Organized Crime in Italy: Testing Alternative Definitions
| DOI | 10.1177/096466399300200201 |
| Author | Vincenzo Ruggiero |
| Date | 01 June 1993 |
| Published date | 01 June 1993 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
ORGANIZED
CRIME
IN
ITALY:
TESTING ALTERNATIVE
DEFINITIONS
VINCENZO
RUGGIERO
School
of Social
Work
,
Middlesex
University,
London
ATTEMPTS
TO
locate
organized
crime
within
criminological
theory
are
~J~
often
hindered
by
a
lumbering
legacy.
This
consists
of
explanations
A
revolving
around
notions
of
deficit,
deficiency
and
inadequacy.
These
notions
tend
to
associate
all
antisocial
behaviours
with
a
condition
of disadvan-
tage,
be
it
economic,
cultural
or
psychological.
I
believe
that
in
the
face
of
new
forms
of
organized
crime,
like
those
emerging
in
virtually
every
Western
country,
the
validity
of
these
notions
needs
radical
reassessment.
The
exploration
of
new
categories
seems
blocked
by
a
profound
sense
of
dismay,
particularly
in
countries
such
as
Italy,
where
the
exploits
of
organized
crime
are
sensational
and
devastating.
Here,
a
subtle
fear
is
felt:
if
traditional
paradigms
are
forsaken,
one
is
left
defenceless,
insecure,
almost
as
if
in
a
theoretical
and
’civil’
void.
In
the
following
pages
I
critically
revisit
the
best
known
causal
interpretations
of
organized
crime;
I
then
review
the
most
relevant
definitions
of
it.
Finally,
I
try
to
update
both
in
a
conclusion
which
is,
by
necessity,
tentative
and
provisional.
Organized
crime,
in
fact,
evolves
more
rapidly
than
an
understanding
of
it.
THE
AETIOLOGY
OF
DEFICIT
During
the
course
of
a
whole
century,
the
aetiology
of
organized
crime
only
moved
a
few
steps
forward.
In
effect,
some
early
positivist
tenets,
when
SOCIAL
&
LEGAL
STUDIES
(SAGE,
London,
Newbury
Park
and
New
Delhi),
Vol.
2
(1993), 131-148
LEGAL
131
132
adequately
whitewashed
with
new
linguistic
expressions,
seem
to
survive
intact
in
our
time.
For
example,
when
Lombroso
discussed
organized
crime
he
suggested
that
’tradition’
plays
a
crucial
role
in
its
perpetuation.
Lombroso
argued:
It
seems
to
me
that
the
high
persistence
of
some
wicked
associations
such
as
the
mafia,
the
camorra
and
brigandage
depends
first
of
all
on
their
long-term
existence,
in
that
the
continuous
repetition
of
our
acts
transforms
these
acts
into
a
custom
and
therefore
into
a
norm.
(Lombroso,
1971:
389)
This
argument
sounds
very
familiar,
as
it
echoes
some
contemporary
analysis
which
explains
the
persistence
of
organized
crime
by
resorting
to
the
variables
’backwardness’
or
’archaism’.
Other
comments
made
by
Lombroso
on
the
subject
matter
sound
even
more
familiar,
for
example
his
suggestion
that
the
perpetuation
of
organized
crime
is
also
due
to
the lack
of
stigma
in
the
very
concept
of
’mafioso’.
Lombroso
notes
that
the
mafiosi
are
not
regarded
as
individuals
who
belong
to
a
distant
and
censurable
social
universe:
in
the
local
popular
culture
’they
are
not
associated
with
immorality,
nor
do
they
elicit
contempt’
(Lombroso,
1971: 390).
It
would
be
interesting
to
assess
to
what
extent
these
assumptions
were
transmitted
to
a
score
of
criminological
theories
including,
for
instance,
subcultural
theory.
Moreover,
it
is
noteworthy
that
Lombroso,
when
trying
to
explain
the
extraordinary
long-term
prosperity
of
organized
crime
in
Italy,
indicates
a
strong
causality
in
what
he
terms
the
’inadequate
governments,
which
do
not
rule
according
to
justice,
and
in
a
sense
make
it
necessary
and
useful
that
people
exercise
and
implement
their
own
justice’
(Lombroso,
1971 : 390).
We
are
here
in
the
domain
of
well-known
theories
according
to
which
organized
crime
thrives
where
the
state
is
absent
or
presents
itself
with
an
authority
deficit.
Moving
on
through
the
aetiology
of
organized
crime,
so-called
anomic
tradition
should be
considered.
Also
in
this
tradition
we
find
a
set
of
notions
which,
deservedly
or
otherwise,
seem
to
defy
time.
In
the
celebrated
elaborations
of
Durkheim,
some
particular
forms
of
division
of
labour
are
identified
and
defined
as
’anomic’.
The
author
argues
that
One
might
be
tempted
to
reckon
as
irregular
forms
of
the
division
of
labour
criminal
occupations
and
other
harmful
activities.
They
are
the
very
negation
of
solidarity,
and
yet
they
take
the
form
of
special
activities.
But
to
speak
with
exactitude,
there
is
no
division
of
labour
here,
but
differentiation
pure
and
simple.
The
two
terms
must
not
be
confused.
Thus,
cancer
and
tuberculosis
increase
the
diversity
of
organic
tissues
without
bringing
forth
a
new
specialisation
of
biological
functions.
(Durkheim,
1960:
353;
emphasis
added)
The
author
insists
that
a
distinction
must
be
made
between
division
of
labour
and
differentiation.
The
former,
he
stresses,
brings
vital
forces
together,
whereas
the
latter,
in
its
criminal
variant,
causes
disintegration,
like
microbes
and
cancer.
I
believe
that
the
nucleus
of
a
series
of
well-known
theories
can
be
detected
in
Durkheim’s
argument.
Among
these
are,
first
of
all,
so-called
control
theories,
which
recently
appear
to
be
experiencing
an
unexpected
return
(Lombardo,
To continue reading
Request your trial