Trump, “Collusion Delusion” & Techniques of Neutralization
An Application of Sykes & Matza’s Techniques of Neutralization (1957) to Trump’s Rhetoric to Rationalize & Minimize Wrongdoing Within the Context of the Mueller Report
“The protection of the criminal justice system from corrupt acts by any person — including the President — accords with the fundamental principle of our government that ‘[n]o [person] in this country is so high that he is above the law.’”
One particular criminological theory I have found fascinating since I first learned about it during my undergraduate studies is Sykes and Matza’s Techniques of Neutralization. One interesting thing about Sykes and Matza’s Techniques of Neutralization is that it is not a typical crime theory, in that it does not seek to explain offending behavior. Instead, it is a theory that explains how individuals otherwise “neutralize” internal or external protests, to rationalize the wrongdoing they may carry out.
Sykes and Matza first conceived of their techniques of neutralization during their work on Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association theory. Differential Association theory is a social learning theory, whose foundational premise is that behavior is shaped by the stimuli, rewards or punishments, which follows the behavior — does this ring a bell? (I’m here all night folks).
Sutherland’s theory is based on several propositions. Namely, criminal behavior is learned — individuals are not born criminal and is thus not a function of something biological. Criminal behavior is learned from other persons, through communication and interaction. Numerous aspects of behavior, criminal or not, are learned through our associations and interactions. Some of these aspects include learning techniques on how to commit criminal acts; individuals also learn motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes which are favorable, or not, to criminal behavior.
Thus, what is foundational to Sutherland’s theory, besides the premise that all behavior is learned, is that our associations (relationships), influence what particular constructs we learn, which again, can be favorable or unfavorable to criminal behavior. Several factors are relevant in reference to the associations we form throughout life — frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. The higher the frequency of our pro-criminal associations, the longer the associations/relationships exist (duration) the earlier we form these associations in life (priority), and the intensity of our associations (those who we become closest to, also known as intensity) are all important factors in examining our associations/relationships. What ultimately becomes controlling in influencing criminal behavior which is learned is the number of “pro-criminal” associations in relation to associations which are not favorable to criminal behavior, while taking into consideration the previously mentioned factors.
Skyes and Matza, in relation to Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory, identified theoretical mental processes that individuals employ prior to acting to otherwise “neutralize” the illegitimacy of acts which they were about to commit. It is important to keep in mind several key points when reviewing these techniques: Sykes and Matza believed that people were aware of their moral obligation to abide by the law, which is why they have to use some mechanism to rationalize why they may commit illegitimate acts (or otherwise quiet the inner voice, which may tell the individual what they are doing is wrong). Essentially, prior to acting, offenders will utilize any of the techniques to explain to themselves that the criminal act is otherwise legitimate (later research has looked into whether these techniques are employed after acting, which is what this application will primarily review). Skyes and Matza identified five different techniques which they believed criminal offenders used to justify criminal acts: (1) Denial of Responsibility; (2) Denial of Injury; (3) Denial of the Victim; (4) Condemnation of the Condemners; and (5) Appeal to Higher Loyalties.
Taking a step back, the premises underlying Sykes and Matza’s techniques of neutralization logically makes sense. We hear such techniques on a day to day basis. For example, when a child hits another child, he may exclaim, “but he took my toy away first!” (this is an example of the technique of neutralization, denial of the injury). What became a connection which continued to pop in my mind, however, was hearing Trump speak, from the campaign trail, into his days as president (this might also because Trump usually sounds like a petulant child, but that’s a tangent for another day, but Vox’s Matthew Yglesias does a great job at explaining why calling Trump a toddler is an insult to his own child, peep here).
Below, I will briefly discuss each of Sykes & Matza’s techniques of neutralization, while including the various examples I have found where Trump repeatedly employs them (the man cannot leave twitter alone). While I have tried to write some iteration of this article since Trump has become president (seriously, I have several drafts saved on my computer), but became much more apparent within the context of the Mueller Probe/Report. I will restrict my examples to include statements related to the Mueller Probe and the Muller Report.
