![]() ![]() It is composed of six observations which, taken together, unremittingly denounce “the failure” of prison to perform the functions officially assigned to it at different periods. 5 On the situation in France, see the recent OIP ( Observatoire International des Prisons [Internation (.)ĥ Michel Foucault excellently demonstrated the structure of criticism of the modern correctional institution. ![]() The compelling issue: corrections-centeredness Humanism, efficiency and rejection of the institution 1.1. The thrust of this off-center, transversal approach is to broach research on prison as a particular application of a general sociology program, in an attempt to open a new avenue, distinctly different from and complementary to the more classical sociology of prisons. Next we will discuss an alternative to this dilemma, consisting of articulating qualitative field research within prisons with a more comprehensive analysis of contemporary forms of government and the exertion of political power. This dilemma structures various sociological discourses on prison. This first step will throw a new light on the dilemma of prisons, in which thinkers are torn between the “urgency of reforms” and the “rejection of the institution”. Doing without this self-scrutiny entails another, converse risk, one which is much more prejudicial: that of producing analyses that have a strange resemblance with the systems, practices and perceptions which the researcher seeks, paradoxically, to criticize, or at least are easily accommodated by them.Ĥ We will begin by ferreting out those self-proclaimed “critical” ordinary and scientific statements which embrace the unspoken assumptions, goals and myths of the institution, thus tending toward the silent and therefore efficient reinforcement of the system behind it. This reflexive self-scrutiny entails some obvious risks: it may unsettle conceptual routines, making conceptualization, and by the same token research work, more laborious. Criticism must therefore be subjected to criticism, not to annihilate it but rather, to seize its nature and assess its potential impact. 2 Castoriadis (quoted by Bauman, 2003, 288-289) does not mince his words: he speaks of a “horrendous (.)ģ Our conception of the complexity of the problem is based on the conviction that at a time when the dominion of confinement is unprecedented, at a time when discourse of a managerial type aimed at developing the efficiency of the criminal justice system prevails over any other type of discourse, at a time, too, when the space for imagining other possibilities is shrinking within the intellectual sphere, 2 it is essential that sociologists studying prison intensify not only their sociological imagination 3 but also their critical vigilance with respect to their own assumptions and habits and to the principles of social justice on which their critical posture is predicated.What sort of knowledge do we want to set up in contrast to the knowledge we deem less relevant? At the least, we have a problem here that merits deeper scrutiny. 1 However, the usual, almost monotonous claims, both that sociological research is justified by the need to put an end to the “miscomprehension” of the institution and that such “miscomprehension” is the main factor in its “historical inertia” are inadequate today. Do of course some areas pertaining to life (and death) in confinement definitely remain in the dark. These documents often reflect an authentic investigational effort and they present a vast panorama of descriptions and interpretations. ![]() Se (.)Ģ First of all, it must be said that there is no lack of knowledge and discourse about prison nowadays: there are weighty parliamentary reports, original documentary films, expressive autobiographical narratives, first-hand accounts by sensible professionals, all sorts of newspaper articles, militant circulation of information and so on.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |