14   Part TV -f learning to Be a Criminal
are more influential than others. What types of associations carry the greatest ■ weight in influencing our behavior?
Strain theorists, described, in'the next section, argue that frustration is a ma-
l!
jor cause of crime. How would S{' land respond to this argument?
What policy recommendations; Sutherland make for contrc crime? -f
In attempting to uncover the roots of juvenile delinquency, the social scientist has long since ceased to search for devils in the mind or stigma of the body. It is now largely agreed that delinquent behavior, like most social behavior, is learned and that it is learned in the process of social interaction. • The classic statement of this position is found in Sutherland's theory of differential association, which asserts that criminal or delinquent behavior involves the learning of (a) techniques of commuting crimes and (b) motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes favorable to the violation of law. Unfortunately, the specific content of what is learned—as opposed to the process,by which it is learned—has received relatively little attention in either theory or research. Perhaps the single strongest school of thought on the nature of this content has centered on the idea of a delinquent subculture. The basic characteristic of the de-: linquent sub-culture, it is argued, is a system of values that represents an inversion of the values held by respectable, law-abiding
society. The world of the delinquent is the world of the law-abiding turned upside . down and its norms constitute a countervailing force directed against the conforming social order. Cohen sees the process of developing a delinquent sub-culture as a matter of building, maintaining, and reinforcing a code for behavior which exists by opposition, which stands in point by point contradiction to dominant values, particularly those of the middle class. Cohen's portrayal of delinquency is executed with a good deal of sophistication, and he carefully avoids overly simple explanations such as those based on the principle of "follow the leader" or easy generalizations about "emotional disturbances." Furthermore, he does not accept the delinquent sub-culture as something given, but instead systematically examines the function of delinquent values as a viable solution to the lower-class, male child's problems in the area of social status. Yet in spite of its virtues, this image of juvenile delinquency as a form of behavior based on competing or countervailing values and norms appears to suffer from a number of serious defects. It is the nature of these defects and a possible alternative or modified explanation for a large portion of juvenile delinquency with which this paper is concerned.
The difficulties in viewing delinquent behavior as springing from a set of deviant values and norms—as arising, that is to say, from a situation in which the delinquent defines his delinquency as "right"—are bath empirical and theoretical. In the first place, if there existed in fact a delinquent sub-culture such that the delinquent viewed his illegal behavior as morally correct, we could reasonably suppose that he would exhibit no feelings of guilt or shame at detection or confinement. Instead, the major reaction would tend in the direction of indignation or a sense of martyrdom. It is true that some delinquents do react in the latter fashion, although the sense of martyrdom often seems to be based on the fact that others "get away with it" and indignation appears to be directed against the chance events or lack of skill that led to apprehension. More important, however, is the fact that there is a good
deal of evidence suggesting that many fjgw linquents do experience a sense of guilt of-il shame, and its outward expression is not be dismissed as a purely manipulative gesture to appease those in authority. Much of i this evidence is, to be sure, of a clinical na f. ture or in the form of impressionistic judgi^ ments of those who must deal first haní ^ with the youthful offender. Assigning Í weight to such evidence calls Eor caution."-! but it cannot be ignored if we are to avoid -» the gross stereotype of the juvenile delm. "\ quentas a hardened gangster in miniatuie -J
In the second place, observers have noted s that the juvenile delinquent frequently ac-4 cords admiration and respect to law-abid^J ing persons. The "really honest" is often vered, and if the delinquent is sometimes. sc. overly keen to detect hypocrisy in those who. .^f conform, unquestioned probity is likely to .1 win his approval. A fierce attachment to a humble, pious mother or a forgiving, upright priest (the former, according to many; observers, is often encountered in both juvenile delinquents and adult criminals) might be dismissed as rank sentimentality, but at least it is clear that the delinquent does not necessarily regard those who abide . by the legal rules as immoral. In a similar vein, it can be noted that the juvenile delm- <■ quent may exhibit great resentment if úle- . gal behavior is imputed to "significant oth- | ers" in his immediate social environment or J? to heroes in the world of sport and entertainment. In other words, if the delinquent does hold to a set of values and norms that stand in complete opposition to those of respectable society, his norm-holding is of á peculiar sort. While supposedly thoroughly committed to the deviant system of the delinquent sub-culture, he would appear to recognize the moral validity of the dominant normative system in many instances.
