The Sociology of Concentration Camps

Author(s): Theodore Abel

Source: Social Forces, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Dec., 1951), pp. 150-155
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2571626 .
Accessed: 14/06/2014 11:46

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 support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:46:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 150 SOCIAL FORCES
THE SOCIOLOGY OF CONCENTRATION CAMPS
THEODORE ABEL
HunterCollege
T HE NuernbergTrials,the reportsof various
investigating committees, and detailed and
voluminous accounts of eyewitnesses have
told the story of Nazi concentration camps to the
world. With the verdict of universal condemnation
and the punishment of the perpetrators who could
be apprehended the main purpose for telling the
story has been fulfilled. It is now the turn of the
social scientists to take up the material and to
analyze and interpret it. In what follows we shall
attempt to discuss some of the tasks and ap-
proaches which sociologists have initiated in their
preliminary investigation of the material.*
THE SOCIOLOGICALINTEREST
The concern of the sociologist with the problem
of concentration camps is twofold. On the one
hand it pertains to the characteristics of the con-
centration camp as a social institution, and to
questions on special topics such as stratification,
patterns of organization, leadership and mani-
festations of collective opposition. On the other
hand, it involves topics of a general order touching
upon basic problems of human behavior, potential
and manifest. In this category questions are apt
to be formulated as follows: How were concentra-
tion camps possible? To what extent is the insti-
tution of concentration camps attributable to
peculiarities of German national character or the
peculiar historical situation in Germany? To what
extent are factors responsible for the institution
characteristic of general trends in modern civiliza-
tion? There is, also, the very important question
concerning the role of social factors in survival.
Finally, there is the over-all problem of ethics and
the bearing that this has on the idea of progress.
The material relevant to these special and gen-
eral sociological topics is rich and diversified. Al-
though not sufficient in scope for the application
of the statistical method, it seems to be adequate
enough for the application of the comparative
method.
* The discussion which follows is a brief report on
some of the findings made in connection with a research
study conducted under the auspices of the Columbia
Social Research Council.
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:46:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I shall begin with the sociological topics which
I have classified as general.
THE FUNCTION OF CONCENTRATION
CAMPS: DEMOCIDE
Viewed in historical perspective, there is not a
single item in the concentration camp pattern
which is unique. Confinements, tortures, cruelty,
mental and physical suffering,physical punishment
with mortal consequence, mass execution and
other similar incidences have been recorded re-
peatedly in different times and different places.
I need not list such events here, for history abounds
with them. What, then, is the distinguishing char-
acteristic of the Nazi concentration camp system?
There is an immediately apparent aspect of
these concentration camps which has the impact of
uniqueness although it only symbolized the dis-
tinctive features of the system. This aspect is the
combination of all known methods of man's in-
humanity to man, the persistent application of
this complex pattern of treatment, its systematic
execution, the cold-bloodednessand rational organ-
ization of the procedure and the fact that several
millions of people were involved in it. This implies
a difference of quantity and magnitude, but does
not disclose the motivations of the perpetrators
which might be the same as those which have
operated from time to time in human history.
However, the magnitude, extent and systematic
nature of the procedure suggests a definite policy
of which the concentration camps were a part, and
it is this policy that provides the special character-
istic of the institution of the concentration camp.
An understanding of the special nature of the
concentration camp requires that we ascertain
first the intended result and then the motive for
which it was intended. The clue to the intended
result is given by two observations: first, that the
ultimate effect of the concentration camp intern-
ment was extermination by exhaustion or by exe-
cution; and second, that the victims of the ex-
termination were chosen on the basis of their
being members of specifiable social categories and
social groups. To maintain this point, it must be
shown that various occurrencesknown about con-
 SOCIOLOGY
OF CONCENTRATIONCAMPS 151
centration camps which seem to contradict both The Nazis were operating as political usurpers
points, actually do not do so. I refer to such facts
which means that they rejected the binding nature
as the survival of significant numbers of persons, of the established social and moral order and aimed
the existence of medical care inadequate though to realize their own conception of an order by
it was, the permission given inmates to receive destroying the social system which, had they been
food packages, the orders found in official docu- a party within it, they would have been obliged to
ments calling for improvements in the care of uphold.
prisoners, and so forth. These seeming contradic- What kind of social order do usurpers want?
tions were the result of the introduction of a It is an order which perpetuates the rule and
secondary policy made necessary by the war, the domination of the members of the conspiracy re-
purpose of which was to use the inmates of the gardless of their intrinsic merit or achievement,
concentration camps as a supply of labor for the or, of the consent of the community. In our opinion
war effort. The contradictions can be viewed as this intent is substantiated by the very nature of
unintended consequences due to overlapping pol- the process by which the Nazis struggled for power.
