Deviance can be defined as an individual or group's deviation from shared norms within a social context. From a sociological perspective, it seems essential to ask why these individuals deviate from these norms, how this deviation occurs, and how they manage to avoid guilt.
Sociology of deviance
Beginning in the second half of the 19th century, with the theories of moral statistics, the first sociological studies on crime and deviance developed. These studies focused primarily on social, cultural, and environmental factors as the main factors that led humans to crime. Many theories almost completely overlooked the importance of the psychological factor, forgetting that
“one cannot deal with crime without taking psychology into account because it is not so much the crime itself that interests us as what lies behind it.” (A. Christie)
David Matza
One of the authors who, in the second half of the 20th century, developed a theory of deviance capable of explaining the phenomenon in all its complexity was American sociologist and criminologist David Matza. In describing the emergence, development, and neutralization of deviance, he developed a theory that encompassed the following factors:
- Sociological (social class, living environment, internalized values)
- Psychological (use of techniques to neutralize the sense of guilt arising from the unlawful act)
- Legal (possible responsibility of the state and authorities in the development of juvenile delinquency).
Among the most salient aspects of Matza's thought is undoubtedly the hypothesis that everyone in society shares the same values. However, there are so-called clandestine values that deviants practice daily, unlike the ruling class, which uses them occasionally. Even those who respect the rules can drift with these values and violate previously shared norms. In this reflection, the hypothesis lies in the idea that a conflict between thought and behavior arises in individuals, causing dissonance. This dissonance, in turn, becomes the source of discomfort, unease, and guilt. To overcome this dissonance and to justify the drift between different values, individuals resort to neutralization techniques. Let's analyze this thought in detail.
The drifting theory
One of the theories developed by D. Matza that is worth exploring further is the drift theory ( Delinquency and drift, 1964). This theory starts from the assumption that delinquency (especially among juveniles) is characterized by a series of values that can be summarized as follows:
- Want to get high
- Contempt for work
- Desire for the big hit
- Approval of forms of aggression as proof of virility.
Looking rationally at these delinquent values, one can see that they are very similar "to the values inherent in the leisure activities of the dominant society." (D. Matza) Indeed, members of society, especially young people, often use delinquent values to "seek thrills." However, they engage in them more moderately, and this is the only difference from the delinquent class.
Values
This demonstrates that everyone within society has the same values. Some individuals, however, are capable of drifting with different values. There is an oscillation between convention and deviance that leads members of society to adopt deviant attitudes and subsequently to respect the norms they had previously violated. Matza calls these values clandestine. From this, it can be deduced that, since the values of society and those of deviants are not different,
“The delinquent order is not as delinquent as it seems, and the conventional order is not as conventional as it seems.” (D. Matza, becoming deviant 1969)
The delinquent adheres to the dominant norms with faith, but in practice, for a variety of reasons, renders these norms ineffective. This situation leads to an interaction between two orders, the conventional and the deviant, in which one constantly switches from one to the other. Deviant behavior can therefore be activated intermittently.
Difference between doing and being
In Matza's view, committing a deviant action or occasionally embracing a deviant value in one's ego does not make a person deviant. In this regard, there is an important difference between doing and being . This distinction also represents the solution to a dilemma, that of constructing a deviant identity. In Matza's view, the subject must ask himself a question: " Am I essentially a thief?" If the answer is yes, then he will have consolidated a deviant identity; otherwise, no. In other words, the dilemma under analysis could be framed as follows: am I a thief or do I act like a thief? It is important to distinguish this, especially because a person might, for example, commit theft due to family deficiencies.
Could this be labeled as deviant? A further concrete example demonstrating this thesis can be found in today's society. It concerns the so-called "contempt for work." Indeed, to claim that today's society is entirely devoted to work is to distort reality. Following the granting of basic income, many young people admitted they were unwilling to work to continue receiving the income. Doesn't this demonstrate the existence of a value that Matza defined as delinquent even within the dominant society? The fact that delinquents indulge in these tendencies more extensively doesn't mean they belong to a different value system.
Cognitive dissonance
Beyond this, however, there is no doubt that perpetrating deviant behavior (also given the oscillation between different values mentioned previously) can give rise to situations of ambivalence. This means that deviants, sharing certain values and simultaneously violating them, find themselves in a sort of cognitive dissonance.
L. Festinger believes that people want to be consistent with themselves. When opinions and ideals contradict behavior, inconsistency, dissonance, is generated, which causes discomfort. To overcome it, one can modify a cognitive element (one's opinions) or one's behavior. Here, the hypothesis is that criminals experience a dissonance that they attempt to eliminate through the use of neutralization techniques.
Cognitive strategies
Neutralization techniques represent cognitive strategies deployed by deviant actors to cope with the psychological consequences of their unconventional actions. D. Matza and G. Sykes defined them as justifications for deviant behavior that precede criminal conduct and make it possible. Innovatively, they can also be considered "excuses" that the individual creates before committing a deviant act to rationalize and justify it, both to themselves and to others. These techniques are used to achieve a sort of temporary liberation from the constraints of imposed morality in order to enter and exit delinquency (G. Marotta).
One might venture to say that neutralization techniques resemble what social psychology calls self-serving attribution. These are self-serving attributions designed to safeguard self-esteem. It's no coincidence that many authors believe that the actor is unconsciously aware of using these mechanisms solely to escape social blame and shame. In this regard, one might say they represent "invented rationalizations." However, it's undoubtedly thanks to neutralization techniques that we can explain the drift theory, the way in which the deviant overcomes cognitive dissonance and feelings of guilt. Specifically, neutralization techniques are the following:
Neutralization techniques
- Denial of responsibility: The subject does not consider himself responsible for the actions committed. They did not depend on his will.
- Denial of damages: Even though he breaks the law, the individual believes he has not caused any damage.
- Victim's Denial: It can occur in two ways. In the first case, the victim is blamed. In the second case, their very existence is denied, especially when physically absent, unknown, or "conceived in vaguely abstract terms" (RG Capuano).
- Condemnation of those who condemn: The subject criminalizes the authorities, the police, judges, teachers, the state in general, because in his opinion they are hypocritical, corrupt, never impartial.
- Call to higher loyalties: The subject sees himself faced with a choice between different norms. He justifies the violation by invoking higher ideals or principles (I steal to make my family happy).
In conclusion, as is clearly evident from the reconstruction just illustrated, it can be stated that anyone, in certain circumstances, could commit deviant actions. Anyone could occasionally drift toward values different from those they believe in. This is why committing a deviant action does not make someone deviant. One must always distinguish between what one does and what one is. This is why it is always best to "label" behaviors and never people. For example, we should talk about deviant actions and not deviant people.
Noemi del Turco
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Capuano RG, Juvenile delinquency, theory and analysis, Armando Editore, Rome 2010;
Marotta G., Criminology, history, theories, methods CEDAM, Lavis 2015;
Matza D., How to become a deviant, The Mill, Bologna 1969;
Matza D., Sykes G. In “American Sociological Review”, 22, 6, pp. 664-670: Techniques of neutralization: a theory of delinquency, 1957;
Matza D., Sykes G., in “American Sociological Review”, 26, 5, pp. 712-719: juvenile delinquency and subterranean values, 1961;