In the third place, there is much evidence that juvenile delinquents often draw a sharp line between those who can be victimized and those who cannot. Certain social groups are not to be viewed as "fair game" in the performance of supposedly approved delinquent acts while others warrant a variety of attacks. In general, the potentiality for victimization would seem to be a func-
■ I on of016 soc'a' distance between the juve-" ile delinquent and others and thus we find .'.__]jcit maxims in the world of the delin-
ent such as "don't steal from friends" or %ori\ commit vandalism "against a church :Df-your 0wn faith." This is all rather obvious, but the implications have not received 'sufficient attention. The fact that supposedly valued behavior tends to be directed
■ aoainst disvalued social groups hints that the "wrongfulness" of such delinquent behavior is more widely recognized by delinquents than the literature has indicated. When the pool of victims is limited by considerations of kinship, friendship, ethnic group, social class, age, sex, etc., we have
■ reason to suspect that the virtue of delinquency is far from unquestioned.
.; In the fourth place, it is doubtful if many juvenile delinquents are totally immune -: from the demands for conformity made by the dominant social order. There is a strong likelihood that the family of the delinquent "will agree with respectable society that de-■- linquency is wrong, even though the family may be engaged in a variety of illegal activities. That is, the parental posture conducive to delinquency is not apt to be a positive prodding. Whatever may be the influence of " parental example, what might be called the : "Fagin" pattern of socialization into delinquency is probably rare. Furthermore, as Red! has indicated, the idea that certain neighborhoods are completely delinquent, offering the child a model for delinquent behavior without reservations, is simply not supported by the data.
The fact that a child is punished by parents, school officials, and agencies of the legal system for his delinquency may, as a number of observers have cynically noted, suggest to the child that he should be more careful not to get caught. There is an equal or greater probability, however, that the child will internalize the demands for conformity. This is not to say that demands for conformity cannot be counteracted. In fact, as we shall see shortly, an understanding of how internal and external demands for conformity are neutralized may be crucial for understanding delinquent behavior. But it is to say that a complete denial of the valid-
ity of demands Eor conformity and the-* substitution of a new normative system is'i improbable, in light of the child's or adoles-' cent's dependency on adults and encirclement by adults inherent in his status in the social structure. No matter how deeply enmeshed in patterns of delinquency he may be and no matter how much this involvement may outweigh his associations with the law-abiding, he cannot escape the condemnation of his deviance. Somehow the demands for conformity must be met and answered; they cannot be ignored as part of an alien system of values and norms.
In short, the theoretical viewpoint that sees juvenile delinquency as a form of behavior based on the values and norms of a deviant sub-culture in precisely the same way as law-abiding behavior is based on the values and norms of the larger society is open to serious doubt. The fact that the world of the delinquent is embedded in the larger world of those who conform cannot be overlooked nor can the delinquent be equated with an adult thoroughly socialized into an alternative way of life. Instead, the juvenile delinquent would appear to be at least partially committed to the dominant social order in that he frequently exhibits guilt or shame when he violates its proscriptions, accords approval to certain conforming figures, and distinguishes between appropriate and inappropriate targets for his deviance. It is to an explanation for the apparent paradoxical fact of his delinquency that we now turn.
As Morris Cohen once said, one of the most fascinating problems about human behavior is why men violate the laws in which they believe. This is the problem that confronts us when we attempt to explain why delinquency occurs despite a greater or lesser commitment to the usages of conformity. A basic clue is offered by the fact that social rules or norms calling for valued behavior seldom if ever take the form of categorical imperatives. Rather, values or norms appear as qualified guides for action, limited in their applicability in terms of time, place,.persons, and social circumstances. The moral injunction "against killing, for example, does not apply to the
138  Part IV -f Learning to Be a Criminal
Chapter 12 + Techniques of'Neutralisation 139
enemy during combat in time of war, although a captured enemy comes once again under the prohibition. Similarly, the taking and distributing of scarce goods in a time of acute social need is felt by many to be right, although under other circumstances private property is held inviolable. The normative system of a society, then, is marked by what Williams has termed flexibility; it does not consist of a body of rules held to be binding under all conditions.
