October 26, 2008

Techniques of Neutralization

author_brad By Bradley Wright

Okay everyone, time for a test. Raise your right hand if you’ve ever done something that went against your value system, that harmed others, or was otherwise just wrong. Now, raise your left hand if you still think that you’re a pretty good, moral person. My guess is that most of us have both of our hands in the air at this point (in fact, I’m having to type with my nose).

This raises an interesting question. How can we, or anyone who breaks society’s moral codes, still think of ourselves as moral members of society? David Matza and Gresham Sykes developed a theory to explain this, called “techniques of neutralization.” 

Here’s how it works. Society has various expectations of how we’re supposed to act. We can call these norms. As part of the socialization process, we internalize these norms, coming to hold them as our own values and beliefs. People who are unable to internalize them are shunned and sometimes even considered psychopaths. When we break the moral code, then, we need someway of justifying it to ourselves so that we see ourselves--and can present ourselves to others--as full-fledged, moral members of society. We need something like a get-out-of-jail free card in the game monopoly, something that will cover our wrong-doing so that we don’t suffer the consequences of being defined as immoral or apart from society in our actions.

Techniques of neutralization do just this by providing simple and powerful rationales for why we violate society’s norms, and we use them to explain to ourselves and others why it was “okay” that we do wrong. Matza and Sykes identified five separate techniques of neutralization:

1) Denial of responsibility. We acknowledge doing the behavior considered wrong, but we claim that we had no choice—that we had to do or we were forced to do so.

2) Denial of injury. We acknowledge doing the wrong action, but we claim that no one was harmed by what we did, so it really shouldn’t be a problem.

3) Blaming the victim. We acknowledge that people were hurt by our actions, but we claim that though we did the action, it was really the victim’s fault—they brought about or otherwise deserved our behavior.

4) Condemn the condemners. We abdicate all responsibility for our behavior, and instead we point to the people condemning us. They are the problem, not us. What they have done wrong excuses our behavior.

5) Appealing to a higher loyalty. We claim that while we violated some social norms, we’re actually adhering to other norms and loyalties, and these higher principles justify our behavior.

It’s pretty straightforward to illustrate these techniques using everyday wrongdoing. Suppose that you cheat on a test. You could deny responsibility. Rather than redefine yourself as a cheater, you might decide that you really had no choice—you just have to graduate this semester.

You can deny the injury. You could also say that you did cheat but it didn’t hurt anyone. If the professor doesn’t use a strict grading curve, then bumping up your test score won’t change anyone else’s score, so what’s the harm? 

You could blame the victim. If the professor hadn’t made his/her tests so confusing, you wouldn’t need to cheat, so it really is their fault. You could condemn the condemners. Who is the college faculty and administration to make a big case out of cheating—we all know that they cheat at their jobs. 

Finally, you could appeal to a higher loyalty. Maybe you didn’t really want to cheat, but your parents are counting on you to graduate and get a good job, and for that you need a good grade point average. As such, you did it for them.

What’s truly remarkable about these techniques of neutralization is that they are used with even the most heinous of crimes.


Josef Fritzl held his daughter as a sex slave in a basement dungeon for over twenty years. He fathered seven children by her, ranging in age from five to nineteen at the time of Fritzl’s arrest, and none of them had ever seen sunlight! Fritzl was only discovered when one of the older children feel gravely ill, and they sought medical help.

What was Fritzl’s response to this hideous crime? He denied the injury, explaining that he could have let the older child die, but instead he risked discovery to get her help. Certainly he should get some credit for that, no?

clip_image003Let’s take an even worse case. Adolf Eichmann was an SS officer in Nazi Germany. He was placed in charge of the logistics of Hitler’s final solution--the mass extermination of Jews--so Eichmann was responsible for the murder of millions of people. If ever someone should just fess up to being a monster, it should be Eichmann, but that’s not what happened. When he was brought to trial, he simply denied responsibility and said that he was just obeying orders.

"Why me," he asked. “Why not the local policemen, thousands of them? They would have been shot if they had refused to round up the Jews for the death camps. Why not hang them for not wanting to be shot? Why me? Everybody killed the Jews."

These are pretty extreme examples of people using techniques of neutralization to justify their actions. Can you think of any others?


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Techniques of Neutralization:


i believe eichmann denied his personal responsibility because he was a part in the bureocracy machinery, hitler on the top as the leader was the one with the most responsibilities.

actually eichmann had a good point, we are either all responsible or no one could be held responsible (people involved in killing, police and army officers too).

who knows what might have happened to him (his family) if he denied to obey his fuhrer ?

i am not saying he was judged in inappropriate way, but they should have trialed all the people under him too.

"Can you think of any others?"
what about the russian nkvd officers shooting at their own men (armless !!) when fighting in ww2 ?

The techniques of neutralization seem to help people to validate their acts of deviance. It takes away the pressure that society enforces on maintaining in complete sincerity. I feel people do break social norms and need a way to maintain their moral status in society. I feel any act of deviance could be justified to benefit the person to feel moral. There are many scenarios that may need an explanation to help a person conform to societies standards of moral behavior. Moral codes can also have different meanings in different cultures and that may be another way of justifying deviance.

Stealing is an example that can fit into the five techniques of neutralization. By most standards, stealing is considered morally wrong. Using the denial of responsibility, it could be said that one needed to steal in order to support their family. The denial of injury could justify that because no one knew anything had been stolen no harm is done. In blaming the victim one could say the store was too easy to break into. To condemn the condemners, we could say that while we were caught it does not matter because the authority figures are corrupt anyway. Appealing to a higher loyalty would say that someone above us made us thieve. I feel that any action can be justified in a way that makes the person look moral and that may help people be able to face society easier by using the techniques of neutralization.

Thanks for the post. I really enjoyed reading it.

I was intrigued by your use of examples and story telling in your explanation of neutralization. Having real-life situations that were linked to the concept of neutralization and justification helped me to better understand how the techniques could come into play in a way I could readily grasp. I can definitely see how individuals, such as the ones in the example of the cheating student or the man who kept his daughter hostage, would desire to neutralize their own actions instead of confessing to and admitting guilt in their various situations.

According to theory person commit vrime and never accecpted his fault he always said that this is not his fault he did crime under presaure.if any body killed by him then he said that this is his fault this was accedent or the peraon dead by his own fault.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Become a Fan

The Society Pages Community Blogs

Interested in Submitting a Guest Post?

If you're a sociology instructor or student and would like us to consider your guest post for everydaysociologyblog.com please .

Norton Sociology Books

The Real World

Learn More

Terrible Magnificent Sociology

Learn More

You May Ask Yourself

Learn More

Essentials of Sociology

Learn More

Introduction to Sociology

Learn More

The Art and Science of Social Research

Learn More

The Family

Learn More

The Everyday Sociology Reader

Learn More

Race in America

Learn More


Learn More

« What Makes a City a City? | Main | Marriage and Children: Rights and Wrongs »