David Tang S2750715

Course/Unit code and description

CCJ27 SOCIOLOGY OF CRIME

Assessment number and topic

Assessment 2

Student name

David Tang

Griffith student number

2750715

Convenor's name

Oriel South

Tutor's name

Susanna Chamberlain

Due Date

7 November, 2011 (4pm Monday of Week 11)

Topic

Theory Analysis (Short Answer)

Words

1448 (including approx. 200 in text reference words)

David Tang S2750715

Topic:

Sykes and Matzas techniques of neutralisation, applied to domestic violence.

This essay considers how Sykes and Matzas techniques of neutralisation explain domestic violence. Neutralisation theory will be put in the context of social learning and the labeling theory variety of symbolic interactionism. Neutralisation theory will then be applied to domestic violence to explore whether it helps explain this misconduct. Finally, consideration will be given to whether the conventional neutralisation theory explains domestic violence, and whether other accounts, particularly a feminist analysis, should also be considered.

Symbolic interactionism refers to the meanings actions have for people and how they arrived at these conceptions (Bernard, Snipes & Gerould 2010, p. 226). It helps explain the purposes people have for acting; in this case their abuses or criminality. Here, people create meanings for their actions; generated by both the individuals and social interactions. One of five areas of symbolic interactionism is labeling theory. This theory suggests criminals socially construct their self-image in relation to whether they accept and internalise the label of criminal, and suggests this influences their future behaviour. How these conceptions are constructed is the subject of social learning theory. Sutherlands differential association learning theory suggests techniques and favourable orientations to crime are learnt, challenging causal theories pointing to broken homes, poverty, lack of education and the like (Sykes & Matza 1957, p. 664). Additional to these cognitive elements are processes of learning: things leant from ones associates and societal values determine orientations towards lawbreaking (Sutherland, E 1983, p. xxxii & Bernard, Snipes & Gerould 2010, p., 181). Inspired by symbolic interactionism, Sutherland argued law-breaking is determined by the meanings people ascribe to social conditions experienced, which are leant in intimate personal groups. To illustrate, an early exploratory study (Hennon 1977, p. 432) suggested almost any factors, such as structural conditions of low education, occupational status, and income, may be related to domestic violence. But underlying psychic phenomena, such as learning from parents, are more likely to be causal

David Tang S2750715

(Hennon 1977, p. 433). One theory suggesting cultural discourses about violence helps explain domestic violence is neutralisation (Presser, 2003 p. 801, 818-20).

Neutralisation is a theory of content learnt leading to delinquency, as opposed to processes (Sykes & Matza 1957, p. 664). For neutralisation, the content regards the rationalisations and favourable attitudes learnt. Sykes and Matza (1957, p. 664) proposed neutralisation as an alternative to the content theory suggesting delinquent behaviour is based on values and norms competing with or opposing conformist values. It aims to explain only a portion of crime, not all, and addresses why people violate laws they believe in (Sykes & Matza 1957, p. 666). Notably, norms or rules are flexible, qualified guides to behaviour. For criminal law, defences such as insanity and self-defence provide exceptions for moral culpability. Sykes and Matza argue that much delinquency is based on similar, if unconscious reasoning by the delinquent. They suggest this ex post facto reasoning is called rationalisation. Contrarily, prospective justifications are neutralisations (Sykes & Matza 1957, p. 666). Guilt or disapproval is counteracted in advance, providing delinquents permission to act whilst maintaining a conventional, rather than antisocial self-image. Sykes and Matza proposed a typology of five neutralisation techniques: denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of the victim, condemnation of the condemners, and appeals to higher authority. These apply unevenly to different deviant acts. Research on domestic violence is consistent with Sykes and Matzas general analysis of neutralisation, and reveals which techniques apply most to the delinquent sub-group (Dutton 1986, p.382). Remorse is an important precondition for effective treatment and victim reparation, but this is difficult to achieve (Presser 2003 p. 802; Catlett, Toews & Walilko 2010, p. 120).

