Techniques of Neutralization

Deviance, Crime, and Social Control SOCI 1306 Techniques of Neutralization Sociologists Gresham Sykes and David Matza examined the idea of neutralisation strategies in 1957 in a groundbreaking study that focused on how people—especially adolescent males who are classified as juvenile offenders—manage and negotiate these designations. These methods are cognitive strategies that help people minimise feelings of guilt or shame and preserve a non-deviant self-concept by helping them to rationalise or explain their deviant behaviour. This approach is particularly pertinent when analysing how individuals respond to labels that are placed on them by society. Think about a young individual who works as a cashier at a retail store, for example, and whose cash drawer has been running low for a few days. The worker is accused of stealing and is branded as a thief when their supervisor confronts them. To cope with this label, the employee may use one or more of the five strategies listed by Sykes and Matza: Appeal to Higher Loyalties, Condemnation of the Condemners, Denial of Responsibility, Denial of Injury, and Denial of the Victim. First of all, the Denial of Responsibility tactic enables the person to shift responsibility and evade accepting responsibility for their deeds. The worker may contend that other factors, such as uncontrollable conditions, are to blame for the missing funds. They can argue that their personal problems—like not being paid enough to pay their rent or going through a challenging divorce—have been the source of their extreme stress. The employee absolves themselves of accountability by attributing the scarcity to these outside causes, implying that any purported theft was not a purposeful, conscious act. By portraying the behaviour as something they were forced to do rather than a reflection of who they are, this tactic helps them reject the label of thief. Second, the Denial of Injury strategy entails downplaying the harm that the behaviour is thought to have caused. The worker may contend that since nobody was harmed, the missing money is not a big deal. "What's the big deal?" they could ask. It will be covered by your insurance." In this instance, the employee minimises the gravity of their acts by implying that the harm done is minimal and the financial loss is insignificant. This justification, which implies that their acts caused no actual harm, aids the person in distancing themselves from the unfavourable label. The emphasis is shifted to whether the victim deserves the injury in the third tactic, Denial of the Victim. The worker may use the employer's unjust treatment of them as justification for their behaviour. "I've worked here for years without a rise," they would declare. That money is mine, and I'll get it my way if you won't give it to me." This tactic presents the theft as a legitimate form of retaliation against an unfair system. The employee avoids being called a thief by presenting themselves as the victim of unjust treatment and arguing that their acts were a legitimate reaction to being mistreated. Condemnation of the Condemners therefore entails placing the blame back on the people who made the first accusations. The worker can remark something like, "You don't know my life, you have no reason to judge me," in an attempt to undermine the boss's integrity or credibility. This strategy aims to divert attention from their own actions and onto the alleged shortcomings or duplicity of their accuser. The worker tries to disprove the verdict and, consequently, the accusation of thievery, by contesting the boss's authority or moral character. This tactic casts doubt on the veracity of the claim in addition to diverting attention away from the abnormal behaviour. Last but not least, the Appeal to Higher Loyalties strategy is defending the action by pointing to a higher moral standard or the larger good. The worker may argue that they had to use the funds to help a family member who was in extreme need. They can claim, for instance, that "I stole the money because my mum is sick and needs medicine." The employee tries to garner empathy and compassion by portraying the theft as an act of desperation motivated by selfless intentions, casting oneself as someone who acted out of need rather than avarice or malice. This defence lessens the impact of the negative label by reframing the deviant conduct as ethically acceptable in the given situation. In conclusion, the theory of neutralisation developed by Sykes and Matza offers a thorough framework for comprehending how people react to and deal with deviant labels. If the retail cashier is accused of stealing, the employee may use the following strategies: Condemnation of the Condemners to cast doubt on the authority and morality of their accusers; Denial of Responsibility to shift the blame onto outside forces; Denial of Injury to downplay the perceived harm; Denial of the Victim to defend their actions as a reaction to unfair treatment; and Appeal to Higher Loyalties to portray their actions as motivated by altruistic motives. By using these strategies, people may justify their behaviours and uphold their self-concept even when they participate in behaviours that are considered abnormal by society. We may learn more about the intricacies of human behaviour and how people deal with the social labels that are placed on them by comprehending these systems.