Finally, delinquents are not exclusively criminal; they also engage in many noncriminal acts. These factors suggest that delinquents are aware of the difference between right and wrong and are subject to the influence of both conventional and delinquent values.
Rather than delinquency and mainstream culture being separate, argue Matza and Sykes, mainstream culture has an underbelly of “"subterranean values.”" These exist side by side with conventional values. Consider the example of sensation seeking: “"Kicks, big time spending and rep have immediate counterparts in the value system of the law abiding”" (Matza and Sykes, 1961: 717). A good illustration of subterranean values can be found in the school setting.
When a teacher presents the class material on social studies she or he teaches the knowledge content of the subject; when the teacher deals with students with favoritism, using gender or racial bias, or emphasizes grades as more important than understanding, she or he simultaneously sends a different message. Students learn how society works. They learn that there are public statements and private practices; they learn that beneath the rhetoric, what matters is getting ahead by whatever means, including cheating if necessary. This is useful knowledge, albeit informal knowledge. When these students get to the workplace, they will encounter formal rules and informal rules, such as the company policy on health, safety, and hygiene, as well as the preferred unspoken practice, which may be to cut corners and suspend rules in order to make a profit, regardless of who gets hurt. This kind of knowledge does not require the exclusivity of a gang of delinquents; it is there beneath the surface of every formal institution, policy, and practice. It is part of the subterranean subculture of delinquency.
This subterranean subculture of delinquency makes it unnecessary for adolescent youths to join gangs or other subcultural groups to learn delinquent values. Instead, simply by learning and being socialized into conventional values and norms, adolescents are simultaneously socialized into the negation of those values. Nowhere is this more evident than in legal codes. Page 2
Legal codes are inconsistent and thus vulnerable. As Matza (1964: 60) wrote, “"The law contains the seeds of its own neutralization. ._._._Criminal law is especially susceptible of neutralization because the conditions of applicability and thus inapplicability, are explicitly stated.”" This means people can claim various kinds of exemptions in the belief that they are, under certain mitigating circumstances, not bound by the law. The classic example is “"self-defense.”" Another example is the idea that criminal intent (mens rea) must be present for an act to be criminal; Lorena Bobbitt, among others, used this rule to her advantage, as we illustrated in Chapter 5. Not only is this ambiguity present in the law, but in U.S. society it is reflected in contradictions resulting from trying to balance freedom of the individual and the collective interests of society. Take the example of speeding laws. It seems that only in the United States would the law ban speeding while allowing the sale of radar detectors; and these detectors are even sold by police at auctions of unclaimed recovered stolen property! Consider the laws in many states prohibiting gambling—-yet Native Americans can run casinos and the states can run lotteries. Little wonder, then, that the ordinary Joe asks, “"Why shouldn’'t I be able to utilize my local bookie to place bets? Why is that any different from the state-run lottery? I can afford it and do so to relax.”"
Such legal contradictions and the implicit claims for exemption that follow from them allow the possibility for choice and freedom because they render juveniles and others intermittently free to choose to commit delinquent acts. Whether youths break the law depends not so much on their being in a delinquent subculture but, first, on whether they are freed into a state of drift and released from the larger culture’'s moral bind, and, second, on whether they then exercise free choice: “"Drift stands midway between freedom and control. Its basis is an area in the social structure in which control has been loosened. ._._._The delinquent transiently exists in a limbo between convention and crime, responding in turn to the demands of each, flirting now with one, now with the other, but postponing commitment, evading decision. Thus he [or she] drifts between criminal and conventional action”" (Matza, 1964: 28).
This “"loosening”" of control, or release from moral convention into a state of drift, may initially be accidental and it occurs through neutralization. For Matza, neutralization comprises words and phrases that excuse or justify lawbreaking behavior, such as claiming an action was “"self--defense.”" Unlike rationalizations, which come after an act to avoid culpability and consequences, and verbalizations that come after contemplating an act to allow oneself to commit it, neutralizations come before an act is even contemplated. Thus, for Matza they are “"unwitting,”" something that occurs to an actor that results from the unintended duplication, distortion, and extension of customary beliefs relating to when and under what circumstances exceptions are allowed: “"Neutralization of legal precepts depends partly on equivocation—-the unwitting use of concepts in markedly different ways”" (Matza, 1964: 74; Taylor, 1972). Neutralization frees the delinquent from the moral bind of law so that he or she may now choose to commit the crime. Crucially, whether or not a crime occurs no longer requires some special motivation.
