Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency
Author(s): Gresham M. Sykes and David Matza
Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 22, No. 6 (Dec., 1957), pp. 664-670
Published by: American Sociological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2089195 .
Accessed: 03/09/2013 09:55
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 147.251.114.27 on Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:55:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION:
A THEORY OF DELINQUENCY
GRESHAM M. SYKES DAVID MATZA
Princeton University Temple University
IN attempting to uncover the roots of
juvenile delinquency, the social scientist
has long since ceased to search for devils
in the mind or stigma of the body. It is now
largely agreed that delinquentbehavior,like
most social behavior, is learned and that it
is learnedin the processof social interaction.
The classic statement of this position is
found in Sutherland'stheory of differential
association, which asserts that criminal or
delinquent behavior involves the learning
of (a) techniquesof committing crimes and
(b) motives, drives, rationalizations, and
attitudes favorable to the violation of law.'
Unfortunately, the specific content of what
is learned-as opposed to the process by
which it is learned-has received relatively
little attention in either theory or research.
Perhaps the single strongest school of
thought on the nature of this content has
centered on the idea of a delinquent subculture.
The basic characteristicof the deliquent
sub-culture,it is argued, is a system
of values that represents an inversion of
the values held by respectable, law-abiding
society. The world of the delinquent is the
worldof the law-abidingturnedupsidedown
and its norms constitute a countervailing
force directed against the conformingsocial
order.Cohen2 sees the processof developing
a delinquent sub-culture as a matter of
building,maintaining,and reinforcinga code
for behavior which exists by opposition,
which stands in point by point contradiction
to dominantvalues, particularlythose of the
middle class. Cohen's portrayal of delinquency
is executed with a good deal of
sophistication,and he carefullyavoids overly
simple explanations such as those based on
the principle of "follow the leader" or easy
generalizations about "emotional disturbances."
Furthermore, he does not accept
the delinquent sub-culture as something
given, but instead systematically examines
the function of delinquentvalues as a viable
solution to the lower-class,male child'sproblems
in the area of social status. Yet in
spite of its virtues, this image of juvenile
delinquencyas a form of behavior based on
competingorcountervailingvaluesand norms
appears to suffer from a number of serious
defects. It is the nature of these defects and
a possible alternative or modified explanation
for a large portion of juvenile delinquency
with which this paper is concerned.
The difficulties in viewing delinquent behavior
as springing from a set of deviant
values and norms-as arising,that is to say,
from a situation in which the delinquent
defines his delinquencyas "right"-are both
empiricaland theoretical. In the first place,
if there existed in fact a delinquent subculture
such that the delinquent viewed his
illegal behavioras morally correct,we could
reasonably suppose that he would exhibit
no feelings of guilt or shame at detection or
confinement. Instead, the major reaction
would tend in the directionof indignationor
a sense of martyrdom.3It is true that some
delinquents do react in the latter fashion,
althoughthe sense of martyrdomoften seems
to be basedon the fact that others"get away
with it" and indignation appears to be
directed against the chance events or lack
of skill that led to apprehension.More important,
however, is the fact that there is
a good deal of evidencesuggestingthat many
delinquentsdo experiencea sense of guilt or
1 E. H. Sutherland, Principles of Criminology,
revised by D. R. Cressey, Chicago: Lippincott, 1955,
pp. 77-80.
2 Albert K. Cohen, Delinquent Boys, Glencoe,
Ill.: The Free Press, 1955.
This form of reaction among the adherents
of a deviant subculture who fully believe in the
"rightfulness" of their behavior and who are
captured and punished by the agencies of the
dominant social order can be illustrated, perhaps,
by groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses, early Christian
sects, nationalist movements in colonial areas,
and conscientious objectors during World Wars I
and II.
664
This content downloaded from 147.251.114.27 on Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:55:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION 665
shame, and its outward expressionis not to
be dismissedas a purelymanipulativegesture
to appease those in authority. Much of this
evidence is, to be sure, of a clinical nature
or in the form of impressionisticjudgments
of those who must deal first hand with the
youthful offender.Assigninga weight to such
evidence calls for caution, but it cannot be
ignored if we are to avoid the gross stereotype
of the juveniledelinquentas a hardened
gangster in miniature.
