Mafia Studies: Subjective “Representations” vs. Objective “Realities”
Mafia Studies: Subjective “Representations” vs. Objective “Realities”
(October 4, 2013)
When writing narratives, historians face an inherent inner-conflict between ‘Objective Descriptions’ and ‘Subjective Value Judgments’. For example, Palermo car-bomb victims may be ‘Represented’ as “Excellent Cadavers” or even “Martyrs”, whereas Pakistan Drone bombing victims are called “Terrorist”. People killed in the vicinity of the bombing, but not the target of the bomber, in Palermo are called “Innocent Victims” and in Pakistan “Collateral Damage”. In both cases, the Objective ‘Reality’ is the same: human beings were killed to further the ‘objectives’ or ‘interests’ of the killers. Yet, in both cases, victims are ‘Represented’ in subjective evaluative terms (value judgments) having moral implications, about the killer’s motivations (bad men kill good ‘martyrs’ in Palermo and good men kill bad ‘terrorist’ in Pakistan). … This ‘objective’ vs. ‘subjective’ dichotomic ‘Representation’ of ‘Reality’, which the historian is hard pressed to avoid, differentiates the sciences of society from the natural sciences. There are no ‘objective/subjective’ issues for physical scientists. … Mafia historiography is especially challenged by this dilemma; most especially when the historian is southern Italian or southern-Italian American. It will be interesting to read what the scholars who gather at the upcoming John D. Calandra Italian American Institute conference “MAFIAs: Realities and Representations of Organized Crime” (April 24-26, 2014) will have to say about this inherent epistemological problem of the “Historian’s Craft”, as it affects Mafia historiography.
Historiography vs. Physical Sciences
Comparing the “Historian’s Craft” with the physical sciences, the classical scholar and world historian Arnold J. Toynbee nicely captures the inherent objectivity vs. subjectivity conflict the historian experiences when writing narratives.
He writes:
“The humanist [i.e. student of human affairs] has to cope with the problem of bias and from this the physicist seems to be exempt.”
First, regarding the physical sciences:
“The physical scientist does not have to contend, as the student of human affairs does, with discriminatory judgments of value and with partisan reactions of feeling for or against the objects of his study.
In the physical scientist’s field, the objects [of study] do not evoke ‘affective’ feelings or value judgments.
The physical scientist is unlikely to catch himself admiring or loving this or that nebula, solar system, molecule, atom or electron and despising or hating this to that other one.”
Toynbee goes on, the situation of the humanist is very much different:
“By contrast, the student of human affairs has an ethical and emotional problem as well as an intellectual one to contend with. The objects of his study are human beings of like passions with himself.
And it is impossible for one human being to think about another human being, present or absent, living or dead, without also having feelings about him and passing judgments on him. He either likes him or dislikes him; regards him as being either beneficent or maleficent; feels him to be either a friend or an enemy; judges his actions to have been either right or wrong; and appraises his character as being either good or bad, either righteous or wicked.” (“Study of History” vol. X, p53-54)
Thus, for example, the physicist can evaluate all the physical and chemical characteristics of the bomb that blew up Giovanni Falcone’s car with perfect emotional free objectivity – the facts are documented and the logical inferences are deduced.
On the other hand, the pathologist who does the autopsies on Mr. and Mrs. Falcone, while trained in the physical sciences and similarly charged with reporting facts and inferences, cannot help but be effected by the human emotions conjured by their deaths.
The television crime drama “Body of Proof” featuring a criminal pathologist as the protagonist nicely portrays this blend of science and humanism.
Scholars and Judges
In a similar vein as Toynbee, Marc Bloch, the great historian of the Middle Ages and historiographic methodologist, in his book “The Historian’s Craft”, made the distinction between “scholars” and “judges”.
Bloch notes:
· The ancient Greek historian Herodotus posited that the historian’s goal was to “narrate what was.”
· Similarly, the renowned nineteenth century German scholar Ranke said the aim of the historian was to describe things “as they happened.”
Both are expressions of the historian’s quest for objective knowledge of past societies, yet both are compromised by, what Bloch calls, the “problem of impartiality”.
