Table of Contents
- Theories of Deviance
- Techniques of Neutralization
- The Social Implications of Neutralization
- Neutralization and Social Change
- Conclusion
Deviance refers to behaviors or actions that violate societal norms or expectations. Sociologically, deviance is not inherently wrong or immoral; rather, it is defined by the reactions of others. What one society deems deviant, another may consider normative. The concept of “neutralisation of deviance” arises from the way individuals who engage in deviant behaviors attempt to rationalize or justify their actions. These justifications help them alleviate guilt, reduce societal condemnation, and maintain a sense of identity in the face of moral transgressions. Understanding how deviance is neutralized is essential to comprehending how social order is maintained, challenged, and navigated in everyday life.
This article explores the concept of neutralization of deviance by examining how individuals employ various techniques to excuse or justify deviant behavior. Drawing on sociological theories of deviance, it unpacks the implications of these neutralization techniques for individuals and broader social structures. Additionally, it explores how the neutralization of deviance can impact social cohesion and the persistence of deviant subcultures.
Theories of Deviance
To understand neutralization, it is crucial to first grasp some foundational theories of deviance. Sociologists have long studied deviant behavior, analyzing why individuals engage in it and how society responds. Structural-functionalism, for example, views deviance as necessary for society because it reinforces norms by highlighting what is unacceptable. Emile Durkheim argued that deviance serves a critical social function by allowing society to delineate its boundaries between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Deviance, in this context, is a normal part of healthy societies because it prompts changes in norms and promotes social cohesion through shared reactions to deviance.
In contrast, labeling theory posits that deviance is not inherent to an act but is instead a label applied by society. This theory, developed by Howard Becker and others, emphasizes how individuals come to be labeled as deviant and how these labels can become self-fulfilling prophecies. People are often labeled deviant based on the social reactions they elicit, which then influences their self-concept and future actions. Labeling theory thus underscores the role of power and inequality in determining what is considered deviant.
Another critical framework is Robert Merton’s strain theory, which suggests that deviance occurs when there is a disjunction between societal goals and the means available to achieve them. In societies where success is highly valued, but legitimate means to achieve it are limited, individuals may turn to deviant behaviors such as theft or fraud to achieve success. Strain theory helps us understand why people might resort to deviance, but it also intersects with the concept of neutralization because individuals often justify their deviance as a response to societal pressures.
Techniques of Neutralization
Gresham Sykes and David Matza, in their seminal work in the 1950s, introduced the concept of “techniques of neutralization” to explain how individuals manage the dissonance between their deviant actions and societal norms. These techniques are strategies used to deflect guilt or mitigate blame, allowing individuals to continue engaging in deviant behavior while maintaining a self-image that aligns with societal expectations. Sykes and Matza identified five key techniques:
1. Denial of Responsibility
This technique involves individuals denying personal accountability for their actions. They may claim that external factors, such as peer pressure or circumstances beyond their control, caused them to behave in a deviant way. By shifting the blame away from themselves, they reduce feelings of guilt and avoid taking personal responsibility. For example, a person caught engaging in illegal drug use may argue that they were pressured by friends and had no real choice in the matter.
2. Denial of Injury
In the denial of injury, the individual claims that their deviant actions did not cause harm or were not serious enough to warrant condemnation. This technique relies on the idea that if no one was hurt by the behavior, then it should not be considered deviant or wrong. A common example is someone who engages in petty theft, such as shoplifting, and justifies it by saying that the store can afford the loss, and no real damage was done.
3. Denial of the Victim
Here, the deviant actor acknowledges that harm was done but argues that the victim deserved it or that the victim was not a true victim. This technique often appears in cases of interpersonal violence, where individuals justify their actions by blaming the victim for provoking the incident. For instance, someone who engages in a physical fight might claim that the other person “had it coming” because of their disrespectful behavior, thereby neutralizing the moral condemnation of their own violent actions.
4. Condemnation of the Condemners
With this technique, individuals deflect blame onto those who accuse them of deviance. By attacking the motives or integrity of their accusers, they attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the condemnation. A teenager caught breaking school rules may argue that the teachers are unfair or corrupt, thus neutralizing their own deviant behavior by shifting the focus to the perceived hypocrisy or wrongdoings of others.
5. Appeal to Higher Loyalties
In this case, individuals justify their deviant actions by claiming they were acting in accordance with higher moral or social values. They may argue that their deviance was necessary to uphold loyalty to a friend, family member, or group. For example, someone involved in gang activity might justify violent behavior as a means of protecting their group or community, placing loyalty above the societal norms they are violating.
These techniques are powerful tools that allow individuals to rationalize deviance while maintaining social ties and self-esteem. By neutralizing the moral condemnation of their behavior, they reduce the cognitive dissonance that often accompanies deviant actions.
