UPI Study › Courses › Criminology › Free lessons › Lesson 8.1 Free with a free account
Social Conflict Theory: Definitions, Key Contributors, and Neutralization Theory
Criminology · Chapter 8: Conflict Theories and Restorative JusticeSection 8.1 · lesson 31 of 91video coming soon
← Comparative Evaluation of Social Structure and Social Process FrameworksNext lesson: Realistic Conflict Theory, Discrimination, and Critical Criminology →
In this lesson
Who makes the law, whose interests it serves, and how offenders excuse themselves.
- Explain the conflict perspective and how it differs from consensus theories.
- Identify the principal contributors to conflict criminology and their claims.
- Explain neutralization theory and the techniques it identifies.
- Evaluate conflict claims against their standing critiques.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,721 words). Read along, or search it.
Opening Question
Flipping the Question About Law
So far, every theory has asked the same thing: why do people break the law? Now flip the question. Why does this law exist at all? Who wrote it, and whose conduct does it happen to restrict? That flip is the conflict tradition, and it changes what criminology studies.
Chapter Roadmap
From Process Theories to Conflict
This chapter turns from the process theories of Chapter seven to the conflict tradition. Its starting question is not why people break laws, but why the laws exist at all. You will learn how the conflict perspective differs from consensus accounts of criminal law. You will meet its two intellectual lineages, and the three claims that recur across its literature. Each claim will be treated as something to evaluate, alongside the critiques the tradition still faces. The second half introduces neutralization theory. It explains how people who hold conventional values still talk themselves into breaking rules. By the end, you should be able to name the five techniques and say how a program might answer each one.
Core Premise
Law as a Struggle Between Groups
Subchapter one point one introduced the distinction between consensus and conflict accounts of criminal law. A consensus account treats law as a codification of values most of a society shares. The conflict perspective rejects that picture. It sees law as the outcome of an ongoing struggle between groups holding unequal amounts of power. On that premise, asking why a statute exists is inseparable from a second question. Whose interests does it serve, and whose conduct does it happen to restrict? This has a sharp implication for criminology itself. A field that studies only the behavior of the accused, therefore, has already accepted one side of a contested question. So the conflict tradition adds two objects of study. The first is criminalization: how certain conduct comes to be defined as criminal in the first place. The second is enforcement: who is investigated, charged, and sentenced once a law exists. Both become subjects of inquiry in their own right, rather than background assumptions.
Two Lineages
Marxian and Pluralist Roots of Conflict
Conflict criminology draws on two distinguishable lines of thought. The Marxian foundation is a body of social theory about class and the state. It holds that law and the state chiefly serve the class that controls economic production. Criminal law, on this view, functions to protect that economic arrangement. The pluralist conflict tradition differs in an important respect. It treats power as dispersed among many competing groups, rather than concentrated in one class. Those groups organize around interests such as occupation, religion, region, or age. So law reflects whichever coalitions manage to prevail on a given question. Notice what the two traditions share. Both accept the premise that law reflects power. Where they part ways is on how that power is distributed and organized.
Three Claims
Interest, Uneven Enforcement, and Defining Harm
Three claims recur across the conflict literature. This lesson treats each one as a claim to be evaluated, not as an established fact. The first is that criminalization follows group interest. Conduct becomes illegal when it threatens a group with the power to shape legislation. Evidence for this usually comes from historical case studies, which trace a specific law to the interests it protected. The second claim is that enforcement falls unevenly by position. Groups with less power are policed, charged, and sentenced more intensively for comparable conduct. That claim is tested empirically through the disparity studies referenced in Subchapter seven point two. The third claim concerns the definition of harm itself. Harms committed by actors with organizational or economic power are frequently left outside criminal law altogether. Or they are handled through a separate regulatory system, one that is far less punitive.
Comparison
Two Accounts of the Same Law
It helps to see both accounts applied to the very same law. The consensus account says the conduct was criminalized because it harms values widely shared across society. The conflict account says it was criminalized because it threatened the interests of a powerful group. Each account names a different driver behind why the law exists. And each one, taken alone, produces a coherent story. That is exactly why the choice between them cannot be made by storytelling. It requires evidence about how the law was actually made and how it is actually enforced. The course does not declare either account correct. Your task is to be able to state both, and to say what evidence would favor one over the other.
Critiques
Three Criticisms of Conflict Theory
The conflict tradition faces three recurring criticisms. First, it is difficult to test directly. The interests and motives behind a law's passage are rarely documented, at least not in a form that permits confirmation or disconfirmation. Second, it struggles to explain consensus offenses. Serious violence against a person is condemned by nearly every group in a society, regardless of position. For conduct like that, a pure interest-based account offers little additional explanatory power. Third, it risks inferring interest from outcome. Observing that a law disadvantages a particular group is one thing, and it is often well documented. Concluding, without independent evidence, that disadvantaging them was the law's purpose is another. That leap is the most common error in applying conflict theory, and the easiest one to avoid.
Quick Check
Do Drafters' Memos Show Purpose?
Quick check. Archived memos show a trade association drafted a statute, and wrote that it would hamper a rival group. Is that independent evidence of the law's purpose? Pause, and decide.
Answer
Drafters' Words Are Independent Evidence
Yes. The drafters' own words are independent evidence of purpose, rather than an inference from outcome.
