Sykes And Matza's Techniques Of Neutralization Theory

There is not a single theory out there that is perfect. Sociological theories are often continuously evolving alongside the various cultures and communities they theorize about. Theories are not supposed to be perfect and of course they cannot explain everything. However, important aspects of some theories are left out and certain things are not able to be explained, despite the theory being overall quite well versed. In the following pages, I will be discussing how Sykes and Matza's (1957) Techniques of Neutralization Theory has both positives, as well as drawbacks. Originally, Sykes and Matza proposed their theory as a critical response to other theorists who believed that deviant individuals were altogether disconnected from the dominant
Sykes and Matza looked to explain why individuals engage in deviance and delinquency in the first place but the theory was not designed to encase a broad array of offenders and crimes (Topalli 2003). Agnew and Peters (1986) found that delinquents only used the techniques of neutralization when they felt that the act they had committed was deserving of such a justification, meaning that the techniques are going unused during many occasions of deviant and delinquent acts (Agnew and Peters 1986). Minor (1981) also emphasized that only some individuals use the neutralization techniques because they perceive what they are doing is wrong, and if someone who is still in adherence to dominant norms does not perceive an act as morally wrong, the techniques will again go
They note that their techniques may not be totally viable as a standalone theory and, despite not being able to explain some classes of deviants, they nonetheless have provided a research-backed set of excuses that weaken social controls on otherwise conforming individuals, allowing them to engage in deviant behaviour (Sykes and Matza 1957). As well, in Agnew's (1994) study, it was found that the neutralization techniques were very much present amongst offenders who had engaged in more violent offences, such as fighting and assault, which opens up the theory to a broader spectrum of deviant acts previously thought to be not-applicable (Agnew