CHAOS AND CRIME

Juvenile Delinquency, Chaos Theory and Discourse Analysis:
Developing Conceptual Tools for Critical Inquiry

Jeffrey Ryan

May., 1999

Linear systems, as often portrayed by path analysis, have been dominant in criminological thought (Milovanovic, 1996). But there is more to criminology than a straight path. With the emergence of postmodern thinking this has been brought to light. This paper hopes to show how delinquent behavior is more than just a child committing crimes. David Matza was a criminologist before his time. In his book Delinquency and Drift he explains that there are many things that effect the juvenile. There are many forces involved. With the addition of Herman and Julia Schwendingers’ work on rhetoric and discourse analysis this will be made clearer. To show that this is not a linear, but a non-linear system, the newly devised theory will be applied to chaos theory, specifically the bifurcation diagram.

In the book Delinquency and Drift Davis Matza has devised a theory to explain delinquent behavior in juveniles and why most juveniles eventually grow out of the delinquency as the years go on and they enter into adult hood. The theory that David Matza had developed is called neutralization theory or Drift theory, as it is other wise known. The premise of the theory is actually very simple. It states that the law binds juveniles by a sense of moral obligation. This bind, between the juveniles and the law, will remain most of the time, but when it is not in place the delinquents will drift in and out of delinquency. Hence the name drift theory. But why do the delinquents find themselves in this compromising position sometimes, and what do they do about it? That and other questions I will answer in the following pages.

As I had stated before, delinquents feel obligated to be bound by law. But how does the juvenile justify the delinquent activities that they sometimes commit? According to Matza, the delinquent learn "techniques" which enable them to "neutralize" such values and attitudes temporarily, and thus drift back and forth between legitimate and illegitimate behaviors" (Matza, 1964). The delinquents will participate in the moral society, but while committing the delinquent acts will shun the society. Neutralization takes place when the delinquent wants to weaken the societal hold on them. The delinquents use this technique to free them from the moral order. It is a kind of self-defense.

Matza does not agree that subcultures of delinquency maintain and independent set of values and beliefs than the moral culture (Matza, 64). The delinquents appreciate the values and goals of the moral society, but do not want to express these feelings to their peers in fear of being frowned upon. These feelings remain unconscious, or subterranean, because delinquents fear expressing such beliefs to their peers (Matza, 1964).

The techniques of neutralization are a set of justified beliefs that the delinquent uses when s/he violates (drifts) the social norms. These techniques allow the delinquents to neutralize and temporarily suspend their commitment to societal values, providing them the commit delinquent acts (Matza, 1964).

Matza proposes five techniques of neutralization that the delinquents use after violating the norms of society.

The first technique is denial of responsibility. The delinquents will propose to the normal society that s/he was put into the special circumstances and that it was out of their control. Phrases as "It was not my fault" are used to neutralize the act of delinquency.

The second, denial of injury is also used. The delinquent believes that his/her act does not really cause harm to the individual or society. "The victim won’t miss it. S/he is rich enough not to car" is a phrase used to justify the act.

The third, denial of the victim, is when the delinquent believes that the victim had it coming to them.

The fourth condemnation of the condemners is when the condemners are seen as hypocrites. "They did worse in their day" is a phrase used to justify their delinquent acts.

The fifth and final technique is appeal to higher loyalties. This is when societal norms takes a back seat to more important others. "My friends depended on me, I could not help it" is a phrase that could explain this.

Why are the delinquents forced into the positions of committing the delinquent act in the first place? The delinquent may commit the act for a variety of reasons. For my purposes I will focus on two. One reason may be due from sounding from members of his peer group. Sounding is term used to describe insult, or an imputation of negative characteristics. Offense is taken only if the recipient at least partially concurs with the perpetrator on the negative evaluation of the remark (Matza, 1964). Sounding does not always take a negative offense. It can also mean a person is bad or down with it. I believe that either way it could push a juvenile into delinquent behavior. Fatalism, or being pushed around, can be reason. The delinquent exercise no control over the circumstances surrounding it and the destiny awaiting it, (Matza, 1964). Under the condition of widely available circumstances the delinquent may choose to commit the delinquent acts (Matza, 1964). By this, it means that there are a variety of circumstances that will push the juvenile to violate social norms. The juvenile will turn to his/her peers for support, but will find that there is no support, only pressure to commit the act. The delinquent commits these acts because s/he wants to enter into adulthood.

