“Mafia Brotherhoods: Organized Crime, Italian Style” by Letzia Paoli … Brilliant Social Scientific History – Absolutely!

Tom Verso (October 22, 2013)

Knowledge in Western scientific society consists of two categories: ‘Observation’ and ‘Explanation’. First, the characteristics of the phenomenon being studied are ‘Observed’, then ‘Explanations’ (hypotheses) are posited to account for the Observed characteristics. Thus, for example, the biologists ‘Observes’ phenomena under-the-microscope, and then attempts to ‘Explain’ why the observed phenomena are-as-they-are. Similarly, scientific minded researchers of social phenomena (historians, sociologist, etc.) follow the same process of Observation and Explanation. A paradigmatic example of this social scientific research process is the combination of Salvatore Lupo’s book “History of the Mafia” and Letizia Paoli’s “Mafia Brotherhoods: Organized Crime, Italian Style”. Lupo provides voluminous detailed Observations (i.e. documented descriptions) of Mafia characteristics, and Paoli posits explanatory hypotheses. No scholarly discussion of the Mafia is complete without references to these two books. Which is not to imply that ONLY these two books need be considered. Rather, they are ‘necessary’ considerations for a rigorous academic Mafia study, but not ‘sufficient’ in themselves. Both books need serious criticism detailing their respective strengths and weakness (both for example posit time worn clichéd representations of Pitre’s mafia comments as his 'opinion', without regard to the anthropological nature of his 'observations'). However, both serve as a scholarly framework (an epistemological model) of how to approach an objective social scientifically rigorous study of the Mafia. A most limited discussion of Lupo’s book may be found in the “Related Articles” box ("Mafia Studies..."). This article will be an equally modest consideration of Paoli’s voluminously documented and brilliantly presented social scientific “New Paradigm” analysis of the Mafia in Sicily and Calabria. Note: NOT in Naples! Despite the Hoopla about the pop-culture gross reality misrepresentation (violence sells tickets) gangster movie “Gomorrah”, there is no such thing as THE (singular definite article) “Camorra”. Per Paoli: “Unlike Cosa Nostra and Ndrangheta families”, which have continuous in time unifying organizational structures, the word ‘Camorra’ denotes “more than one hundred gangs that operate in full autonomy, frequently fighting each other, and do not consider themselves bound in even a loose confederation.” (e-book Location L 3568)

Tools

Letizia Paoli … “some kind’a lady”

One of the main differences between Dr. Paoli and other Mafia scholars is that she is not an academician per se. She uniquely combines a very impressive academic background with actual experience in Italian Mafia crime fighting organizations. For example:

“Full Professor at Leuven Institute of Criminology Faculty of Law; Ph.D. from Dept. Social and Political Sciences of the European University Institute in Florence; worked for three years as a consultant to the Direzione Investigativa Antimafia of the Italian Ministry of the Interior with the renown Calabrian professor, diplomat and Mafia crime fighter Dr. Pino Arlacchi …” (e-book location L 45)

Consistent with such a background, her book has a breathtaking bibliography consisting of:

“Judicial Documents; Parliamentary Hearings and Reports, Reports of Other Italian State Agencies, Reports of International and Foreign Bodies, Secondary Sources.”

The quantity and quality of the references are such that a scholar, who might not be interested in reading the book, would want to buy the book just for the bibliography.

Most importantly, Dr. Paoli, “using theoretical tools with which to analyze the empirical material”, brilliantly develops explanatory theories (“research hypotheses”) of the uniquely Calabrian and Sicilian Mafia phenomena, which have baffled and mystified scholars, politicians and law enforcement officials on both sides of the Atlantic for over one hundred and fifty years.

Equally important: while the book is profoundly intellectual and a social scientific challenging read (not the type one reads over coffee at Starbucks), nevertheless its presentation follows what public school K-12 teachers call “lesson plans”:

1) tell them what you’re going to tell them

2) tell them

3) tell them what you told them

Prof. Paoli must be as brilliant a teacher as she is a social scientist!

Methodology

Both the historian and social scientist study society through the medium of documents. The past does not exist. The historian cannot ‘directly observe’ the people and events of the Civil War, for example. Rather, s/he ‘observes’ the past indirectly though the remnant documents created in the past (e.g. newspapers, diaries, government publications, etc.).

Similarly, the social scientist (economist, sociologist, political scientist, etc.), while studying ‘nominally contemporary existing’ social phenomena (religion, political parties, economy, etc.), cannot ‘directly observe’ the economy, Catholics, Democrats, etc. Rather, they, like historians, read documents created by and about, Catholics, Democrats, the economy, etc.

