g. rusché biographia

7/27/2019 G. Rusché Biographia

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/g-rusche-biographia 1/14

GEORG RUSCHE: A BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAYAuthor(s): Dario MelossiSource: Crime and Social Justice, No. 14, focus on racism (Winter 1980), pp. 51-63

Published by: Social Justice/Global OptionsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29766101 .

Accessed: 13/08/2013 11:22

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Social Justice/Global Options is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Crime

and Social Justice.

http://www jstor org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=socjusgloopt

http://www.jstor.org/stable/29766101?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


http://www.jstor.org/stable/29766101?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=socjusgloopt



GEORG RUSCHE: A BIOGRAPHICAL ESSAY

Dario Melossi*

INTRODUCTION

The following article is the result of research that I

conducted between 1977 and 1980 in England, Germanyand the United States, the object of which is a reconstruc?tion ofGeorg Rusche's life. It is the veryfirsteffortto dealwith the subject, and thematerials presented here, at leastas far as the documentation is concerned, have never been

previously published. Primarily, it is a tributeto thememoryof a man whose ideas have come to assume an increasinglycentral role, in recent years, following the endeavor of"critical criminology" to align itselfwith a more sophis?ticated macro-sociological and historical-comparative theo?

reticalperspective. The discovery ofRusche's main work, as

reelaborated by Otto Kirchheimer, Punishment and Social

Structure, has come to represent a decisive step in this

direction. Secondly, amore complete knowledge ofRusche'slife and of the process of intellectual production regardinghis main work, which is attempted here, is likely to shednew lighton its substantive content.

At the same time,however, this essay isnot meant to

be either a discussion of Rusche's work, or an overallevaluation ofRusche's theoretical contribution to the studyof criminal and penalmatters. This was what I attempted in

my introductory essay toPunishment and Social Structure,

published inCrime and Social Justice twoyears ago (Melossi,

1978). The present biographical essay adds somematerialsand can be seen asmarginally innovative vis-?-vismy 1978

* Dario Melossi teaches sociology at the University of Bologna,

Italy. The co-author with Massimo Pavarini of Prison and Factory,and author of several articles on the "penal question," he is currently

working towards a Ph.D. in sociology at the University of California,

Santa Barbara.

I would like to thank all the people and the institutions that,

with their help, allowed me to gather the materials on which this

reconstruction of Georg Rusche's life is based. I am particularlyindebted to: Professor Thorsten Sellin, who granted me access to his

personal Archive. I will always be thankful to him for his warm and

friendly hospitality; Martin Jay, for his precious advice regarding the

historiography of the Frankfurt School; my dear friends Victoria

Greenwood, Ian Taylor and Jock Young, who helped me substan?

tially in the British part of my research; Helmut Dubiel, who kindly

granted me access to the "Pollock-Archiv" in Frankfurt; finally, I

would like to thank Margaret M. Kidney and Richard Speiglman for

the invaluable help they gave me in the editing of a previous draft of

this paper.

article, but in all it is no more than a completion of the

latter, nd this should be kept inmind by the reader.

Many areas still need to be explored regardingGeorgRusche's life.These range from the "strained" relationshipshe had with some of his collaborators, especially with the

"Frankfurt School" circle inwhose documents and in the

verymemory of whose members any reference toRusche's

existence seems to have completely disappeared after the

early contacts inpre-Nazi Germany, to the tragic fatewhichseems to have accompanied his existence with his flightfromGermany after the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, to

his self-inflicted death in London in 1950. The almost

complete oblivion of Rusche's work and his progressivedisillusionment will probably never be fully understood. It

seems only fair now that in addition to knowledge of his

works we be granted a verybasic knowledge of the author's

life,within the limits and the ambiguities, of course,which

are determined by archival documentation and the testi?

monies of the few who happened to know him and who

were willing to pay him the tributeof theirmemories.

FORMATIVEYEARS

Georg Rusche was born in Hannover on November

17, 1900, from,as he himself describes it, "mixed marriagein Imperial Germany" (Rusche, 1941). His fatherwas Dr.

Georg Rusche, M.D., from Hagen, Westfalia. His Jewish

ancestry was from his mother, who seems to have been

related to the highest German political echelons. In fact,both from Rusche's file at the Society for Protection

of Science and Learning inLondon (Archive of the Society,hereinafter cited as SPSL I) and frommy conversation with

Hannah H. Striesow,! a good acquaintance of Rusche in

London in the 1940's, Rusche appears to be a nephew, or

otherwise related, to the eminentWeimar statesmanGustav

Stresemann and, according to Striesow, also somehowconnected with the powerful industrial-political dynasty of

the Rathenau family. Consequently Rusche was "non

Aryan" (SPSL I), but, at the same time, in no way was

he himself committed to his half-Jewish roots, a lack of

feelingwhich was not rare in theupper class Jewish families

of the time.2 Later, this status came to dominate his life

after theNazi seizure of power inGermany.He received an education typical ofwell-to-do German

Winter1980/51

This content downloaded from 201.235.151.214 on Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:22:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions






families.After having spent his youth inhis parents' house,where he received his basic education, he attended the

Humanistische Gymnasium inH?gen and then spent a short

period of military instruction in the Cadet Corps.3 After

the First World War, inwhich Rusche was probably too

young to have fought,he devoted most of the 1920's to his

university studies inpostwar Germany.He studied philosophy, law and social sciences in some

of the best German universities?M?nster, Frankfurt,

G?ttingen and K?ln?and abroad, in Paris and London.He received both his doctoral degrees from theUniversityof K?ln, but G?ttingen and lateron Frankfurt also seem to

have been central inRusche's intellectual formation.Of the

three scholars indicated by Rusche as his mentors (Haup?ts?chlichsten Lehrer), two, the famed philosopher and

sociologist Max Scheler and the economist Erwin v.Beck

erath, were teaching inK?ln and the third, philosopherLeonard Nelson, was teaching in G?ttingen. In K?ln, a

Research Institute for Social Sciences had justbeen founded,under the direction of Leopold v.Wiese, the doyen of

German sociologists, and Christian Eckert, Max Scheler

and Hugo Lindemann. Itwas impossible to find, however,

any evidence linkingRusche to thenewly founded Institute,except for his reference toMax Scheler, a reference that,

given the fame of the man, might have merely been a

matter of reputation.Instead, Rusche's connection with Nelson seems to

have been farmore important.Many years later, in the

1940's, afterhaving abandoned all kinds of scientificwork,Rusche could stillfindwords of high esteem and admiration

forNelson (and only forhim).4 Itwas under the direction

of Leonard Nelson that Rusche wrote his philosophydissertation in 1924, which earned him a doctoral degree in

this discipline; and probably his second one as well, on

economics and social sciences, which granted him a second

doctoral degree in 1929, was written underNelson's super?

vision. Itwas probably due only to Nelson's death in 1927that the formalReferent for this second dissertation had to

be the economist Erwin v.Beckerath (mainly an expert on

transportation and communication).Leonard Nelson (1882-1927) was the founder of one

of themany Neo-Kantian schools of the time,more preciselythat of theG?ttingen school, from theUniversitywhere he

taught throughout his life. This school was also termed

Neo-Friesian because Nelson's philosophy was rooted in the

rediscovery of the early 19th centuryKantian philosopherJakob Friederich Fries (1773-1843). Fries was famous as a

spokesperson for the radical Burschenschaften of the

German youth of the time and for the attack brought

againsthim

by Hegelin the "Preface" to his Philosophy of

Right, where Hegel harshly criticized Fries as the represen?