According to David Matza, the delinquents will eventually grow out of the drifting into delinquency. Once a juvenile obtains adult status (i.e. job, marriage, etc) the juvenile will stop these violations of societal norms. David Matza does admit though that this does not happen for every person. Some delinquents may continue the drift into adulthood and become habitual offenders.

Herman and Julia Schwendinger are the other theorists that I would like to explain. I will combine the theories of David Matza and Herman and Julia Schwendinger in the next section to further strengthen their individual ideas. I will then apply this newly constructed theory to chaos and discourse to better explain juvenile behavior.

Herman and Julia Schwendinger use rhetoric to explain why delinquents commit the acts that they commit. Moral rhetoric is the term used to describe certain rhetorics that juveniles use in explaining situations. Underneath moral rhetoric there is "egoistic rhetoric" and "instrumental rhetoric".

Herman and Julia observe that different rhetorics may be adopted by the same persons especially when social contexts change or in times of stress (Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1985). Depending on the situation that the juvenile is in, whether it is speaking to a judge or his/her peers, there are different rhetorics involved. The Schwendingers say that this results in a highly inconsistent rhetoric (Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1985). Certain rhetoric devices are used for different occasions. Adolescents often adopt different moral rhetorics in the company of peers. Some of these rhetorics support delinquent behavior (Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1985).

There are two types of rhetoric, "egoistic" and "instrumental". The rhetoric of egoism is most likely to be used by the delinquents who still feel guilt about the delinquent acts that they had committed. According to the Schwendingers the new delinquents have not yet developed a dispassionate attitude toward their offenses and therefor their verbal reflections are still largely dependent on conventional moral concerns (Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1985). The juveniles feel guilty about the acts that they have committed. They know that these acts go against the norms of society. The juveniles will make use of the "egoistic" discourse to neutralize the moral stigma associated with their unlawful activity (Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1985). The delinquents will justify stealing from a storeowner saying that they are getting even with them for charging such unfair prices. The delinquents want to compensate for the guilty acts that they are committing, so they will use the "egoistic" rhetoric. This will fit nicely into David Matza’s theory of drift later on.

The "instrumental" rhetoric is also used by the juvenile delinquent subculture. This variant, "instrumental" rhetoric seems to apply "egoistic" operating principles to a particular set of conditions, but it disregards egoistic standards of fairness (Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1985). The delinquent will disengage from the norms of society when they can use it to their advantage. The instrumental rhetoric implies that it is acceptable to take advantage of other people when the opportunity happens. Life is not a fair game. The illegal act need only be justified on the basis of the personal needs of the criminal and the opportunity to commit the crime (Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1985). In other words, if the other person shows weakness then s/he deserves what they will get. The powerless people deserve to be the victim because they let themselves be the victim.

In this view the images of humans are virtually stripped of meaningful moral qualities, and the individuals are seen as primary instruments for egotistical ends (Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1985). There are certain metaphors that the delinquents will use to justify the acts. This will later be applied to discourse analysis. The sexual victim, is a piece of ass, box, or cunt, and nothing more (Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1985). This is the delinquent’s way of justifying his or her act against the victim. The opposite is also true. Some woman posses a certain moral quality that the delinquents make exceptions for. These moral qualities could be mother, sister, or wives. The justifications that increasingly employ conceptions of people as things tacitly shift their references to events and relationships external to the victim’s person and center on the "way things are" (Schwendinger & Schwendinger, 1985). The victims are meaningless to the delinquent. The acts were committed because the delinquent needed something such as money. These are the justifications that are employed to justify the stray from the norms of society.

David Matza’s theory of neutralization (drift), and Herman and Julia Schwendinger’s theory of rhetoric can be brought together to explain the delinquent subculture more easily.

Davis Matza’s theory of drift is when a delinquent will drift in and out of delinquency. The juvenile is sometimes put into a situation when s/he will find themselves committing a delinquent act. They feel obligated to the moral society and feel guilty when the acts have been committed. Because of this guilt the delinquent will implore rhetoric to justify the act. The delinquent does this because of the guilt s/he feels. This is where the "egoistic" and "instrumental" rhetoric from Herman and Julia Schwendinger come in. The delinquent will use the egoistic and instrumental rhetoric to justify or explain the drifting in and out of delinquent behavior. Such phrases as "They won’t miss the money, they are rich" or "The store owner deserves it because of the unfair prices" are phrases used to justify their delinquent acts. The process of this justification will then bring them back to the moral order of society. In this next section I will make use of discourse analysis to further strengthen the Schwendingers application to David Matza’s theory of drift. Then the final step will be the application to Chaos theory, specifically the bifurcation diagram.

