|
Week 2b Readings
|
Week 2b: Theories of Punishment (continued)
Reading:
As stated in his introduction to Punishment and Modern Society, David Garland attempts to expose the depth and complexity of punishment as a social institution, placing the mechanisms of punishment (i.e., the prison) as the central objects in the study of social theory. The first half of Punishment and Modern Society uses the theoretical frameworks of Durkheim (Chapters 2 and 3), Marx (Chapters 4 and 5), and Foucault (Chapters 6 and 7) in the social analysis of penality. The second half of the text (the reading for this week) continues this line of inquiry by employing Weberian themes (Chapters 8), and concluding with discussions of punishment and culture (Chapters 9 and 11), the sensibility of punishment (Chapter 10), and the comprehensive understanding of punishment as a social institution (Chapter 12).
Garland begins his discussion of Weber’s framework (Chapter 8) by making comparisons between Weber and Foucault’s work, asserting that both scholars stress discipline, bureaucracy, modernity, and rationalization, and the impact these forces have upon the social world and human relations. Weberian themes are timely in the study of today’s correctional system/regimes as much of the “new penology” utilizes an administrative/management perspective (see the Feeley and Simon reading from Week 2). Examples of these themes include the penal division of labor (i.e., administration, line officers, clerical staff, and penologists all have specialized tasks), the bureaucratization and professionalization of the correctional enterprise, the growth of technology and expert analysis, which has replaced moral evaluation and condemnatory judgment. However, Garland is quick to assert that a rationalist view of penality is limited, as bureaucracy only mutes/dissipates penal values (hence, penal values are not eliminated). Weberian themes can also assist the penologist in understanding the interplay between rational, non-rational, and irrational forms of penal action.
Chapter 9 of Punishment and Modern Society focuses on the avenues that values and commitments enter into the penal process, and how culture influences the correctional enterprise. The cultural effects of punishment are reciprocal, as punishment embodies society’s cultural forms; yet punishment can also shape culture. Cultural patterns change over time; hence the importance of this reciprocal relationship cannot be overstated. Two key aspects in the understanding of culture and its relationship to penality are religion and humanitarianism. External forces (i.e., other components of the criminal justice system and policy directives) must transform the penal culture to affect change. In Chapter 11, Garland discusses the reciprocal nature of culture and penality more in-depth than he does in Chapter 9. He analyzes the signs of penality (i.e., the criminal sentence), the effect these signs have on the social audience (where members often are not unified, it should be noted), social relations, authority, and power relations in society. Thus, punishment helps to create society (this point was originally stated by Foucault).
In Chapter 10 of Punishment and Modern Society, Garland traces the sensibility of punishment. His discussions can be likened to the march of progress model discussed in Chapter 1 of Blomberg and Lucken (reading from Week 1). According to Elias, growth and change in penal structure and development can be linked to increased social interdependency, social development, and social organization. Spierenburg identifies historical phenomena (i.e., the social repugnance of bodily punishments) that have contributed to the increased sensibility of punishment through time. Garland notes that the theses of Elias and Spierenburg should not lead us to conclude that penal administrators do not use aggression and hostility as methods of control; on the contrary, aggression and hostility still characterize penal regimes, yet the public is shielded from these aspects of punishment. Other examples of “insensibility” can be found in the contemporary penal system, current “get tough” approaches are driven by emotional reaction (not the calculated, rational deterrence discussed in the selection by Kleck in Punishment and Social Control). The penal institution, social by nature, is a flexible entity that is shaped by the sensibilities (and “insensibilities,” perhaps) of political and social forces.
In Chapter 12 of Punishment and Modern Society, Garland concludes by reiterating the need for social theory in the study/understanding of penality and the importance of understanding punishment as a social institution. Garland maintains that robust sociological explanations can be interpreted as forms of social action that can aid us in understanding penal history. These frameworks will allow us to explore the complexity inherent to punishment/penality as a social institution. Garland does note that his presentation of key frameworks is not to be interpreted by the reader as a grand theoretical synthesis, but as an outline of the multiple interpretations he presents throughout the text, and how these interpretations relate. In undertaking this task, Garland hopes that the limitations of punishment and its respective sociological interpretations can be identified and addressed.
|