icies-one, of a long range order; the other, a We may say, then, that given a situation in which
response to the urgencies of immediate situations. a group is in power which cannot, or does not in-
If we may assume that these two observations tend to become a part of the existing order or to
do provide clues to the results intended by the permit existing social processes to take their nor-
institution of concentration camps, it seems justi-mal course, it is clear that non-members will fall
fied to regard as their distinctive feature the fact
into two categories: those who submit in resigna-
that the concentration camp system served, first, tion, and those who are regarded as actual or po-
as an instrument of extermination, secondly, that tential opponents. The former will be terrorized,
the victims were chosen not on the ground of their but will be permitted to live as best they can
individual anti-social activity, criminal or other-within the limits of the new system. The latter
wise, but because they belonged to a social cate- will have to be eliminated.
gory or were members of an organized group which The criterion of who is a potential opponent in
as a whole was considered expendable by the the case of the Nazis grew out of the conception
ruling powers. with which the usurpers justified their claim to
I propose to call this special feature of concen-
power. This is well known as the doctrine of the
tration camps Democide, of which genocide is a Racial Elite, entitled to domination by virtue of
sub-form pertaining specifically to the extermina- biological superiority. The opposite, then, which
tion of ethnic or racial groups. The broader term is biological inferiority, was set up as a criterion
democide pertains to extermination procedures with pseudo-scientific pretensions of objectivity.
against a population selected on the basis of any So-called racial groups such as Jews and Gypsies,
kind of social attribute, racial, religious, educa-and Slavs who were to furnish the labor force for
tional, political, cultural, and so forth, including
the master race, were declared biologically in-
even distinctions on the basis of age. ferior and in consequence were branded as ex-
We now turn to the question about the probable pendable. The criterion was also applied to Ger-
motivation for the practice of democide. mans. The Nazis created a special social category
called the "asoziale" into which they put anyone
THE MOTIVATION FOR DEMOCIDE who stood in their way because of nonconformity of
From a sociological point of view the motive any sort, political, social, sexual, or whatever.
or motives will be implicit in a plan of action The "asoziale" were declared expendable because
arising from the very nature of the relationship of alleged biological inferiority. Other categories
of the Nazi party vis-a-vis the German people as of the German population were also expendable.
well as the rest of the world. These included the infirm, the mentally ill, the
In retrospect it is evident that the Nazis never chronically ill, and the aged, so that biological
were or became a true political party, that is, a inferiority also meant biological inefficiency. In
group which operated within an established sys- short, we propose that the distinctive featitre of
tem and proceeded in accordance with its norms the Nazi concentrationcamp system arose from the;
and the responsibilities which the system imposes. combinationof negativeeugenicswith powerpolitics,

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:46:58 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
152 SOCIALFORCES
Reflecting upon this conclusion, we find that
the adoption of this policy cannot be accounted
for by any peculiar characteristic of German
national character or special historical conditions
affecting Germany only. We venture the generali-
zation that whenever a group comes into power
and operates by usurpation it will brand certain
social categories as expendable and condemn them
to impotence or extermination. Whether the use of
biological criteria for the branding of groups is
the result of a type of philosophy which is peculi-
arly German is debatable. The developments re-
ported in South Africa, the history of the race
problem in the United States, or the history of
colonial administrations generally, suggest that
the master-race concept, with the complementary
assumption of the inferiority of other peoples, is a
concept which people in power without the consent
of those over whom they exercise control are
likely to use to justify their position.
SOCIOLOGICALBASIS OF MISTREATMENT
It has been suggested that the cruel and sys-
tematic mistreatment of concentration camp in-
mates requires the assumption of a psychopatho-
logical condition in its perpetrators. On the basis
of the material available, there is little evidence
for it inasmuch as only a small number from among
the 50,000 guards and personnel of the concentra-
tion camps could be strictly regarded as clinical
cases. Another hypothesis is suggested by two
basic findings of sociology. First, the fact that the
more narrowly the membership of the in-group is
defined, the greater is the range of permissible
license of behavior towards those who are excluded
from it. This range will be roughly correlated with
the degree of the exclusion; that is, it will be high-
est in regard to those who, by definition, are per-
manently and forever denied admission to the
in-group. Indeed, it is theoretically conceivable
that at the extreme limit of social distance from
possible inclusion in the in-group, human beings
might be regarded as belonging to a different
species toward whom, then, no humane principles
need function as guides to conduct. The second
fact is that modes of conduct, once established and
having become habitual, function as means of
status distinctions and of the distribution of re-
wards and punishments and thus tend to be perpet-
uated by those who can benefit from them.