Domestic violence denotes coercive and controlling intimate relationships. The World Health Organizations definition involves physical, emotional, psychological or sexual abuse (Taft & Hegarty 2010; Krug et al 2002, p. 15). A number of recent studies into the meanings and constructions abusive men ascribe to violence suggest the most apparent of Sykes and Matzas five techniques of neutralisation are denial of the victim, of responsibility, and of injury (Wood 2004; Presser 2003;

David Tang S2750715

Catlett, Toews & Walilko 2010; Dutton 1986). One study (Wood 2004, p. 555) found men justified their violence by appeals to higher authority, and another (Presser 2003, p. 818) found condemnation of the condemners, in that harms and punishments experienced negate harms done. A larger study by Cavanagh et al (2001) analysed 122 interviews using Goffmans (1971) typology of accounts', 'apologies' and requests'. They suggest exculpatory and expiatory discourses dominate men's

accounts. Men seek to generate acceptable meanings for their offensive acts. The sub-categories of accounts': denial, blame, minimisation, and reduced competence again suggest denial of responsibility, injury, and of the victim feature. Men neutralise or eradicate partners experience of abuse, and control the ways she interprets and responds to it with another response: forgiveness seeking and absolution. But remorse is viewed in different ways. Some apparently suggest it is a type of neutralisation (Wood 2004), others propose the neutralisation helps avoid feeling of regret for violence (Presser 2003, p. 819). Nonetheless, it has significant clinical implications. Whilst difficult to achieve, remorse and regret are important preconditions for effective treatment and victim reparation (Presser 2003, p. 801-3; Catlett, Toews & Walilko 2010, p. 120; Dutton 1986, p. 382).

Studies have pointed to cultural discourses informing abusive mens responses. Certain attitudes influencing behaviours are learnt from conventional culture and structural arrangements, such as ideas about manhood (Wood 2004, p. 556-9; Dutton 1986, p. 382; Presser 2003, p. 820). It is suggested clinical foci should be on this learning process: encouraging reflection about institutional sources of neutralisation (Presser 2003, p. 820). Catlett, Toews, and Walilko (2010) suggest offenders be encouraged to become cultural critics. But one study submits neutralisation works counter to popular expectations. Concluding that differences in the severity of abuse are contingent upon the type and level of neutralisation (Dutton 1986, p. 389) found the more husbands neutralised, the less they abused. Men tending to view their wife-victim as the cause generally minimise their violence. Men blaming their situations for their violence exhibited a moderate amount of minimisation, and those attributing the violence to an enduring characteristic of themselves are more violent and did not neutralise self-punishment. Maruna and Copes (2005) may have an explanation for this. Criticising aspects of Sykes and Matzas theory, they believe neutralisations are just as likely to be observed

David Tang S2750715

following an offence as prior. Neutralisations do not just explain crime initiation. More importantly, they maintain criminality (Walters 2006, p. 88; Maruna & Copes 2005). The popular sociological analysis is flawed and underdeveloped because neutralisations cannot occur prior to the action. Whilst the implications for Catlett, Toews, and Walilko are conventional: assist unlearning for those justifying with cultural norms, Maruna and Copes (2005) suggest the theory's central premises need adjustment. Neutralisation should be understood as playing a role in persistence in or desistance from criminal behaviour. The idea that all excuses or justifications are "bad" and that reform involves "accepting complete responsibility" for one's actions is flawed. Meanwhile, a feminist analysis extends the criticism of conventional constructions providing cognitive conceptualisations for neutralisations.

Ptacek (1988, p. 141, 151) suggests neutralisation is learned as part of male cultural domination and oppression of women. Again, men excuse and justify their bad behaviour by applying learned socially approved vocabularies (Ptacek 1988, p. 141); standard rationalisations. But Ptacek

connects private rationalisations and public responses. To a significant extent, clinical literature and larger society accepts the denial of responsibility and victim-blaming at face value. Excuses and justifications are ideological constructs. Clinical and criminal justice responses collude with

batterers rationalisations to support the domination of women. Failure of the system to treat violence against women as a crime imposes a mutual validation of victim-blaming and minimisation (Ptacek 1988, p. 155). Therefore, not just offenders, but broader society should reform cultural practices.

It has been suggested that neutralisation is a technique abusive men have learnt and apply, to give themselves permission to act whilst protecting their pro-social self-image. Of the five techniques of neutralisation proposed by Sykes and Matza, denial of the victim, of responsibility, and of injury are most apparent in the meanings and constructions men give. Some theorists, maintain that such attitudes influencing behaviours are learnt from conventional culture and structural arrangements, and that reforming abusive men depends in part upon helping them unlearn the cultural norms.

However, neutralisation also appears to be a response of those with more internal conflict, whereby it

David Tang S2750715

reconciles their conflicting abusive actions and their pro-social self-image.