Sykes and Matza (1957) classified excuses and justifications that provide a moral release into five types, which they called “"techniques of neutralization”":
1. Denial of responsibility (e.g., “"It’'s not my fault. I was drunk at the time.”"): Offenders may list reasons such as alcohol, peer pressure, bad neighborhood, and so on that caused them to commit the act.
2. Denial of injury (e.g., “"No one got hurt.”"): Offenders may deny that anyone or anything was harmed by their action. For example, shoplifters might claim that stores have so much money and insurance that “"They can afford it”" or employee thieves may claim their company wastes so much “"They’'ll never miss it.”" Page 3
3. Denial of victim (e.g., “"They had it coming to them.”"): Some offenders may claim that although someone got hurt, he or she deserved it. For example, corporations may treat their employees badly, paying them too little or instituting a stringent dress code. Employees may pilfer goods out of resentment “"to get back at the company,”" saying they are the real victims of the corporation’'s abuse. Women who harm physically or psychologically abusive spouses may claim that the “"victim”" was actually an offender who had therefore forfeited his rights to victimhood, and was finally getting what he deserved.
4. Condemnation of the condemners (e.g., “"Everybody’'s crooked.”"): Offenders may reject the people who have authority over them, such as judges, parents, and police officers, who are viewed as being just as corrupt and thus not worthy of respect: “"Even ministers steal from the collection box.”" The 2001 revelations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests and the cover-up by the Catholic Church provided considerable fuel for the denial of their moral authority to judge others.
5. Appeal to higher loyalties (e.g., “"I didn’'t do it for myself.”"). Many offenders argue that their loyalties lie with their peers (homeboys, fellow gang members, fellow employees, etc.) and that the group has needs that take precedence over societal demands. Female embezzlers claim to have stolen for their families and mothers have committed arson to provide work for their unemployed firefighter sons. Drug users’' higher loyalty may be to the complete fulfillment of the human spirit.
Since Matza and Sykes’'s original studies on delinquency, researchers have applied neutralization theory to adult crime, especially to offenders who maintain a dual lifestyle and are both part of the mainstream and yet also engage in crime, as in employee theft (Ditton, 1977; Hollinger and Clark, 1983; Hollinger, 1991) and buying and selling stolen goods (Klockars, 1974; Henry, 1978). As a consequence, at least four additional types of neutralization have been discovered (Henry, 1990; Pfuhl and Henry, 1993):
1. Metaphor of the ledger (e.g., “"I’'ve done more good than bad in my life.”"). This was used by Klockars (1974) to show how the professional fence believed himself to be, on the balance of his life, more moral than immoral (“"Look at all the money I’'ve given to charity and how I’'ve helped children. If you add it all up, I’'ve got to come out on the good side”").
2. Claim of normality (e.g., “"Everyone is doing it.”"). This suggests that the law is not reflecting the popular will and since everyone engages in, say, tax evasion, pilfering from the office, extramarital sex and so on, then such acts are not really deviant and therefore not wrong.
3. Denial of negative intent (e.g., “"It was just a joke.”"). Henry (1990; Henry and Eaton, 1999) found this was used by college students to justify their use of explosives on campus, among other things (“"We were only having some fun.”"). The neutralization is partial denial, accepting responsibility for the act but denying the negative consequences were intended.
4. Claim of relative acceptability (e.g., “"There are others worse than me.”"). Unlike condemning the condemners, this appeals to the audience to compare the offender’'s crime to more serious ones and can go so far as claiming to be moral. For example, LAPD officers claimed that the beating of the African American Rodney King, after being stopped on a traffic violation, helped prevent him being killed by nervous fellow officers (Pfuhl and Henry, 1993: 70). Page 4
The important point about these techniques of neutralization is their timing. All could be used as techniques or devices (1) after an illegal act to seek to reduce blame or culpability, or (2) before committing the act while contemplating it in order to seek self-conscious approval that it is acceptable to go ahead. But for Matza and others (Taylor, 1972; Henry, 1976), the critical point is that they can also occur (3) before contemplating the act, releasing the actor to be morally free to choose the act. In the latter case, the context, situation and circumstances provide a neutralizing discourse that removes the moral inhibition releasing a person to commit criminal acts, as they would any other act.
Limitations and Policy Implications of Neutralization Explanations
The critical issue when evaluating neutralization theory is whether or not offenders are committed to conventional values and norms in the first place. If they are not committed, neutralization is unnecessary, a point made by control theory, which we discuss in the next chapter. Even Matza accepted that not all delinquents were committed to conventional values, since a minority were compulsive in their behavior, committed to unconventional values, and differed from the majority of mundane “"drifters”" (Taylor, Walton, and Young, 1973: 180–-181).
