Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Volume 61 | Issue 4 Article 12

1971

Deviant Behavior in Capitalist Society-The SovietImageWalter D. Connor

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc

Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice Commons

This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.

Recommended CitationWalter D. Connor, Deviant Behavior in Capitalist Society-The Soviet Image, 61 J. Crim. L. Criminology & Police Sci. 554 (1970)

Tun JoumwAr or Canmuwe LAw, CmnmTOLOoy Am POwncE ScrxcsCopyright 0 1971 by Northwestern University School of Law

Vol. 61, No. 4Printed in U.S.A.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY-THE SOVIET IMAGE

WALTER D. CONNOR*

Soviet writers in recent years have devoted a large volume of discussion to deviant behavior in"capitalist" societies, notably the United States. These discussions, which focus primarily on thepresumed causes which induce deviance under capitalism and on the nature and functions of crimi-nology as a policy science in the West, reveal not only Soviet attitudes toward Western social life,but also may cast light on the presuppositions which underlie the Soviet Union's approach to itsown problems of social deviance. Recent Soviet writings in this area are discussed in an attempt todiscern persistent themes in such literature, and to detect the functions and significance it possessesfor various categories of its domestic readership.

In recent years, in addition to their growingconcern with domestic problems, Soviet sociolo-gists, criminologists and publicists have con-centrated considerable attention on parallelproblems in the "capitalist world"--notablysuch aspects of deviance as crime and delinquency.Their writings demonstrate an acceptance of thepremise that high rates of the sorts of behaviorheld in virtually all modem societies to be anti-social (crimes against property and the person,juvenile delinquency) indicate that a society issomehow "unhealthy." Whatever the merits ofsuch a premise, this sort of reasoning is an impor-tant element in the ongoing "war of ideologies,"where the demonstration of the superiority ofone type of social system over another is at issue.This paper attempts to explore the Soviet use ofdeviant behavior in the capitalist world as acriterion of that world's social "health" (or lackthereof).

Exploration of this topic involves (1) outliningthe Soviet image of deviance in capitalist societies,including the conclusions drawn by Soviet writersfrom this image; and (2) a review of Soviet criti-cisms of "bourgeois" criminologists and thescience they have developed to cope with crimeand delinquency. Finally, some tentative answersare made to the question: What are the functionsserved by the communication of information

* Assistant Professor of Sociology, University ofMichigan, associate, University's Center for Russianand East European Studies. In 1969, the author spentfive months in the Department of Criminal Law atMoscow State University on the USA-USSR ScholarExchange, doing research on juvenile delinquency andcriminal corrections. His related work includes JuvenileDelinquency in the USSR: Some Quantitative and Quali-tative Indicators, AaxvicAN SocioLoG IcAL rEvinw,April, 1970. The author is indebted to Professors ZviGitelman and Thomas Smith, for their comments on anearlier version of this paper.

about antisocial behavior in the West to varioustypes of Soviet readers?

Soviet writings on deviance in "capitalist"societies are extremely interesting in that theymobilize factual material from the West andpresent it to the domestic reader in the USSR inorder to strengthen his negative impressions ofthe capitalist world. That this is at least part ofthe motivation for much contemporary Sovietwriting is clearly shown in the following passage:

The rapid growth of juvenile delinquency in theUSA and England is one of the accusatory factorswhich show these countries from the other side.In the struggle against bourgeois ideology wecannot pass by this factor, we cannot fail to takeadvantage of this serious crack in social relations,in order to show the true face of the "free world." I

D v mNcn UNDER CAPrrArasm

Both the general approach and the rhetoric ofSoviet authors are judgmental. The introductionto a recent book establishes the ground rules forthe interpretations to be given to the evidencethe bourgeoisie provides:

The Soviet reader [concerned with] the problemof juvenile delinquency in the capitalist world isinterested in an accurate picture of that delin-quency, and, equally, in a scientific explanationof its causes. Such an appraisal is only possiblefrom the position of Marxist-Leninist learningconcerning the class-antagonistic society and state,the contradictions to which they give birth, andthe social conditioning in such a society of con-' F. MAKOV, PRESTUPNOST' NEsovERsnENxoizT-

NI v SSh i ANGrLI (JuvEN DELNQuENCY IN=E USA AN ENGLAM) 151 (1964) [MAxaov]. While

many of the works cited herein are concerned with the"capitalist world" as a whole, the preponderant empha-sis is on the United States, both in this paper and inmost Soviet writing of this sort.

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR-THE SOVIET IMAGE

flicts between them and the personality. It is fromthese very positions that juvenile delinquency incontemporary capitalist society is analyzed bySoviet scholars 2

There is a tendency in recent works to make useof the large quantities of information on crimerates provided by the F.B.I.'s Uniform Crime Re-ports for the United States, and by similar publi-cations in other countries. Whatever the in-accuracies of crime reporting in these societies, thenegative implications of the figures on growth ofcrime rates are readily accepted by Soviet writers.

From the growth of crime and delinquency, (aswell as from the classic Marxian analysis) broadconclusions are drawn concerning the general"health" of American society. Twentieth-century"bourgeois" economists, who argue that thecapitalism of the 1950's and 1960's is an immeas-urably more humane system, extending itsrewards to previously-excluded classes, are takento task as "apologists" for the system.2 If, theyare asked, capitalism has become so "humane,"why does crime, especially property crime, showsuch persistence?4

Capitalist systems, then, stand condemned. Atmid-twentieth century, they cast much the samereflection in the Soviet mirror as they did in thewritings of Marx and Engels. Two aspects ofcapitalist society provide focal points for Sovietcriticism: the economic system itself (the base)and "bourgeois culture" (a "superstructural"expression of the base).