tative of those who wanted to substitute the "sentiment"

of "the community" for reason in dealing with politicalmatters and the state (Marcuse, 1955:178; Specht and

Eichler, 1953).Starting from Kant and from Fries' epistemological

criticism of Kantian philosophy, Nelson developed a legaland political theory of his own, one which brought Struve

to locate him among the "liberals in search of elite" (Struve,

1973:186-215), in the dignified company of F. Naumann,M. Weber andW. Rathenau. The idealof the strict dherence

to the rule of law, of the Rechtstaat, was linked to a

principle of justice superior to the formal rationality of

the law, justice which might be envisaged only by an

enlightened elite. In economics, his views were close to

those of his friend, the economist Franz Oppenheimer, an

advocate of "liberal socialism"?which actually meant a

substantial confidence in the idea of the free market,

corrected by the necessity of state intervention directedtowards an antimonopolistic function (Link, 1964:3-38;

Schumpeter, 1963:854-55). Traditionally liberal in his

theory,Nelson's radicalism on specific topics brought him

in contact with the social democratic left in the postwar

period. He was the founder of two middle class political

youth organizations in the 1920's that, at various times,

merged and collided with the various social democratic

organizations. Nelson was granted a deep devotion by his

limitednumber of followers. Rusche does not seem tohave

been one of these, since Rusche's name isnot listed amongNelson's followers in Link's book (1964), dedicated to the

studyofNelson's organizations.Both of Rusche's dissertations seem to bear themark

of Nelson's influence. The firstone, in philosophy of law

and entitled Bemerkungen zum Rechtsbegriff und zu den

Grunds?tzen der philosophischen Rechtslehre (Observationson the Concept of Law and on the Principles of the Phil?

osophical Legal Doctrine), inquires into the philosophicalfoundations of legal doctrine stemming from Fries' and

Nelson's philosophy of law (Rusche, 1924). The second

dissertation, in economics and social sciences, entitled

Bemerkungen zur logischen Grundlage der theoretischen

?konomik: Eine Untersuchung ?ber den Begriff der Wirt?

schaft und die Grunds?tze der Wirtschaftswissenschaft

(Observations on the Logical Foundations of Economic

Theory: A Study of the Concept of Economy and the

Principles of Economics), is also related toNelson's socialand political philosophy (Rusche, 1929).

This solid theoretical and philosophical trainingformed

the background to his experiences in "prison and social

work" when Rusche became Deputy Governor of the

Bautzen prison near Leipzig, Saxony (Rusche, 1941; SPSL

I).5 After his experience with prisonmanagement, Rusche

accepted the post of Assistant at the political economyseminar of Frankfurt University, under the direction of

Karl Pribram, where he presumably remained until his

emigration from Germany in 1933. There are reasons to

think that the connection with Pribram also proved tohave

a remarkable influence on Rusche's formation. Profoundlylearned in philosophy, social sciences and especially eco?

nomics, Pribram taught at the University of Vienna as aPrivatdozent during the period from 1911 to 1921, was

then appointed chief of the Statistical Section, Research

Division, of the International Labour Office in Geneva,

Switzerland, and finally held a position as professor of

economics and political science at Frankfurt Universityfrom 1928 to 1933, afterwhich he emigrated to theUnited

States. In 1912, Pribram wrote a treatise on social phil?

osophy, Die Entstehung der Individualistischen Sozial

52 /Crimeand Social Justice







Philosophie (The Origin of Individualistic Social Philosophy),inwhich he made considerable use of material from the

history of criminal and penal law, and examined thedevel?

opment of the "individualistic principle" from theMiddle

Ages to 18th century classical liberal economics. InPunish?ment and Social Structure, thiswork by Pribram is cited in

the discussion of demographic policies in mercantilism

(Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939:28). Then, in the 1920's

and for a

longtime afterwards,Pribram devoted himself to

the study of labor problems, especially those dealing withthe question of unemployment, for which he became

internationally recognized (Pribram, 1931, 1935, 1949).It is under this constellation of influences?Nelson's

progressive liberalism and legal theory, Rusche's own

personal experiences inprison and socialwork, and Pribram'sattention to the questions of labormarket and unemploy?ment?that Rusche's main thesison "punishment and labor

market" took shape. In 1930, he published an article on the

prison revolts occurring at that time in theUnited States,

linkingthem to the social situation caused by theDepression.This appeared in theFrankfurter Zeitung, the famed liberal

Frankfurt daily newspaper where thebest names ofWeimar

Germany intelligentsia appeared.In

1931,as Max Hork?

heimer retells in his Preface to Punishment and Social

Structure (Rusche and Kirchheimer, 1939:ix), "Dr. GeorgRusche suggested that he be commissioned to write a

manuscript dealing with . . . the interrelationship between

punishment and the labor market." We do not know

whether the fact that Rusche "was commissioned" means

that he had any kind of formal relationship with the

Frankfurt Institute of Social Research. However, inRusche's

file at the Society forProtection of Science and Learning

(SPSL I), we find a note about the fact that he "had

research fellowship from Inst. of Social Research at Univ.

of Frankfurt" and he introduced himself to the Societywith letters from Pollock and Horkheimer. In 1933, an

article by Rusche appeared in the second issue of thejournal of the Frankfurt Institute,Zeitschrift f?r Sozial?

forschung. All the main concepts which were later to

constitute the structure of the final draft of his research,that Rusche was finishing around the same time, were

already present in this article. On the relationship betweenRusche's 1933 article and Punishment and Social Structure

(hereinafterP&SS), seeMelossi, 1978.

Rusche's "economic-historic" analysis (1933) of the

history of punishment relies on the "classical" conceptionof theworkings of the labormarket, coupled with thepenal

principle of deterrence (Rusche, 1933, trans. 1978:3). On

the other hand, he does not miss the changes occurring in

moderncapitalism, especially

the roleplayed by

state

welfare policies. When he contrasts theGerman situation to

theAmerican one in his 1930 and 1933 articles, he notes

the comparative relevance of social welfare, a focus that

later iswanting inKirchheimer's reelaboration of Rusche's

original draft. As Rusche puts it, a primary reason for the

extreme decay (and therefore for the riots) which was

hampering the American penal system was the overall

absence of welfare provisions, which by contrast had keptthe living standards of theGerman working class at a more

reasonable level, even in the midst of the Depression.Hence, according toRusche, the livingstandards inGerman

prisons did not need to drop to that intolerableminimum

which they reached in the United States, in both cases

according to the "heuristic maxim" (1933) of less eligibility,which Rusche emphasized after the laissez-fairewriters of

the 18th and 19th centuries. I will not indulge here in a

discussion of the relationship of Rusche's theory to the

concept of labor discipline, since this was one of the

critical issues dealt with inmy 1978 article (see also Fou

cault, 1977; andMelossi and Pavarini, 1980).Around 1933, when he was completing themanuscript

of "Arbeitsmarkt und Strafvollzug," the Nazi takeover

compelled Rusche to emigrate, aswas common formost of

the people and institutions, such as the Frankfurt Institute,who were somehow committed to progressive politics in

Germany (Jay, 1973). Rusche went to Paris and then,

presumably rightafter, to London. We do not know whether

Rusche had anything to do with the "branches" of the

Frankfurt Institute in these two cities (Jay, 1973:37,

38, 113). In London, Rusche introduced himself as did so

many other German refugee scholars, to the Society for

Protection of Science and Learning, founded in 1933 forthe purpose of assisting scholars from other countrieswho,on religious, political or racial grounds, were unable to

work in their own country. Rusche, who was 33 at the

time, explained the "grounds for his dismissal" from

Germany in terms of his being "non-Aryan." He presentedhimself as a singleman who was "willing to go anywhere,"whose fields of studywere "sociology, criminology, eco?