What is discourse analysis, and how can this be applied to the theories that are already being made use of? Discourse analysis sees people as formed by and through their use of language and by the inherent meaning that language use creates and invokes. Those who make use of discourse analysis conceptualize human agents as occupying "discursive subject positions" (Henry and Milovanovic, 1996). This means that the person, who the discourse is being directed at is put into a certain position. The person is put into this role by the discourse, language, or rhetoric that is being spoken. I especially want to make use of the ‘metaphor-metonymy’, specifically metaphor, semiotic axis identified by Lacan.

According to Lacan, metaphor stands for how one signifier comes to be replaced by another, and how the original signifier is pushed back into the unconscious (Henry and Milovanovic, 1996). Henry and Milovanovic give the example of a film director using the phrase "she is a dynamo" or "he is a tiger". Recall the juvenile using neutralization to explain the delinquent behavior and how the juvenile used egoistic or instrumental rhetoric to justify the act. When the juvenile is using instrumental rhetoric s/he is also using discourse analysis, especially the metaphor. By saying "she is my property" or "she is a piece of ass" the juvenile is using the metaphor to justify (neutralize) the act. He is saying that the woman is not a real person, but an object that does not matter. Remember that this does not work on all women. Some women take the position of mother, sister, or wife. Now that we have incorporated all three ideas it is time to apply chaos theory to the newly devised work. By using the bifurcation diagrams we will be able to better see how the delinquent drifts in and out of society and how the use of discourse enables him/her to do so.

Before I make the application to chaos theory there are a few things that should be explained first. Prior to the development of chaos theory with criminology delinquent behavior was explained by using linear systems. The linear systems overlook one major problem with human behavior. A characteristic of the chaos system is that forces outside the system have an effect on the systems functioning, (Forker, 1997). This means simply that there is more than just the juvenile attributing to the delinquent behavior. This is where the application to chaos theory will enforce this idea. The behavior of a delinquent is observed on phase maps. The phase map shows the settling down of the non-linear system and takes a picture of what is going on. It shows the action of the juvenile. The phase map consist of many fractal dimensions to portray the systems movement, (Forker, 1997). I will be using three fractal dimensions to show the delinquents behavior and why s/he is doing that.

The different attractors are points inside the phase map. There are four different types of attractors. These are the point, limit, torus, and the strange attractor. These different types of attractors will be used to show the behavior of the juvenile. The point attractor is a system that moves to a particular point, (Forker, 1997). The example that has been given is a pendulum swinging back and forth and then eventually coming to down to a point. The cyclic attractors converge into an oscillating cycle (Milovanovic, 1996). Picture a pendulum that has a motor attached. It will keep going back and forth forever. The next attractor we have is a torus attractor. This resembles a donut. We have quasi-periodicity in this attractor. We have two systems here and the start of unpredictability. The fourth attractor is the strange attractor or the butterfly attractor. There is global stability on the outside, meaning there are certain boundaries, but on the inside there is total unpredictability. This is very sensitive to initial conditions. The slightest act can cause the juvenile to jump to delinquency.

Fig. 1 about here

In order for the system to work you need to plug in various iterations (mathemes) to be able to tell when the bifurcation diagram will split. There are several points along the control parameter at which the bifurcation diagram will split. This will produce various ways a person can act. The first split happens at moment 3(fig 1). Before three there is a point attractor. At moment 3 a split occurs and there are two outcomes. This is a cyclic attractor. The second bifurcation, 3.45, produces a torus attractor. At moment 3.56 there are eight possible out comes or periods. At moment 3.59 we see the emergence of the strange attractor. Here a period doubling occurs. We have 16 possible outcomes, then 32, then 64, and so on and so on. At moment 3.6 the limit of the bifurcation diagram has been reached. There are an infinite number of outcome basins possible.

Fig. 2 about here

I will know show how the bifurcation diagram is relevant to the theories mentioned above. The control parameter needs to be identified. The "control parameter" is the main factor in the juvenile behavior. According to David Matza fatalism (being pushed around) and sounding effects the juveniles behavior greatly. These will be the control parameter (fig 2). The x-axis will represent the egoistic, instrumental, and discourse analysis made use of by the Schwendingers to show neutralization, or the moralization of the delinquent acts. The y-axis will be the situation of company that the delinquent prefers, (Milovanovic, 1996). This will be the delinquent subculture and family. The z-axis will be the rate of change between the two interacting variable (Milavonovic, 1996).