The operation of the first fact is manifest in the
attitude of the Nazis who regardedtheir opponents
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:46:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and all undesired persons as biologically inferior
and therefore as creatures to whom the ordinary
rules of decency and morality did not apply. The
second fact is supported by historical evidence
which shows that a pattern of brutal treatment
was developed early in the history of the Nazi
movement and was continued and even augmented
by virtue of the ferocity of the struggle for power
in Germany itself. As a result, ruthlessness and
disregard for human sentiments came to be re-
garded as a virtue and were not only condoned,
but definitely encouraged. This is illustrated by
the Potempa case in 1932. Four SS men brutally
killed a political opponent in Silesia. They were
condemned to death by the court, but their sen-
tence was changed to life imprisonment on the
strength of Hitler's passionate defense of them.
When Hitler came into power, these men were not
only immediately released, but were rewardedwith
high honors. Similarly, in the case of the SS per-
sonnel of the concentration camps of Hohenstein
in 1934 who were brought to court and sentenced
for "the sadistic treatment of prisoners," the court
decision was remanded by Hitler. The establish-
ment of a pattern of expected behavior with re-
gard to groups, categories and classes of so-called
enemies of the "Volksgemeinschaft"created a con-
dition wherein anyone who wanted to stay in the
elite group or who worked for promotion or other
rewards, or who hoped to attain membership in
this group, could do so only by conformity to the
prevailing standards. On the basis of evidence of
this kind, our hypothesis maintains that where
such sociological conditions prevail, psychologically
"normal" people can be expected to behave in a
manner which is manifest only in cases of mental
abnormality under other conditions. This proposi-
tion needs to be qualified to the extent that such
situations provide place and occupation for num-
bers of psychopathic people who, under these
conditions can indulge with impunity practices
which under normal circumstances would result
in their segregation from the community.
THE ETHICAL QUESTION
The assumption of the normality of the perpe-
trators of what the Nuernberg trials have branded
as "crimes against humanity" leads me to consider
an aspect of a third question with which I want to
conclude this discussion of general sociological
topics. The question is an ethical one. How does a
group of people who grew up within the frame of
 SOCIOLOGY
OF CONCENTRATIONCAMPS
what we call Western civilization adjust to the
fact that the conduct which it pursues and advo-
cates violates basic moral principles of that civili-
zation and culture? I do not wish to discuss this
problem here in all of its implications, but I would
like to point out a fact that seems extremely
significant to us. The Nazis, in spite of their denial
of what they called the virtues of the weak and
impotent, were fully aware of them and, indeed,
continued to be motivated by them. That these
moral principles continued as imperatives for the
Nazis in spite of their denials and their transgres-
sions is disclosed by the fact that the Nazis made
an extraordinary effort to conceal what they were
doing. They let it be known that there were con-
centration camps in which "severe discipline" was
practised. They used this information as an effec-
tive means of terrorizing the population, but they
established the most elaborate devices to prevent
any kind of detailed or accurate information con-
cerning the camps to become known. This con-
cealment went so far as to preclude even SS men
and top Nazi leaders from realizing the full extent
and enormity of the occurrences in concentration
camps.
Another example in which the force of these
moral principles is in evidence is the fact that mis-
treatment of prisoners by Nazi personnel was con-
doned, but not ordered, and that the Nazis re-
frained from the wholesale and immediate
extermination of persons, except Jews, preferring
to let them die as a result of factors which they
could describe as "natural" such as poor health
physical weakness or breaches of discipline "justly"
punished. In short, the Nazis acted as though
they were aware that what they were doing would
be resented and condemned not only by other
peoples, not only by ordinary German citizens,
but by members of their own, exclusive group.
We may say, therefore, that no stable adjustment
was achieved by the Nazis themselves and that a
conflict persisted which, in itself, carried seeds of
destruction had no other forces intervened to
depose the Nazi regime effectively.
In the light of these remarks I should like to
venture a brief synthetic statement. It is probable
that the Nazi concentration camp system does
not constitute a unique social phenomenon, but
is rather, a pattern of social behavior that is apt
to emerge under certain conditions, the recurrence
of which can be envisioned. Even today various
institutions are in operation in civilized countries
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:46:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
153
which approximate the pattern of the German
concentration camps to a greater or lesser degree.