Bloch writes:
“There are two ways of being impartial: that of the scholar and that of the judge. They have a common root in their honest submission to the truth.” (p. 138)
However, there is also a very significant difference between scholars and judges.
When the scholar has observed and explained [i.e. “described as it happened”; “narrated what was”], his task is finished.
[Whereas] it remains for the judge to pass sentence. He will be impartial in a judicial sense, not in a scientific sense. For we can neither condemn nor absolve without accepting a table of values which no longer refers to any positive science.” (p. 139)
The problem with much writing about history is that to often scholars act as judges.
Bloch writes:
“The historian has passed for a sort of judge in Hades, charged with meting out praise or blame to dead heroes... (p. 139)
To my mind, a good example of “historians meting out praise or blame” is the compendium of Mafia “Excellent Cadaver” historiography (e.g. Giovanni Falcone).
Bloch continues:
In the words of [philosopher] Pascal: ‘We all play god in judging this is good or this is evil.’… Are we so sure of ourselves and of our age as to divide the company of our forefathers into the just and the damned?
“When the passions of the past blend with the prejudices of the present human reality is reduced to a picture in black and white.” (p. 140)
Why do historians have the propensity to become judges, meting out value judgments about past persons and events, rather than limit themselves to “observation and explanation”?
Because, judging is an easier mode of narrative writing. Bloch:
“How much easier it is to write for or against Luther than to fathom his soul; to believe Pope Gregory VII about Emperor Henry IV, or Henry IV about Gregory VII, rather than to unravel the underlying causes of one of the greatest dramas of Western civilization! (p.140)
Similarly with Mafia Historiography:
- “how much easier" to write for and against” Excellent Cadaver events
- “how much easier” to indulge emotions, rather than discipline oneself to objectivity (e.g. the weekly themes of mentioned “Body of Proof”)
- “how much easier” to write about the crimes of Mafiosi, rather than “fathom the depths of souls and unravel the underlying causes” of the great Patria Meridionale drama.
Subjectivity in Mafia Historiography
To my mind, two excellent examples of historians of the Mafia “judging”, a la Pascal’s “judging this is good or this is evil,” are Salvatore Lupo’s “History of the Mafia” (“Storia della mafia” 1996; translated by Antony Shugaar 2009) and John Dickie’s Cosa Nostra (2004).
Both Lupo and Dickie are highly credentialed university historians. Their books on the Mafia are absolutely must reading for students of the subject, most especially Lupo’s book. He is a highly published (19 books) award wining (Vitaliano Brancati) University of Palermo professor who has done original source document research on nineteen century Mafia.
Dickie is a Professor of Italian Studies at University College London. Albeit a well-respected historian (e.g. his book “Darkest Italy”), nevertheless by his own admission in the “acknowledgements” section of “Cosa Nostra” and obvious to anyone who reads both books, he is highly dependent upon Lupo’s book. Indeed, frankly, there are sections of Dickie’s book, which so closely parallel Lupo’s, one feels sorry for students disciplined for plagiarism (e.g. the Notarbartolo section discussed below).
While both writers warrant close reading and consideration, nevertheless a reader is severely challenged to identify and verify factual propositions, evaluate the logical validity of inferences, and differentiate both from the subjective value judgments –unless, of course, the reader is content with simply reading mafia “stories”.
A comprehensive critique of these books would require a book in itself; hopefully someday a qualified bilingual rigorously critical historiographic historian of Sicily will undertake the task. In the absence of such a comprehensive critique, small bites so to speak may be taken; i.e. critiques of sections of the books. To my mind, Lupo’s and Dickie’s presentation of what may be called the Notarbartolo Affair (i.e. the 1893 murder of Leopoldo Notarbartolo) is a good example of the role of subjective value judgments passed off as objective historiography.
However, the Notarbartolo Affair is anything but a small bite. There are volumes written about the murder. Accordingly, below will be a couple of examples of what I judge to be characteristic of the writers’ use of value judgments though out their “stories”.
