Nevertheless, civilization improves men, and the growing criminality is in opposition to the greater and greater increase of civilization. This contradiction is explained by the author by means of another law of imitation; the law of insertion, i.e. the alternate passage from fashion to custom.
“All industry is thus fed by a stream of improvements, innovations today, traditions tomorrow; every science, every art, every language, every religion obeys this law of the passage from custom to fashion and of the return from fashion to custom, but to an enlarged custom.
“For at each of these steps in advance the territorial domain of imitation increases; the field of social assimilation, of human brotherhood, extends itself, and this is not, as we know, the least salutary effect of imitative action from the moral point of view.”[8]
After having mentioned how these different currents of imitation meet, the author applies the idea set forth above to the influence of education upon criminality. He shows that instruction, by itself, is not a remedy for crime, since it may furnish new means for committing crimes, and hence may only change the character of criminality. Finally the author points out the influence of labor upon criminality, combating the theory of Poletti, who says that it is necessary to take into account the economic development (for example, if during the period 1826–78 criminality in France increased in the ratio of 100 to 254, and productive activity was quadrupled, criminality did not increase, but really diminished). The fundamental error in Poletti’s argument, according to Professor Tarde is, that he considers crime as a regular, permanent, and inevitable effect of industrialism.
“Only, there is labor and labor; and if in a more laborious class the work is badly divided, excessive for some, whom it enervates and disorders, insufficient for others, who become dissipated, or if it is badly directed, turned toward deleterious compositions and reading which excite the senses …—in this case it will probably happen that progress in labor is accompanied by a growing lack of discipline and by academic vices of different kinds. An analogous phenomenon takes place in our cities, where the mad chase for luxury outruns the rise of wages, and where sexual crimes are sextupled or septupled [[152]]while wealth is tripled and quadrupled. The socialists, then, are right in imputing, in part, to unjust distribution and to the objectionable direction of the productive activity, the moral evil that has grown with it, and which, further, does not decrease when productive activity becomes weaker. For since the period when Poletti made his observations upon the prosperity of France, this has ceased to grow, and has even decreased rapidly, as we know only too well, but crime has continued its onward march with a more marked impetus.
“In short, there remains nothing of the law laid down by this distinguished writer, and all the statistics contradict him. Delinquency, as Garofalo remarks, is so little proportional to commercial activity that England, where crime is on the decrease, is the nation most remarkable for the increase of its commerce, and that Spain and Italy, where the criminality is greater than that of the other principal states of Europe, are far behind them in business development. We may add that in France the most hard-working class is without any doubt the peasant class, and this shows the smallest proportionate number of delinquents, notwithstanding unfavorable conditions. We may conclude that work is in itself the adversary of crime, that if it favors it it is by indirect, not necessary action, and that its relation to crime is like that between two antagonistic forms of work.”[9]
In the following section the author treats the influence of wealth and of poverty upon the criminal. He mentions the different opinions of Turati and of Colajanni on the one hand, and of Ferri and Garofalo on the other. The former tried to prove that poverty is often a cause of a poor man’s becoming a criminal. Garofalo tries to disprove it by calling attention, among other things, to the fact that, according to the criminal statistics of Italy for 1880, property owners committed as many crimes in proportion as the proletariat did.
In opposition to this Professor Tarde points out that the French criminal statistics in 1887 show that there were, out of 100,000 of each class of the population, the following number of persons arraigned: 20 out of the class of domestics, one of the poorest classes; 12 from the liberal professions including persons of independent income; 139 from the class of vagrants and persons without occupation (the most necessitous class, therefore); 21 from commerce; 26 from manufacturing (a very high figure considering the profits of that year); and 14 from the farming class (a very low figure considering their relative poverty). [[153]]
The author explains these contradictions as follows: “Let us not forget that, the desire for wealth being the ordinary motive and more and more the preponderating motive of crime as it is the only motive of industrial labor, the possession of wealth must keep the most dishonest man from crime as it does the most laborious man from industrial labor—for it is impossible to desire what one has—at least if the satisfaction of this desire has not meant the over-exciting of it.… Now in business circles, where on account of men’s throwing one another into a fever, a constant gaining of wealth, rather than wealth itself, is the end pursued, a fortune is like those peppered liqueurs which arouse thirst more than they quench it. Hence it comes, doubtless, as well as from the excitement prevailing in these circles, that criminality there is as great as among domestic servants. In the same way, in the licentious environments, in the great cities, where there are masses of working people, sexual crimes are as much more numerous as the pleasures of the senses are there more easily come by. But we can lay it down as a principle that where wealth is an obstacle to activity it is also an obstacle to crime, very much as political power ceases to be dangerous at the moment when it ceases to be ambitious. This is the situation among the rural proprietors, small and great, among stockholders, and even in the majority of the liberal professions …; content with his relative well-being, man indulges in an intellectual half-labor, artistic rather than mechanical, honorable rather than mercenary, and abstains from flagitious means of obtaining an increase of income which he desires moderately. The French peasant, in general, partakes of this moderation of desires, and, rich from his sobriety, his stoicism, his frugality, his plot of ground at last acquired, he is happier than the feverish millionaire, financier, or politician, driven by his very millions to sow the seed of his rotten speculations, rascalities, and extortions upon a vast scale. Further the well-to-do agriculturists are in general the most honest people. Let us not speak of wealth and poverty, to tell the truth, not even of well-being and the reverse, but rather of happiness and unhappiness, and be careful how we deny this truth, as old as the world, that the wicked man’s excuse is often to be found in his being unhappy. Children of this century … let us confess that under its brilliant exterior our society is not happy, and if we had no other assurances of its great evils than its numerous crimes, without giving a thought to its suicides, and its increasing cases of insanity, without lending an ear to the cries of envy, of suffering, and of hatred … we should not be able to call its woes in question. [[154]]
“From what does it suffer? From its internal trouble, from its illogical and unstable condition, from intestine contradictions, stirred up by the success even of its unheard-of discoveries and inventions, piling one on top of the other, the material for contrary theories, the source of unbridled, egoistic, and antagonistic desires. Upon this obscure gestation, a great Credo, a great common end awaits; it is creation before the Fiat Lux. Science multiplies its notions, it elaborates a high conception of the universe; … but where is the high conception of life, of human life, that it is ready to make prevalent? Industry multiplies its products, but where is the collective work that it brings to birth? The preëstablished harmony of interests was a dream of Bastiat, the shadow of a dream of Leibnitz. The citizens of a state exchange information, scientific and otherwise, through books, newspapers, or conversation, but to the profit of their contradictory beliefs; they exchange services, but to the profit of their rival interests; the more they assist one another, therefore, the more they nourish their essential contradictions, which may have been as profound at other times, but were never so conscious, never so painful, and consequently never so dangerous.”[10]