The instability, sociological, economical and politi-
cal, which characterized our present state of de-
velopment in most countries favors the appearance
of groups who attempt to usurp power in pursuit
of selfish interests. There is also the possibility
that the modern trend toward a mass-society and
the consequent reduction of the individual to the
status of a mere cog in some vast, inhuman ma-
chine could serve as an incentive to power-groups
for venturing with increasing boldness upon the
establishment of enterprises based on slave labor.
Since such groups of necessity face sharp opposi-
tion, they also tend to make sharp discriminations
between people which may very easily give rise to
extreme abuses in the treatment of people who
oppose them. On the other hand, the Nazi experi-
ence suggests that a powerful corrective factor is
operative that no fear or force can subdue or elimi-
nate in the long run. This corrective is the force
of moral principles whose -strength derives from
the fact that any collectivity that is to function as
a society can do so only on the basis of the co-
operation of its members and this cooperation, in
turn, is possible only when the personal needs and
rights of its members are adequately provided for
and the common values of the community safe-
guarded.
SPECLIAL SOCIOLOGICAL TOPICS ABOUT
CONCENTRATION CAMPS
Turning now to the relevance of the concentra-
tion camp material for special topics of sociological
analysis, I wish to make a brief statement only of
a somewhat different nature than the preceding
one. Instead of dealing with problems of interpre-
tation, I shall refer to situations which arose in
the concentration camps that are significant for
light they throw on various questions that concern
the social analyst.
Uniformity of ReactionPatterns of Inmates. One
of the more interesting observations is the fact
that in every one of the more than two hundred
large concentration camps, identical patterns of
reaction developed among inmates in spite of the
virtual absence of contact between them as well
as the heterogeneity of their populations. This
phenomenon is interesting because it isolates in-
stances of uniformity of human behavior and
throws light on the conditions which evoke such
uniformity. By way of examples, we note that in
154 SOCIAL FORCES
all concentration camps we find the recurrentpat-
tern of what the inmates dubbed "organization"
which involved very similar procedures of obtain-
ing means of alleviating the lack of basic necessities
through cooperative effort; uniformity of patterns
by which a brisk trade developed among inmates;
similar modes of establishing contact with the
outside; and the adoption of identical patterns
designed to avoid punishment. These examples
of patterned uniformity of reactions seem to be
due in part to the uniformity of procedure of the
concentration camp personnels. However, they
also appear to be related to the extremely limited
range of possibilities of adaptation which, in terms
of effectiveness, virtually reduced the scale of
useful improvisations to a minimum. A detailed
investigation of these facts might illuminate some
of the moot questions concerned with cultural
uniformities in human history.
Adjustmentto Social Obliteration.Another situa-
tion of interest to the social analyst is the reaction
to the extraordinary phenomenon which, for lack
of a better term, we might call "social obliteration."
I refer to the confinement of newly arrived in-
mates to quarantine for from four to six weeks
during which time they were stripped of all marks
of distinction in terms of status, group member-
ship, nationality, educational background, and
so forth. Of course, the nature of the concentration
camp patterns was such that these distinctions
not only had no significance but were completely
meaningless in terms of survival value. This was
true for the simple reason that they were no
longer determinants of organization or of access
to means of satisfying the necessities of life. From
this social zero point there emerged among the
survivors of the quarantine a new hierarchy, new
group alignments, and new skills for survival. It
is not without significance that the top ranks of
this emerging social organization, the so-called
"prominenten," adopted the value system and
mode of behavior of their jailors. Callousness to-
wards suffering and death, willingness to mistreat
others, exploitation and corruption became, in
various degrees, the accepted mode of behavior
for well adapted prisoners. This fact provides in-
sight into the powerful influence which social
structuring exercises, so powerful, indeed, that
under certain circumstances it is capable of oblit-
erating all varieties of conditioning to which human
beings have been subjected for a life time. The
concentration camp type of the so-called "mussul-
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:46:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
man" represented those who could not adjust to
the new order and, therefore, were doomed to
extinction, neglected and despised, not only by the
concentration camp personnel, but by fellow in-
mates who had succeeded in securing some kind
of foothold in the camp order.
Group-Formation.In contrast to this fact we
should mention a third observation of concentra-
tion camp behavior, namely, the reconstruction of
some semblance of the modes of living character-
istic of the outside world. A sociologically impor-
tant point here is the fact that the extent to which
this was possible depended upon group formations
in the concentration camps which were continua-
tions of previous group membership. The close-
knit group life of the Jehovah Witnesses is prob-
ably the outstanding example since they succeeded
in retaining a great many of the values charac-
teristic of this group everywhere. In general it
might be said that the more clearly the purposes
of a group were defined as or indentified with the
promotion of a social cause, the more likely were
its members to band together into cooperative
groups which, despite virtually insuperable ob-
stacles, endeavored to organize activities in line
with their interest. Other examples of this phenom-
enon were communists who organized political
meetings, patriotic Poles who formed resistance
groups, doctors who organized secret medical as-
sistance, and so forth.