Accordingly, historians and social scientist undertaking the study of the Mafia cannot ‘directly observe’ the Mafia per se. Rather, they study documents created about people and events purported to be Mafia phenomena. The historian and social scientist do not ‘directly observe’ ‘murders’, ‘robberies’, ‘extortions’, etc. Rather, they study documents such as: congressional committee reports, law enforcement reports, newspaper articles, etc. Such documents have been the basis of Mafia studies from the Risorgimento up to the last quarter of the twentieth century. Prof. Paoli writes:

“It is not easy for either law enforcement officers or social scientist to investigate the mafia. Only rarely, and with great difficulty, can the people OBSERVE the activities of a criminal group directly” (L-361 emp.+)

Pentiti (repentants) …

External vs. Internal Mafia Observations

Up through the later part of the twentieth century the factual basis for mafia studies was limited by the inability to obtain internal observations about mafia people and activities from within mafia organizations. Scholarly research was limited to documents createdby people reporting external observations such as government and police investigators who were not in the mafia.

However, circa 1985 a massive number of a new type of document became available to historians and social scientist – i.e. documented confessions of mafia members called ‘pentiti (repentants). The information contained in these documents came from people in the mafia (people who took part in mafia activities), and may be characterized as internal observations of the mafia. Prof. Paoli writes:

“The documents described the organization from within … these confessions became the primary source …for reconstructing the history of the association over the fifteen years before the trial.” (L 254 emp.+)

Even with these new types of documents reporting internal observations of the mafia, scholars were still unable to ‘directly observe’ mafia people and activities; as per usual, scholars are limited to the study of documents.

However, the nature of the information contained in these new documents was significantly different. This new information significantly increased the factual basis of historians and social scientists. Prof. Paoli writes:

Knowledge about the Italian mafia in its home country has increased enormously since the mid-1980s brought about by the defection of over one thousand members of several mafia and criminal groupings who testified against their former associates.” (L 110 emp.+)

For example,

“The confessions by Mafiosi … meticulously checked by Judge Giovanni Falcone became the primary source of the indictment which reconstructed the history of the [mafia] association…” (L 254 emp+)

New Evidence = New Methodology

The implications of this new evidence from “within” the mafia went far beyond simply increasing the amount of descriptive information available to researchers. Prof. Pauli:

“In November 1985, the 8,607 page indictment of 707 mafiosi accompanied by twenty-two volumes of documentary evidence constituted a fundamental methodological innovation.” (L254 emp+)

Question:

Why would this new information entail a “fundamental methodological innovation?

The nature of the evidence gives rise to new methods of verification and explanatory theories (i.e. hypotheses). The methods used to write mafia history based on pre-1985 hearsay evidence from external observers changes when the evidence comes from internal mafia participants. Prof. Pauli writes:

“This methodological choice is based on a simple observation. Since 1861 the word ‘mafia’ has been attributed many different and contrasting meanings, depending on the various points of view and interests involved.

However, members of the mafia hardly ever took part in the discussions… Before confessions in front of Falcone, external observers did not have any credible access to the life-world of the Mafiosi.

“The inside accounts given by these mafia witnesses – or ‘pentiti’, as they are usually called – have provided irrefutable evidence about the secret consortium of mafia families – the ‘Ndrangheta, located in southern Calabria [and] the Sicilian Cosa Nostra…” (L 271, 275 emp.+)

“With ink one can write anything”

Most importantly, to my mind, regarding Prof. Pauli treatment of this new ‘pentiti’ information; she demonstrates a scholarly standard of excellence that (sadly) is generally not seen in the writings of historians and social scientist.

As the great historian and methodologist Marc Bloch could not emphasized enough, “With ink one can write anything” (i.e. you can’t believe everything you read in the newspaper); Prof. Pauli realizes that the statements by the ‘pentiti’ cannot be take ‘at face value’; they cannot be consider true unless and until they are rigorously critiqued. She writes:

The statements of the ‘pentiti’ are not accepted uncritically but have to been taken seriously…(L 22 emp.+)

“Despite the change of perspective fostered by the Palermitan judicial inquiries, the statements made by new and old mafia witnesses have not yet been systematically analyzed by sociologists and criminologists.” (L279 emp.+)

What specifically does “systematically analyzing statements” and “not accept uncritically” mean?

In what to my mind is an absolutely brilliant “Methodological Notes” section, that should be the first thing read in all graduate history/social science seminars, Prof. Pauli writes:

“In this study, I primarily rely on statements made by the ‘pentiti’ and on other kinds of police and judicial documents…This reliance has not been unconditional … [e.g. such documents represent a] selective legal view [meant to give prosecutor advantage] … [also one has to] avoid accepting and reproducing pentiti lies [meant to give defense advantage]… etc.(L 376 -385)

However,

“Caution should not, be allowed to turn into a piori skepticism and mistrust…there are several reason justifying a positive – though not unconditional – approach toward this type of source … Foremost, there is the multiplicity and dissimilarity of informants. Then there is the high number of law enforcement officials and independent observers who have gathered their confessions etc. (L405)

In sum, the new type of evidence, in the form of ‘pentiti’ confessions and other statements, available to historians and social scientist is the basis of a radically different understand of the characteristics and nature of the two mafia organizations: Cosa Nostra and Ndrangheta.