The Notarbartolo Affair
Marquis Emanuele Notarbartolo di San Giovanni – “a Palermo Aristocrat who moved to Paris and then England in 1857, he served in the Savoy Army, returned to Sicily with the Garibaldi invaders in 1861, and from 1862 he was regent (“prima regent”) and then owner (titolare) of Bank of Sicily” (http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emanuele_Notarbartolo Google translated, paraphrased, emp.+)
On February 1, 1893 Notarbartolo while traveling by train in Sicily was murdered. Because of his prestige in Italian politics and his position in the Bank of Sicily, his murder became a national cause celebre (legal controversy), which gave rise to three trials and immense debates about the Mafia and corruption in government.The trials were held respectively in Milan, Bologna and Florence (a Sicilian crime tried in categorically and demonstrably racist Northern Italy! Go Figure!).
Lupo dedicated a forty-page section to the murder, Dickie twenty. For present purposes, I will take couple of examples from the Lupo and Dickie, which to my mind exemplify historians judging and acting as moralist rather than being content with “narrating what was” (Herodotus) and “describing things as they happened” (Ranke).
Excellent Cadavers
Alexander Stille in his 1995 book Excellent Cadavers characterized the murdered Mafia crime fighter Giovanni Falcone as an “Excellent Cadaver.” According to Stille:
“ In Sicily the term is used to distinguish the assassination of prominent government officials…”(p. 6)
Stille then listed nine exemplar Excellent Cadavers or “martyrs” (his word). Of the nine, seven are judges and law enforcement officials; one was the President of the Sicilian Region and one the head of the Communist Party. At the top of the list is the now legendary Mafia crime fighter Giovanni Falcone.
Emanuele Notarbartolo – Excellent Cadaver or ‘Not’?
In the opening of the discussion about the Notarbartolo murder, both Lupo and Dickie identify Notarbartolo with Alezander Stille’s “excellent cadavers”.
Lupo:
Notarbartolo’s dead body was the first ‘cadavere eccellente’ (‘excllent cadaver,’ in the sense of social elevation; see Alexander Stlle’s Excellent Cadavers)…” (p. 95)
Dickie:
Marquis Emanuele Notarbartolo di San Giovanni was the mafia’s first ‘eminent corpse’…” (p. 111)
Thus, both ‘historians’ immediately conjure the images of the martyred Mafia fighters Falcone et al, and associate Notarbartolo with that special group.
However, there is nothing in either of their narratives that indicate that Notarbartolo was a Mafia crime fighter. And, although a government official, he certainly was not of the same stature as the head of a powerful national party (e.g. Communist) or Region President (e.g. Sicily).
Although his murder seems to have been associated with what seems to have been his struggle against corruption in the Bank of Sicily, it is only by a long chain of circumstantial hearsay evidence that would link that corruption with the Mafia. The specific type of corruption mentioned had to do with manipulating the value of bank stocks. This type of corruption, it seems to me, is more associated with the aristocrats and bourgeois than nineteen century Mafiosi.
Accordingly, it seems to me, that the characterization of Notarbartolo as an “excellent cadaver” or “eminent corpse” is a rhetorical device to affect the reader’s attitude prior to being present any facts of history.
Who killed Emanuele Notarbartolo?
Lupo’s and Dickie’s narrative style closely parallels that a prosecuting attorney who makes an opening statement to the jury stipulating the persons guilt. Then proceeds though out the trial to provide ‘selective evidence’ supporting the contention of guilt.
Both writers’ contention is that the murder was ordered by Raffaele Palizzolo, whom, in Dickie’s words, “was the most notorious Mafioso of the turn-of-the-century era”.
It is significant to note at this point that in Dickie’s 337 page “story” (his word p.339), there is not a single (not one) footnote. Accordingly, to say that one must take his contentions about Palizzolo with the proverbial “grain of salt” would be a gross understatement.
Lupo’s book, on the other had, is a case study in erudition, a 274 page narrative with a staggering 921 footnotes (many from source documents Lupo himself discovered) and a 13 page index.