nomics," and whose second languages were English and

French, in addition to "some" Spanish, Italian and Dutch

(SPSL I). He also presented numerous references from

illustrious scholars: from v.Beckerath and Pribram, but also

fromMax Horkheimer, director of the Frankfurt Institute,and F. Pollock. Furthermore,he obtained English references,

especially from the milieu of the progressive LondonSchool of Economics, which, for a short time, seemed to

have represented a possible new location for theFrankfurt

Institute: Altschul, Robbins and Tawney. Lionel Robbins,the conservative Political Economy Professor and powerful

opponent ofWilliam Beveridge's leadership at theLSE and

the person chiefly responsible for the LSE's failure to

purchase the Frankfurt Institute Library, was not verywarm towards Rusche (SPSL I). Itmay be worth notingthat the proposed purchase of the Institute's Librarybecame a controversial issue in the political and personal

struggles which were going on at the time in the LSE

between the conservative Robbins and Harold Laski,

professorof

politicalscience and an eminent

personalityin

the leftwing of the Labour Party (and between Robbins

and Laski against Lord Beveridge). The purchase of the

Library was seen as a dangerous "Marxist infiltration" of

British academy and was finally rejected (Harris, 1977:

297-99). Considering that the LSE was themost progressiveof the British academic institutions, it is easy to understand

the difficulties that the German left-wing emigres had to

face inGreat Britain, as we shall see below ingreaterdetail.

However, Robbins directed Rusche to R. Tawney, one of

Winter980/53







the eminent British historians of the time and professor ofeconomic history at the LSE. Tawney's reference forRusche to the Society was highly positive, and he warmlyrecommended help and encouragement (SPSL I).

Notwithstanding this,Rusche could not find a stable

occupation and he instead worked at the BritishMuseum,

dedicating himself to rewritinghis manuscript in English"with the help of an English friend."6 According to Ur?

bach and Striesow, the "English friend" might have been

Rudy Davidson, who was very close to Rusche in those

years.7 As Martin Jay observed, "the limitedopportunitiesin England for the refugee scholars who began to streamout of Germany in 1933 .have been frequently noted"

(1973:38; Neumann et al., 1953). Rusche spent threeyearsin London, then in 1936 went to Palestine with RudyDavidson. In Palestine, he taught at the British School of

Jerusalem until the spring of 1939, when he returned to

Great Britain.

PUNISHMENT ND SOCIALSTRUCTURE

It is particularly interesting to note what happened

duringthis

periodto Rusche's

manuscriptand to his

relationswith theFrankfurt Institute.As previously pointedout, after the Institute's considerations of various possiblechoices of relocation, such as Paris, London and Geneva,the only remaining possibility was the United States, whichwas already receiving a steady flow of immigrants from

Germany. JulianGumperz, born inAmerica and thus fluent

in English and a student of Pollock's in Frankfurt since

1929, was sent to America in 1933 in order to explore the

situation (Jay, 1973:38ff.). Over the years, the Institute

had several contacts with prominent figures in the North

American sociological world: Charles Beard, Robert Maclver,

Wesley Mitchell, Reinhold Niebuhr and Robert Lynd, all of

whom were at Columbia University (Jay, 1973:39). Gum?

perz reported back to Horkheimer that the situationseemed promising. InMarch 1934 Gumperz went back to

the United States and followed throughhis contacts with

the leadingAmerican sociologists. On March 19th,he wrote

toThorsten Sellin, who was already a prominent personalityamong American criminologists and sociologists, explainingthe Institute's intentionof coming to the United States and

itsprecarious situation inGeneva. Gumperz alsomet Sellin

and apparentlymentioned Rusche's manuscript, because in

another letter dated March 24th, he wrote that the book on

Strafvollzug would be sent to Sellin. As we will see, at this

moment Rusche was already working on the Englishtranslation, presumably at the request of the Frankfurt

Institute. This detail is particularly interesting because it

shows that, at a very early date (even before Columbia'sPresident N.M. Butler formally offered Horkheimer the

hospitality of his University for the Institute,which took

place on Horkheimer's first trip to the United States, in

May 1934), the Institutewas already taking into considera?

tion the possibility of presenting Rusche's manuscript as

the firstpublication of the Institute in America (and in

English). This then shows both a certain degree of confi?

dence inRusche's work (whichmakes itharder tounderstand

the successive developments concerning the publication of

the book and the relations between the Institute and

Rusche) and also a certain optimism in the concrete pos?

sibilityof the Institute's transferto theUnited States.

After a few months of silence, during which, as we

have seen, an agreement was reached between Butler and

Horkheimer, and many of the leading members of the

Institute (Marcuse, Lowenthal, Pollock) had started comingto the United States, Gumperz wrote again to Sellin on

November 6th, informinghim of the "friendly support" ofMaclver and Lynd at Columbia and of the decision to

establish the Institute for Social Research (as itwould be

called) on Columbia's premises. He added that to get an

English translation of Rusche's manuscript "on penaladministration . . . took us longer than anticipated" and

formally asked Sellin to edit the book. On November 14th,Sellin acknowledged receipt of the 477 typewrittenpagesofRusche's manuscript inEnglish.

Sellin read themanuscript and, on December 18th,wrote back to Gumperz offering his first impressions of

Rusche's book:

I have at last succeeded in completingmy exam?

ination of the manuscript by Rusche. I havenot had time to read it in full. I have confined

myself more or less to the last half of the book,

especially the sections that refer to the develop?ments in the United States.... The manuscriptwill need an immense amount of editorial work

before it goes to press....

Sellin goes on to point out a number of problems regardingthe translation, such as the need to adopt the American

standard style of publication, some problems with the

quotations and then several corrections of Rusche's state?

ments and data on the history of American prisons. The

criticism becomes harsher as the analysis focuses on the

contemporary period. Rusche's data on overcrowding aresaid to be exaggerated and incorrect.The same holds true

for some statements thatRusche reports fromother authors

about the brutal treatmentand theexploitation ofAmerican

prisoners during theDepression. In conclusion, notes Sellin:

I can only say that the entire treatment of the

subject, running from page 413 to 422, will be

open to considerable criticism.There is somuch in

the author's thesiswhich is correct, that it seems a

pity thathe should become sensational instead of

adopting a scholarly attitude toward the conditions

of the last years. Our prison riots began longbefore thedepression; our overcrowdingwas worse

before the depression than later; the peak of the

overcrowding in the Eastern State Penitentiary of

Pennsylvania, for instance, occurred around

1925-26. There isno doubt about the fact that the

development of organized or capitalistically

organized crime in theUnited States after thewar

led to a general revolt by judges and magistrates

against crime in general. This resulted in longersentences and, equally important, inmuch more








cautious use of the pardoning and parole power,

causing a tremendous growth in theprison popula?tion in a few years, without any attempt on the

part of legislators toprovide appropriations for the

enlargement of the prisons; but it is interestingthat in the federal system, for instance,where the

growth of the prison population was phenomenal,the development of the humanitarian ideaswhichthe author refersto elsewhere reached its

heightin

our worst depression years. In otherwords, while Iadmire greatly the general development of theauthor's thesis andwhile I think that there ismore

than a grain of truth in it, the wholehearted

acceptance of the theoryof economic determinismhas compelled him to close his eyes to otherfactorswhich, while theymay not be so importantas the economic factors,have nevertheless played a

role.