This flexibility is, in fact, an integral part of the criminal law in that measures for "defenses to crimes" are provided inpleas such as nonage, necessity, insanity, drunkenness, compulsion, self-defense, and so on. The individual can avoid moral culpability for his criminal action—and thus avoid the negative sanctions of society—if he can prove that criminal intent was lacking.
It is our argument that much delinquency is based on what is essentially an unrecognized extension of defemes to crimes, in the form of justifications for deviance that are seen as valid by the delinquent but not by the legal system or society at large.
These justifications are commonly described as rationalizations. They are viewed as following deviant behavior and as protecting the individual from self-blame and the blame of others after the act. But there is also reason to believe that they precede deviant behavior and make deviant behavior possible. It is this possibility that Sutherland mentioned only in passing and that other writers have failed to exploit from the viewpoint of sociological theory. Disapproval flowing from internalized norms and conforming others in the social environment is neutralized, turned back, or deflected in advance. Social controls that serve to check or inhibit deviant motivational patterns are rendered inoperative, and the individual is freed to engage in delinquency without serious damage to his self image. In this sense, the delinquent both has his cake and eats it too, for he remains committed to the dominant normative system and yet so qualifies its imperatives that violations are "acceptable" if not
but something more like an apologetic fail- si ure, often more sinned against than sinning :/} in his own eyes. We call these justifications J| of deviant behavior techniques of neutral- \ \ ization; and we believe these techniques \l' make up a crucial component of Suther- i land's "definitions favorable to the violation:% of law." It is by learning these techniques j .-that the juvenile becomes delinquent, [ rather than by learning moral imperatives, j \ values or attitudes standing in direct con- i \ tradiction to those of the dominant society. % [■■ In analyzing these techniques, we have "{.. found it convenient to divide them into five major types.
The Denial of Responsibility |
In so far as the delinquent can define ;[ himself as lacking responsibility for his de- if viant actions, the disapproval of self or oth- I ers is sharply reduced in effectiveness as a 1 restraining influence. As Justice Holmes ■■ \ has said, even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked, and • i modern society is no less careful to draw a % f line between injuries that are uninten- '\ ■ tional, i.e., where responsibility is lacking, and those that are intentional. As a tech-nique of neutralization, however, the denial of responsibility extends much further than the claim that deviant acts are an "accident" ;' or some similar negation of personal ac- " [ countability. It may also be asserted that de-linquent acts are due to forces outside of the.-; individual and beyond his control such as unloving parents, bad companions, or a ■ slum neighborhood. In effect, the delin-.-H quent approaches a "biDiard ball" concep- ■; tion of himself in which he sees himself as helplessly propelled into new situations. ; From a psychodynamic viewpoint, this on- '. entation toward one's own actions may represent a profound alienation from self, but ,. it is important to stress the fact that inter- :: pretations of responsibility are cultural constructs and not merely idiosyncratic be- : liefs. The similarity between this mode of justifying illegal behavior assumed by the rWinnuent and the implications of a "socio-
jurisprudence is readily apparent. It is not pe validity of this orientation that concerns us here, but its function of deflecting blame attached to violations of social norms and its relative independence of a particular personality structure. By learning to view ■ himself as more acted upon than acting, the delinquent prepares the way for deviance from the dominant normative system without the necessity of a frontal assault on the norms themselves.
The Denial of Injury
A second major technique of neutralization centers on the injury or harm involved in the delinquent act. The criminal law has long made a distinction between crimes which are mala in se and mala prohibita— that is between acts that are wrong in themselves and acts that are illegal but not immoral—and the delinquent can make the same kind of distinction in evaluating the wrongfulness of his behavior. For the delinquent, however, wrongfulness may turn an the question of whether or not anyone has clearly been hurt by his deviance, and this matter is open to a variety of interpretations. Vandalism, for example, may be defined by the delinquent simply as "mischief'—after all, it may be claimed, the persons whose property has been destroyed can well afford it Similarly, auto theft may be viewed as "borrowing," and gang fighting may be seen as a private quarrel, an agreed upon duel between two willing parties, and thus of no concern to the community at 1 arge. We are not suggesting that this technique of neutralization, labelled the denial of injury, involves an explicit dialectic, rather, we are arguing that the delinquent frequently, and in a hazy fashion, feels that His behavior does not really cause any great harm despite the fact that it runs counter to law. Just as the link between the individual and his acts may be broken by the denial of responsibility, so may the link between acts and their consequences be broken by the denial of injury. Since society sometimes agrees with the delinquent, e.g., in matters
merely reaffirms the idea that the delinquent's neutralization of social controls by means of qualifying the norms is an extension of common practice rather than a gesture of complete opposition.