- Denial of Responsibility
The offender will claim they are a victim of circumstance. This neutralization amounts to more than the rationalization that some act was lacking culpability or was merely an accident. Rather, the offender will distance themselves from personal responsibility by viewing themselves as being “acted upon” (Sykes & Matza use the illustration of the billiard ball, the offender is being propelled into action by forces outside of the offender’s control). Something “bad” within the offender’s environment is responsible for wrongdoing —parents, neighborhood, home life, school, et cetera (remember, Sykes and Matza were examining these techniques within the context of juvenile delinquency). Simply put, the offender views himself as being “acted upon” as opposed to “acting.” This subtle distinction allows the offender to distance himself from the normative system while escaping scrutiny on the norms he or she chooses internalize for themselves. Manifestations of denial of responsibility may sound like something along the lines of, “It wasn’t my fault.”
Consider, Exhibit “A”
Exhibit “B”
Exhibit “C”
Here, “I never said Russia did not meddle … it may be Russia or China” is analogous to shifting the blame from himself. DJT time and time again relies on coining the Mueller Probe as the “Russian hoax” to change the language, which, when adopted, conveniently shifts scrutiny from himself to those carrying out the investigation. Pointing to the “witch hunt” orchestrated by the “other side” allows DJT to paint himself as the “victim,” thus absconding himself from any sort of liability (in his head and/or with his fan base) for the very conduct which placed him under this scrutiny to begin with.
2. Denial of Injury
This form of rationalization focuses on the injury or harm which was caused by the criminal act. Sykes and Matza point to the distinction that criminal law makes between mala in se and mala prohibita crimes as an analogous example of this neutralization. Mala in se crimes are considered inherently wrong in and of themselves (independent of any laws criminalizing the conduct). Crimes that are considered mala prohibita are considered wrong only because there is a regulation that prohibits the action (the action is considered illegal because it is prohibited by law, but is not immoral per se).
Here, the offender embarks on a similar rationale in analyzing their behavior. For the offender, wrongfulness turns on whether anyone has been clearly hurt by the wrongdoing. This rationale is not quite linear however and can be open to numerous interpretations. For example, if the offender steals property from someone, and the offender believes the individual can absorb that loss, no harm has been done to the individual. Thus, the offender denies the injury done upon the victim. Sykes and Matza also use auto theft as another example, where the offender may view this as simply “borrowing” and therefore, no injury to the victim. Rhetoric for denying injury to an individual can include such language as, “it wasn’t a big deal — they could afford the loss.”
Consider, Exhibit “A”
Exhibit “B”
Exhibit “C”
Admittedly, this is one of the hardest techniques for me to find examples of which fit clearly within this category (without duplicating tweets as examples). However, DJT seems to continually rely on the “illegality” of the Mueller probe, a Democrat scam, if you will, to minimize his contact with Russia. Characterizing the Mueller investigation as an “insurance policy,” “collusion delusion,” and “so illegal” all seem to be techniques employed to ultimately minimize wrongdoing, because of the fault of another. In effect, DJT minimizes wrongdoing because the entire probe is a “hoax”.
3. Denial of the Victim
The third technique of neutralization, denial of the victim, seeks to rationalize wrongdoing by claiming there is no injury that was incurred by the individual, in light of the surrounding circumstances. Instead of an injury, the wronged individual is receiving a form of rightful retaliation or punishment instead. This type of rationalization puts the offender in the position of the ‘avenger’ and transforms the victim into the wrongdoer. The example proffered by Sykes and Matza of denial of the victim is vandalism as a form of revenge on an unfair teacher or school administrator.
By denying the existence of the victim, the offender effectively transforms the victim into a person who is deserving of the injury inflicted upon them. Manifestations of this neutralization may include such language as, “They had it coming.”