The Soviet insistence on getting to the most"basic" causes of social phenomena, evident incriticisms of "superficial" bourgeois empiricalsociology, is most emphatic when crime anddelinquency are at issue. Capitalism, pictured ascrisis-ridden, placing unbearable burdens on allbut the most highly-placed, is the culprit. Thesystem itself, which permits and indeed encouragesthe "exploitation of man by man," inevitablygenerates poverty, unemployment, and an ever-widening gap between the haves and have-nots.Crime and delinquency, flowing from the latterconditions, are in this view capitalism's "in-evitable companions."

2 E. MXeL'NIOVA, PRESTUPNOST' NEsovERsHENxo.-

ETNIK V KAPITALSCTICEIE STRANAXH (IUVE-N=iL DELINQUENcY IN CAPITALIST CoUNTRIES) chast'1, at 9 (1967) [MIEL'NIIOVA].

3Denisov & Guliev, Prestupnost' v 'obshehesvevseobshhego blagodenstviia', (Crime in the Society ofUniversal Prosperity), SOVETSKOE GOSUDARSTVO iPRAvo (SOVIET STATE AND LAw), No. 7, 1960, at 98.

4 Id. at 99-100.

The economic determinism underlying thisposition is striking. As will be seen, there is arefusal to grant that anything but capitalismitself is, in the last analysis, responsible for thecrime problem (although intermediate causes,shaped by capitalism, are accorded some signifi-cance). But the same system which generates thepoverty and unemployment which burden thelower classes corrupts as well the persons whoprofit from it. They, too, commit specificallycriminal acts. The Soviet reader is told:

It would be incorrect, however, to consider thatall criminals in capitalist countries were yesterdayjobless, poor and vagrants, whom hopeless needforced to become thieves and robbers. A certainsegment of criminals belongs to the well-to-dostrata of the population. Not need, not lack ofwork, but deep moral degradation pushes therepresentatives of the ruling classes onto thecriminal path. And this is one of the evidences ofthe decay of capitalist social structure.5

The deep, persistent rapacity of the "rulingclasses" also gives rise to behavior whose legality,by capitalist standards, further demonstrates thecorruption of the system to its Soviet critics.

The general view of American society stillincludes "robber barons," or their functionalequivalents,--not free-booting entrepreneurs 4la Jay Gould or J. P. Morgan, but the executivesof large corporations, the controllers of the massmedia, and other members of the contemporaryruling classes, including the important figures inorganized crime. Still robbers, still plunderers, theyhave acquired respectability, and control overmajor national institutions. Thus, one Sovietwriter, exploring the problems which vex youngAmericans, traces the cynicism, alienation andhopelessness of contemporary youth to theirrealization of the truly mythical quality of the"Horatio Alger"-type success story.'

The Depression provided the first incontro-vertible proof of capitalism's weaknesses-itbecame less "believable" as a system which fos-tered individual economic success. Today, while"individualism" and the "acquisitive spirit" areinstilled into children at early ages, the limits anexploitative capitalism places on their chances of

5Ostroumov & Panchenko, Prestupnost'-ten' kapi-talizma, (Crime-the Shadow of Capitalism), Kom=uu-NIST, No. 12, 1962, at 107 [0stroumov].

6 See Mitrokhin, Chto skovyvaet um molodogo ameri-kantsa (What Binds the Mind of the Young American),VoPRosy FILOSOTrI (PROBLEMS OF ParLosopii), No.1, 1961, at 137-149 [Mitrokhin].

WALTER D. CONNOR

satisfying such desires become the source of greatfrustration and disaffection. The image of theindividual helpless before the hierarchicallyorganized society which surrounds him is evencarried over to the "independent" criminal, whoselack of contact with organized crime limits him topetty and unprofitable incursions on the propertyof othersY

Thus, while the "more unstable" elements ofthe population, especially of the lower classes,commit crimes, the conditions which evokecriminal acting-out of this instability are laiddirectly at capitalism's door.

CuLTURAL ASPECTS Or CAPrTAZism

"Bourgeois" culture, as a target of Sovietcriticism, means two things: first, the system ofvalues propagated by the ruling classes throughthe various agencies of socialization which theycontrol; and second, the content and style of thearts and the mass media.

The sphere of values of reflects what, in theSoviet view, are the corrupting effects of theeconomic relations of capitalism-"well-being,the joy of life, happiness--all are calculated inmoney." 8 "Bourgeois" values, and the behaviorpatterns they encourage, are seen as destructiveof human happiness.

A relatively subtle analysis, by Soviet standards,is that of the sociologist Zamoshkin, a frequentwriter on contemporary American life. The basicvalues, or "norm-ends" (normy-tseli) of Americanculture, as he sees them, are crass individualism,personal enrichment, and success at any price.From such values, criminal and "non-criminal"behavior may follow with equal logic.