The Denial of Victim
Even iE the delinquent accepts the responsibility for his deviant actions and is willing to admit that his deviant actions involve an injury or hurt, the moral indignation of self and others may be neutralized by an insistence that the injury is not wrong in light of the circumstances. The injury, it may be claimed, is not really an injury; rather, it is a form of rightful retaliation or punishment. By a subde alchemy the delinquent moves himself into the position of an avenger and the victim is transformed into a wrong-doer. Assaults on homosexuals or suspected homosexuals, attacks on members of minority groups who are said to have gotten "out of place," vandalism as revenge on an unfair teacher or school official, thefts from a "crooked" store owner-all may be hurts inflicted on a transgressor, in the eyes of the delinquent. As Orwell has pointed out, the type of criminal admired by the general public has probably changed over the course of years and Raffles no longer serves as a hero; but Robin Hood, and his latter day derivatives such as the tough detective seeking justice outside the law, still capture the popular imagination, and the delinquent may view his acts as part of a similar role. To deny the existence of the victim, then, by transforming him into a person deserving injury is an extreme form of a phenomenon we have mentioned before, namely, the delinquents recognition of appropriate and inappropriate targets for his delinquent acts. In addition, however, the existence of the victim may be denied for the delinquent, in a somewhat different sense, by the circumstances of the delinquent act itself. Insofar as the victim is physically absent, unknown, or a vague abstraction (as is often the case in delinquent acts committed against property), the suiarptiRss of the victim's existence is weat__
140  Part IV -f Learning to He a Criminal '
ened. Internalized norms and anticipations of the reactions of others must somehow be activated, if they are to serve as guides for ■ behavior; and it is possible that a diminished awareness of the victim plays an important part in determining whether or not this process is set in motion.
The Condemnation of the Condemners
A fourth technique of neutralization would appear to involve a condemnation of the condemners or, as McCorkle and Korn have phrased it, a rejection of the rejectors. The delinquent shifts the focus of attention from his own deviant acts to the motives and behavior of those who disapprove of his violations. His condemners, he may claim, are hypocrites, deviants in disguise, or impelled by personal spite. This orientation toward the conforming world may be of particular importance when it hardens into a bitter cynicism directed against those assigned the task of enforcing or expressing the norms of the dominant society. Police, it maybe-said, are corrupt, stupid, and brutal. Teachers always show favoritism and parents always "take it out" on their children. By a slight extension, the rewards of conformity—such as material success—become a matter of pull or luck, thus decreasing still further the stature of those who stand on the side of the law-abiding. The validity of this jaundiced viewpoint is not so important as its function in turning back or deflecting the negative sanctions attached to violations of the norms. The delinquent, in effect, has changed the subject of the conversation in the dialogue between his own deviant impulses and the reactions of others; and by attacking others, the wrongfulness of his own behavior is more easily repressed or lost to view.
The Appeal to Higher Loyalties
Fifth, and last, internal and external social controls maybe neutralized by sacrificing thedemands of the larger society for the demands of the smaller social groups to
which the delinquent belongs such as the sibling pair, the gang, or the friendship clique. It is important to note that the dehn-quent does not necessarily repudiate the imperatives of the dominant normative sys-; tem, despite his failure to follow them? Rather, the delinquent may see himself as. caught up in a dilemma that must be resolved, unfortunately, at the cost of violat- i ing the law. One aspect of this situation has'; been studied by Stouffer and Toby in their research on the conflict between particularistic and universalistic demands, between' the claims of friendship and general social obligations, and their results suggest that, "it is possible to classify people according to a predisposition to select one or the other horn of a dilemma in role conflict." For our i purposes, however, the most important; point is that deviation from certain norms may occur not because the norms are rejected but because other norms, held to be-' more pressing or involving a higher loyalty,; are accorded precedence. Indeed, it is thi: fact that both sets of norms are believed in, that gives meaning to our concepts of dilemma and role conflict.