However, I hasten to add Marc Bloch’s admonition: “With ink, anyone can write anything … [e.g.] the Donation of Constantine – that extraordinary literary concoction…” (ibid p. 79). Bloch points out that the historian is obliged to do much more than find and quote documents.
Indeed, the essence of the “Historian’s Craft” is to apply “a test of truth” to ascertain the accuracy of what the document reports; i.e. how accurately does the document describe reality – do you believe everything you read?
To my mind, Lupo’s book while filled with footnotes, is completely devoid of any truth testing. He has provided a great service to mafia historiography in the form of his comprehensive bibliography. Mafia historians hence will be obliged to reference his book if for no other reason than the bibliography. However, Mafia historians hence will be obliged to critique those documents – i.e. ‘test the truth’ of the alleged facts purported in the documents.
Apart from the value Lupo’s bibliography holds for Mafia historians; frankly, it may have even greater value for law school professors for the many excellent examples it presents of the use and abuse of circumstantial evidence.
The problem with Lupo and Dickie’s prosecutorial historiographic method is that there is no analogue in their narrative of a defense attorney’s counter arguments and evidence. One has to look elsewhere for that. For example, renowned scholars Jane and Peter Schneider write:
"Even today, there are scholars who doubt Palizzolo's guilt on the grounds that his initial trial was influenced by the court of public opinion in northern Italy, which was angry with Crispi and his close associates for Italy's failed effort at colonial expansion in Africa and brutal repression of the fasci. The assassin used a knife, they point out, which is the weapon of “crimes of passion” in Sicily, not a shotgun, the so-called signature weapon of the mafia ("Reversible Destiny: Mafia, Antimafia, and the Struggle for Palermo", p 38)
Specifically the Schneiders reference James Fentressbook "Rebels & Mafiosi: Death in a Sicilian Landscape", who writes:
“The Notarbartolo murder was never solved: the police were not able to uncover any material evidence against Palizzolo…
“There was nothing to connect the Notarbartolo murder with the mafia…!
In short, Lupo and Dickie’s presentation of the Notarbartolo murder is a classic example of the historian acting as moralist; judging rather than being content with “narrating what was” (Herodotus) and “describing things as they happened” (Ranke).
Further, their analytically wanting presentation of the Notrabartolo affair is representative of the whole of their books.
Pedagogical Implications
There are two pedagogical implications to be drawn from Lupo and Dickie’s books:
First, history teachers need to teach students to critically evaluate what they read. Students must be highly sensitized to the indubitable fact that “With ink, anyone can write anything”.
Students must be trained to differentiate factual propositions from inferential propositions. They must be trained to evaluate the truth of factual claims and the validity of logical inferences. And, they must learn to differentiate factual and inferential propositions from subjective value judgments.
Second, university programs must be developed that specialized in Southern Italian Studies. They should be modeled after the many Northern Italian Studies programs that currently exist in the American university system (e.g. New York University, Notre Dame, etc.).
Such Southern Italian Studies programs should be staffed with faculty that specialized in the history and culture of southern Italy and Sicily, teaching the history and culture of the Patria Meridionale of the near 17 million southern-Italian Americans.
Such university programs should have relations with universities in southern Italy (Naples, Palermo, etc.) whereby students would spend a semester or more researching source documents such those in Lupo’s bibliography.
Also, Southern Italian Studies programs should not be confused with current post-Ellis Island ‘Italian American Studies’ programs, consisting largely of Chicago “nostalgic remembrances” and the like.
Unless and until such Southern Italian Studies university programs are developed, the southern-Italian American people will remain ignorant of their mighty pre-Ellis Island history and culture; thinking that food is the essence of their culture and the Renaissance is their history.
Seems to me … leastwise!
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.
-
This Blog
-
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Most Commented
South of Rome–West of Ellis Island | i-ITALY
Please be aware, the call to PayPal makes use of uses your PayPal email deal with and first / final name of your Swappa account to find out the status of the PayPal account.
South of Rome–West of Ellis Island | i-ITALY
There's a Zagg sales kiosk at a mall near me. At any time when the screen protector starts to look scratched, discolored, or starts to peel up, I just take it there and they substitute it at no cost on the spot - no questions asked.