On January 11, 1935, Gumperz again wrote to Sellin toinformhim that he had received E.H. Sutherland's reviewof Rusche's work, and that the Institute would like him to

take on the task of

editingthebook indetail. Sellin

acceptedand asked for the original German manuscript (letter1/14/1935). On January 18th,Gumperz answered:

... I am sorry that the German original is not

available here at present, but I do not believe that

itwould be of much help in editing the English,because the author hasmade quite some substantial

changeswhile translating theGerman original into

English with the help of an English friend in

London. Also, I am enclosing in this lettera copyof Dr. Sutherland's letter.

In January 1935, Rusche was still inLondon. Itwould

not have been so difficult,maybe a little troublesome, toask him to send the original German manuscript to Sellin,

leaving to Sellin, as the editor of the book, the judgmentabout theusefulness of that earlier version. But as is appar?ent, Rusche seems to have been completely cut off fromthe whole editorial processing of the book. Turning back to

the correspondence between Gumperz and Sellin and to

Sutherland's answer toGumperz (1/3/1935), it is interestingto note that Sutherland, who was also among themost

eminentAmerican criminologists at the time, paid "specialattention to theportions on America," too. After offeringa

few criticisms,which, as amatter of fact, are very similar to

theones advanced by Sellin, andwhich also refer nparticularto the part of themanuscript that deals with organizedcriminality and the brutal treatment, overcrowding andriots inAmerican prisons between the FirstWorld War and

theDepression, Sutherland draws amore general conclusion:

First, I feel that the labor market is a highly

significantfactor indeterminingpenal policies, but

I think the hypothesis as stated is too simple and

that other factorsmay also be highly important.One of the best illustrationsofmy point isprovided

in the increased severity in American courts and

prisons during and after theWorld War. This was a

period of great prosperity, relatively little unem?

ployment and relatively high wages. But the

severity of penalties increased, opposition to

prison labor increased as compared with twentyyears earlier, the use of probation decreased, and

other changes of like nature occurred. I think the

explanation is that a

high

crime rate frightenedthe courts and the public, and the severity of

penalties was a reaction to this fright.This makesme wonder whether during the entire periodcovered in themanuscript it is not possible that

many such influences have operated. I made a

study on the decreasing prison population of

England, during the last eighty years, and my

impressionwas that the crime rate decreased, andas a consequence the severities of penalties de?

creased. Now there is certainly some relationbetween business cycles and crime rates,but as the

study by Dorothy Thomas has shown, the relation?

ship is not very close. In general, my reaction is

that the hypothesis of themanuscriptismuch

too

simple to account forall the facts.

Second, I have a feeling that an argument of the

type presented in this manuscript cannot be

proved definitively. It is possible to show a roughassociation between labor conditions and penal

policies, but it is always necessary in presentingthe argument to select material. . . this selective

process can bemore or less complete. Itwould be

possible to find materials on almost any periodwhich illustrate a tendency opposed to the hy?pothesis

....

I think thiswill make a veryuseful book. There is

nothing in the English literature, so faras Iknow,

which covers the period and the materials, orwhich presents the thesis of thismanuscript. I

hope itmay be published promptly.

It is important to note that both Sellin and Sutherland

appreciated Rusche's work highly, and warmly recom?

mended it for publication (despite reservations on the

overall validity of Rusche's hypothesis), but also that bothof them harshly criticized the few pages dedicated to the

discussion of the contemporary American penal situation.Between the end of January and the beginning of April,Sellin went through the whole manuscript in detail andsent his careful page-by-page annotations back toGumperz

(letters, 3/12/1935, 3/21/1935, 3/26/1935).From Sellin's

notes, it is possible to deduce that about 60 pages in the

original English version of Rusche's text (which, as well as

the German one, has been lost), i.e., the final part of it,dealt at some lengthwith the contemporary situation in

American prisons (pp. 413-26) and with the situation in

Nazi Germany (pp. 427-75). At the end of March 1935, thebook was ready forpublication, even if,as Sellin observedin concluding his job, themanuscript still needed another

"threeweeks of final editorialwork."

Winter980/55







The book was not to be published, though,until 1939.

Once again, fromHorkheimer's Preface to P&SS:

. . .upon the advice of eminent American author?

ities, the Institute decided that amore comprehen?sive treatment of the subject was necessary. Since

Dr. Rusche was not available for the reworkingof

his manuscript, the task was assigned to Dr.

Kirchheimer ....

Why was Rusche "not available"? In 1935, he was still inLondon and, presumably, it also would not have been that

difficult to trackhim down inPalestine between 1936 and

1939. Did he refuse to reworkhis manuscript? Or did the

Institute in New York simply decide, for one reason or

another, to assign this task to someone else? None of the

Institute's old members or associates who were contacted

had any idea about the reason.8 They could hardly remem?

ber Rusche's name and, in any case, after the Institute

received Rusche's firstmanuscript, they lost all trackof his

whereabouts. Only M. I. Finley, thewell-known student of

ancient history,who, under the name ofM. I. Finkelstein,was then teaching at the College of the City ofNew York,and who

helpedKirchheimer with the translation of his

new manuscript into English, offers an observation about

Horkheimer's statement regarding Rusche's "non?

availability":

The sentence from Horkheimer. . .was a euphe?

mism. Relations with Rusche were badly strained,to put itmildly, and I believe the Institutewould

have preferred to drop his name from the book

altogether but felt theydared not do so. Rusche at

that timewas in Israel.9

Lacking any clues which could provide an explanationfor these "strained relations," thematter is open to the

most various conjectures: are theveryalterations ofRusche's

manuscript the explanation? Or, has the straining of therelationship to do with a more general disagreement, be this

based on political, cultural or personal reasons?

However, as we read inHorkheimer, the task of "re?

working" themanuscript was assigned to Otto Kirchheimer.

Kirchheimer, a student of law and political science and a

disciple of Carl Schmitt, emigrated to Paris in 1934, where

he was able to join the Institute's French branch as a

research associate. In France, he wrote forFrench journalson criminal lawmatters (on Kirchheimer's life and works,

particularly the ones I refer to here, see my 1978 article

and the bibliography cited there). Given his education, he

was the rightman, therefore,to be assigned the "reworking"of Rusche's manuscript when he came to the New York

Institute in 1937. Rusche's manuscript, then,was shelvedformore than one year, between 1935 and 1937. It isnot

known whether the Institute had decided to give up publi?cation of Rusche's work and then changed its stand on the

matter with the opportunity offered by Kirchheimer's

presence in New York, or whether itwas decided from

the beginning to have it reworked byKirchheimer. In any

event, Kirchheimer worked on the manuscript in New

York, without any contact with Rusche at all. (Marcuse,

Mrs. Kirchheimer, Mrs. Maier, Finley and Sellin all agree on

this point.) From what Finley writes, we gather that

Kirchheimer rewrote the whole thing (or, as we shall see

below, part of it) inGerman, and subsequently translated

thisnew work into English with Finley's help. In fact, the

latterwrites in the cited letter:

I have no memory ofmyself having anything to

do with the original manuscript by Rusche. I

worked directly and closely with Kirchheimer, andI am certain that the bulk of thework was entirelyhis.

Following this, the new manuscript was once again sent to

Sellin, who wrote a "Foreword" (in the "Preface" to P&SS,Horkheimer writes that Professor Sellin "has gone over the

revisedwork as well," but Sellin does not remember this).Horkheimer wrote the "Preface" (dated June 1938), and in

1939, Punishment and Social Structure was published byColumbia University Press as the firstEnglish publicationof the International Institute of Social Research under the

authorship of bothGeorg Rusche and Otto Kirchheimer.