In the second place, observershave noted
that the juvenile delinquent frequently accords
admirationand respect to law-abiding
persons. The "really honest" person is often
revered, and if the delinquent is sometimes
overly keen to detect hypocrisy in those who
conform, unquestioned probity is likely to
win his approval. A fierce attachment to a
humble,pious motheror a forgiving,upright
priest (the former, according to many observers,is
often encounteredin both juvenile
delinquents and adult criminals) might be
dismissed as rank sentimentality, but at
least it is clear that the delinquentdoes not
necessarily regard those who abide by the
legal rules as immoral. In a similar vein,
it can be noted that the juvenile delinquent
may exhibit great resentment if illegal behavior
is imputed to "significantothers" in
his immediatesocialenviornmentor to heroes
in the world of sport and entertainment.
In other words, if the delinquent does hold
to a set of values and norms that stand in
complete opposition to those of respectable
society, his norm-holding is of a peculiar
sort.Whilesupposedlythoroughlycommitted
to the deviant system of the delinquent
sub-culture, he would appear to recognize
the moral validity of the dominant normative
system in many instances.4
In the third place, there is much evidence
that juvenile delinquentsoften draw a sharp
line between those who can be victimized
and those who cannot. Certain social groups
are not to be viewed as "fair game" in the
performance of supposedly approved delinquent
acts while others warranta variety
of attacks. In general, the potentiality for
victimizationwould seem to be a function of
the social distance between the juvenile
delinquent and others and thus we find implicit
maxims in the world of the delinquent
such as "don't steal from friends"or "don't
commit vandalism against a church of your
own faith."5 This is all rather obvious, but
the implications have not received sufficient
attention. The fact that supposedly valued
behavior tends to be directed against disvalued
social groups hints that the "wrongfulness"
of such delinquentbehavioris more
widely recognized by delinquents than the
literature has indicated. When the pool of
victims is limited by considerationsof kinship,
friendship, ethnic group, social class,
age, sex, etc., we have reasonto suspect that
the virtue of delinquency is far from un-
questioned.
In the fourthplace, it is doubtful if many
juvenile delinquentsare totally immunefrom
the demands for conformity made by the
dominant social order. There is a strong
likelihood that the family of the delinquent
will agree with respectable society that delinquency
is wrong, even though the family
may be engaged in a variety of illegal
activities. That is, the parental posture conducive
to delinquency is not apt to be a
positive prodding. Whatever may be the
influence of parental example, what might
be called the "Fagin"patternof socialization
into delinquency is probably rare. Furthermore,
as Redl has indicated, the idea that
certain neighborhoods are completely delinquent,
offering the child a model for
delinquent behavior without reservations,is
simply not supportedby the data.6
The fact that a child is punished by
parents, school officials,and agencies of the
4 As Weber has pointed out, a thief may recognize
the legitimacy of legal rules without accepting
their moral validity. Cf. Max Weber, The Theory
of Social and Economic Organization (translated
by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons), New
York: Oxford University Press, 1947, p. 125. We
are arguing here, however, that the juvenile delinquent
frequently recognizes both the legitimacy
of the dominant social order and its moral "right-
ness."
5 Thrasher's account of the "Itschkies"-a juvenile
gang composed of Jewish boys-and the
immunity from "rolling" enjoyed by Jewish
drunkards is a good illustration. Cf. F. Thrasher,
The Gang, Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1947, p. 315.
6 Cf. Solomon Kobrin, "The Conflict of Values
in Delinquency Areas," American Sociological Review,
16 (October, 1951), pp. 653-661.
This content downloaded from 147.251.114.27 on Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:55:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
666 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
legal system for his delinquency may, as
a numberof observershave cynically noted,
suggest to the child that he should be more
careful not to get caught. There is an equal
or greater probability, however, that the
child will internalize the demands for conformity.
This is not to say that demands
for conformity cannot be counteracted. In
fact, as we shall see shortly, an understanding
of how internal and external demands
for conformityare neutralizedmay be crucial
for understandingdelinquent behavior. But
it is to say that a complete denial of the
validity of demands for conformity and the
substitution of a new normative system is
improbable,in light of the child's or adolescent's
dependency on adults and encirclement
by adults inherent in his status in the
social structure. No matter how deeply
enmeshedin patterns of delinquencyhe may
be and no matterhow much this involvement
may outweigh his associationswith the lawabiding,
he cannot escape the condemnation
of his deviance. Somehow the demands for
conformitymust be met and answered; they
cannot be ignoredas part of an alien system
of values and norms.