Four Theses: The Structure of the Book” (L 295)

After an extensive discussion of the new evidence from within mafia organizations available to researchers, and the methodology used to analyze the new types of documents; Professor Pauli then moves into the body of her book, which she describes as follows:

“The main aim of this book is to reconstruct the culture, structure, and action of the Sicilian Cosa Nostra and the Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta.

Four main theses underlie this book, and each of them is explained in a separate chapter. These are followed by a fifth, which reconstructs relationships between the mafia, the state, and society from the mid-nineteenth century to today.” (L15, 299)

The chapter headings and brief summary statements:

1. Mafia Association and Ruling Bodies

“Contrary to opinions held widely until the early 1980s, judicial inquiries carried out since then have proved that formalized and longstanding mafia groups do exist. (L 299)

2. Status and Fraternization Contracts

“Neither Cosa Nostra nor the ‘Ndrangheta can be assimilated to Max Weber’s ideal type of legal-rational bureaucracy… mafia groups impose a ‘status contract’ upon their members ...This means that the novice is required to assume a permanent new identity – to become a ‘man of honor’ – and to subordinate all his previous allegiance to his mafia membership.” (L 314)

3. Secrecy and Violence

Secrecy is a defining feature of both mafia consortia. Maintaining secrecy about the group composition, its actions, and its strategies is one of the key duties of ‘men of honor’ ... Mafia groups always used violence to pursue their goals ... thus need to resort to secrecy to protect themselves from state repression. (L 326)

4. Multiplicity Goals and Functions

“Sicilian and Calabrian mafia families have used the cohesion created by status and fraternization contracts to pursue extremely different ends and carry out greatly varying functions. It is extremely difficult to single out a single function or goal that can fully characterize the mafia phenomenon, though this has been attempted by supporters of the enterprise paradigm…(L 343)

5. Mafia, State, and Society

“A fundamental point about mafia structures: their power has always been matched by the weakness of state structures. Thus the development and existence of Sicilian and Calabrian mafia associations over the last hundred and fifty years cannot be explained without mentioning the longstanding incapacity of state institutions to guarantee order and public security over wide area of the Mezzogiorno through the monopoly of force, and thus to gain full legitimacy in the eyes of the local population.” (L 2792)

Final Thoughts: Social Science History

Donna R. Gabaccia, Italian American historian par excellence and the keynote speaker at the 2012 Italian American Studies Association Conferences, is unique in the pool of scholars studying the history and culture of Italian Americana and Italy in the American university system. Few, like her, combine the concepts, methods and techniques of the “historians craft” with those of the social sciences. Significantly, she is the past president of the Social Science History Association (2008).

The website of the Association states:

“Social Science History (SSH) Association is an interdisciplinary group of scholars that shares interests in social life and theory; historiography and social-scientific methodologies.”

In short, scholars of the SSH mentality do not make a clear and unequivocal distinction between the disciplines of History and Social Science. The study of society (past or present) is not complete if only described. The explanation of those descriptions is the ultimate object of the social enquiry, and explanation cannot only result from positing and testing social theories.

I don’t know if professor Letizia Paoli is a member of the SSH Association, but her work has all the hallmarks of the brilliant combination of rigorous documentary history and social scientific methodology. For example, 35 references to the seminal sociologist Max Weber and uncountable references to scores of other social scientist such as Berger, Fong, Simmel, Snyder, Tefft, etc.

To appreciate the difference between historians and social science historians compare John Dickie’s “Cosa Nostra” with Professor Paoli’s book. The difference is stunning. Dickie is an historian per se. His hiSTORY of the mafia is just that – STORIES; completely devoid of systematic social scientifically based cause and effect theorizing.

Sadly (to my mind), neither Gabaccia nor Paoli is representative of Italian and Italian American scholars in the American university system. More representative is Dickie, who was the keynote speaker at the 2012 American Association of Italian Studies.

The Terroni-ization of southern-Italian Americans continues unabated in the American university system.

DISCLAIMER: Posts published in i-Italy are intended to stimulate a debate in the Italian and Italian-American Community and sometimes deal with controversial issues. The Editors are not responsible for, nor necessarily in agreement with the views presented by individual contributors.

© ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - RIPRODUZIONE VIETATA.
This work may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without prior written permission.
Questo lavoro non può essere riprodotto, in tutto o in parte, senza permesso scritto.

Add a comment

Sign in | Log in