Considering the final result,one may rightlyask what

kind of"reworking"

was conductedby

Kirchheimer on

Rusche's original manuscript. In his Preface, Horkheimer

states that Kirchheimer retained "in essence theunderlying

concepts of Dr. Rusche's original draft in Chapters II to

VIII; the remaining chapters representDr. Kirchheimer'sown ideas." As we do not have either Rusche's originalGerman manuscript or his own translation into English,the comparison between the original draft and the final

published outcome is not easily done. The only sources

we can relyupon are Rusche's 1930 and 1933 articles and

Sellin's notes commenting on Rusche's English draft.

Chapters II to VIII of P&SS are clearly nothing but a

historically treated development of Rusche's main thesis as

it is expounded in his 1930 and especially his 1933 articles

(Melossi, 1978: 77ff). Seeing that there was already anEnglish text, reviewed and edited by Sellin, one maywonder whether Kirchheimer touched anything at all in this

part of the book. From the twoRusche articles and Sellin's

notes, we can inferthatChapters II toVIII of P&SS do not

exhaust thewhole historical development originally covered

by Rusche. It is possible to reconstruct that in hismanu?

script, Rusche went on testing his thesis regarding the

relationship between the state of the labor market and

penal practices through theperiod runningfrom the second

half of the last century to the great internationalDepressionof the 1930's. In this analysis, he paid particular attention

to theAmerican experience and to theWeimar and earlyNazi periods inGermany. Kirchheimer deals partially with

these themes inChapters IX and XI, but in a verydifferentway fromRusche's. The relationship between the standards

of living of theworking class and penal practices is barelytouched upon in Chapter IX,which deals with the period1880-1930. This chapter ignores,for instance, the emphasis

which Rusche, quite consistently according to his own

thesis, placed on the role of welfare provisions in alteringthe "purity" of the relationship. Every hint at American

penal conditions is suppressed. And, inChapter XI, Kirch








heimer deals with theNazi criminalpolicy along the lines ofother works he had written or was writing on the subject,focusing his interest on modifications in the legal andconstitutional structure. This shift of attention reflected

quite obviously his own intellectual interests and concerns,as well as those of the Institute,but completely avoided thekind of socioeconomic considerations which were central to

Rusche's theses and to the main body of the volume.

Finally, Kirchheimer added two "new" chapters, about the

"fine in recentpenal practice" and the relationship between"penal policy and the crime rate."

Considering what is said and what is not said (incomparison with Rusche's scheme), the tendency inKirch?heimer's argumentation in these last four chapters (and in

Chapter XIII, two pages of conclusion) seems to leantowards a shifted emphasis fromsocioeconomic to politicalconsiderations. In Kirchheimer's reconstruction of contem?

porary trends, a tendency towards decreased severity in

penal practices (exemplified by the downward trend of

prison commitments and the riseof pecuniary penalties) inthemost developed European countries is brutally interrup?ted and overturned by the rise of Fascist regimes, i.e., the

explanationis in

politicalterms. In order to make this

argument, it isnecessary to eliminate any referencetowhatwas going on in the United States, where, as Rusche had

pointed out inhis 1930 and 1933 articles, the deteriorationof penal conditions was much more severe than inGermany(at least, in theWeimar period), and was linked directly to

the Depression. The "economistic" rigidity of Rusche'sthesis is thus transformed into a political one.

The reasons possibly warranting such a switch becomemore apparent when the publication of P&SS is situated in

theproper context. The work was to be the first American"book to be published by the Institute, and itappeared at a

timewhich was characterized by political insecurityand ina prewar climate which did not favor the survival of an

Institute that carried the label of "Marxist," even if of anonorthodox variety.As has been noted, the leadership of

the Institute was all too aware of these dangers (Jay,1973:44, 105, 204). This self-imposed discipline must

certainly have been atwork with regard to the "first book"of the "new American series," the Institute's own introduc?tion to the American public. It is no wonder then that,

especially after Sellin's and Sutherland's criticisms, the

section on the contemporary United States was eliminated

completely from the book and the overall direction of

Rusche's interpretation, whose economism might have

appeared as too "Marxist" to American intellectuals, was

shifted towards a safer anti-Nazi political stance correspon?

dingto the

generalclimate of these immediate

prewartimes.Of course, other considerations may be added, as, for

instance, the fact that Rusche's strongpreference in favor

of an economic explanation was probably not in the

Institute's taste; or that thepreoccupation with an eminentlyanti-Fascist analysis was not only a primary concern affect?

ing all of the Institute's policies, but was also strongly

pursued by Otto Kirchheimer and by othermembers who

shared his political-legal education (Melossi, 1978:78 ff.).Given all this, still, the decision to publish the book with

Kirchheimer's alterations produced a work split into two

parts. The main thesis, expounded in the firstpart, isnot

developed in the second. More crucially, the silence aboutthe most recent American developments contradicts the

very essence of the Institute's analysis,which regarded the

emergence of Nazi and Fascist regimes as a radical embodi?ment of the overall totalitarian stage of capitalist develop?ment. In sum,whereas the book offers a theoretical expla?nation of penal practices in the earlier stages in thehistoryof capitalism?an explanation, however, which we may or

may not consider adequate?it eventually fails to providean explanation for contemporary capitalism (Melossi,1978:79 ff.), a failurewhich is in part to be ascribed to

thevery process of its"reworking."

INEXILE

On March 11, 1939, Rusche, who was holding a returnvisa to Palestine valid until Feb. 25, 1940, returned toLondon. He was never to use the returnvisa, andwe do notknow whether he had intended to do so (SPSL II). However,

through the Society forProtection of Science and Learning,

Rusche asked the British Home Office for permission toremain inGreat Britain. Rusche declared to theSociety hisintention to do research and to write on the subject of"The Economics of Rearmament." He gave as references

the names of Professor Barn and of Professor Dobb, theillustriousMarxist historian (SPSL II). Dobb was to quoteRusche andKirchheimer's book inhismajor work (1946:23,235, 238). From the correspondence he maintained withthe Institute inNew York (and specificallywith itsdirector,

Max Horkheimer) in this period- a correspondence which

apparentlywent on inspiteof the"badly strained relations,"

probably due to Rusche's quite hopeless situation-we

learn that, like many other German refugee scholars,Rusche was in need of

everything.

He was

franticallylooking for a place to live (every letter carries a different

address) and was seekingHome Office permission to stay,which was linked to a job or occupation.

Rusche wrote to Horkheimer on April 5th. 1?He had

applied for a "Leon Fellowship" to the University ofLondon and asked Horkheimer towrite a letter of recom?

mendation. In applying for the fellowship, he presented a

program of researchwhich dealt with "The Economics of

German Rearmament." He explains his intentions to

Horkheimer:

Imean with this a study-the idea of which has

been more and more important tome for a whilenow?of a

mainlytheoretical nature. It should

address the problems, first,of how such an incred?

ible deviation from the teachings of the traditionaleconomics can work at all?and here the mostrecent developments of themonopoly theory, ofthe theory of limited competition and of interven

tionism, should help?then how indeed it dragsitself into this peculiar pitfall, both from thefinancial and the more general economic pointof view. I believe to be well qualified for this

Winter1980/ 7







research and, in this field, to be able to faremuchbetter than the usual students of this theme,whotackle the problem without a reasonable theoret?ical formation and especially without thenecessary

strength of thought. Not only is it my goodqualification, though, which imposes on me

the choice of this theme, but it is also, andmuchmore so, thematter of fact of its sinisteractuality.Since, in fact, England might be brought to follow

theGerman example, my research could discoverresults of vital interest and great utilitynot only in

mere academic terms, but also politically becauseof itspractical value inmaking itpossible to learnfrom the German example to imitate the good andto avoid themistakes.