Thus, within the limits of bourgeois culture,amoral behavior and even crime turn out to be,in a certain sense, fully moral behavior, andmorality naturally and logically turns into amoral-ity and crime.9

The problem this situation presents, according toZamoshkin, cannot be resolved within the sphereof values ("norm-ends") itself. He finds theoperative boundary between amorality and mo-rality in the "norm-limits" (normy-ramki)--the

7 Zamoshkin, Problema amoralizma i prestupnosli vsovremennoi amerikanskoi sotsiologii, (The Problem ofAmorality and Crime in Contemporary American Soci-ology), VopRosy FiLosorn (PpoBLnxs oi PnmOsoPuY),No. 7, 1963, at 35 (Zamoshkin].

8 MEL'movA at 97.9 Zamoshkin at 29.

laws, rules and regulations which characterize theactual patterns of social organization and controlin the United States. However, such limits, andthe attempts to enforce them, are felt by theperson who has fully internalized the "norm-ends"only as external, "foreign" limitations on hisbehavior. They in no way reflect his own ensembleof values, which contains no logical or morallimits on the sorts of behavior he may engage inin pursuit of wealth and status. Thus, Zamoshkinconcludes, the capitalist state tries, in the interestsof preserving its own order, to limit at least thechoices of means people may make. But this effortis rendered unsuccessful because the valuesthemselves, a much more powerful determinantof individual behavior than the laws, emphasizethe ends almost exclusively, and leave the individ-ual to choose his means on the basis of theirinstrumental effectiveness alone.

Zamoshkin thus has extended the Mertonianmeans-ends schema beyond its original scope toarrive at a picture of American society similarto the Hobbesian state of nature-the bellumromnium contra omnes. He connects this withcapitalism, and though he acknowledges that heis discussing the same issue as Merton, criticizesthe latter for "clouding" the question of whyconflict exists between norm-ends and norm-limits in America. Accusing Merton of seeing it as"... some kind of 'universal' and 'eternal' con-flict, supposedly typical for any developed societywith a complex organization,"'" he declaresMerton's analysis "false," since not complexity,but capitalism, is at the root of the conflict.

These "basic aspects" of bourgeois culture,while perhaps most clearly evident in the UnitedStates, are attributed to all the societies char-acterized as "capitalist."

Finally, the inevitable companions of bourgeoissociety-individualism, the moral isolation of thepersonality from society, the primacy of personalinterests over the interests of society-likewisecreate fertile soil for the development of antisocialpurposes.n

The arts and the mass media both reflect thecorrupt values of bourgeois life, and, by theirassault on the consciousness, especially that ofthe youth population, also play a large rolein communicating such values. The view of the

10 Id.n M.EL'NmovA at 97-98.

[VCol. 61

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR-THE SOVIET IMAGE

whole cultural scene is one of a "conspiratorial"enterprise.

Bourgeois culture, propagated in the interestsof the proprietors of the vast monopolies, is calledupon to satisfy the most vile, the most primitivetastes. Literature, painting, music often aredirected toward the stupefaction of people's con-sciousness, the deadening of the most humanefeelings, to inducing [one] to seek out in life onlyfleeting enjoyments, the poisoning of the world-view by the venom of nationalism, chauvinism,and militarism. The culture of bouregois societyaids the ruling classes in socializing the growinggeneration in a spirit of worship before brutephysical force, not halting at unbridled propagandaof violence and brutality."

It is interesting to note that one recurrent themein Soviet criticism of bourgeois culture is theemphasis on its duality-the existence of some"high-culture" achievements, greatly overwhelmedby the commercialized "mass" or "lower" cultureconsumed by those who are at the mercy of capi-talist entrepreneurs.13 Presumably, recent yearshave given the Soviet citizen, either directly orvicariously, suffidient exposure to the "heights"(e.g., Van Cliburn and other touring concertartists) to necessitate a more complex descriptionof bourgeois culture. Hence, a picture of crassexploitation and corruption via "mass culture"is constructed: American television is little morethan a "bacchanalia of homicides," thrustingimpressionable youth toward violent crime. Whileparents "agree" that such content is harmful totheir children, "bouregois" freedom of broad-casting renders them helpless to curb such in-fluences." Simple connections are made: violencein the media, "crime comics" and the like, begetsviolence on the part of both adults and juveniles,but especially the latter. Exploitation of sexualthemes in films and magazines increases im-morality and leads to sex crimes. The emphasisis always on the cheap, the shoddy, the sensational.

Bourgeois culture tries with all its forces to palmoff, on the most backward segment of youth,sensations instead of ideas and criminals in placeof heroes. Is it possible, then, to be surprised at

2G. A.EKsmARovica & F. MAxKov, Sxvoz'ZAvEsU Lznz (THROUGE A CURTAnr or LIEs) 313(1965).

11See L. MTRaoxnnw, AmxAxs= MRAzi(AixmcAq MIRAGES) 194-95 (1965); ME-'emxovA at102.

14 "itrokhin at 144.

the moral degradation of young Englishmen andAmericans?16

Sometimes, the portrait of exploitation of theconsumer by those who profit from the "output"of culture approaches a redudio ad absurdum.

Concerning the sort of tastes this whole massof entrepreneurs counts upon, it is possible tojudge by this fact: in Chicago there is a wholestreet, on which are situated tattooing parlors.The advertisement reads: "Tattooing makes youmanly." 16

Other views on the impact of violence in themass media are summarily rejected. One writer,commenting on an encounter with an Americangraduate student in psychology, finds absurd thelatter's idea that television violence may allowthe vicarious release of hostilities and aggressionby the young, providing a safety valve for theirtensions.I7

It would be a mistake, however, to overem-phasize the importance attributed to "culture"as a criminogenic factor in bourgeois society.Always, the derived, secondary nature of cultureis asserted-culture is only a reflection of thesystem of economic relations (and values) sub-sumed under the general rubric "capitalism."