Limitations of Social Control. A fourth fact
must be mentioned for its bearing upon the issue
of the limits of social control. The rulers of con-
centration camps made every conceivable efrort
to insure a fool-proof organization. However, in
spite of the fact that they seemed to have foreseen
all possible contingencies and to have provided for
them, things not foreseen did happen and the
provisions were not totally effective. Even this
draconic organization had its weaknesses, weak-
nesses which could be and were exploited and so
made possible the survival of thousands of prison-
ers. It is interesting to note that these weaknesses
did not appear in the physical aspects of the organ-
ization, such as faulty electric wiring, an insuffi-
cient number of guards, or inadequate supervision.
The weaknesses were inherent in the human ma-
terial which apparently cannot be moulded into
an echelon of robots which a perfect organization
for social control seems to require in the last
analysis. In a very impressive and awe-inspiring
novel called 1984, George Orwellgives us a picture
 RACISM IN NORTHWESTERNEUROPE
of a dismal future state in which all human ac-
tivities are viewed continuously and reient]essly
by an all-seeing eye. The basic weakness in this
picture is precisely this assumption of the existence
of robot-like creatures who, alone, could perform
such a function, plus the fact that millions of them
would be required to keep the population under
complete control. The concentration camp material
supports this criticism. Many of the flaws in the
efficiency of the concentration camp system were
due to the venality of the SS personnel, some of
them appeared because of the persistence of hu-
mane considerations, and vanity often played into
the hands of the inmates.
There is another important factor that contrib-
utes to the impossibility of instituting perfect social
controls that is demonstrated by the concentra-
tion camp experience. This also pertains to the
human rather than the material aspects of organi-
zation. To achieve their ends, the concentration
camp personnel had to employ the services of their
prisoners. Need for special skills made some of the
jailors dependent upon some of the prisoners, a
fact that gave these unforeseen opportunities to
counteract administrative measures to the ad-
vantage of large numbers of inmates. Work re-
quirements, for example, employment outside of
the camps, often put prisoners in a position to
thwart the controls imposed upon them. The in-
genuity of the strategems used by concentration
SOME HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL BASES OF
RACISM IN NORTHWESTERN EUROPE
CHRISTEN T. JONASSEN
OhioState University
T HE dogma of racism, that one ethnic or
racial group is condemned by nature to
hereditary inferiority and another group is
destined to hereditary superiority, has been one
of the most fateful ideas in recent history. Hank-
ins, in 1926, deplored the rising tide of adulation
of the blond dolichocephal as the embodiment of
all that was great, but hopefully concluded that,
though this propaganda was not yet spent, it
appeared to be weakening.' He stated further, "It
I Frank H. Hankins, The Racial Basis of Civilization:
A Critique of the Nordic Doctrine (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1926), p. vii.
This content downloaded from 185.2.32.89 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 11:46:58 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
155
inmates makes for some of the brighter pictures
in the otherwise monotonously gruesome record.
Any ruling personnel is similarly dependent upon
its subject population in one way or another and
this dependence insures that control can never be
complete. This fact should be of interest to stu-
dents of bureaucracy, especially to those who draw
a lugubrious picture of the consequences of the
extension of bureaucratic control in our society.
These analysts seem to have overlooked the
corrective factors present in any organization by
virtue of the fact that what is organized are human
beings and not robots.
In conclusion we might point out that all of the
special topics of the sociology of the concentration
camp system can be focused upon one basic issue,
namely, the problem of survival in concentration
camps. The material abundantly shows that only
in rare instances was survival a purely individual
achievement. In most cases survival was due to
the operation of social factors some of which I
have mentioned in the preceding discussion. If
evidence is needed in support of a truism, this
material clearly sustains the basis upon which
sociology itself is founded, namely, the fact that
for man, society is a means of survival for the
individuals in whom it is manifest, and also, that
richness of individual life depends upon the rich-
ness of the human relations available and the
variety and complexity of social arrangements.
is no exaggeration to say that the doctrine of
Aryan ascendency of which Count Arthur de
Gobineau has been proven by time to have been
the major prophet, was one of the most influential
ideas of the half century preceding the Great
War."2 If events have proven the prophesy of
the former statement to be erroneous, the same
events have shown his latter judgment to be well
founded indeed. And the portentous shadows cast
by the vast stirring of the peoples of Asia promise
that the influence of racism will be as great in the
2 Ibid., p. 15.