Rusche goes on in this letter to refer to his extremely

precarious situation inEngland. The help from the Societyfor the Protection of Science and Learning is only tem?

porary. He might be deported, at any time, to Americaor India; this isprobably contingent on his ability to securea job or an occupation. He asks for other references fromHorkheimer and

copiesof the book, P&SS,

by

means of

which, he adds, he will be able tomake an impression not

only on his academic advocates but,more importantly, alsoon his "political and social" advocates. The lastpart of the

letter deals with a possible article by Rusche for the Insti?

tute's journal:

As far as the delivery of an article ofmine for

your journal is concerned, I am glad and ready to

work on the theme you suggested, themost recent

developments of the German penal policy. And

there are truly interestingnew phenomena inGer?

many as a consequence of the unbelievable scarcityof workers.

Is Rusche referringto the concentration camps? Interms of his theory, itwould make sense to interpret the

Nazi forced labor policy (in 1939!) as an answer toGerman

industry's terriblehunger for labor-power (a policy which

was to continue during thewar as a reflectionof thewhole

Nazi ideology of a "New Order," inwhich the "inferior"

raceswork forcefullyunder thedomination of the "superior"

one). Rusche's observation may provide a hint ofwhat his

section on contemporary Germany would have dealt with,

probably pointing out the relationship between the scarcityof free labor and the political-military creation of a pool of

forced labor (on this relation, see also Sellin, 1976, who

wrote under the influence of Rusche and Kirchheimer's

work*, but who did not deal with theNazi Germany case).But in his letter,Rusche does not develop the subject. On

the contrary, he complains about thehardships ingatheringthenecessarymaterial, and adds:

How would it be, then, if in themeanwhile I

deliver an articlewhere my thoughts on the social

and economic theoryof a dictatorship arediscussed

in connection with my planned work on the

German war-economy? I think I have things to

say about the technical prerequisites of democracyand Fascism?their origins in the respective

technological constitutions, their union with the

modern forms of monopoly production and

financing....

Due to the intense involvementhe has had with thismatter,he concludes, he could write on this subject in a much

shorter time.

In asubsequent letter,

dated June 14th of the same

year, Rusche is still askingHorkheimer to send him docu?

ments (of his association with the Institute?), review

copies of P&SS and lettersof recommendation. He did not

receive the Leon Fellowship and thus lost the chance to do

research on the German war-economy. He hints at the

possibility ofwriting the article on penal developments but,once again, also at the difficulties ingathering thematerials.

He also comments on Kirchheimer's work in P&SS and

states:

I am very sorry to be obliged to say that inDr.

Kirchheimer's work there are a number ofweak?

nesses, which did not belong to the book and

that Ideplore

verymuch.

Rusche does not furtherdelve into the subject. This isquiteunderstandable in a letter inwhich he was obliged by his

situation in London to ask Horkheimer (who aswell as the

Director of the Institutewas theperson chiefly responsiblefor its editorial choices) for a series of favors, even if,on

the other hand, Rusche's sentiments on Kirchheimer's

"reworking" of his originalmanuscript were probably too

strong to allow him to altogether omit any reference to

them.At the end, he asksHorkheimer whether there is anychance of findingwork in the United States. Some kind of

answer to Rusche's plea came fromHorkheimer on June

28, 1939, with a letter in English addressed "to whom it

may concern:"

Dr. Georg Rusche has been connected with this

Institute since almost ten years. He came to us

highly recommended by a number of scholarswho

had come to appreciate him duringhis universitystudies as an especially talented and industrious

personality. In 1931, Dr. Rusche submitted to us

the plan for an extensive sociological study on the

history of punishment inmodern times. At that

time I asked him to startby expressinghis ideas in

a firstdraft. The resultwas an article which we

published in our Zeitschrift f?r Sozialforschung,Vol. II (1933), pp. 63-78, entitled "Arbeitsmarkt

und Strafvollzug" (Labor Market and Punishment).This article convinced me thatDr. Rusche was the

rightpersonality tomake a comprehensive studyon the special subject chosen by him. He worked

for some years making source studies on an

international scale. The outcome is the book,"Punishment and Social Structure," by GeorgRusche andOtto Kirchheimer, Columbia University

Press, New York, 1939, 257 pp. In theunanimous

opinion of experts, the work constitutes an








entirely novel, important contribution to thesocial history of legal institutions. In this sense the

noted American criminologist Professor Thorsten

Sellin has written a foreword to the book. Unfor?

tunately, the Institute'smeans do not permit to

give Dr. Rusche an appointment as ResearchAssociate. In view of Dr. Rusche's excellent

scientific qualifications, which were demonstrated

tome not only by the article and the book butthroughnumerous scientific discussions which we

had, itwould giveme great satisfaction if he hadan opportunity soon for an adequate teaching or

research activity.

Of course, the "Institute's means," which, between 1934and 1944, were sufficient to give support to "some two

hundred emigres" (Jay, 1973:114, 115, 168), were also

restrictedby a judgment on Rusche, and it isnot surprisingthat, after the "strained relations" of the previous years,the Institutewas not eager to have Rusche inNew York asa Research Associate, even if, s has already been noted, the

exact nature of these "strained" relations remains somewhat

obscure. Rusche wrote again on August 6th to thankHorkheimer for his letter of recommendation and to

ask for other copies ofhis andKirchheimer's book, because

he had to give them to some professors, high civil servants

of the government and others. He wrote that he had not

been able to bring any money with him, and so he could

not pay for the books, which should be sent tohim free of

charge. He reiterated that to him itwas a question of

"absolutely vital" importance, probably a reference to his

effortsto findsome kind of occupation.The next available letterfromRusche toHorkheimer is

dated March 15, 1941. Itwas written "after a very long

spell of internment," from which Rusche was released"some six weeks

ago" (i.e.,between January and February

1941). Why was Rusche interned and when? It is not

possible to deal here with the complex historical problem

represented by the refugees' internment inBritain in 1939

and 1940 (see esp. Lafitte, 1940 and Jaeger, 1955; but also:

Proudfoot, 1957; Link, ed., 1968; Sherman, 1973; Stevens,

1975; Gillman and Gillman, 1980). Only a few basic facts

will be offered here in order topermit an understanding of

what happened toRusche.In September 1939, one month after Rusche had

written the last letter to Horkheimer examined above,tribunalswere set up inEngland to classify "enemy aliens"

(Germans and Austrians) and to decide whether theywere

genuine refugees. The seriously suspect cases were to be

placed in class "A," the certainly nonsuspectones

in class"C" and the dubious in class "B." The class A (about 600)were to be interned immediately; the B ones were to be

subjected to some forms of restricted freedom (theynumbered about 7,000); whereas no action was to be taken

with regard to the remaining 65,000 members of class C.

But inMay and June 1940, thewidespread panic connected

with the demise of France, and Italy's entrance into the

war, brought about the decision to round up and internall

those in class B, many in class C, and all of the Italians, so

that in July 1940, approximately 30,000 people were

interned.During the same period, a policy of deportationtoAustralia and Canada was also instituted.The manner in

which the assignment to theA and B groupswas conducted

subsequently gave rise to strong polemics, because the

majority of thosewho were rounded up in the summer of

1940 were genuine refugees.Not only were many mistakes

committed, often due to bureaucratic reasons (problems

with immigration authorities, etc.), but also a verydefinitegroup of left-wingers anti-Fascist Spain brigaders,pacifists,socialists and communists)was considered to be as dangerousas people with Nazi or Fascist sympathies and was interned

togetherwith the latter(Lafitte, 1940:123ff).Rusche adds, inhis 1941 letter, that he was deported

on the "Arandora Star" to Canada, a ship thatwas torpe?doed and sunk on July2, 1940. This episode was central in

drawing the public's attention to the realities of internment

and to deportation policies, especially the highly question?able way inwhich thishad been accomplished. The episodewas also eventually responsible for triggering wo importantdebates in the British Parliament, afterwhich the process of

revision of the internmentpolicies was slowly set inmotion

(Lafitte, 1940). F. Lafitte, in his stronglypolemical pamph?let against internment, reproduces a survivor's anonymous

account of the torpedoing (1940:138ff.), which casts lighton thiswhole affair. In the camp where this anonymouswriter was interned, therewere three categories of peoplelocked up together: about 240 Nazi prisoners of war

(seamen), "about 200 Jews who had been interned byTribunals or by the police, some being there since war

began. Among them some . . .without visas, [who] had

quarrels with refugee organizations, have been punishedbefore, did not please the judge of theTribunals ..." and

"one hundred and forty anti-Fascists: fighters of the

International Brigade in Spain; Czech anti-Fascists; progres?sive political refugees;Austrian refugees," and so on (thenames ofmany people from these groups are appended, and

among them are found leadingGerman and Austrian social

democrats). Most of thepeople in this camp were deported.The "Arandora Star" had on board persons gathered from

various camps, numbering somewhere between 1,700 and

1,900. Only about 600 survived the torpedoing of the ship,most of whom were Nazi prisoners of war, who, by virtue

of the fact that theywere stillmilitarily organized and were

former seamen,managed to take possession of the lifeboats

at the expense of others. Several well-known German,Austrian and Italian anti-Fascists drowned. Most of the

Germans and Austrians on the "Arandora Star" belonged to

class A; this suggests something about the criteria of the

tribunals' classification.In his conclusions, Lafitte implies that, by means of

the internmentpolicy, theTory British governmentwanted

to strike both at the right nd the left,without regard for

the anti-Nazi standing of many of the refugees interned

(1940:181-91). This was particularly true in the case of

communists, the policy towards whom was also determined

by the Soviet Union's role in thewar. Itwas commonplace

among the left-wing refugees in England in those days to

interpret the roundup and arrestof all the "alien" pupils of

Winter980/59







Harold J. Laski to be connected with the Finnish-Russianwar (at the beginning of 1940), just as their release was

thought to be connected to the Soviet Union's entry into

thewar against Germany (June 1941).U In any case, the

intensification of the anti-internmentmovement inEnglandand theweakened threatof invasion brought about first the

halting of the deportation policy and subsequently the

gradual release of the internees during the firstmonths of

1941.

Rusche was among those who managed to survive the

sinking of the "Arandora Star" and was inCambridge whenhe wrote to Horkheimer inMarch 1941. He still faced the

extremely difficult problems he was tryingto tackle beforehis internment-problems which had now grown evenmoreacute due to the war situation and the hardships of theinternmentperiod. In the letteralready quoted a number oftimes (Rusche, 1941), and now reproduced in its entirety,Rusche writes:

Dear ProfessorHorkheimer,Back to the world after a very long spell ofinternment I am slowly takingup contacts again.That is

whyI am

todaywritingto

youaboutme. I

have been released some 6 weeks ago, and I find it

rather difficult to establish myself again in this

changingworld. Iwonder ifyou could help me inone way or another. Imay getwar work, and then

of course, I would be fully occupied, but Imaynot. If not, I have two possibilities inmy mind.

The one is to do some sort of research, the other is

somewhat peculiar, but it haunts me day and

night.When I was interned, I had, of course, no

facilities for research, and so I started to write

down my life and thoughts. It startedwith my

parents, the atmosphere of a mixed marriage in

imperial Germany, childhood, the Cadet-Corps,

thewar, the inflation period, studies, at home andabroad, Paris, London, work, experiences inprisonand social work, Saxony, Frankfurt University,

emigration, Paris, London, Palestine, London

again, internment. It was a very "schonungslose

Lebenschronik" and theparts I read of it to fellow

internees who were highly critical, found their full

approval. Unfortunately the whole manuscript

perished, when I was going to be sent to Canada

and the "Arandora Star," on which we were

travellingwas torpedoed. I lost allmy belongingsbut I lamentmost of it thismanuscript.Now I would ever so much like to rewrite this

manuscript, because I think it isworth it, and it

might be the best service I could render at thismoment. Unfortunately I am unable to do this

unaided, and I wonder if you are perhaps in a

position to help me. The work might be of highinterest to you, not only as raw material for

historical and sociological studies, but also because

of my own thoughts, which, although I do not

develop them systematically, form part of my

development and thereforeof the story.

I would be very grateful ifyou could see your

way to help me there. I still owe you an article,the delivery of which was delayed by thewar, but

this would really be worth more than everythingso far. . ,

Yours sincerely,

George [sic!] Rusche

On April 10th, 1941, the Institute answersRusche:

This is to confirm receipt of your letterof March15 to Dr. Horkheimer, who, unfortunately, was

not able to answer ithimself before leaving on an

extensive trip through the United States. Dr.

Horkheimer plans to visit several universities for

discussions with colleagues. I am happy to learn

fromyour letter that you are again able to pursue

your scientific and literarywork, and I think it

a very good idea that you intend to write the

history of your personal and scientific experiences.I canwell imagine thatyour great literarygiftswill

make the forthcoming book one of documentary

importance for the development of an entire

generation.We shall be glad ifyou would letus see

themanuscript when it is finished or when thegreater part has been set down. We have one or

another connection with American publishers and

would of course be glad to do whatever is in our

power to help you in thepublication of it.Should

you be able towrite an article forour periodical in

the not too distant future, this would be of help.Your chances for an academic career in theAngloSaxon countries would certainly improve ifyouwere able to present such publications. Of course,I am unable to give you any definite promise with

regard to such an article beforewe have seen it but

here again, you have theknowledge that shouldwe

be unable to publish the article ourselveswe could

at least contact other scientificpublications.I am sorry to say that, at present, I am not in a

position to offer any hope for financial help. Due

to the help our Institute has extended tomanyscholars who fled from barbarism in Europe our

own funds have been considerably curtailed. The

greater number of our assistants are, at present,

livingfromgrants obtained fromAmerican found?

ations. It is, however, impossible to obtain a

grant for a scholar who does not live in this

country. Should our situation change for the

better we shall be glad to do whatever is possibleto help you. With all good wishes toyou personally

and for the continuance of your work, verysincerelyyours. (The copy of the letter, inEnglish,in the "Pollock-Archiv," is not signed; the author

might have been Pollock, who was the adminis?

trativemanager of the Institute at the time.)

These two letters are the final pieces of evidence which

illuminate the relationship betweenRusche and the Institute.

During this period, Rusche hired Philip Urbach, who

was very young at the time, as an "amanuensis" towrite








to have been particularly true in the case ofGeorg Rusche,and probably this tendency of his was increased by some

combination of his generation's experiences and his own

despairing experiences, culminating in increasing bitternessand cynicism.