Among bourgeois criminologists there are eventhose who state that, for successful crime preven-tion, "radical" transformations are needed inAmerican society. But upon examination it turnsout that by these transformations they meanchange in the culture of American society, andabove all the replacement of such dominant "socialvalues" as competition [and] chasing after profitwith other, more noble "social values."These criminologists do not understand, or moretruthfully, do not want to understand, that it isimpossible to change the notions of a society with-out a change of its economic structure, and solong as capitalism will exist, the dominant ideas,the "social values" will be ideas of gain, competi-tion, the chase after profits and so forth.1'

DoMESTic PERSPECTIVES

This survey of Soviet views on crime and de-linquency in capitalist society is not completewithout some indication of how Soviet writers

15 MAIVov at 106.11 Id. at 107.17 AmxE A xr. M aAZ, supra note 13, at 190.Is F. Rxsn=Nov, SovRmESENNAA Aamar=AmxAiA

KRnaxOLOGHA (CoNTEmoPRARY Am ICAw Cman-NqoLoGY) 95 (1965) [RxsamNmxov].

19701

WALTER D. CONNOR

see the same phenomena in their own and othersocialist societies. The significance they attributeto criminal and delinquent behavior in the twotypes of society is completely different. Crime isthe "constant companion" of capitalism, some-thing inevitable and rooted in the nature of thesystem. But, in a socialist society, though it ispresent, it represents something entirely dif-ferent-a "survival of the (capitalist) past.""Alien" to the socialist present, it is an "inheri-tance" from the presocialist period.

What is typical of the capitalist world, wherethe principle of "dog eat dog" is in force, cannotbe carried over to socialist society, which consistsof friendly classes and is based on the principlesof mutual aid, cooperation and mutual respectamong people....

Under socialism crime is not engendered bythe social system itself. It "invades" socialismfrom exploitative socio-economic formations andin this sense can be regarded as a survival of thepast in the minds and behavior of people.

The still-persisting views, customs and habitsinherent in the ideology and mentality of anexploitative society lie at the root of the majorityof antisocial phenomena. Hooligans, parasites,swindlers, thieves, bribetakers, speculators, andother violators of Soviet laws are vessels of amentality and morality alien to us.1'

The notion that antisocial behavior representsa survival of capitalistic influences derives fromthe Marxian thesis of the "lag" of human con-sciousness behind social change. While the es-tablishment of socialism in the USSR has allegedlyeradicated poverty, exploitation, unemploymentand the other "capitalist" causes of crime, man'sconsciousness has not changed so rapidly. Eventhough most Soviet citizens never knew capitalism,the bourgeois world's propaganda and someoperating difficulties in contemporary Soviet lifeprovide "fertile soil" for the persistence of sur-vivals. Working from these basic premises, Sovietcriminologists assert that, while it is the capitalistsystem itself which is responsible for antisocialbehavior in capitalist society, "socialism" in theUSSR is blameless. Soviet empirical studies ofcrime on the domestic scene concentrate on middle-range factors, the "shortcomings" and "insuf-

19 An iobshchestvennye iavleniia, ikh prichiny i sred-stva bor'by s nim, (Antisocial Phenomena, Their Causesand the Means of Combatting Them), Kommunist, No.12, 1966. (Translated in Current Digest of the SovietPress, September 28, 1966, at 9).

ficiencies" of the moment, which have "nothingto do" with socialism.20

BouRGEois CRIMINOLOGY

Labelling a division of social science "bourgeois"is not so much, in Soviet writing, a statement ofits national origins, as a rendering of a politicaland intellectual judgment.2 l Bourgeois criminologyis held to be "unscientific" on a number of counts.

Bourgeois jurists and criminologists, as onemust expect, do not uncover the true causes ofcrime in general or of juvenile delinquency inparticular. They say not a single word about theexploitation of the broad toiling masses, abouttheir poverty, about the corrupting influence ofdecadent bourgeois culture on youth, of decadentmoral and esthetic ideals. But these very causeslead inevitably to the growth of crime, particularlyto the moral degradation of a large segment ofyouth, who constantly fill the army of criminals.P

The amount of attention devoted to "biological"theories of criminality would lead an uninformedreader to believe that Lombrosianism was still amajor theoretical orientation in "bourgeois"criminology. Nowhere is the Soviet response sovehement as in the rejection of such theories(which are, of course, unlikely to be defendedstrongly by any Western response). One authorspends ten pages refuting Hooton, concluding that

Hooton's conception serves, on the one hand,as concealment of the genuine, basic causes ofcrime, which consist in the very fact of the exist-ency of an exploitative social structure, and onthe other, as a justification of the most savagemeasures of repression 3

Later approaches, such as Sheldon's work on"somato types" and the Glueck's researchesinvolving physique and delinquency, are criti-cized not only because of the fundamental errorevident in their failure to treat crime as a social,

20 For a discussion of the "deflection" of criminolog-ical criticism from the "basic" characteristics of Sovietsociety, see Walter D. Connor, Deviance, Control, andSocial Policy in the USSR, 1968 (unpublished Ph.D.dissertation in Princeton University Library).

