Negotiating Own Position in Total Institutions - Essay Example

Introduction A total institution is described as a facility where there are strict limits to social intercourse through physical boundaries. As a prison a total institution is meant to protect the community against the felt intentional dangers. In addition, a total institution will pursue a work-like task in a better way. Thus, the construction, effects and purpose of imprisonment are important factors in consideration of a prison as a total institution. McCorke, Lloyd, & Korn (1954) refer to prison as a process which institutionalises long-term prisoners as well as producing the criminal self concept internalisation. Goffman also described institutionalisation as a way in which total institutions affect “self- structure” (Myles 1970). In this case, the prison is the total institution and it creates lifestyle and norms that exists only within the penal environment. Through this, the prisoners are provided with an identity that aligns with their new status in the institution. This according to Myles (1970) is the imposition of the role of inmate which replaces the identity of the prisoner in the outside world completely. This article examines how individuals negotiate their own positions in a total institution where we consider prison in this case. It will explain the context and provide an argument and conclusion based on the concepts of schismogenesis and resistance. Schismogenesis According to Hobbs (2011), schismogenesis involves differentiation of the norms as well as the forms of attitudes of an individual which results from cumulative interactions between individuals. Bateson (1958) stated that schismogenesis is a process which occurs among people or even between various parts of one personality. He also identifies two basic forms of schismogenesis which are complementary and symmetrical. The characteristics of symmetrical schismogenesis are the successive changes of the same that happens in two parties due to direct interaction. For instance, an individual may react in order to reinforce his or her attempts in reaction to other individual’s reinforcements. Such an escalation results to the collapse of relationships if not disturbed by outer effects and may even lead to destruction of individuals. The same conclusion is related to the complementary type of schismogenesis. In this type, there is escalation of the changes in parties as they react towards mutual changes. However, such changes are of opposite kind (Brox, 2000). That is, if individuals are becoming more and more like one another in symmetrical schismogenesis, then they are proceeding in opposite directions in regard to complementary schismogenesis. If an individual suppresses another, the other individual responds with a stronger degree leading to arousing of the stronger interests in regard to the first suppression. Use of complementary schismogenesis does not only provide a description of relations based on suppression or submission. This is because it also considers various cases such as the specialisation process in the modern society where specialising in one group leads to specialisation of others. This explains the complexity in modern world and the need for negotiation (Wardle, 2001). It is due to applications of such wide contexts that the term schismogenesis is applied and I feel quite free to use schismogenesis in processes that occur between patterns of behaviour that result in establishment of a total institution. This concept will allow in inclusion of wider environment perceptions in analysis of total institutions. This leads to the potential of identification of schismogenesis process (Hobbs, 2011). Resistance Resistance is very important in a total institution since the resistance mechanisms are extended from power and control mechanisms. Power operates in top-down manner, it is vertical as well as horizontal and as a result it leads to normalising controls and pressures through colleagues and authorities. In the same way, resistance also engages all power levels and as a result, individuals are required to confront the process of conformity in interactions and institutions. In presentation of resistance, attention is drawn towards the secondary adjustment processes that individuals make in total institutions in order to maintain the boundary between their previous senses of identity and self identity. Through resistance, there is formation of social bonds with the institution between the inmates, staff, and outsiders. Thus, resistance in prison is characterised individual acts which are aimed at mental or physical removal from the system as well as group and interaction activities that are developed in order to establish alternative social relations. If the acts of resistance are carried out successfully, the inmate develops some personal autonomy and self hood beyond the grasp of the institution. Key resistant areas in total institutions include the physical areas with limited surveillance within the institution as well as areas in which an individual becomes “own man or woman”. It is within such areas that deviance happens which including gambling, drinking, smoking with staff either respecting the boundary or without the knowledge of staff (Brunn et al, 2000). Thus, within total institutions, the ability to undermine mechanisms of surveillance and control contribute to ‘self’ development. With such considerations, it is clear of the ability to resist within the walls of total institutions, but unless an individual is able to access such areas, maintain sense of self independence of pressure of authorities and peers, and engage in minor deviance acts, it is difficult to resist. The process of individual resistance is a mechanism that distances individuals from subordination, challenging ideologies that support subordination and promoting unity among the individuals who are resisting. Thus the acts of resistance provide an individual with small self-empowerment moments and should be viewed as less important (Kray, 2006). Context: Schismogenesis In order to negotiate individual position in a prison, an individual should not admit any authoritative position or any hierarchical division in accomplishment of any task. All the inmates should be completely be engaged in the action and any preferential treatment should not be provided. As an individual, your complexity in regard to the task provided should not affect your position in the institution (Wardle, 2001). For instance, if you participate in companionship, the society within the institution includes you but you are not subordinated to any individual and you will maintain your self-sufficiency. In order to accomplish any joint action, trying to divide the tasks available in regard to the principle of collection and distribution will be essential. Thus, in any framework of companionship, people always work with in of these principles in order to be complementary to each individual but not competing. A prisoner has lost his or her previous freedom and has to work as prisoners in the new institutions. As a result, this must have changed the social organisation of individuals as well as everyday life. This is because each has been forced to switch from their various activities to a main form of activity. This crucial change affects the daily life of an individual and it is important