Naturalism and Phenomenology in American Deviance Studies
Matza’s Naturalism
Matza’s naturalism emphasizes remaining faithful to the studied phenomenon. He criticizes other deviance theorists for distorting the reality of deviance by explaining it in ways that don’t align with deviants’ self-perceived motivations. His approach prioritizes accurate descriptions of phenomena as they occur, rather than correcting or reforming them. While acknowledging that deviant actions are motivated by beliefs, Matza recognizes that these beliefs can be false. For example, someone joining a fascist organization might falsely believe that Jews control the economy, causing financial hardship. Researchers must consider these beliefs to understand behavior, even while demonstrating the falsity of their causal assessments.
Much of Matza’s early work critiques subcultural theories, which posit that offenders have values that invert those of respectable society. He argues that this exaggerates the differences between criminal and societal values. If offenders truly held opposing values, they would see their illegal behavior as morally correct and feel no guilt upon discovery. In reality, criminals often exhibit guilt, employing “neutralization techniques” to justify their actions. For instance, they might deny responsibility (“I’m sick”), deny injury (“no one was harmed”), or claim that “everyone does it.” Matza criticizes subcultural theorists for overemphasizing the differences between criminal and non-criminal values due to a misunderstanding of middle-class values. He argues that society isn’t simply divided into normative strata; contradictions exist within dominant values, alongside subterranean values like the pursuit of excitement and new stimuli. This insistence on the similarity between societal and “criminal ideology” values underpins Matza’s work.
Drift and Deviance
Matza views deviant beliefs as arising from both within and against larger societal beliefs. The offender exists in a temporary limbo between traditional and criminal, responding to the demands of both. Teenagers drift into crime by embracing subterranean values while lacking the control of traditional values. This drift is precipitated by “accidental” and “unpredictable” circumstances, though it can transition from casual to permanent. A gay man claiming illness as an excuse for his actions differs significantly from one denying any harm to the victim. Deviants shift between positions based on cultural changes, the act’s propriety, and the risk of apprehension. Taylor, Walton, and Young consider Matza’s “moral neutralization” scheme ambiguous. They argue that Matza fails to explain how people become deviant, attributing it to circumstance and an “attractive force” of deviance.
American Phenomenology and the Study of Deviance: Ethnomethodology
Like Matza’s naturalism, ethnomethodology emphasizes observing “phenomena” and their formation. It avoids causal explanations and questions the scientific possibility of subjective understanding. Phenomenologists believe that actors’ interpretations and actions must be explained according to their meanings and intentions. They argue that while researchers’ objectives differ from criminals’, their interpretations of deviance must align with the meanings given by the actors themselves.
Ethnomethodology criticizes traditional sociology for using concepts like “class” and “deviance” as abbreviations of facts, which have “limited utility” in specifying how actors or observers organize daily behavior. It focuses on how rules are generated and maintained, criticizing traditional sociology for assuming that rules generate rules and are obeyed (except in deviance). Ethnomethodologists emphasize the ambiguity and mutability of everyday rules. They criticize traditional sociology for assigning internalized attitudes to actors and assuming that rules automatically guide role performance.