Suppose, asks the author, there was no more foreign war, how could we avoid civil war? There have, indeed been historic periods when there existed a common aim uniting individuals, as the faith did in the Middle Ages. In our days this aim can be nothing but “art, philosophy, the higher cultivation of the mind and imagination, the æsthetic life.”
In order to be able to answer the question whether civilization (the collective name for education, religion, science, arts, manufacturing, wealth, public order, etc.) causes a diminution of criminality, it is necessary to discriminate between two stages of civilization. In the first there is an afflux of inventions; this is the stage at which Europe is at the present time. In the second this afflux decreases and it forms itself into a coherent whole. A civilization may be very rich, then, and but little coherent, or very coherent and not very rich, like that of the commune in the Middle Ages.
“But is it by its wealth or by its cohesion that civilization makes crime recede? By its cohesion without any doubt. This cohesion of religion, of science, of all forms of work and of power, of all kinds of different innovations, mutually confirming one another, in reality or in appearance, is a true implicit coalition against crime, and even when each of these fruitful branches of the social tree combats but [[155]]feebly the gourmand branch, their agreement will suffice to divert all the sap from it.”[11]
—This is not the place to criticise the theory of imitation in general, with which Professor Tarde thinks that we can explain every social phenomenon. In my opinion, this theory, in so far as it is new is not correct, and in so far as it is correct is not new. It is true as explaining how a social phenomenon, having taken its rise in a locality, has been rapidly propagated, or why it still persists when the original causes have ceased to operate.
However, it is plain that by means of imitation one can give but a partial explanation of the phenomena mentioned. Other factors must be pointed out to explain, for example, why something spreads everywhere in consequence of imitation, at a certain moment, while before it passed unperceived, etc.
I agree, then, that the significance of imitation and tradition is very important in explaining social phenomena, but I am of the opinion that imitation and tradition represent the conservative element, and give us no information with regard to the birth of new social phenomena.[12]
In the domain of criminality also imitation plays a great part. Children brought up in a vicious environment, easily contract bad habits by imitation; the harmful influence of prison is proverbial; a sensational crime often leads to analogous crimes. It is also by imitation that we can explain, in part at least, the existence of the Mafia and the Camorra, of which Professor Lombroso says, among other things: “The long persistence and obstinacy of such associations as the Mafia, the Camorra, and brigandage, seem to proceed in the first place from the antiquity of their existence, for the long repetition of the same acts transforms them into a habit, and consequently into a law. History teaches us that ethnic phenomena of long duration are not to be eradicated easily at a stroke.”[13]
Since the phenomena named remain permanent, there must be other important social factors which have nothing to do with imitation. Thus, for example, faith, whose prevalence is based to a great extent upon tradition, would have disappeared long since, notwithstanding [[156]]tradition, if there had been no factors in the present society to make it persist.
Admitting what has gone before, there is no reason to see in most of the examples cited by the author in support of his theory, anything else than his great knowledge of historic details of little or no importance for the question of criminality. Where, for example, is the connection between the minstrels of the Middle Ages and the vagrants of our own days? There is certainly none but this, that both went from place to place. But even if there had never been wandering minstrels, the social phenomenon called “vagrancy” would have existed all the same. It has nothing to do with imitation, but on the contrary has everything to do with the existing social organization. It could thus be proved by many examples that Professor Tarde exaggerates the extent of the influence of imitation. We must not lose sight of the fact that imitation teaches us nothing of the essential causes of a social phenomenon. When we seek the causes of a disease that some one has, we frequently see that it is the result of a contagion; we know, then, that the disease is contagious, and this knowledge will point out precautions to be taken to limit or prevent the spread of the disease; but as to the causes of the disease itself we still know nothing.