In short, the theoretical viewpoint that
sees juvenile delinquency as a form of behavior
based on the values and norms of
a deviant sub-culture in precisely the same
way as law-abiding behavior is based on
the values and norms of the larger society
is open to serious doubt. The fact that the
world of the delinquent is embedded in the
larger world of those who conform cannot
be overlooked nor can the delinquent be
equated with an adult thoroughlysocialized
into an alternative way of life. Instead, the
juvenile delinquent would appear to be at
least partially committed to the dominant
social order in that he frequently exhibits
guilt or shame when he violates its proscriptions,
accords approval to certain conforming
figures, and distinguishes between
appropriate and inappropriate targets for
his deviance. It is to an explanation for the
apparently paradoxical fact of his delinquency
that we now turn.
As Morris Cohen once said, one of the
most fascinating problems about human
behavior is why men violate the laws in
which they believe. This is the problemthat
confronts us when we attempt to explain
why delinquency occurs despite a greater
or lesser commitment to the usages of conformity.
A basic clue is offeredby the fact
that social rules or norms calling for valued
behavior seldom if ever take the form of
categorical imperatives. Rather, values or
norms appear as qualifiedguides for action,
limited in their applicability in terms of
time,place,persons,andsocialcircumstances.
The moral injunction against killing, for
example, does not apply to the enemy during
combat in time of war, although a
capturedenemy comes once again under the
prohibition. Similarly, the taking and distributing
of scarce goods in a time of acute
social need is felt by many to be right,
although under other circumstancesprivate
property is held inviolable. The normative
system of a society, then, is markedby what
Williams has termed flexibility; it does not
consist of a body of rules held to be binding
under all conditions.7
This flexibility is, in fact, an integral
part of the criminal law in that measures
for "defenses to crimes" are provided in
pleas suchsuchas nonage,necessity,insanity)
drunkenness, compulsion, self-defense, and
so on. The individual can avoid moral culpability
for his criminal action-and thus
avoid the negative sanctions of society-if
he can prove that criminal intent was lacking.
It is our argument that much delinquency
is based on what is essentially an
unrecognizedextensionof defenses to crimes,
in the form of justificationsfor deviance that
are seen as valid by the delinquent but not
by the legal system or society at large.
These justifications are commonly described
as rationalizations.They are viewed
as following deviant behavior and as protecting
the individual from self-blame and
the blame of others after the act. But there
is also reason to believe that they precede
deviant behaviorand make deviant behavior
possible. It is this possibility that Sutherland
mentioned only in passing and that other
other writers have failed to exploit from the
viewpointof sociologicaltheory. Disapproval
flowing from internalized norms and conforming
others in the social environmentis
7 Cf. Robin Williams, Jr., American Society,
New York: Knopf, 1951, p. 28.
This content downloaded from 147.251.114.27 on Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:55:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION 667
neutralized, turned back, or deflected in
advance. Social controls that serve to check
or inhibit deviant motivational patterns are
rendered inoperative, and the individual is
freed to engage in delinquencywithout serious
damage to his self image. In this sense,
the delinquent both has his cake and eats
it too, for he remains committed to the
dominantnormativesystem and yet so qualifies
its imperatives that violations are
"acceptable" if not "right." Thus the delinquent
represents not a radical opposition
to law-abiding society but something more
like an apologetic failure, often more sinned
against than sinning in his own eyes. We
call these justifications of deviant behavior
techniques of neutralization; and we believe
these techniques make up a crucial
component of Sutherland's"definitions favorable
to the violation of law." It is by
learning these techniques that the juvenile
becomes delinquent, rather than by learning
moral imperatives,values or attitudes standing
in direct contradiction to those of
the dominant society. In analyzing these
techniques, we have found it convenient to
divide them into five major types.
The Denial of Responsibility. In so far
as the delinquent can define himself as lacking
responsibilityfor his deviant actions, the
disapproval of self or others is sharply reduced
in effectivenessas a restraininginfluence.
As Justice Holmes has said, even a
dog distinguishes between being stumbled
over and being kicked, and modern society
is no less careful to draw a line between
injuries that are unintentional, i.e., where
responsibility is lacking, and those that are
intentional.As a techniqueof neutralization,
however, the denial of responsibilityextends
muchfurtherthan the claimthat deviant acts
are an "accident" or some similar negation
of personal accountability. It may also be
asserted that delinquent acts are due to
forces outside of the individual and beyond
his control such as unloving parents, bad
companions, or a slum neighborhood. In
effect, the delinquent approachesa "billiard
ball" conceptionof himself in which he sees
himself as helplessly propelled into new
situations.Froma psychodynamicviewpoint,
this orientation toward one's own actions
may represent a profound alienation from
self, but it is important to stress the fact
that interpretations of responsibility are
cultural constructs and not merely idiosyncraticbeliefs.
