Article History of the Human Sciences 2014, Vol. 27(2) 60–74 Crime as social excess: ª The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav Reconstructing Gabriel DOI: 10.1177/0952695114525167 Tarde’s criminal sociology hhs.sagepub.com Sergio Tonkonoff National Council of Scientific and Technological Research, Argentina Abstract Gabriel Tarde, along with Durkheim and others, set the foundations for what is today a common-sense statement in social science: crime is a social phenomenon. However, the questions about what social is and what kind of social phenomenon crime is remain alive. Tarde’s writings have answers for both of these capital and interdependent problems and serve to renew our view of them. The aim of this article is to reconstruct Tarde’s def- inition of crime in terms of genus and specific difference, exploring his criminology as a case of his general sociology. This procedure shows that Tarde succeeded in creating a comprehensive theory of crime and criminals founded not only on his most well-known concept, imitation, but also on his equally important concepts of invention, opposition, social logic and social teleology. For Tarde, crime is a complex phenomenon related to criminal inventions, criminal propagations, the production of penal laws, the execution of controls and punishments, and the collective reactions to all these. Keywords crime, imitation, invention, opposition, Gabriel Tarde By the late 19th century, various specters haunted Europe and America, creating prob- lems for both the social order and theoretical reflection. Crime was among the most important. The very foundations that sustained the modern penal codes and strongly sup- ported the opinions and decisions of experts and lay people alike were seriously called into question. Lawyers, doctors, psychiatrists, penitentiary experts, even philosophers, began to challenge the legitimacy and efficacy of a penal system based on a notion of Corresponding author: Sergio Tonkonoff, National Council of Scientific and Technological Research, Sociology, Av. Rivadavia 1917, Buenos Aires 1033, Argentina. Email: [email protected] Tonkonoff 61 free will. Despite great differences between them, all agreed on the necessity of reforming the precepts, methods and aims of penal institutions. This meant establishing a scientific understanding of the causes of the criminal phenomenon as groundwork of any and all reform (Nye, 1984). Regardless of the changes to penal systems that this would effectively provoke, it is important to note that this paradigmatic crisis, and the efforts to reframe the forms of knowledge and action in the criminal field, were an essen- tial part of the historical circumstances from which different scientific discourses on crime in particular and society in general arose (Foucault, 1979, 1999). In other words, it is necessary to make explicit that, at least in France, the foundation of social sciences was strongly linked to the very battles for social order that the criminal question involves. Yet despite this birthmark, one cannot lose sight of the diversity of theoretical positions that existed then, nor of the possibility of isolating some among them for contemporary re-evaluation and application. This seems particularly true in the case of Gabriel Tarde, a provincial aristocrat and Roman Catholic magistrate whose interven- tions in some political and cultural polemics of his time suggested a conservative slant (Mucchielli, 2000). This slant (his misogyny, for example), in addition to his identifica- tion as champion of the ‘psychologist party’ by the Durkheimian school (Bougle´, 1905), perhaps serves to explain why Tarde became a long-forgotten classic. Now, however, his works are being republished, a growing number of papers cite him, and we see more theoretical and even empirical researches drawing on his sociology (e.g. Candea, 2010; Latour, 2005; Borch, 2005; Lazzaratto, 2002; Deleuze, 1994). These researches find valuable tools there for conceiving of the social realm as inevitably open and dynamic. This is because what are important to Tarde are not the finished social structures but their generative networks. Tarde’s metaphors are not so much mechanical or biological as they are hydraulic, astronomical and energetic. He asserts that all social structure hides within it a constellation of beliefs and desires, which are open to other equally open social structures. In his sociology, the diverse currents of faith and passion are the materials that configure – as well as exceed and transform – institutions, groups and individuals. It remains to be seen whether his criminology can still challenge us, and whether it is worth being part of the contemporary rescue of his work. To do so, we first must reconstruct it both conceptually and contextually. This article intends to contribute to this task by bringing to light and articulating overlooked aspects of the criminological perspective that Tarde produced throughout this prolific intellectual