to assimilate and help an individual to maintain social organisation in such a complex organisation even without the previous activities outside total institutions as a dominant social activity. Thus, without mutual balancing, an individual will not be able to negotiate his or her own position in the prison (Hobbs, 2011). Resistance In the context of a prison, if the there are programs designed to reward, enforce as well as instil conformity within the inmates, then resistance through such programs will still be challenging. Thus, resistance mechanisms on prison are embedded within mechanisms of power and control over individuals through all aspects of the environment of the institution (Scott, 1985). The most important thing in negotiating own position in prison is the social distance between an individual and the staff or keeper. This is crucial in preventing or causing the breakdown between the two and by doing this; it will prevent the exploitation of an individual by others as well as ultimate degradation of each or both (Abu-Lughod, 1990). For instance, when an individual breaks he bond between him and the staff or keeper, the keeper will exploit the skills of the inmate. Since the keeper is aware of the ability of the inmate to ruin his reputation, this may lead to isolation to remind the inmate of the social distance between them as well as his position as an inmate. Thus, failure to maintain social distance will lead to the act of revenge and resistance between the authority and the inmate which contributes to ultimate degradation. On the other hand, when an individual breaks the social distance, he is at a better position of exposing any corruption activities of the keeper or the staff (McCorkle and Korn, 1954). Another important point of consideration in negotiating own position in prison is use of individual education as well as expertise in breaking the hierarchy of the prison given that being educated presents an internal quality that is irremovable and immaterial. As an individual, a prisoner has internal traits, attitudes, thoughts and qualities which remain unknown to the institution and can be used against the institution. Penal institutions disciplinary structure has sometimes assumed some of the capabilities of the individual to be reformed and thus use of surveillance and punishment should induce conformation and also interiorise. However, by threat of punishment and continual surveillance, a prisoner cannot be rendered transparent completely (Abu-Lughod, 1990). For instance, even if the authorities may be aware of the knowledge and intelligence of an inmate, the most they can do is observing his visible actions but without the knowledge of what his attitudes and thoughts are. Since there is no surveillance that can see through a individual, there are possible thoughts of resistance. Through such lack of transparency, an individual is able to create private mental space. Thus, preventing own freedom of choice as well as retaining individuality will lead to mental resistance of conformation and interiorising to the institution. It can be argued that attention to various forms of resistances within the society is important for an individual in order to scrutinise the theories of power and enable negotiations in complex environments. The challenge is that for those individuals that sense something of interest in regard to resistance tend to concentrate more on it with the hopes of confirming any failure of oppression systems. In any issue where there is a different views, schismogenesis is important in having a clear understanding on how and why there may be polarisation between individual and total institutions as well as how they can be able to compromise (Hobbs, 2011). More importantly, it is important in illuminating how the process affects generation of knowledge and how it is relied upon in making decisions during negotiations. Focusing on companionship creates more opportunities to adapt to different changes. This explains why an individual cannot be affect total institution, but maintain his companionship connected in the frames of new duties and tasks. One can present an image that he or she individually perceive as a joke, but according to the new institutions to be engaged with, the image is accepted and the institution is given an impression of controllability (Gibson, 1985). By such presentation, an individual is able to present himself and negotiate with others while preventing the conflict between them. Conclusion Negotiating of own position in a total institution should not admit any hierarchical or authoritative position during accomplishment of various tasks. This calls for complete engagement of all colleagues while preventing preferential treatment. Attention to various forms of resistances is crucial as it assists an individual in understanding the theories of power and engages in negotiations in different environments. Mechanisms for resistance are related to power and control mechanisms over an individual. In negotiation, social distance is essential between an individual and keepers as this may either prevent or create breakdown between the two. This is important in preventing the exploitation of an individual by others or ultimate degradation of both. Education and expertise are also crucial in negotiating own position because it breaks the hierarchy based on presentation of invisible internal qualities of an individual such as traits, thoughts and attitudes. Thus, individuals are able to present themselves and negotiate their own position while preventing conflicts as explained by the concepts of schismogenesis and resistance. References Abu-Lughod, L 1990, “The Romance of Resistance: Tracing Transformations of Power through Bedouin Women”, American Ethnologist vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 41-55. Bateson, G 1958, Naven: A Survey of the Problems Suggested by a Composite Picture of the Culture of a New Guinea Tribe Drawn from Three Points of View. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Brox, O 2000, “Schismogenesis in the Wilderness: The Reintroduction of Predators in Norwegian Forests”, Ethnos, vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 387-404. Brunn, SD, Harri A, & Dahlman CT 2000. “Landscaping for Power and Defence.” Landscapes of Defence. Ed. J. R. Gold and G. Revill. London: Pearson, pp. 68-84. Gibson, T 1985, “The Sharing of Substance versus the Sharing of Activity Among the Buid”, Man, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 391–411 Hobbs, E 2011, “Performing Wilderness, Performing Difference: Schismogenesis in a Mining Dispute”, Ethnos vol. 76, no. 1, pp. 109-129 Kray, Christine A. 2006 Resistance to What? Stalled Social Movements in Cancun. City & Society 18(1):66-89 McCorkle, Lloyd W, & Korn, R 1954, “Resocialisation within Walls.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 293, pp. 88-98 Myles, JF, 1978, “Institutionalization and Sick Role Identification Among the Elderly.” American Sociological Review, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 508-521 Scott, JC 1985, Normal Exploitation, Normal Resistance.inWeapons of the Weak: Everyday forms of Peasant Resistance, Yale University Press, New Haven, pp. 28-47 Wardle, Huon 2001Schismogenesis in a Belfast Urinal.Anthropology Today, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 24-25 Read More