Weiss describes Rusche as being "in economic doc?trine... an absolute, unabashed liberal" (Weiss, 1979),even if ready to admit that this "correct theory [is] hardly

practical" in the contemporary world. In his theoretical

work, the perspective of traditional economics is certainlypresent from the beginning, filtered through the influential

personalities in his education (Nelson, Pribram and, indi?

rectly, Oppenheimer), an influence which is particularlyapparent, inmy opinion, in the central rolewhich Rusche

assigned to the category of "labor-market." On the other

hand, the overall trend of his scientific work and the

character of his associations throughout his life (Nelson'ssocialistic liberalism, the Frankfurt School, the leftof the

British academic milieu and of theGerman immigration in

England) clearly define him as amilitant to the leftof the

political and cultural spectrum. But this militancy was

overwhelmed by what was probably a feeling of defeat, a

feeling which was not only his own but also that of hisgeneration. It is noteworthy that among the books on

contemporary politics and the autobiographical accounts

that constituted Rusche's readings during this period,among his favorites were a book by Hans B. Gisevius

entitled To the Bitter End (1947), on the subject of Ger?

many's demise between the Nazi period and the war,and JustAs I Feared, which deals with the deterioration of

hopes after the Soviet revolution.I7

If these considerations are added to the hardshipsRusche had to face from the time he leftGermany and to

his deep, psychological "inner conflicts" to which Weiss

refers, it isnot surprisingthat in these finalyears he used to

hold long discussions with his friends as towhether or not

he should commit suicide.I8 The episode of his arrest in1950, in connection with the accusation of fraud, and the

ensuingprospect of a trial and probable conviction, came to

constitute nothing more than the final blow. On October

19, 1950, after several nights spent discussing his suicide,Rusche went home and carried out his plan, poisoninghimselfwith domestic coal gas, in the smallUxbridge house

of theLondon suburbs where he lived alone.

FOOTNOTES

1. Conversation with Hannah H. Striesow, London, January 10,

1979.

2. Author's conversation with Philip Urbach, London, January 9,

1979.


1979.


1979.

5. Also reported in author's conversation with Philip Urbach,

London, January 9, 1979.

6. This information comes from a letter from J. Gumperz to T.

Sellin dated January 18, 1935. The following information about the

correspondence between J. Gumperz and T. Sellin is from Professor

Sellin's private archive.

7. This from the author's conversations in London with PhilipUrbach on January 9, 1979, and with Hannah H. Striesow on

January 10, 1979.

8. On this matter, see Herbert Marcuse's letter to the author dated

May 16, 1977; an oral statement from Leo Lowenthal; Anne R.

Kirchheimer's letter to the author dated February 15, 1978; and

Alice Maier's letter to the author, November 26, 1979.

9. M.I. Finley's letter to the author, January 30, 1978.

10. All the correspondence quoted in this article, between Rusche

and the New York Institute, is in the "Pollock-Archiv," Frankfurt.

When not stated otherwise, the letters are in German, and the

translation into English ismine.

11. From the author's conversation with Hannah H. Striesow,

London, January 10, 1979.

12. From the author's conversations in London withPhilip

Urbach

on January 9, 1979, and with Hannah H. Striesow, January 10,1979.

13. From the author's conversation with Philip Urbach, London,

January 9, 1979.

14. From the author's conversations in London with Philip Urbach

on January 9, 1979, and with Hannah H. Striesow, January 10,

1979.

15. From the author's conversation with Philip Urbach, London,

January 9, 1979.

16. From the author's conversation with Hannah H. Striesow,

January 10, 1979.

17. From the author's conversation with Philip Urbach, London,January 9, 1979.

18. From the author's conversations in London with Philip Urbach

on January 9, 1979, and with Hannah H. Striesow, January 10,

1979.

REFERENCES

Dobb, Maurice

1946 Studies in the Development of Capitalism. London:

Routledge & Sons.

Foucault, Michel

1977 Discipline and Punish. New York: Pantheon Books.

Gillman, Peter and Leni Gillman

1980 Collar the Lot. London: Quartet

Gisevius, Hans B.

1947 To the Bitter End. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co.

Harris, Jose'

1977 William Beveridge: A Biography. Oxford: Clarendon

Press.

62 ICrime and Social Justice







Jaeger, H.

1955 "Refugees' Internment in Britain 1939-40." The Wiener

Library Bulletin IX, 5-6.

Jay,Martin

1973 The Dialectical Imagination. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Lafitte, F.

1940 The Internment of Aliens. Harmoridsworth: PenguinBooks.

Link, Werner

1964 Die Geschichte des Internationalen Jugend-Bundes (IJB)und des Internationalen Sozialistischen Kampf-Bundes(ISK). Meisenheim am Glan: Verlag Anton Hain.

Link, Werner (ed.)1968 Mit dem Gesicht nach Deutschland. D?sseldorf: Droste

Verlag.

Marcuse, Herbert

1955 Reason and Revolution. New York: Humanities Press.

Melossi, Dario

1978 "Georg Rusche and Otto Kirchheimer: Punishment and

Social Structure." Crime and Social Justice 9 (Spring

Summer).

Melossi, Dario and Massimo Pavarini

1980 The Prison and the Factory. London: MacMillan.

Neumann, Franz et al.

1953 The Cultural Migration. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press.

Pribram, Karl

1949 Conflicting Patterns of Thought. Washington, D.C.: Public

Affairs Press.

1935 Cartel Problems. Washington, D.C The BrookingsInstitution.

1931 "World-Unemployment and Its Problems." In Q. Wright

(ed.), Unemployment as a World-Problem. Berkeley: The

University of California Press.

1912 Die Entstehung der Individualistischen Sozialphilosophie.

Leipzig: Hirschfeld.

Proudfoot, Malcolm J.

1957 European Refugees: 1939-52. London: Faber and Faber

Ltd.

Rusche, Georg1941 Rusche's letter to Horkheim er, in English, March 15. In

"Pollock-Archiv," Frankfurt.

1933 "Arbeitsmarkt und Strafvollzug." Zeitschrift f?r Sozial?

forschung 11:63-78 English trans.: "Labor Market and

Penal Sanction." Crime and Social Justice 10 (Fall-Winter).

1930 "Zuchthausrevolten oder Sozialpolitik. Zu den Vorg?ngenin Amerika." Frankfurter Zeitung (June 1) Englishtrans.: "Prison Revolts or Social Policy: Lessons From

America." Crime and Social Justice 13 (Summer).

1929 Bemerkungen zur logischen Grundlage der theoretischen

?konomik. Leipzig:Thalacker & Sch?ffer.

1924 Bemerkungen zum Rechtsbegriff und zu den Grunds?tzen

der philosophischen Rechtslehre. Manuscript. University

of K?ln: Dissertation.

Rusche, Georg and Otto Kirchheimer

1939 Punishment and Social Structure. New York: Columbia

University Press (reissued in 1968 by Russell & Russell,

New York).

Schumpeter, Joseph A.

1963 History of Economic Analysis. New York: Oxford Uni?

versity Press.

Sellin, Thorsten1976 Slavery and the Penal System. New York: Elsevier.

Sherman, A.J.

1973 Island Refuge. Britain and Refugees From the Third

Reich 1933-1939. London: Paul Elek.

Society for the Protection of Science and Learning I

Rusche's file. London, Archive of the Society.

Society for the Protection of Science and Learning II

Rusche's file. Oxford: Department of Western Manu?

scripts, Bodleian Library.

Specht, M. and W. Eichler (eds.)1953 Leonard Nelson. Zum Ged?chtnis. Frankfurt: Verlag

?ffentliches Leben.

Stevens, Austin

1975 The Dispossessed: German Refugees in Britain. London:

Barrie & Jenkins.

Struve, Walter

1973 Elites Against Democracy. Princeton: Princeton UniversityPress.

Weiss, Paul

1979 Letter of Paul Weiss to the author of this essay, July 25.

Winter980/ 3

g. rusché biographia

Documents