The similaritybetween this
mode of justifying illegal behavior assumed
by the delinquent and the implications of a
"sociological"frame of reference or a "humane"
jurisprudence is readily apparent.8
It is not the validity of this orientationthat
concernsus here, but its function of deflecting
blame attached to violations of social
norms and its relative independence of a
particularpersonalitystructure. By learning
to view himself as more acted upon than
acting, the delinquent preparesthe way for
deviance from the dominant normative system
without the necessity of a frontal assault
on the norms themselves.
The Denial of Injury. A second major
technique of neutralization centers on the
injury or harm involved in the delinquent
act. The criminal law has long made a distinction
between crimes which are mala in
se and mala prohibita-that is between
acts that are wrong in themselves and acts
that are illegal but not immoral-and the
delinquent can make the same kind of distinction
in evaluating the wrongfulness of
his behavior. For the delinquent, however,
wrongfulness may turn on the question of
whether or not anyone has clearly been
hurt by his deviance, and this matter is
open to a variety of interpretations. Vandalism,
for example, may be defined by the
delinquent simply as "mischief"-after all,
it may be claimed, the persons whose property
has been destroyed can well afford it.
Similarly, auto theft may be viewed as
"borrowing,"and gang fighting may be seen
as a private quarrel, an agreed upon duel
between two willing parties, and thus of no
concern to the community at large. WVeare
not suggesting that this technique of neutralization,
labelled the denial of injury,
involves an explicit dialectic, Rather, we
are arguing that the delinquent frequently,
8 A number of observers have wryly noted that
many delinquents seem to show a surprising awareness
of sociological and psychological explanations
for their behavior and are quick to point out the
causal role of their poor environment.
9It is possible, of course, that certain personality
structures can accept some techniques of neutralization
more readily than others, but this question
remains largely unexplored.
This content downloaded from 147.251.114.27 on Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:55:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
668 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
and in a hazy fashion, feels that his behavior
does not really cause any great harmdespite
the fact that it runs counter to law. Just as
the link between the individual and his acts
may be broken by the denial of responsibility,
so may the link between acts and their
consequences be broken by the denial of
injury. Since society sometimes agrees with
the delinquent, e.g., in matters such as truancy,
"pranks," and so on, it merely reaffirms
the idea that the delinquent's neutralization
of social controls by means of
qualifying the norms is an extension of
common practice rather than a gesture of
complete opposition.
The Denial of the Victim. Even if the
delinquent accepts the responsibility for his
deviant actions and is willing to admit that
his deviant actions involve an injury or
hurt, the moral indignation of self and
others may be neutralized by an insistence
that the injury is not wrong in light of the
circumstances.The injury,it may be claimed,
is not really an injury; rather, it is a form
of rightful retaliation or punishment. By a
subtle alchemy the delinquent moves himself
into the position of an avenger and the
victim is transformed into a wrong-doer.
Assaults on homosexualsor suspected homosexuals,
attacks on members of minority
groups who are said to have gotten "out of
place," vandalism as revenge on an unfair
teacher or school official, thefts from a
"crooked" store owner-all may be hurts
inflictedon a transgressor,in the eyes of the
delinquent. As Orwell has pointed out, the
type of criminal admired by the general
public has probablychangedover the course
of years and Raffles no longer serves as a
hero; 10but Robin Hood, and his latter day
derivativessuch as the tough detective seeking
justice outside the law, still capture the
popularimagination,and the delinquentmay
view his acts as part of a similar role.
To deny the existence of the victim, then,
by transforminghim into a person deserving
injury is an extreme form of a phenomenon
we have mentioned before, namely, the delinquent's
recognition of appropriate and
inappropriatetargets for his delinquentacts.
In addition, however, the existence of the
victim may be denied for the delinquent, in
a somewhat different sense, by the circumstances
of the delinquent act itself. Insofar
as the victim is physically absent, unknown,
or a vague abstraction (as is often the case
in delinquent acts committed against property),
the awareness of the victim's existence
is weakened. Internalized norms and
anticipations of the reactions of others
must somehow be activated, if they are to
serve as guides for behavior; and it is possible
that a diminished awarenes of the
victim plays an importantpart in determining
whether or not this process is set in
motion.
The Condemnation of the Condemners.