21 Soviet critiques of "bourgeois" sociology providean instructive example. See, e.g., GRoRGE FIscmR,ScrENCE AN PoLiTIcs: THE NEw SocioLOGy IN THESociET UION ch. 1 (1964); Kassof, American SociologyThrough Soviet Eyes, A=nicAI' SocioaoGicAL lRvmw114-21 (1965); Hollander, The Dilemmas of SovietSociology, 14 PRonr ms or Coutmuism 37-38 (1965).

22 Ostroumov at 106.

21 RxisEsTNKov at 108.

[Vol. 61

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR-THE SOVIET IMAGE

rather than biological phenomenon, but alsobecause, contrary to Pavlov, they assign to thephysical constitution itself, rather than to thecentral nervous system, the role of "mediator"in the process whereby the outside environmentinfluences the formation of the personality.2

"Freudian" criminologists in the bourgeoisworld (Abrahamsen and others) are also foundseriously wanting when held up to the measuringrod of Pavlovian psychology. They devote insuffi-cient attention to the central nervous system, andradically overestimate the importance of "un-conscious instincts." Indeed "Freudism" is seen asa direct challenge to the notion that existencedetermines consciousness, and that it is man'scansciousness (and not his unconscious) whichguides his activity. Freudian criminologists areaccused of viewing social life as a "mechanicalsum" of individual behavior, and ignoring thedecisive "mover" of history-the class struggle.n

"Endocrine theories" of criminality are viewedas a variant of contemporary "Lombrosianism."Failing to take account of the "governing role"of the central nervous system in controlling glandu-lar secretions, they are found inadequate in muchthe same way as Hooton's and Sheldon's ap-proaches-only they are more "pseudoscientific,and therefore more dangerous." 21

Of course, in dismissing many of the formulationsjust discussed, Soviet writers are joining manyWestern criminologists who reject biological orphysiological explanations of anti-social behavior,While they admit that "bourgeois" scholars havecriticized these theories, they view many of thecriticisms as "inadequate," basically because, inthe Soviet view, the criticisms themselves arenot squarely aimed at the central point-thatcrime is a social, rather than biological or purelypsychological, phenomenon.P

This insistence that crime be treated, in effect,as a purely social phenomenon is readily under-standable in terms of the ideological underpinningsof Soviet social science, as well as the insufficienciesof the theories themselves. In the Soviet view,man is elastic; "human nature" can be trans-formed. This belief is essential to the whole ideaof the creation of the "new Soviet man" throughsocial change, and to the position that individualcriminals can be wholly "rehabilitated" by social

2"Id. at 116-117.25 Id at 144.26 Id. at 123.Id. at 107.

means, until changes in society have completelyextirpated the social causes which make men crimi-nals. Views which counterpose biological orrelatively inaccessible psychological "causes" ofantisocial behavior endanger this belief, and arethus rejected.

Less clear is any "scientific" basis for the con-sistent refusal to turn a sympathetic ear to Westerntheories which cite the consequences of urbaniza-tion and industrialization as influencing thegrowth of antisocial and criminal behavior. Thepoint at issue here is the allegedly impropergeneralization of Western writers that all urbaniza-tion and industrialization, "captialist" and"socialist," has the potential for increasing ratesof antisocial behavior.

Urbanization as a "factor" in criminal behaviorcame, writes one Soviet critic, into Americancriminology from American sociology, where theconcept developed on the basis of the thought ofSorokin and the "reactionary" Durkheim."American criminologists, in his view, conceive ofurbanization as "a purely technical process of thegrowth of cities, lacking any class content, [whichleads] to the underlining of cultural, even emo-tional aspects to the detriment of economic,social problems, linked with the sharpening ofcapitalist contradictions in large cities." 2 9 ForSoviet writers, urbanization is not a "purely tech-nical" process, but one whose results and signifi-cance differ in accordance with whether it is"capitalist" or "socialist." It is the "anarchic"and unregulated growth of cities which makescapitalist urbanization a problem, which createsslums, poor working conditions, and gives a"push" to antisocial tendencies. "Socialist"urbanization, as a planned and regulated process,avoids these consequences.

Social disorganization, viewed broadly as aconsequence of rapid socio-economic transforma-tion, would seem as likely to characterize theUSSR (due to the extraordinary rapidity of itsurbanization and industrialization) as the ad-vanced nations of the West. Soviet writers recog-nize no such likelihood.

Bourgeois sociologists and criminologists donot simply admit the fact of the ravaging of thesocial structure of society in the bourgeois state(where it is, in itself, true) but also extend thethesis of "social disorganization" to all mankind,

28Id. at 48.2 Id.

1970]

WALTER D. CONNOR

including even socialist society (where it is nottrue)."

Industrialization is treated in much the sameway. Under socialism, all conditions are present tomake it an orderly, beneficial and progressiveprocess. Quite the reverse is the case under capi-talism.

Industrialization brings about changes in thelives of people, but in socialist society it is a positivesocial factor. The possibility of planned regulationof the phenomena accompanying industrializa-tion, such as urbanization, and migration ofpopulation, makes it possible to neutralize theeffect on people's life of possibly negative factors,linked with urbanization and migration (changesin the habitual life surroundings, displacement oflarge masses of the population, over-population,etc.).