Early empirical research found little support for the idea that delinquents share mainstream values (Ball and Lilly, 1971). Indeed, Michael Hindelang (1970, 1974) found that delinquents are committed to different values from those held by nondelinquents. Moreover, in an overview of the studies, Agnew (1994) found that most research shows that delinquents are more likely to accept techniques of neutralization than are nondelinquents. A self-report study by Landsheer, Hart, and Kox (1994) found that some delinquents viewed their acts as unacceptable, yet did them anyway, which tends to support neutralization theory, since this scenario requires some means for the delinquents to deal with their own moral objections.
Research on neutralizations also faces a causality problem, particularly in establishing when the neutralizations occur—-before or after the criminal act. For Hamlin (1988), neutralizations are produced after the act as motives attributed to behavior in response to questions about why it happened. But Agnew’'s (1994: 572) analysis of the National Youth Survey’'s longitudinal data suggests that neutralization precedes violent acts, “"may be used as both after-the-fact excuses and before-the-fact justifications,”" and “"has a moderately large absolute effect on subsequent violence.”"
Ultimately, like Sutherland’'s theory of differential association, neutralization theory does not explain how neutralization originates or who invents the extensions of the words and phrases that are learned.
Many of the studies that find relationships between neutralizations and delinquency suffer from methodological problems, such as using cross-sectional rather than longitudinal data which does not allow the researcher to know whether neutralization preceded or followed the act. Other “"supporting”" research has sampling problems. For example, W. William Minor (1981), whose research provided limited support, relied on college criminal justice students for his sample. In an earlier study using a better sample, he could not support neutralization theory, concluding that in many cases, “"Neutralizations and rationalizations are simply unnecessary”" (Minor, 1980: 115). Other studies have failed to distinguish neutralization from unconventional beliefs. By contrast, from his longitudinal study Agnew (1994: 573) found that, at least in relation to violent acts, the majority of respondents disapproved of violence and “"accept one or more neutralizations for violence.”" However, as one commentator recently stated, “"as with techniques of neutralization, drift theory does not have a solid foundation in empirical research, and this is a serious drawback”" (Moyer, 2001: 148) . Part of the problem with Matza’'s drift theory, says Moyer, is that it has not been possible to develop a good operational definition, and this has inhibited research. Perhaps nothing captures the concern more than the lecture given at Cambridge University in 2003 by Shadd Maruna (2003) entitled: “"Excuses, Excuses: What have we learned in 50 years of testing ‘'Neutralization Theory’'? “"
Policy Implications of Nweutralization Theory
Although neutralization theory explains certain kinds of criminal behavior, it also presents difficult policy questions. It suggests that contradictions in the dominant culture, injustice, and double standards need to be eliminated to lessen the possibility of people being able to neutralize. Cressey ([1965] 1987) was one of the few writers to specify the policy implications of this theory at least at the level of institutional control. He suggested that to reduce the probability of verbalizations allowing embezzlement, employers should adopt educational programs that allow employees to discuss emerging financial problems from losses and that phrases used to excuse and justify such behavior should be repeatedly corrected to reveal their harm and crime. Some retail stores have begun to implement this suggestion through weekly meetings with sales staff, pointing out to them the precise losses from internal theft and how the company suffers. The aim is to undermine any neutralizing use of “"denial of injury”" by employees tempted to steal from the store.
Others have shown that it is not just the words and phrases that need constant monitoring and replacing but the conditions that give rise to them. Take, for example, the finding that employee resentment is highly correlated with employee theft and that high levels of job satisfaction are inversely correlated with employee theft (Hollinger and Clark, 1983). Research by Greenberg (1990) has shown that although rates of employee theft typically rise if wages are cut, this can be avoided if employers use words and phrases to explain why the cuts are necessary and if they involve and inform the employees about what is happening. This way, the neutralizing effect of “"denial of victim”" is preempted and that justification for employee theft is undermined. Of course, whether such a policy would be effective depends on whether the theory is correct. Indeed, Maruna (2003) states, “"Nowhere is the influence of this theory more apparent than in correctional practice, where the notion that habitual excuse-making promotes criminal behavior is largely taken for granted. Interventions as diverse as cognitive-behavioural therapy and restorative justice conferencing are all premised explicitly on overcoming rationalisations and encouraging offenders to take responsibility for their behaviour. Yet, does the research on neutralization theory over the last 50 years justify the faith in this theory?”"
It was against neutralization theory that Travis Hirschi (1969) developed his oppositional ideas about bonding and social control, described as one of the most frequently discussed and tested criminological theories (Stitt and Giacopassi, 1992). We turn to an examination of this and control theories generally in the next chapter.