A fourth technique of neutralization would
appear to involve a condemnation of the
condemnersor, as McCorkleand Korn have
phrasedit, a rejectionof the rejectors." The
delinquent shifts the focus of attention
fromhis own deviant acts to the motives and
behavior of those who disapprove of his
violations. His condemners, he may claim,
are hypocrites, deviants in disguise, or impelled
by personal spite. This orientation
toward the conforming world may be of
particular importance when it hardens into
a bitter cynicism directed against those
assigned the task of enforcing or expressing
the norms of the dominant society. Police,
it may be said, are corrupt, stupid, and
brutal. Teachers always show favoritism
and parents always "take it out" on their
children. By a slight extension, the rewards
of conformity-such as material successbecome
a matter of pull or luck, thus decreasing
still further the stature of those
who stand on the side of the law-abiding.
The validity of this jaundiced viewpoint is
not so important as its function in turning
back or deflecting the negative sanctions
attached to violations of the norms. The
delinquent,in effect, has changedthe subject
of the conversationin the dialogue between
his owndeviant impulsesand the reactionsof
others; and by attacking others, the wrongfulness
of his own behavior is more easily
repressedor lost to view.
IO George Orwell, Dickens, Dali, and Others,
New York: Reynal, 1946.
11 Lloyd W. McCorkle and Richard Korn, "Resocialization
Within Walls," The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science,
293, (May, 1954), pp. 88-98.
This content downloaded from 147.251.114.27 on Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:55:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TECHNIQUES OF NEUTRALIZATION 669
The Appeal to Higher Loyalties. Fifth,
and last, internaland externalsocial controls
may be neutralized by sacrificing the demands
of the largersociety for the demands
of the smaller social groups to which the
delinquent belongs such as the sibling pair,
the gang, or the friendship clique. It is
important to note that the delinquent does
not necessarily repudiate the imperatives of
the dominant normative system, despite his
failureto followthem. Rather,the delinquent
may see himself as caught up in a dilemma
that must be resolved, unfortunately, at the
cost of violating the law. One aspect of this
situation has been studied by Stouffer and
Toby in their research on the conflict between
particularistic and universalistic demands,
between the claims of friendshipand
general social obligations, and their results
suggest that "it is possible to classify people
according to a predisposition to select one
or the other horn of a dilemma in role conflict."12
For our purposes,however,the most
importantpoint is that deviationfromcertain
normsmay occur not because the norms are
rejected but because other norms, held to
be more pressing or involving a higher loyalty,
are accorded precedence. Indeed, it is
the fact that both sets of normsare believed
in that gives meaning to our concepts of
dilemma and role conflict.
The conflict between the claims of friendship
and the claims of law, or a similar
dilemma,has of courselong been recognized
by the social scientist (and the novelist) as
a common human problem. If the juvenile
delinquent frequently resolves his dilemma
by insisting that he must "always help a
buddy" or "never squeal on a friend,"even
when it throws him into serious difficulties
with the dominant social order, his choice
remainsfamiliarto the supposedlylaw-abiding.
The delinquent is unusual, perhaps, in
the extent to which he is able to see the fact
that he acts in behalf of the smaller social
groups to which he belongs as a justification
for violations of society's norms, but it is a
matter of degree rather than of kind.
"I didn't mean it." "I didn't really hurt
anybody." "They had it coming to them."
"Everybody'spickingon me."" I didn'tdo it
for myself." These slogans or their variants,
we hypothesize, prepare the juvenile for delinquent
acts. These "definitions of the situation"
represent tangential or glancing
blows at the dominant normative system
rather than the creation of an opposing
ideology; and they are extensionsof patterns
of thought prevalent in society rather than
something created de novo.
Techniques of neutralization may not be
powerfulenoughto fully shieldthe individual
from the force of his own internalizedvalues
and the reactions of conformingothers, for
as we have pointed out, juvenile delinquents
often appear to suffer from feelings of guilt
and shame when called into account for
their deviantbehavior.And some delinquents
may be so isolated from the world of conformitythat
techniquesof neutralizationneed
not be called into play. Nonetheless, we
wouldarguethat techniquesof neutralization
are critical in lessening the effectiveness of
socialcontrolsandthat they lie behinda large
share of delinquent behavior. Empirical research
in this area is scattered and fragmentary
at the present time, but the work of
Redl,13Cressy,'4 and others has supplied a
body of significantdata that has done much
to clarify the theoretical issues and enlarge
the fund of supporting evidence. Two lines
of investigation seem to be critical at this
stage. First, there is need for more knowledge
concerningthe differentialdistribution
of techniquesof neutralization,as operative
patterns of thought, by age, sex, social class,
ethnic group, etc. On a priori grounds it
might be assumed that these justifications
for deviance will be more readily seized by
segments of society for whom a discrepancy
between common social ideals and social
practice is most apparent.It is also possible
however, that the habit of "bending" the
dominant normative system-if not "breaking"
it-cuts across our cruder social categories
and is to be traced primarily to
patterns of social interaction within the
12 See Samuel A. Stouffer and Jackson Toby,
"Role Conflict and Personality," in Toward a General
Theory of Action, edited by Talcott Parsons
and Edward A. Shils, Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1951, p. 494.
