Neutralisation

Question 1

How can someone who breaks society’s moral codes, still think of theirselves as moral members of society?

Answer 1

David Matza and Gresham Sykes developed
“Techniques of neutralisation”

The rationalisations that deviants and criminals
use to justify their activities.
Techniques of neutralisation
make deviance and crime seem normal,
at least to the deviants and criminals themselves.

Question 2

What’re the five techniques of neutralisaiton?

Answer 2

They identified five separate techniques of neutralisation:

1. Denial of responsibility
2. Denial of injury
3. Denial of a victim
4. Condemn the condemners
5. Appealing to a high loyalty

Question 3

Denial of responsibility

Answer 3

“I’m not responsible”

Acknowledge doing the behaviour considered wrong, but claim that it had no choice
– had to do or were force to do so.

breaking the norm claims that someone else is responsible for breaking the norm,
or that it was an accident.

Often that person sees herself or himself as victim rather than as perpetrator.

(Victim of society)

Question 4

Denial of injury

Answer 4

**“No one got hurt.” **

Claim that no one was harmed by the act, so it really shouldn’t be a problem.

Although the perpetrator might acknowledge that the action was illegal, they claim that
there was no victim,
or that they were just having a little fun.

(e.g., define vandalism as mischief, gang fights as a private quarrel, & steeling cars as borrowing.)

Question 5

Denial of a victim

Answer 5

“He or she deserved it.”
Blaming the victim

Acknowledge that people were hurt by the actions,
but claim it was really the victim’s fault—
they brought about or otherwise deserved our behavior.

Here the perpetrator sees herself of himself as an avenger,
righting the wrongs they claim that the victim had earlier committed.
They are merely “evening the score.”

even if they were caught and admitted that it was illegal they claimed that they “deserved what they got”

Question 6

Condemnation of the condemners

Answer 6

“You have no right to judge me.”

Here they claim their accusers are hypocrites, and have done the same or worse themselves.

Abdicate all responsibility for behavior, and instead point to the people condemning. They are the problem, not us. What they have done wrong excuses our behavior.

Question 7

Appealing to a higher loyalty.

Answer 7

** “I am loyal to a higher purpose.”**

Here the perpetrator may have been “just helping a friend,”
or loyal to his or her gang.

claim that while violated some social norms, actually adhering to other norms and loyalties, and these higher principles justify our behavior.

used to justify antisocial activities was to consider loyalty to the gang more important than following the norms of society.

(“I had to help my friend”)