Matza’s (1964) Delinquency and Drift

Matzas (1964) Delinquency and DriftDavid Matzas work is often is said to arrive offered a necessary counteraction to the postulates of the subcultural system (Young 1974). In 1957 David Matza and Gersham Sykes presented a radically new theory of deviant conduct in their seminal work entitled, Techniques of Neutralisation A Theory of Delinquency and again collaborated in 1961. The communion was signifi housetly extended by Matza in his subsequent works, Delinquency and Drift (1964) and Becoming Deviant (1969). This idea will provide a description and evaluation of Matzas theories. It will then proffer a brief discussion on why Matzas writings on crime presents a call down from traditional subcultural theories.Matzas work shows a rethink about deviants and how they process and rationalize their crime. He questions the notion that deviants be inherently opposed to societal norms and codes of conduct, and that their actions signify a avertion of the rule of law. He maintains that abandoned value do not necessarily follow a consistent continuum, and therefore to say that delinquency and deviants reject the rule of law is erroneous. He uses the examples of teenage delinquents to demonstrate that while some teenagers commit delinquent acts, many do not offend within a delinquent space or a delinquent subculture. He argues that many times they can immediately return to continuous actions which demonstrate affinity with normalcy. In these instances, Matza argues that instead of being in opposition to the rule of law, some acts of delinquency represent a loosening or distance from more positively favoured and consensus value systems to an adoption of what he terms posterior determine.Matza and Sykes (1961) differentiated between subterranean value and formal or mainstream set to highlight this point. Matza identifies formal values as those which demonstrate deferred gratification, can be predictable, respect bureaucratic processes, not aggressive, and confo rms to the normal routine. They also have an introspective characteristic which refrains from euphoria, plans meticulously, shows reservation and restraint, and is non-impulsive. Conversely, subterranean values are office as relishing concise term hedonism and excitement, always seeking change and alternatives, impulsive, very sociable and carefree, and is not afraid to display to aggression. within this framework, Matza defends his argument by stating that deviants who accept subterranean values usually accentuate these characteristics for short term personalised gains, or during leisure periods.Taylor et al (1973) suggests that Matzas work (1964) represents an attempt to avoid distorting the motivations of the delinquent and to present a representational analysis of deviant behaviour. Matza contends that theories which strive to label some deviants and establish sub-cultures of deviance, overstate the levels of delinquency and are a result of positively charged influences which attempt to find psycho-social reasons for non-conformity. He articulates that it is flawed to assume delinquent subcultures are zealously embraced by deviants, furthermore, he points out that this intermittent interaction with subterranean values is normal because these values are replicated many times throughout order, albeit most times in controlled environments. He argues that traditional positivistic models of deviance, depict an antagonistic disjunction between deviant or subterranean values of larger order (Taylor et al 1973) which is simply not true. Instead he argues that deviants use techniques of neutralization as excuses for committing delinquent acts.Matza identified five techniques of neutralization employed by deviants to rationalize their non-conformity (1) Denial of responsibility , wherein, the offender deflects blame with lyric poem such as it was not my fault or it wasnt really me who did it. The deviant attributes their actions to the flaws of the wider substructure or environment. (2) Denial of injury, where the delinquent defends their actions on the grounds that it did not cause harm to anyone and substitutes moralistic condemnation on their actions with more favorable terminologies. For example, vandalism would be seen as just mischief. (3) Denial of a victim, where they place the victim as the offender in language such as they had it coming or it didnt affect them. (4) Appeal to higher loyalties, where the delinquent places himself as torn between two groups with a take on to commit the act in the interest of one group. A typical example can be found with foreign national women who do transnational drug couriering, who mostly say they do it because of the sparing needs of their children. (5) Condemnation of the condemners, where the offender deflects focus from their actions to chastise the motives of those who condemn the pique act. Those who condemn are usually classified by the deviant as hypocrites.Matzas (1964) Drift T heory attempts to situate the deviant in a less deterministic space than positivistic influenced theories allow. He suggested that persistent delinquent behaviour can be explained by a convergence of subterranean values and formal ones, in the absence of alter forces which reinforce the more moralistic formal values. The slow movement from formal and introspective values to more permanent subterranean characteristics is called a drift. In their period of drift, Matza contends that delinquents utilise the neutralizing techniques previously discussed, to weaken societys grasp on their value system. He is however, not without his critics, who point out that Matza underplay offending behaviour and neglects to use his theory as a lens for more violent forms of delinquency (Newburn 2007).Matzas reasoning presents a shift from traditional subcultural theory which is more deterministic in its labelling and examination of deviants. Subculture theory contends that there are predominate cult ures and deviant subcultures and they situate the deviant within the latter, because of their non-conformity. Subcultural theory romanticize the dominant culture as always existing within a positive moral space. It sees delinquency as a complete opposition to mainstream values and culture. Matza, on the other hand, advocates that delinquents do place value on mainstream cultures, but may refrain from displaying or voicing such views because they fear rejection from peers. He contends that subterranean values exist alongside those of the so-called dominant culture. This argument was partly sanctioned by Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) who proffered the example of the anthropoid who is compelled to violence to defend the honour of his mother, wife or children. While, this male is predisposed to accepting the dominant culture, his naturalistic tendency to defend in such situations, point to the co-existence of subterranean, even within mainstream cultures.ReferencesMatza, D. (1969) Beco ming Deviant. New tee shirt Prentice Hall.Matza, D. (1964) Delinquency and Drift. New York John Wiley and Sons.Matza, D., Sykes, G. (1961) Juvenile Delinquency and Subterranean Values. American Sociological go over Vol. 26, 713-719.Newburn, T. (2007) Criminology. Cullompton Willan.Sykes, G., Matza, D. (1957) Techniques of Neutralization A Theory of Delinquency. American Sociological Review, Vol. 22, 664-670.Taylor, I., Walton, P. Young, J. (1973) The New Criminology For a Social Theory of Deviance. capital of the United Kingdom Routledge.Wolfgang, M., Ferracuti, F. (1967) The Subculture of Violence. London Travistock Publishers.Young, J. (1974) New Directions in Subcultural Theory. In, John Rex (ed) Approaches to Sociology An Introduction to Major Trends in British Sociology. London RKP.1