life. In doing this, I will attempt to address a significant gap in most, if not all, methodical or incidental commentaries on his sociology of crime. The few but important existing works on this matter, indicate how Tarde’s publications and interventions have encouraged a sociolo- gical comprehension of crime in opposition to the biological and utilitarian positions (Vine, 1973; Nye, 1984; Vold and Bernard, 1986; Jones, 1986; Beirne, 1987, 1993; Toth, 1997). Nevertheless, when describing and analysing the theoretical structure of the Tardean criminology, they focused exclusively on the concept of imitation. This is, certainly, a key concept. The arguments of Criminalite´ Compare´e [Comparative Crim- inology] (1886) and La Philosophie Pe´nale [Penal Philosophy] (1890) are basically organized around it. In those books, written in the heat of the mentioned polemics, Tarde sought to demonstrate that crime has an entirely social nature. Since for him society is, in 62 History of the Human Sciences 27(2) the first place, imitativeness, and crime is a branch of the social tree, then it must neces- sarily be an imitative phenomenon. But if crime is a social phenomenon like industry, art, or philosophy, then a major theoretical problem arises: What differentiates it from other phenomena of this genre? The difficulty here is that the answer to this is not immediately available in Tarde’s writings. He never fully systematizes its abundant criminological developments (not even in his late article ‘Qu’est-ce que le crime?’ [What is Crime?] [1898b]). However, I believe that it can be done, and this is the major aim of this article. For that, the strategy I have chosen is more systematic than historical – although some references to context are unavoidable. I have tried to identify the main elements of this criminal sociology and articulate them in a coherent framework. That is, I have tried to (re)construct its syntax and its vocabulary. In this way I have found that it includes not only the much-discussed concept of imitation but the other equally important concepts of invention, opposition, social teleology and social logic. Articulating them, it is possible to provide a Tardean definition of crime in terms of genus and specific difference. Sociology and society Tarde succeeded in formulating an original sociological theory, and his criminal sociol- ogy depends on these major theoretical developments, at the same time that it stimulates them (Gurtvich, 1942). Thus, in order to understand his criminology, it is essential to establish the main features of his general sociology. In Tarde’s view, society is, first and foremost, the outcome – unstable and temporary – of social life. This does not mean, however, that he sees the individual as the irredu- cible basis of social life. Rather, the individual is likewise an outcome – and also, in a certain sense, unstable and temporary. For Tarde, ‘heterogeneity, not homogeneity, is at the heart of things’ (1903: 71). As regards the individual, this means that one is born equal neither to others nor to oneself, but becomes similar over time. And the same applies to society. It is primarily established by affective and evaluative bonds, but here the coincidence of convictions and passions in a large number of individuals does not refer to organic inheritance or to a natural law contract. Nor does it refer to the social fact as Durkheim understood it (coercive and external to individuals): ‘I argue that the thorough conformity of the spirits and wills that constitute the foundation of social life, even in more turbulent times, this simultaneous presence of many precise ideas, many aims and means in all the spirits and all the wills, is the effect ... of suggestion-imita- tion’ (ibid.: 75). Imitation is a key notion in this sociology, as the way that this ‘becoming similar’ takes place is linked to the elemental social action of repeating an example. Here the language, the nation, the economic market and the government are nothing but imitative networks. And, as we shall see, the same can be said of the practices of fraud, robbery and murder. But in no case is the individual the final cause of these phenomena. Accord- ing to Tarde, the imitable and the imitated are not so much a person as the beliefs and desires that a person bears or produces – whether she or he wants to or not, whether consciously or otherwise. Where, then, do these imitated beliefs and desires come from? The answer is in the concept of invention. Tarde (1902: 563) understands that all forms Tonkonoff 63 of doing, feeling, or thinking spring from an invention and have the tendency to propa- gate as fashion and take root as custom. All invention is individual, but once again, the individual is not its source: what is new happens in an individual, but she is not exactly its origin. The individual is a place of passage and sedimentation of collective desires and beliefs that repeat themselves in the form of judgments, will, memory and habits.