A different situation arises in capitalist society.In it, in connection with the impossibility ofplanning production, and, correspondingly, regu-lating the process of urban growth, mobility ofpopulation, etc., unfavorable changes in the socialconditions of the life of the population are created.It is precisely this, and not at all economic progressitself, that can create conditions, facilitating thegrowth of crime among youth.n

The central complaint, then, is that bourgeoiscriminologists treat industrialization as a processwith its own implications, its own ramifications-which will be similar whether the process iscarried out under the aegis of capitalism or social-ism. Such a notion is related to the "convergence"hypothesis-that of the growing similarity ofSoviet and Western industrial societies. Thishypothesis, predictably, is received with hostilityamong Soviet ideologists, who see in it a diminu-tion of the relevance of "economic structure"-the differing capitalist and socialist modes ofproduction.

Insistence on the "positive" significance ofsocialist industrialization leads Soviet writers, indealing with such social phenomena as juveniledelinquency in their own country, to place theblame not on processes of social change, but on thefailure of certain youths to "acclimate" themselvesto the positive changes which have been wrought.

10 Mel'nikova, Burzhuaznaia kriminologiia o vlianiiekonomicheskogo progressa na prestupnost molodezhi,(Bourgeois Criminology on the Influence of EconomicProgress on Juvenile Delinquency), SovET KoE Gosu-DAP'sTVO I PRAvo (SovrET STATE AND LAW), No. 5,1967, at 142.

'l MEL' xoVA at 145.

Significant is the fact that crimes are generallycommitted by those juveniles who are just not"concerned" with the successes of economic devel-opment, who possess low spiritual and culturalinterests, are indifferent to technology, and whoare not interested by the new achievements ofscience. They are people "lagging behind" theirown generation and the contemporary level ofsociety's development."

The Soviet stand represented here goes beyondsome other "socialist" positions on evaluating andinterpreting the ramifications of industrializationand urbanization. Most notably, Polish sociologistsin recent years have confronted, in a relativelystraightforward manner, the implications oftheir country's industrialization experience. Indiscussing increases in delinquency in the indus-trial city of Konin, one Polish scholar refers tosuch factors as "rapid industrialization and urbani-zation, economic reorganization in the country-side, migration (displacement) of the populationcaused by the war and postwar period, and by theindustrial development of the country," whichshattered social relations and led to the growth ofantisocial behavior.P

Such a position, which comes close to many"Western" views, meets a cool reception fromSoviet writers, who criticize another Polish col-league who sees changes in the "economic environ-ment" (industrial noise, air and water pollution) ashaving a negative effect on youthful "nervoussystems" and precipitating antisocial behavior."Such an explanation," they write, ".... ignores,in its essence, the positive ecological significance ofindustrialization (the improvement of housing andsanitary conditions) and does not take into ac-count the possibility, given the proper interven-tion of state and society, of successfully eliminatingundesirable changes in the physical conditions oflife." 34

A final element of the rejection of industrializa-tion as a factor in the causation of antisocialbehavior in socialist society is the attribution of aconspiratorial intent to bourgeois criminologists.

The very statement and study of the questionof dependence between industrialization andnKudriavtsev & Mel'nikova, .Prestupnost' nesover-

shennoletnikh i ekonomicheskoe sostoianie souremennoiEvropy, (Juvenile Delinquency and the Economic Condi-tion of Contemporary Europe), SOVETSKOE GosrmDa.-sTvo i PRAvo (SovIET STATE AND LAW), No. 3, 1965,at 119.

33Id.41 Id. at 121.

(Vol. 61

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR-THE SOVIET IMAGE

juvenile delinquency in developing countries playsa special role in bourgeois criminology. In manyworks an obvious warning is sounded against rapideconomic development in such countries, [against]rapid advance of an extremely backward economy,the growth of large economic complexes, fortifiedby reference to those "expenses" with regard tojuvenile delinquency, which allegedly inevitablyaccompany this process. Such an appraisal of theeffects of economic progress in developing countriesis already directly aimed against the economicdevelopment of those countries, and consequently,also against their liberation from their formermother countries. 5

What of the critiques of contemporary capitalistsociety and culture, which in effect "blame"deviance on "inherent qualities" of the generalculture, which produce, as Taft expresses it,"the criminals we deserve?" 3 In the very gener-ality of the "flaws" they discuss, one mightassume they would find some favor with Sovietwriters. However, the persistent dichotomy be-tween base and superstructure enters again here.Taft, Kvaraceus and others who take such a vieware criticized because despite the "seemingradicalness" of their approaches, they have trans-ferred blame from the exploitative system ofcapitalist economic relations to the culture, whichis its product.P Cultural, rather than fundamentaleconomic change, is their implied program. It isheld to be "characteristic" of American "bour-geois" criminology to look only at "surface"factors and not analyze the deeper (i.e., economic)causes of crime."

