Posted by Jay Livingston
“Techniques of Neutralization” (Sykes and Matza, 1957) is a classic article in the sociology of deviance. Neutralizations, according to Sykes and Matza, are ideas that delinquents use to neutralize the rules against some deviant act. Sykes and Matza argue that neutralizations enable the delinquency and come prior to the delinquent act.
I’m not so sure – a kid might well commit crimes even without these rationalizations – but these neutralizations certainly work as after-the-fact justifications. At the very least, the list of neutralizations gives students something to think about and memorize (and it gives teachers something to use in multiple-choice exam questions). In case you’ve forgotten them (or never heard of them), here they are:
- denial of responsibility (I didn’t mean it; it wasn’t my fault)
- denial of injury (no harm, no foul)
- denial of victim (they deserved it; who cares about them)
- condemnation of the condemners (cops are corrupt)
- appeal to higher loyalties (I had to help my buddies)
Denial of Injury
Contrary to the claim that the memos detail “brutal” techniques . . .what they mainly show is the lengths to which the Justice Department went not to cross the line into torture. . . .
Denial of Victim
“Zubaydeh has become accustomed to a certain level of treatment and displays no signs of willingness to disclose further information” (quoting a memo from legal counsel Bybee).
Condemnation of the Condemners
the ICRC [Red Cross] has become as much a political, as humanitarian, operation. . .
the liberal mob . . .Mr. Obama . . . may try to sate the mob by going after Bush officials who wrote the memos. . . . Mr. Obama seems more than willing to indulge the revenge fantasies of the left, as long as its potential victims served a different President.
Appeal to Higher Loyalties
to break a terrorist they believed had information that could potentially save American lives.The fifth neutralization comes from former CIA director Michael Hayden, quoted in today’s New York Times)
Denial of Responsibility
I have said to all who will listen that the agency did none of this out of enthusiasm. It did it out of duty.
That’s just from two major newspapers in one day. I’m sure that if I’d reviewed O’Reilly, Hannity, Coulter, et al., I would have found many other examples that seem to come straight out of the delinquents’ script. However, delinquents seem reluctant to use the one justification for crime most favored by the supporters of torture: It works; it’s a great way to get what you want.*
As I said, I’m somewhat skeptical that these neutralizations always precede the juvenile delinquency and make it possible. The torture gang, however, provides a much better illustration of Sykes and Matza’s theory. For the most part, those involved in any way made sure that the neutralizations were in place (and in writing) before they started the “enhanced interrogations” (they also made sure the euphemisms were in place). That’s the difference between criminal gangs on the street and those in government and other formal organizations.
-----------------
*The justification that torture works is, like the denial of injury, simply not factual. (See here, for example.) But as with all these neutralizations, what is important is not accuracy but rather plausibility, however slim. A plausible justification allows the neutralizers to fool themselves, at least partially, and perhaps to fool others, so that they can repeat their act again. And again. And again. (One victim was warterboarded 183 times. That's takes a lot of neutralizing, though presumably these neutralizing ideas become part of a taken-for-granted background reality.)
No comments:
Post a Comment