Therefore, those

relinquishing pro-social self-images are likely to be more violent. Meanwhile, a feminist analysis maintains abusive men learn and apply such socially approved vocabularies as part of the societywide process of male cultural domination and oppression of women.

David Tang S2750715

References Bernard, T J, Snipes, J B & Gerould, L A 2010, Volds Theoretical Criminology, 6th ed., Oxford University Press, New York. Catlett, B S, Toews, M L & Walilko, V 2010, Men's Gendered Constructions of Intimate Partner Violence as Predictors of Court-Mandated Batterer Treatment Drop Out, American Journal of Community Psychology, vol. 45, no. 1-2, pp. 107-23, http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/docview/205357872/abstract?accountid=1 4543, viewed October 25, 2011. Cavanagh, K, Dobash, R E, Dobash, R P & Lewis, R 2001, `Remedial Work': Men's Strategic Responses to their Violence against Intimate Female Partners, Sociology, vol. 35, no.3, pp. 695714, http://soc.sagepub.com/content/35/3/695, viewed October 25, 2011. Dutton, D G 1986, Wife Assaulter's Explanations for Assault: The neutralization of self-punishment, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, vol. 18, pp. 381390, http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/sp3.4.2a/ovidweb.cgi?WebLinkFrameset=1&S=EKLDFPDBBADDHFFONCBLOGGCBMOBAA 00&returnUrl=ovidweb.cgi%3f%26Full%2bText%3dL%257cS.sh.15.16%257c0%257c0001098 9-19861000000007%26S%3dEKLDFPDBBADDHFFONCBLOGGCBMOBAA00&directlink=http%3a%2f %2fgraphics.tx.ovid.com%2fovftpdfs%2fFPDDNCGCOGFOBA00%2ffs047%2fovft%2flive%2 fgv024%2f00010989%2f00010989-19861000000007.pdf&filename=Wife+assaulter%27s+explanations+for+assault%3a+The+neutralization+o f+selfpunishment.&pdf_key=FPDDNCGCOGFOBA00&pdf_index=/fs047/ovft/live/gv024/00010989/ 00010989-198610000-00007, viewed October 26, 2011. Goffman, E 1971, Relations in Public: Microstudies of the public order, Basic Books, New York. Hennon, C 1977, review of Gelles, R J 1977, The Violent Home: A study of physical aggression between husbands and wives, Journal of Marriage and Family , vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 431-434, National Council on Family Relations, http://www.jstor.org/stable/351141, viewed October 31, 2011. Krug, E, Dahlberg L, Mercy, J, Zwi, A & Lozano, R, eds. 2002, World Report on Violence and Health, Geneva, Switzerland, World Health Organization, viewed October 25, 2011 http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/world_report/en/. Maruna, S & Copes, H 2005, What Have We Learned from Five Decades of Neutralization Research?, Crime and Justice, vol. 32, pp. 221-32, The University of Chicago Press, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3488361, viewed October 31, 2011. Presser, L 2003, Remorse and Neutralization Among Violent Male Offenders, Justice Quarterly, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 801-25, http://search.proquest.com.libraryproxy.griffith.edu.au/docview/228163589/fulltextPDF/132A49 152ED379923B0/2?accountid=14543, viewed October 25, 2011. Ptacek, J 1988, Why Do Men Batter Their Wives?, in Yllo, K & Bograd, M L, (eds), Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, Sage Publications, California, pp.133-157. Sutherland, E 1983, The Problem with White Collar Crime, in White Collar Crime: The Uncut Version, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. ix-xxxiii, 3-10. Sykes, G M & David, M 1957, "Techniques of Neutralisation: A Theory of Delinquency," in American Sociological Review, 22, 664-70.

David Tang S2750715

Taft, A J & Hegarty, K L 2010, Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: What Outcomes Are Meaningful?, Journal of the American Medical Association, vol 304, no. 5, pp. 577-579, viewed October 25 2011, http://jama.amaassn.org.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/content/304/5/577.full.pdf+html?sid=f96cef3c-4557-4fcfa991-c8b2d083583c. Walters, G D 2006, Appraising, Researching and Conceptualizing Criminal Thinking: a personal view, Criminal Behaviour & Mental Health, vol. 16 no. 2, pp. 87-99, http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.swin.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=b6c0d3bd7975-4514-95b1-6d2542b2e45a%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=122, viewed October 31, 2011. Wood, J T 2004, Monsters and victims: Male felons' accounts of intimate partner violence, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 555- 76, http://spr.sagepub.com/content/21/5/555, viewed October 25, 2011.