The conflict between the claims of friend-;; ship and the claims of law, or a similar dilemma, has of course long been recognized' by the social scientist (and the novelist) as a;; common human problem. If the juvenile,; delinquent frequently resolves his dilemma J by insisting that he must "always help aj buddy" or "never squeal on a friend," even.; when it throws him into serious difficulties! with the dominant social order, his choice:; remains familiar to the supposedly law-abiding. The delinquent is unusual, per^! haps, in the extent to which he is able to see^ the fact that he acts in behalf of the smaller social groups to which he belongs as ajusti-. fication for violations of society's norms, but' it is a matter of degree rather than of kind."i
"I didn't mean It." "I didn't really hurt \ anybody." "They had it coming to them." "Everybody's picking on me." "I didn't do it;: for myself." These slogans ortheirvariants,' we hypothesize, prepare the juvenile for delinquent acts. These "definitions of the situ-; ation" represent tangential or glancing . blows at the dominant normative system.';
ppther than the creation of an opposing ide-Ology; and they are extensions of patterns of thought prevalent in society rather than -■'■'■ something created it novo.
Techniques of neutralization may not be powerful enough to fully shield the individual from the force of his own internalized values and the reactions of conforming oth-ers, for as we have pointed out, juvenile de-;','\ linquents often appear to suffer from feelings of guilt and shame when called into account for their deviant behavior. And some delinquents may be so isolated from :■. the world of conformity that techniques of neutralization need not be called into play. ': Nonetheless, we would argue that techniques of neutralization are critical in less-ening the effectiveness of social controls and that they lie behind a large share of delinquent behavior.
Empirical research in this area is scat-tered and fragmentary at the present time, . but the work of Redl, Cressy, and oth ers has supplied a body of significant data that h as done much to clarify the theoretical issues and enlarge the fund of supporting evi-
■ dence. Two lines of investigation seem to be critical at this stage. First, there is need for
: more knowledge concerning the differen-tial distribution of techniques of neutraliza-; tion, as operative patterns of thought, by r. age, sex, social class, ethnic group, etc. On a . priori grounds it might be assumed that ■. these justifications for deviance will be . more readily seized by segments of society for whom a discrepancy between common social ideals and social practice is most ap-
■ parent. It is also possible however, that the habit of "bending" the dominant normative
, system—if not "breaking" it—cuts across our cruder social categories and is to be
;• traced primarily to patterns of social interaction within the familial circle. Second, there is need for a greater understanding of ■the internal structure of techniques of neutralization/as a system of beliefs and attitudes, and its relationship to various types of delinquent behavior. Certain techniques
of neutralization would appear to be better / adapted to particular deviant acts than to '.-others, as we have suggested, for example, >. in the case of offenses against property and the denial of the victim. But the issue remains far from clear and stands in need of more information.
In any case, techniques of neutralization appear to offer a promising line of research in enlarging and systematizing the theoretical grasp of juvenile delinquency. As more information is uncovered concerning techniques of neutralization, their origins, and their consequences, both juvenile delinquency in particular, and deviation from normative systems in general may be illuminated.
Reprinted from Grasham M. Sykes and David Maca, "Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency" in the American Sociological Review 22. Copyright© 1957.
Discussion Questions
1. In their article, Sykes and Matza paraphrase Morris Cohen: "one of the most fascinating problems about human behavior is why men violate the laws in which they believe." What solution do Sykes and Matza offer to this problem?
2. Most students disapprove of cheating on exams, but many nevertheless cheat. List possible justifications such students might give for their cheating behavior. Which techniques of neutralizations do these justifications illustrate?
3. Sykes and Matza argue that the techniques of neutralization are learned from others. They do not, however, describe those groups or types of individuals that are most likely to employ the techniques of neutralization. What groups or categories of individuals do you think are most likely to employ the techniques of neutralization (and why)? +