New Theory
Offenders Who Hold Conventional Values
Neutralization theory begins from a different observation. Most people who offend, including those who offend repeatedly, still hold broadly conventional values. They do not reject the moral force of the law outright, even while breaking it. So the theory does not propose that offenders adopt a competing value system. Instead, it proposes that they neutralize their own values situationally. They construct a justification that lets a particular act go ahead. And they do so without abandoning the underlying belief that the conduct is generally wrong. That is a subtle but important point. The person can still agree that stealing is wrong, while explaining why this particular theft does not count.
Five Techniques
Techniques of Neutralization and Program Answers
Five recurring techniques of neutralization have been identified. Denial of responsibility frames the act as the result of forces outside the person's control. A program can answer it by walking through the actual chain of choices the person made. Denial of injury minimizes or disputes that any real harm resulted. The countermeasure is direct, factual information about consequences, including from those affected. Denial of the victim recasts the harmed party as deserving it, or as not a genuine victim. Structured contact or communication can restore the victim's standing. Condemnation of the condemners shifts attention to the motives or hypocrisy of those enforcing the rule. Here the answer is to separate the legitimacy question from the conduct question, explicitly. Appeal to higher loyalties puts a narrower obligation, such as loyalty to a friend, above the general rule. A program can ask whether that loyalty actually required the conduct in question. Each technique is a piece of reasoning, not an offense narrative. So each one can be studied and addressed independently of any specific act.
Quick Check
Name the Joyriding Teen's Technique
Another check. A teen joyrides in a neighbor's car, then says: I only borrowed it, and brought it back without a scratch. Which technique is that? Pause, and decide.
Answer
Borrowing as Denial of Injury
Denial of injury. Calling it borrowing disputes that any real harm was done. The answer is plain, factual information about consequences.
Drift
Episodic Movement Between Conformity and Delinquency
Neutralization leads to a condition called drift. Drift is episodic movement between conventional and delinquent behavior, without a stable commitment to either. Because neutralization works situationally, a person can hold conventional values most of the time. When a neutralization becomes available, they may drift into an episode of rule-breaking. Once the episode passes, they drift back toward conventional behavior. Drift is offered as an alternative to models that treat offending as proof of a fixed criminal identity. One question remains unresolved, though: the direction of causation. Does a neutralization come before the act, as a genuine permission that makes it possible? Or does it follow the act, as a justification built afterward to manage guilt? Both sequences are plausible, and the evidence does not settle the question cleanly. That matters in practice, because programs challenge neutralizations either before or after an episode.
Connecting Traditions
Neutralization Between Process and Conflict
Neutralization theory sits in a distinctive position between two traditions. On one side is the process tradition of Chapter seven. It examines how individuals learn delinquent definitions and interact with others who hold them. Neutralization shares that individual-level focus, looking at reasoning inside one person. On the other side is the conflict tradition introduced in this lesson. It examines how law and enforcement themselves reflect power. Neutralization opens onto those conflict questions. Several techniques presuppose that the legitimacy of a rule, or of its enforcers, is open to dispute. Condemnation of the condemners is the clearest case. That presupposition is exactly the conflict tradition's starting point.
Applied Example
Priya Targets Denial of Injury
Consider Priya, a program designer working on offender programs. She is building an intervention for a group, whose members consistently minimize the impact of their conduct on others. Her first task is diagnostic, and it is easy to rush. She has to identify which specific technique the group relies on most. In this case, it is denial of injury. She then designs both the content and the evaluation around that one technique. The evaluation is the step programs most often skip. Priya builds in a way of measuring whether participants' willingness to minimize harm actually changes. She does not assume the program worked simply because it was delivered. That is the practical value of treating each technique as a separate piece of reasoning.
Quick Check
Uneven Enforcement Against Small Businesses
Now a reverse problem: a regulatory offense is enforced far more heavily against small businesses than large ones. Violation rates are similar, so name the conflict claim this would support. Then state a non-conflict explanation that would need to be ruled out first. Pause, and decide.
Answer
Unequal Enforcement and the Rival Explanation
The conflict claim: enforcement falls unevenly by position of power. The rival to rule out first: differences in reporting, or in how enforcement resources are allocated.
Key Takeaways
Conflict Theory and Neutralization Recapped
To recap. Conflict theory asks why laws exist and whom they serve. Its three claims are to be tested, and its leading error is inferring purpose from outcome. Neutralization shows offenders as ordinary believers who make situational exceptions, using five techniques. Subchapter eight point two turns to realistic conflict theory and the branches of critical criminology.
About Criminology at UPI Study
Criminology (Criminology 150) is a self-paced online course of 91 video lessons in 21 chapters, from classical criminology and crime data to theories of crime, victims, policing, courts and corrections. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus Every course with PRO →
Why take it here
Why students take Criminology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Criminology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About Social Conflict Theory: Definitions, Key Contributors, and Neutralization Theory
How does the conflict perspective differ from consensus theories of criminal law?
What is the difference between Marxian and pluralist conflict theory?
What are the five techniques of neutralization?
What are the main criticisms of conflict theory?
About the Criminology course
How many college credits is Criminology?
How much does Criminology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Criminology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Criminology.
91 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →