“Hooking Up on The Internet” Critical Analysis Arianna Alfano 1

Throughout the course of history, it has been found that social order and social control

are two states of being that have much value within most cultures. The ability to feel safe in

society has dictated the way in which people live, and through a group establishing customary

arrangements and setting up means of enforcing its norms, individuals can find comfort while

living within a community. However, not all people of a society necessarily follow through and

find themselves behaving according to social norms. Instead, some may be acting in accordance

with deviant behavior. Deviance, in the simplest terms, is the violation or divergence from the

norms or expectations of society. While it may not be the act itself that makes something deviant,

the reaction to the act clarifies the deviance of an individual. Thus, it is only logical to include

crime, the violation of social norms physically written into law, as a very serious form of

deviance. Amongst the greatest example of this form of deviance is included in Ken Levi’s

“Becoming a hit man.” Through this article, Levi expresses the aspects of two hit men’s

experiences with the social deviance of crime and is further able to explain and identify symbolic

interactionalist theories through the negative to emotionally-absent experiences of a hit.

Furthermore, this article persuades the readers to consider the study of deviance neutralization,

as it affirms the hit men’s denial of responsibility, denial of victim, denial of injury, and appeal

to higher loyalties.

In terms of the symbolic interactionist perspective, the explanation of the social

organization of murder can be seen to be enrooted in the differential association theory. As is

termed by Edwin Sutherland, this theory indicates that individuals who associate themselves

with certain groups learn to deviate from society’s norms. Essentially, the different groups which

individuals associate themselves give them messages of conformity and deviance, and as a result

an imbalance is formed in which people’s attitudes are proved through whether they conform or
“Hooking Up on The Internet” Critical Analysis Arianna Alfano 2

deviate (Henslin, 2017, p.166). As is discussed in Essentials of sociology, the concept of

differential association directly corresponds with the idea that bad neighborhoods can warp

individual into violent beings where “even a wrong glance can mean your death” (Henslin, 2017,

p.166). In some cases, in fact, it was found that killing was an honorable act wherein “A real man

has honor. An insult is a threat to one’s honor. Therefore, not to stand up to someone is less than

a real man” (Henslin, 2017, p.166). If an individual is brought up in a subculture which puts

great emphasis on violence and sees it as an answer to disrespect, it makes sense that hitmen

would not necessarily see their jobs as “bad,” but rather a means of reclaiming respect for

another individual. In the instances of certain hitmen, “The killer who belongs to an organized

syndicate does not usually get paid on a contract basis, and performs his job out of loyalty and

obedience to the organization” (Levi, n.d., p. 90, as cited in Henslin, 2011). While not true of all

hitmen, this specific subtype has the same belief as explained by the differential association

theory. When associating oneself with a specific organization that is particularly violent, it

makes sense that individuals within that group have a completely different understanding of

conformity and deviance—showing how truly relative deviance is. While killing is deviant in

mainstream society, in this group of people, it is a form of defense that is defended and a means

of conforming to the group. In the case of the organized killer, his victim is often an enemy to

the group and they are acting out of an “appeal to higher authorities” (Levi, n.d., p. 90, as cited in

Henslin, 2011). These alibis or neutralizing concepts give power to the idea of relative deviance

and the way in which submerging oneself in a specific group may cause one’s norms to be that

which opposes mainstream society. Thus, the concept of killing as a job is further neutralized

and defended by the symbolic interactionist perspective. Similarly, the control theory can be
“Hooking Up on The Internet” Critical Analysis Arianna Alfano 3

applied to the concept of hitmen to further analyze a hit and the sociological characteristics

within one.

Another aspect of the symbolic interactionalism is the control theory which is stressed to

have two control systems operating the motivations and desires of an individual. These include

the inner controls of a person, such as morality and fear of punishment, and the outer controls,

which include those who influence others not to deviate such as the police (Henslin, 2017,

p.167). Conversely, through seeing such reasoning for why individuals do not commit crime,

there lies the assumption that criminal behavior is innate of human nature. This theory, in

particular, demonstrates that all individuals have tendencies toward violence, and it is only their

own self-control and fear of outer controls that keep individuals inline. This, very much,

corresponds to the independent killer whose features include contract, reputation and money, and

skill. Assuming that the killer does not have a strong social bond with mainstream society or

those involved in it, it is sensible to believe that they have weaker inner controls to follow

mainstream values. Instead, acting on their own set of values, they may use contracts which puts

death as a result of their actions essentially set in stone. Being that the hit is usually unknown to

the killer, one cannot defend these actions as a crime of passion. Instead, in these crimes, the

hitman has no knowledge of the individual, usually as a means of defense in denying the victim,

and also according to Pete in this study “the motive for killing is…none of his concern” (Levi,

n.d., p. 90, as cited in Henslin, 2011). This further proves the control theory as individuals have

little knowledge or care for the victim. They are completely detached from the murder and the

extremity of their actions—proving how truly disconnected they are from the world around them.

As well, being that independent hitmen are paid based on their reputation, this further shows how

they allow themselves to thrive with their innate animalistic senses without conforming to
“Hooking Up on The Internet” Critical Analysis Arianna Alfano 4

society’s norms. As Pete describes, “The first time I ever got 30 grand…it’s based on his

reputation…” (Levi, n.d., p. 90, as cited in Henslin, 2011). Hitmen can use a “businesslike

context [which] enables the hitman to deny wrongfulness” (Levi, n.d., p. 90, as cited in Henslin,

2011). Even “excitement, fun, gameplaying, power, and impressing women” has been described

as a reasoning for murder (Levi, n.d., p. 90, as cited in Henslin, 2011). Being that the control

theory finds its meaning in one’s self-control, it makes sense that one might say that the self-

control, based on societal pressures, is neglected during the period of the killing, as the

individual is engaging in behaviors based on their id without considering their outer controls and

own moral values. Finally, the description of how a hitman might feel upon murdering an

individual further provides evidence of the control theory in these cases. Being that the response

is often “how you feel: I hit it! I hit it!” the description of hitman lacking empathy for those they

are not familiar with is combined with their own lack of self-control over following society’s

norms or values (Levi, n.d., p. 92, as cited in Henslin, 2011). Assuming they have felt neglected

or indifferent to society’s external controls, they come within themselves and act on their natural

violent thoughts.

Aside from the extensive ways in which Ken Levi’s study can show different sociological

perspectives and theories, it also demonstrates to a great length the neutralization of deviance

and crimes—particularly through denial of responsibility, denial of injury, denial of victim, and

appeal to higher loyalties. Being that hitmen would not want to be seen as vicious murderers and

instead as individuals that are “human being[s], [that] laugh at funny jokes, [that] love children

around the house, and…can spend hours playing with [their] mutt” (Levi, n.d., p. 96, as cited in

Henslin, 2011). Thus, in order to resist labels, Ken Levi’s article proves the neutralization

techniques that hitmen use in order to defend themselves as people and not cold-blooded
“Hooking Up on The Internet” Critical Analysis Arianna Alfano 5

murderers. Primarily, the independent killer uses the technique of denial of a victim in their

work. This can easily be seen through the usage of a contract in which a hitman is hired to kill an

individual who is unknown to him. Through keeping him the victim relatively anonymous, the

killer is able to deny the victim. As well, through reframing a hit, “Pete says that killing became

routine. He learned to view his victims as targets, rather than people” (Levi, n.d., p. 92, as cited

in Henslin, 2011). This is also a means of neutralizing for independent killers. Through seeing

victims simply as targets, it takes the humanity out of the action and instead allows for a person

to become, in a killer’s eyes, simply an object. In addition, “focus on technique, on means, helps

the hitman deny responsibility and intent” (Levi, n.d., p. 92, as cited in Henslin, 2011). When the

hitman can separate himself from the strategist who murders, he can deny his own responsibility

in the action of killing and instead see himself as a “hired gun” (Levi, n.d., p. 92, as cited in

Henslin, 2011). As well, “by first being willing, encountering a frame break, undergoing a

negative experience, being willing to try again, reframing the experience, and having future,

routine experience… enabled [the killer] to deny the victim, deny injury, and deny

responsibility.” With the fact that the killer denies that a victim was produced, it makes sense

that they do not recognize that they genuinely hurt someone or had a definite responsibility in

killing another individual. On the other hand, when an organized killer murders an “enemy of the

group” he can use the neutralizing technique of an appeal to higher loyalties in order to

neutralize his actions (Levi, n.d., p. 90, as cited in Henslin, 2011). In order to justify their

actions, organized killers may often make the consideration that loyalty to their gang trumps the

importance of following the norms of society. As explained in “Becoming a hit man,” The

organized killer “also can view his victim as an enemy of the group and then choose from a

variety of techniques for neutralizing offense against the enemy” (Levi, n.d., p. 90, as cited in
“Hooking Up on The Internet” Critical Analysis Arianna Alfano 6

Henslin, 2011). Similar to when an independent killer acts, the idea of denial of victim can be put

into effect. The term victim portrays the idea that the individual hurt is innocent and never did

anything to hurt the others. Therefore, in the case that an organized killer sees his victim as an

enemy, he is denying the innocence and helplessness of the person murdered. Instead, the act can

be portrayed more as a means of self-defense and, thus, not such a heinous crime to begin with.

Even denial of responsibility can be considered when considering the victim an enemy. As

explained in “Essentials of sociology,” sometimes criminals may see themselves as “victims of

society…[they’re] like a billiard ball shot around the pool table of life” (Henslin, 2017, p.168).

The way in which a hitman might describe their crime is that because of the actions which a

victim took, their hand was forced to kill by the organization or gang. Therefore, both organized

and independent killers can rationalize within their minds that the killings which they undertook

were out of their control, for the most part, and are further able to rationalize their actions

through denial of responsibility, denial of victim, denial of injury, and appeal to higher loyalties.

Overall, Ken Levi’s “Becoming a hitman” plays a key role in explaining the theories

which can be used in order to explain the reasoning for murder as well as the actual events which

take place along with the hitmen’s thoughts in order to provide contribution to the study of

deviance neutralization. In this, he is able to explain the symbolic interactionist theories of

control theory and differential association theory. In the case of the control theory, this text

proves that the inner and outer controls of a killer may not align with society’s norms and

therefore makes these murders possible. As for the differential association theory, a person

associating themselves with a gang or group whose beliefs are opposing to society’s norms may

therefore act deviant due to differing beliefs—which proves the relativity of deviance. As well,

through this work, Levi is able to take his audience into the intimate thoughts and revelations of
“Hooking Up on The Internet” Critical Analysis Arianna Alfano 7

an individual in order to give insight as to why murderers may be capable of neutralizing their

deviance. Persuasively, he details the fact that independent murderers as well as organized

murderers are able to defend themselves through denial of victim, denial of responsibility, and

denial of injury. This was accomplished through the explanation that they can feel so

disconnected from the crime that they act more like a functioning gun than a human completing

the murder. In the case of the independent killer, this occurs through lack of knowledge about the

victim. However, for the organized killer, their appeal to higher loyalties takes the emotions and

blame out of the act. Therefore, while murder may be a heinous act according to society’s norms,

the control theory and differential association theory give reason for the actions as the techniques

of neutralization allow for hitmen to feel separate from the act and have the act neutralized in

their minds.
“Hooking Up on The Internet” Critical Analysis Arianna Alfano 8

References

Henslin, J. M. (2011). Hooking up on the Internet. In: J. M. Henslin (Ed.), Life in society (4th ed.,

37-49). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Henslin, J. M. (2017). Culture. In: J. M. Henslin (Ed.), Essentials of sociology (12th ed.,

101-130). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.