Fig. 3 about here

In figure 3a we see that the juvenile does not feel any real pressure to commit a delinquent act. The exposure to the delinquent subculture and certain neutralizing rhetoric is not very strong. In fig 3b we see that the fatalism and sounding are getting stronger. The delinquent is offered more neutralizing rhetoric to justify his/her acts, but will still come back to the moral behavior. In fig 3c, we notice that the fatalism and sounding become much stronger in intensity. The spiraling of the point attractor shows that takes much longer for the delinquent to come back to the norms of society. The delinquent subculture has more influence on the juvenile. The neutralizing rhetoric releases him/her from the constraints of the law. There are more opportunities to justify his/her acts.

IN fig 3d, and just after "c", the first bifurcation occurs. Here we see two possible outcome basins. The delinquent is free to drift between delinquency and non-delinquency (Milovanovic, 1996). The available rhetoric to neutralize his/her acts is plentiful. Here the delinquent may make use of either the egoistic, instrumental, or metaphoric rhetoric to justify his/her acts. The delinquent fluctuates between the two point attractors (Milovanovic, 1996). IN figure 3e the delinquent becomes more unpredictable. The "control parameter" has grown in intensity. The torus attractor starts to develop. The juvenile exists between two point attractors. S/he feels free to both commit the delinquent act, and justify it through rhetoric, or follow the law-abiding society. In 3f the intensity of the "control parameter" grows even more. The torus attractor develops more fully.

In fig 3g the butterfly attractor develops. The juvenile flirts with delinquency and flirts with law-abiding behavior. Here the slightest change can influence the juvenile’s actions. The juvenile is able to use rhetoric in both instances to explain his/her behavior. The juvenile can say "she is apiece of ass, and that’s it" to justify sexual assault. The juvenile can also say, "isn’t there enough crime in the town" to justify not doing the act.

That is not the end of it though. In fig 1 and 3 to the far right of the diagram there is a shaded region with clear lines through it. This space shows order out of disorder. Within the chaotic environment order will appear spontaneously. When applied to David Matza’s theory, this is when the delinquent matures. S/He no longer lives the delinquent life style. S/he has entered the adulthood that s/he has longed for.

To review, when David Matza’s theory of neutralization (drift)

And Herman and Julia Schwendingers theory of rhetoric are combined the juvenile is able to justify or neutralize the delinquent behavior by using either "egoistic", "instrumental", or discourse analysis. The bifurcation diagram is used to map the juveniles behavior as the control parameter (fatalism or sounding) increases in intensity. When s/he is offered more neutralizing techniques and receives more peer pressure the juvenile will find it easy to drift in between society and delinquency. The bifurcation diagram shows the different stages of the behavior and the many things that can effect the juvenile’s situation.

This specific application is very important to the criminal justice field. In the past century there has really been nothing but linear theories of crime. The juvenile committed this crime because of this specific reason, or once a criminal always a criminal. With the emergence of non-linear theories we see that this is just not true. Chaos theory shows that there is much more to delinquent behavior, There are many factors involved. Chaos also points out that the juvenile may not always act a certain way. Chaos theory gives better understanding to behavior. In time this could help the criminologist curb the crime rate. This specific integration shows how a juvenile is pulled by different factors and is very sensitive to conditions. This theory can help us control these conditions and curb delinquency.

The emergence of more post-modern thinkers will and is changing the face of criminology forever. With tools, such as the bifurcation map, more conclusions can be made as to why people commit the crimes that they commit. We will no longer be bounded by linear thought. New ideas and theories will come about that can give a more complete analysis on crime. I hope that this article has shown how this can happen. What I have done is just the tip of the iceberg. There is so much more out there that needs to be developed and put into motion. This will change the face of social science forever.

Forker, Allison. "Chaos and Modeling Crime: Quinney’s Class, State, and Crime". In Dragan Milovanovic (Ed.) Chaos, Criminology and Social Justice. N.Y.: Praeger Publishers. Pp. 55-74, 1997.

Henry, S. and Milovanovic, D. Constitutive Criminology. London: Sage, 1996.

Matza, David. Delinquency and Drift. New York; John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1964.

Milovanovic, Dragan. "Construction of Subjectivity In Law." Emory International Law Review. C.J. 8: 72-98, 1994.

Milovanovic, Dragan. "Postmodern Criminology: Mapping the Terrain." Justice Quarterly. C.J. 13: 567-609, 1996.

Milovanovic, Dragan. "’Rebellious Lawyering’: Lacan, Chaos, and the Development of Alternative Juridico-Semiotic Forms." Legal Studies forum. C.J. 20: 295-320, 1996.

Schwendinger, Herman and Julia. Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency. New York: Praeger, 1985.