Consider, Exhibit “A”
With this particular tweet, I cannot help but think of DJT, as Michael Scott …
Exhibit “B”
Exhibit “C”
DJT often points to the perceived wrongdoing of the Democrats to ultimately minimize his acts. DJT condemns “Mueller & his gang of Dems” to refuse to look at the real crimes …” and says that he will not defend the Mueller investigation (“witch hunt”) because it was dishonest and treasonous.
4. Condemnation of the Condemners
While employing this particular technique, the offender shifts the focus from his or her own deviant acts to the acts and the motives of those who are disapproving of the offender’s actions. While rationalizing wrongdoing, the offender may claim his critics are hypocrites or propelled by personal spite. This particular rationale can eventually evolve into cynicism directed against society/those who are enforcing the dominant norms of society. Sykes and Matza offer examples such as decrying the police as being, “corrupt, stupid, and brutal” or, teachers are prone to show favoritism, and “take it out” on children not in favor.
When employed effectively, the offender changes the subject from his or her own criminal impulses to the reaction of others. Essentially, the offender attacks others, in the hopes of repressing the wrongfulness of his or her own behavior. Such techniques condemning the condemners might include such language such as, “you were just as bad in your day.”
Consider, Exhibit “A”
Note, it does not appear this thread was actually finished by the president … Another Note, the president also needs to learn how to actually utilize the thread function on twitter more often …
Exhibit “B”
I find this particularly interesting. Trump in this tweet says, “I fought back hard …” which, arguably, fighting back hard could be considered “collusion.” The language employed here thrusts the focus back on those conducting the investigation. Again, just an interesting note.
Exhibit “C”
“100% NEGATIVE and FAKE … No collusion! So they were either duped or corrupt?” Again, Trump is saying that his critics are motivated are hypocrites, and/or motivated by personal spite.
Exhibit “D”
DJT seems to rely quite heavily on this technique. From condemning the “18 Angry Dems” who “truly hate Trump” to condemning the “illegally started hoax” or “treasonous hoax” which “never should have happened” … DJT seems to point a finger at any person or group — Mueller, the House Intelligence Committee, The New York Times, or the Washington Post — as being corrupt or spiteful in their quest to oversee or investigate the President’s actions.
5. Appeal to Higher Loyalties
The final technique attempts to neutralize internal and external social controls by sacrificing the demands of society at large in favor for smaller social groups which the individual might belong to, such as a family group, a gang, or a friend group. Here, the offender views themselves as a part of a larger dilemma that must be resolved, at the cost of violating the law.
Consider, exhibit “A” (“I do have the right to fight back, and I am fighting back not for me, I am fighting back for the people of this county.”)
Exhibit “B”
Exhibit “C”
Exhibit “D”
With this final technique, it does appear that DJT relies heavily upon it, as was the case with condemning the condemners. Trump often appeals to higher loyalties by using language such as, “fighting back for the people of this county” and calling for “no more costly or time-consuming investigations. DJT also appeals to other interests, claiming that, “getting along with Russia, China, and everyone is a good, not bad thing.” And the most niche interest he appeals to … “they have stolen two years of my (our) presidency (collusion delusion) that we will never be able to get back …”
Absent any sort of discussion on the merits of or the language within the Mueller Report (truly another tangent for another day), I cannot help but think to myself, based on the rhetoric that Trump engages in/tweets on the daily, “Trump sounds guilty as hell.”
References:
Edwin H. Sutherland, Differential Association, in, Classics of Criminology, 299–302 (Joseph E. Jacoby, Theresa A. Severance, & Alan S. Bruce, 4th ed. 2012).
Gresham M. Sykes & David Matza, Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency, 22(6) American Sociological Review 664, 664–670 (Dec. 1957), available here.
Alyssa Shallenberger is currently a law student, with a background in criminal justice studies. I was frustrated with the lack of interdisciplinary opportunities and growth in my own legal education — I took matters in my own hands and decided to write in my free time. If you like what you read, connect with me on LinkedIn or give me a mention on Twitter!