With regard to class, Soviet writers have nodifficulty in accepting bourgeois statistics whichshow the lower classes to be most deviance-prone;noting the heavy concentration of police attentionon these segments of society, they also see con-firmation of their image of exploitative capitalismin those "unstable" members of the working classwho ".... express their dissatisfaction with eco-nomic and political conditions in homicides,violence and other forms of showing disrespect forsocial order." 39 However, claims that there arespecifically deviance-prone elements in "lower-class culture," or that a "deliquent subculture,"rather than economic and political oppression, isat the root of much antisocial behavior, are re-

35 Supra note 30, at 143-144.88 D. TArT, CRaNo.ooy 342 (3rd ed. 1956).37 R SEnIxov at 73.Is Id. at 75-76.32 Id. at 84.

jected. Cohen's views, as expressed in DelinquentBoys, are condemned as a "slander" on the workingclass, which is seen, in general, as the most"morally healthy" segment of the Americanpopulation.m4

Soviet writers duly recognize that bourgeoiscriminology has taken up the issues of "white-collar" crime, and the growth of delinquencyamong middle-class youth. While they consider itall to the good that Western criminologists havecome to notice the considerable legal violationsperpetuated in the course of business by those whoare "pillars of society," they nevertheless judgethe attention given the latter to be inadequate-because it only takes account of the actions theycommit which are considered to be offenses againstbourgeois law.

Sutherland considers as criminal only that activityof the representatives of the "upper" classes, whichbreaks the laws of bourgeois society. Meanwhile,the capitalist system itself is criminal, built onthe "law" of the exploitation of man by man.41

Since bourgeois criminologists have their socialorigins in the "ruling" classes, broadly conceived,and since they are held to serve the interests ofthose classes, their concern with delinquencyamong the relatively affluent sectors of the youthpopulation also comes under suspicion. Far frombeing concerned with "unmasking" the moralcorruption which pervades the upper classes,they see in middle-class delinquency a threat to theinterests they serve.

Their own crime, the crime of children from theirown class, troubles the representatives of thebourgeois, be they state officials or scholars. Whenthe matter is one of crimes of children from theslums, from hovels, there is no subject of trueclass concern. Moreover, there they use variedmeans for concealing the causes of crime. Butwhen "their own criminals" are concerned, thereis no concealment. It is obvious that the activityof the bourgeois state in crime prevention, in-cluding [prevention of] youths' crimes, is explainedmost of all by the desire to protect its own classfrom it, its own class interests (property, thefamily, etc.).

Does the existence of middle-class delinquencypose any problems for the "class-based" Sovietview of criminogenic qualities in capitalist society?

40 Id. at 82-83.41 'd. at 88.4 2

ML'mNmOvA at 136-137.

19701

WALTER D. CONNOR

Apparently not, since Marxism-Leninism teachesthat in capitalist society every social problemcarries a dearly expressed class character. Thefact of ever-wider penetration of juvenile delin-quency into families with middle and high incomestestifies not to the dissolution of class differences,but to the demoralization of youth from a numberof the most well-to-do strata of the population.

On balance, the Soviet reaction to the varioustheoretical perspectives of "bourgeois" criminologyis overwhelmingly negative. While criminology inthe West is undeniably in need of further theoreti-cal and methodological development, it is not itsclear scientific insufficiencies to which Sovietcritics direct the volume of their attention, butrather, the intentions of criminologists themselves,and the general assumptions underlying theirresearches. The critics themselves, however, workfrom a number of assumptions which they leaveunexamined.

Bourgeois criminologists are seen as working atthe orders of, and in the interests of, "rulingclasses" whose main concern lies in the preserva-tion of their own power and material advantages.Such "employees" are incapable of drawing theconclusion which seems so evident to Sovietwriters-that capitalism itself lies at the root ofantisocial behavior in bourgeois society. Having a"stake" in things as they are, criminologiststhemselves "fear even to think" of an alternativesystem to replace capitalism. Thus, it is in theirinterests and that of their "bosses" to mask thetrue causes of crime and delinquency, and insteadto draw attention to "surface" factors, which arenot at the root of the problem but are in factcaused, as is crime, by the economic system istelf.

Aside from imputations of a conscious lack ofobjectivity, the work of Western criminologists is,in the Soviet view, flawed because "correct"analysis of such social phenomena is possibleonly from the standpoint of Marxism-Leninism.Lacking this perspective, bourgeois criminologypresents a confusing multiplicity of theories, someof which see crime as a partially biologically orpsychologically determined phenomenon, whereasin its essence it is social. (With this, most con-temporary American criminologists would beunlikely to take issue. However, the Soviet rejec-tion of much social-psychological thought leavesSoviet criminology without anything like anadequate model of the criminal actor.) But even

41 MAKHov at 65.

sociological criminologists are scored for the"superficiality" of their analyses-their tendencyto view phenomena through "the prism of culture,"rather than from the standpoint of econonicstructure," their one-sided treatment of antisocialbehavior which ignores the central "class" ele-ment and the "contradictions" in capitalist so-ciety,4 and their failure, even when giving "cor-rect" analyses of particular social causes, todemonstrate how they are interconnected with oneanother and with the capitalist "base" itself."

FUNcTioNS "D SiGNIcCANcE

Such is the picture of crime and delinquency incapitalist society, and of "bourgeois" criminolo-gists' attempts to explain them, as it is presented tothe Soviet reader. Obviously, there is no questionof leaving him to form his own judgments-thepicture is a monotonous one, a long succession ofnegative judgments provided for his consumption.One may, then, ask: Why are the negative judg-ments, both on the social conditions which "in-evitably" produce crime, and on "bourgeois"criminology itself, so universal?

The answer depends upon the functions andsignificance the Soviet writing discussed here has;both in fact, and in the intentions of its writersand sponsors. This article will conclude with somesuggestions about the purposes and impact ofsuch critiques.

The purpose of Soviet mass-circulation, "popu-lar" writing on crime and delinquency undercapitalism seems quite clear-the propagation anddissemination of "lessons" the regime wants themasses to learn. The picture of poverty, exploita-tion, hunger and unemployment is one of theways through which those responsible for themaintenance of ideological watchfulness in theUSSR seek to create mass aversion toward thecapitalist West and the seductions of "bourgeois"propaganda. In determining whether such crudeformulations are likely to be effective, it is well toremember that though Soviet citizens are notquite so isolated or naive concerning the outsideworld as they once were, their opportunities forindependent verification of these negative projec-tions of life in the United States and other "bour-geois" countries are still severely limited. Theirvision of this world is largely dependent on those

44 REsxsuxov at 77.45 ML'NiovA at 8-9.46 MAov at 87-88.

[Vol. 61

DEVIANT BEHAVIOR-THE SOVIET IMAGE

facts about the West which pass through theSoviet "filtering" process. The filtering is suchthat the American "travelogues" published bymany Soviet writers and journalists after trips inthe United States (which appear to have a largereadership) concentrate great volumes of atten-tion on "crime in the streets" and other aspects ofthe dark side of American lifeP

The assertion of the "natural and inevitable"-character, under capitalism, of antisocial behavior,-which remains in socialist society only as a "sur-vival," may be seen as an effort to persuade readersof the fundamental superiority of socialism as atype of social order. Persistent Soviet condemna-tions of the "convergence" hypothesis8 indicatethat ideologists fear the growth of an emphasis oncommon characteristics of industrial societies,seeing it as a means to "mask" the differencesbetween socialism and capitalism. Any populari-zation of the "convergence" thesis is regarded as achallenge to the vigilant, uncompromising attitudeof disdain with which the Soviet citizen shouldview the "bourgeois" world. It is fought, as wehave seen here, by "exposing" life in the West as aconsistent pattern of cruelty, injustice andexploitation.

The view of the American working classespresents some problems of interpretation. Theyare pictured as poor, oppressed, suffering frommonumental injustice, committing crimes inlarge numbers through their desperation. Yetdespite this grim portrait, those sociologists whodiscover a lower-class "culture" and try to relateit to such offenses are denounced as slanderers, andthe toilers themselves are held up as the most "mor-ally healthy" group in bourgeois society. Theseportrayals may be little more than reflex actions

47 A notable case in point is that of the Soviet novel-ist Viktor Nekrasov's travelogue, Both Sides of theOcean (1964), which was sharply attacked after itsSoviet publication (see Izvestiia, Jan. 20, 1963) forsuch shortcomings as "bourgeois objectivism" andsuperficiality. Nekrasov, who had not produced histravelogue according to the typical Soviet model, gavelittle attention to such evidences of "disorganization"and "corruption" under capitalism as crime and de-linquency. The accusations may serve to demonstratewhat the regime expects of authors in this area. Alek-sandrovich and Makhov's SkvoY' zavesu lzhi, supra note12, is much closer to the standard "formula."

48 See e.g., I. ZamosnxmN, Teoriia 'edinogo industrial'-nogo obshchestva' na sluzhbe antikommunizyna (TheTheory of a Single Industrial Society in the Service ofAnti onunisvt), in AxAnIA NAUK SSSR, INSTITuTFInosoriI, MAxSISTSKAIA I BunzHUAZNAIA soTsIO-LOGInA SEGODNIA (MAWXsT AND BOuRGEOIS SOcIrOOGYTODAY) (Moscow 1964).

on the part of writers long engaged in producingsuch material. Or, they may be an attempt topresent a "positive" picture of long-term prospectsto the Soviet mass readership-a picture ofAmerican workers as potentially responsive tosocialism, envying (yet friendly to) their Soviet"brothers", and so forth. Such beliefs would, ifgenerated, be in line with the optimism aboutlong-term issues of the balance of world powerwhich the regime seeks to create among the masses.

Two points, however, should be emphasizedhere. First, more scholarly writings on Americanlife from Soviet sources show greater realism,viewing the proletariat as effectively "seduced"by the bourgeoisie, and not at all so "progressive"in political consciousness as they might be. Thepicture is not, thus, distorted in every area ofSoviet writing. Secondly, impressionistic evidenceleads one to believe that Soviet urban workers, atleast, are aware of the relative affluence of theirAmerican blue-collar counterparts, envy theirliving standards if not all aspects of the societythey inhabit, and hardly look to them as a revolu-tionary proletariat of the future.

All in all, the impact of such material on theSoviet reading public is difficult to gauge. Highrates of crime and delinquency are a reality in theWest, especially in the United States. They areundoubtedly accepted as such by the Sovietcitizen. Whether, on the other hand, he draws fromthese realities general conclusions relating tosocial disorganization and massive discontent, asthe regime appears to desire, is not so clear. Thecapitalism-socialism dichotomy, as it relates to the"inevitable" or "accidental" status of crime, isprobably a bit too theoretical to play any largerole in most readers' conclusions. Writers' state-ments about the effects of televised violence andimmorality on youth may be more readily ac-cepted. Operating under what is regarded as the"hypocritical" principle of "freedom ofexpression," American media may seem to theSoviet reader to exemplify the problem of asociety which, while it grants more "freedoms"than his own, grants them to the wrong people andideas. At the very laest, popular acceptance ofthis idea is likely to be far more widespread thanbeliefs that poverty and oppression are the generallot of American workers.

Writings on Western criminology such as thosereviewed here may have a much less obvious

19701