13 See Fritz Redl and David Wineman, Children
Who Hate, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1956.
14 See D. R. Cressey, Other People's Money,
Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953.
This content downloaded from 147.251.114.27 on Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:55:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
670 AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICALREVIEW
familial circle. Second, there is need for a
greater understanding of the internal
structure of techniques of neutralization,as
a system of beliefs and attitudes, and its
relationship to various types of delinquent
behavior. Certain techniques of neutralization
would appear to be better adapted to
particular deviant acts than to others, as
we have suggested, for example, in the case
of offenses against property and the denial
of the victim. But the issue remains far
from clear and stands in need of more
information.
In any case, techniques of neutralization
appear to offer a promisingline of research
in enlarging and systematizing the theoretical
grasp of juvenile delinquency. As more
information is uncovered concerning techniques
of neutralization, their origins, and
theirconsequences,both juveniledelinquency
in particular,and deviation from normative
systems in general may be illuminated.
A MEASURE OF ALIENATION
GWYNN NETTLER
Community Council of Houston
THE idea of "alienation"has a long history
but a recent vogue and, as with
any such familiar concept refurbished
for scholarlypurposes,its adoptersare using
it variously.
Hegel first suggested the term as descriptive
of what happens to socialized man; he
becomes detached from the world of nature,
includinghis own nature.He is Adam whose
communitywith all other natural things has
been broken by knowledge. To knowledge,
Marx added labor as an alienating factor
and, a Jortiori,the division of labor, which
creates ". . . a conflict between the interest
of the single individual . . . and the common
interests of all individuals."' Durkheim's
anomie resides here, of course, but it was
Marx's conception of the state as necessary
to reconcile the conflicting interests consequent
upon man's laboring that showed the
possibility of another source of alienation:
that ". . . man's own accomplishmentsturn
into a poweralien and opposedto him, which
come to subjugatehim instead of being controlled
by him."2 And this idea is cousin to
Freud's Civilization and Its Discontents.
Once these ideas were imbibed- that
knowledge (self-consciousness) and labor
separated man from all other "natural"
things-it became possible to add other estranging
factors and to see fractures not
merely between man and nature, but within
man, and between man and his institutions,
and between man and man. Thus, as both
symptom and cause of our alleged estrangement,
writers have pointed to machinery,
art, language, Original Sin, the lack of religion,and
even sociology.3
Fromm makes alienation central to the
thesis of his Sane Society and, for him, the
hallmark of the alienated is his "marketing
orientation," his regarding the world and
himself as commodities to which monetary
values may be assigned and which may be
peddled.4 Warner and Abegglen implicitly
relate such a marketing orientation of the
big business leader to the more customary
conception of alienation as isolation from
others. They say, ". . . all of these mobile
men, as a necessary part of the equipment
that makes it possible for them to be mobile
and leave people behind without fear or regret,
have difficulty in accepting and imposingthe
kindsof reciprocalobligationsthat
close friendshipand intimate social contacts
1 Karl Marx, "Deutsche Ideologie: Feuerbach,"
Der Historische Materialismus, edited by S.
Landshut and J. P. Mayer, Leipzig: Kr6ner, 1932,
p. 23.
2 Ibid.
3 For example, see Colin Wilson, The Outsider,
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1956, Erich Kahler,
The Tower and the Abyss, New York: Braziller,
1957; Paul Tillich, Existence and the Christ, Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1957; J. W.
Krutch, "If You Don't Mind My Saying So . . .,"
The American Scholar, 26 (Winter, 1956-57), p. 91.
4 Erich Fromm, The Sane Society, New York:
Rinehart, 1955, p. 124.
This content downloaded from 147.251.114.27 on Tue, 3 Sep 2013 09:55:51 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions