Erving Goffman - The Characteristics of Total Institutions

8/13/2019 Erving Goffman - The Characteristics of Total Institutions

1/11

Characteristics of Total Institutions

by Erving Goffman,

In this essay Goffman provides us a summary of one of his key conceptsthat of the total

institution. In defining this concept Goffman delineates the key features of totalitarian socialsystems. !hould a person reside in such a system, it encompasses his or her "hole being. Itundercuts the resident#s individuality. It disregards his or her dignity. It sub$ects the individualto a regimented pattern of life that has little or nothing to do "ith the person#s o"n desires orinclinations. %nd it is inescapable.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

I'T()*+CTI)'

Total Institutions

Every institution captures something of the time and interest of its members and providessomething of a "orld for them in brief, every institution has encompassing tendencies.-hen "e revie" the different institutions in our -estern society "e find a class of them"hich seems to be encompassing to a degree discontinuously greater than the ones net inline. Their encompassing or total character is symboli/ed by the barrier to social intercourse"ith the outside that is often built right into the physical plant0 locked doors, high "alls,barbed "ire, cliffs and "ater, open terrain, and so forth. These I am calling total institutions,and it is their general characteristics I "ant to eplore. This eploration "ill be phrased as ifsecurely based on findings but "ill in fact be speculative.

The total institutions of our society can be listed for convenience in five rough groupings.1irst, there are institutions established to care for persons thought to be both incapable andharmless these are the homes for the blind, the aged, the orphaned, and the indigent.!econd, there are places established to care for persons thought to be at once incapable oflooking after themselves and a threat to the community, albeit an unintended one0 T2sanitoriums, mental hospitals, and leprosoriums. Third, another type of total institution isorgani/ed to protect the community against "hat are thought to be intentional dangers to ithere the "elfare of the persons thus se3uestered is not the immediate issue. Eamples are04ails, penitentiaries, 5)- camps, and concentration camps. 1ourth, "e find institutionspurportedly established the better to pursue some technical task and $ustifying themselvesonly on these instrumental grounds0 %rmy barracks, ships, boarding schools, "ork camps,

colonial compounds, large mansions from the point of vie" of those "ho live in the servants#3uarters, and so forth. 1inally, there are those establishments designed as retreats from the"orld or as training stations for the religious0 %bbeys, monasteries, convents, and othercloisters. This sublisting of total institutions is neither neat nor ehaustive, but the listing itselfprovides an empirical starting point for a purely denotative definition of the category. 2yanchoring the initial definition of total institutions in this "ay, I hope to be able to discuss thegeneral characteristics of the type "ithout becoming tautological.

2efore attempting to etract a general profile from this list of establishments, one conceptual


2/11

peculiarity must be mentioned. ,'one of the elements I "ill etract seems entirely eclusiveto total institutions, and none seems shared by every one of them. -hat is shared anduni3ue about total institutions is that each ehibits many items in this family of attributes toan intense degree. In speaking of 6common characteristics,6 then, I "ill be using this phrasein a "eakened, but I think logically defensible, "ay.

Totalistic 1eatures

% basic social arrangement in modem society is that "e tend to sleep, play and "ork indifferent places, in each case "ith a different set of coparticipants, under a different authority,and "ithout an overall rational plan. The central feature of total institutions can be describedas a breakdo"n of the kinds of barriers ordinarily separating these three spheres of life.1irst, all aspects of life are conducted in the same place and under the same single authority.!econd, each phase of the member#s daily activity "ill be carried out in the immediatecompany of a large batch of others, all of "hom are treated alike and re3uired to do thesame thing together. Third, all phases of the day#s activities are tightly scheduled, "ith oneactivity leading at a prearranged time into the net, the "hole circle of activities being

imposed from above through a system of eplicit formal rulings and a body of officials.1inally, the contents of the various enforced activities are brought together as parts of asingle overall rational plan purportedly designed to fulfill the official aims of the institution.

Individually, these totalistic features are found, of course, in places other than totalinstitutions. Increasingly, for eample, our large commercial, industrial and educationalestablishments provide cafeterias, minor services and off&hour recreation for their members.2ut "hile this is a tendency in the direction of total institutions, these etended facilitiesremain voluntary in many particulars of their use, and special care is taken to see that theordinary line of authority does not etend to these situations. !imilarly, house"ives or farmfamilies can find all their ma$or spheres of life "ithin the same fenced&in area, but these

persons are not collectively regimented and do not march through the day#s steps in theimmediate company of a batch of similar others.

The handling of many human needs by the bureaucratic organi/ation of "hole blocks ofpeople&"hether or not this is a necessary or effective means of social organi/ation in thecircumstances&can be taken, then, as the key fact of total institutions. 1rom this, certainimportant implications can be dra"n.

Given the fact that blocks of people are caused to move in time, it becomes possible to usea relatively small number of supervisory personnel "here the central relationship is notguidance or periodic checking, as in many employer&employee relations, but rather

surveillance&a seeing to it that everyone does "hat he has been clearly told is re3uired ofhim, and this under conditions "here one person#s infraction is likely to stand out in reliefagainst the visible, constantly eamined, compliance of the others. . . .

In total institutions. . . there is a basic split bet"een a large class of individuals "ho live inand "ho have restricted contact "ith the "orld outside the "alls, conveniently calledinmates, and the small class that supervises them, conveniently called staff, "ho oftenoperate on an 7&hour day and are socially integrated into the outside "orld. Each groupingtends to conceive of members of the other in terms of narro" hostile stereotypes, staff often


3/11

seeing inmates as bitter, secretive and untrust"orthy, "hile inmates often see staff ascondescending, highhanded and mean. !taff tends to feel superior and righteous inmatestend, in some "ays at least, to feel inferior, "eak, blame"orthy and guilty. !ocial mobilitybet"een the t"o strata is grossly restricted social distance is typically great and oftenformally pre& scribed even talk across the boundaries may be conducted in a special tone ofvoice. These restrictions on contact presumably help to maintain the antagonistic

stereotypes. In any case, t"o different social and cultural "orlds develop, tending to $ogalong beside each other, "ith points of official contact but little mutual penetration. It isimportant to add that the institutional plan and name comes to be identified by both staff andinmates as someho" belonging to staff, so that "hen# either grouping refers to the vie"s orinterests of # #the institution,6 by implication they are referring to the vie"s and concerns ofthe staff.

The staff&inmate split is one ma$or implication of the central features of total institutions asecond one pertains to "ork. In the ordinary arrangements of living in our society, theauthority of the "ork& place stops "ith the "orker#s receipt of a money payment thespending of this in a domestic and recreational setting is at the discretion of the "orker and

is the mechanism through "hich the authority of the "orkplace is kept "ithin strict bounds.8o"ever, to say that inmates in total institutions have their full day scheduled for them is tosay that some version of all basic needs "ill have to be planned for, too. In other "ords, totalinstitutions take over 6responsibility6 for the in& mate and must guarantee to have everythingthat is defined as essential layed on.6 It follo"s, then, that "hatever incentive is given for"ork, this "ill not have the structural significance it has on the out& side. *ifferent attitudesand incentives regarding this central feature of our life "ill have to prevail.

8ere, then, is one basic ad$ustment re3uired of those "ho "ork in total institutions and ofthose "ho must induce these people to "ork. In some cases, no "ork or little is re3uired,and inmates, untrained often in leisurely "ays of life, suffer etremes of boredom. In other

cases, some "ork is re3uired but is carried on at an etremely slo" pace, being geared intoa system of minor, often ceremonial payments, as in the case of "eekly tobacco ration andannual Christmas presents, "hich cause some mental patients to stay on their $ob. In sometotal institutions, such as logging camps and merchant ships, something of the usual relationto the "orld that money can buy is obtained through the practice of6 forced saving6 all needsare organi/ed by the institution, and payment is given only after a "ork season is over andthe men leave the premises. %nd in some total institutions, of course, more than a full day#s"ork is re3uired and is induced not by re"ard, but by threat of dire punishment. In all suchcases, the "ork&oriented individual may tend to become some"hat demorali/ed by thesystem.

In addition to the fact that total institutions are incompatible "ith the basic "ork&paymentstructure of our society, it must be seen that these establishments are also incompatible "ithanother crucial element of our society, the family. The family is sometimes contrasted tosolitary living, but in fact the more pertinent contrast to family life might be "ith batch 9block:living. 1or it seems that those "ho eat and sleep at "ork, "ith a group of fello" "orkers, canhardly sustain a meaningful domestic eistence. Correspondingly, the etent to "hich a staffretains its integration in the outside community and escapes the encompassing tendenciesof total institutions is often linked up "ith the maintenance of a family off the grounds.


4/11

-hether a particular total institution acts as a good or bad force in civil society, force it may"ell have, and this "ill depend on the suppression of a "hole circle of actual or potentialhouseholds. Conversely, the formation of households provides a structural guarantee thattotal institutions "ill not arise. The incompatibility bet"een# these t"o forms of socialorgani/ation should tell us, then, something about the "ider social functions of them both.Total institutions, then, are social hybrids, part residential community, part formal

organi/ation, and therein lies their special sociological interest. There are other reasons,alas, for being interested in them, too. These establishments are the forcing houses forchanging persons in our society. Each is a natural eperiment, typically harsh, on "hat canbe done to the self.

8aving suggested some of the key features of total institutions, "e can move on no" toconsider them from the special perspectives that seem natural to take. I "ill consider theinmate "orld, then the staff "orld, and then something about contacts bet"een the t"o.

T8E I';%TE -)(


5/11

"ith "hich the inmate may have identified himself, there typically being a system ofnonaccessible storage from "hich the inmate can only reobtain his effects should he leavethe institution. %s a substitute for "hat has been taken a"ay, institutional issue is provided,but this "ill be the same for large categories of inmates and "ill be regularly repossessed bythe institution. In brief, standardi/ed defacement "ill occur. . . . 1amily, occupational, andeducational career lines are chopped off, and a stigmati/ed status is submitted. !ources of

fantasy materials "hich had meant momentary releases from stress in the home "orld aredenied. %reas of autonomous decision are eliminated through the process of collectivescheduling of daily activity. ;any channels of communication "ith the outside are restrictedor closed off completely. =erbal discreditings occur in many forms as a matter of course.Epressive signs of respect for the staff are coercively and continuously demanded. %nd theeffect of each of these conditions is multiplied by having to "itness the mortification of one#sfello" inmates. . . .

In the background of the sociological stripping process, "e find a characteristic authoritysystem "ith three distinctive elements, each basic to total institutions.

1irst, to a degree, authority is of the echelon kind. %ny member of the staff class has certainrights to discipline any member of the inmate class. . . . In our society, the adult himself,ho"ever, is typically under the authority of a single immediate superior in connection "ith his"ork or under authority of one spouse in connection "ith domestic duties. The only echelonauthority he must face&the police& typically are neither constantly nor relevantly present,ecept perhaps in the case of traffic&la" enforcement.

!econd, the authority of corrective sanctions is directed to a great multitude of items ofconduct of the kind that are constantly occurring and constantly coming up for $udgment inbrief, authority is directed to matters of dress, deportment, social intercourse, manners andthe like. . ...

The third feature of authority in total institutions is that misbehaviors in one sphere of life areheld against one#s standing in other spheres. Thus, an individual "ho fails to participate "ithproper enthusiasm in sports may be brought to the attention of the person "ho determines"here he "ill sleep and "hat kind of "ork task "ill be accorded to him.

-hen "e combine these three aspects of authority in total institutions, "e see that theinmate cannot easily escape from the press of $udgmental officials and from the envelopingtissue of constraint. The system of authority undermines the basis for control that adults inour society epect to eert over their interpersonal environment and may produce the terrorof feeling that one is being radically demoted in the age&grading system. )n the outside,

rules are sufficiently la and the individual sufficiently agreeable to re3uired self&discipline toinsure that others "ill rarely have cause for pouncing on him. 8e need not constantly lookover his shoulder to see if criticism and other sanctions are coming. )n the inside, ho"ever,rulings are abundant, novel, and closely enforced so that, 3uite characteristically, inmateslive "ith chronic aniety about breaking the rules and chronic "orry about the conse3uencesof breaking them. The desire to 6stay out of trouble6 in a total institution is likely to re3uirepersistent conscious effort and may lead the inmate to ab$ure certain levels of sociability "ithhis fello"s in order to avoid the incidents that may occur in these circumstances.


6/11

It should be noted finally that the mortifications to be suffered by the inmate may bepurposely brought home to him in an eaggerated "ay during the first fe" days afterentrance, in a form of initiation that has been called the "elcome. 2oth staff and fello"inmates may go out of their "ay to give the neophyte a clear notion of "here he stands. %spart of this rite de passage, he may find himself called by a term such as 6fish,6 6s"ab,6 etc.,through "hich older inmates tell him that he is not only merely an inmate but that even "ithin

this lo"ly group he has a lo" status.

5rivilege !ystem

-hile the process of mortification is in progress, the inmate begins to receive formal andinformal instruction in "hat "ill here be called the privilege system. Insofar as the inmate#sself has been unsettled a little by the stripping action of the institution, it is largely around thisframe"ork that pressures are eerted, making for a reorgani/ation of self. Three basicelements of the system may be mentioned.

1irst, there are the house rules, a relatively eplicit and formal set of prescriptions and

proscriptions "hich layout the main re3uirements of inmate conduct. These regulations spellout the austere round of life in "hich the inmate "ill operate. Thus, the admissionprocedures through "hich the recruit is initially stripped of his self&supporting contet can beseen as the institution#s "ay of getting him in the position to start living by the house rules.

!econd, against the stark background, a small number of clearly defined re"ards orprivileges are held out in echange for obedience to staff in action and spirit. It is importantto see that these potential gratifications are not uni3ue to the institution but rather are onescarved out of the flo" of support that the inmate previously had 3uite taken for granted. )nthe outside, for eample, the inmate "as likely to be able to unthinkingly eercise autonomyby deciding ho" much sugar and milk he "anted in his coffee, if any, or "hen to light up a

cigarette on the inside, this right may become 3uite problematic and a matter of a great dealof conscious concern. 8eld up to the inmate as possibilities, these fe" recapturings seem tohave a reintegrative effect, re&establishing relationships "ith the "hole lost "orld andassuaging "ithdra"al symptoms from it and from one#s lost self.

The inmate#s run of attention, then, especially at first, comes to be fiated on these suppliesand obsessed "ith them. In the most fanatic "ay, he can spend the day in devoted thoughtsconcerning the possibility of ac3uiring these gratifications or the approach of the hour at"hich they are scheduled to be granted. The building of a "orld around these minorprivileges is perhaps the most important feature of inmate culture and yet is something thatcannot easily be appreciated by an outsider, even one "ho has lived through the eperience

him& self. This situation sometimes leads to generous sharing and almost al"ays to a"illingness to beg for things such as cigarettes, candy and ne"spapers. It "ill beunderstandable, then, that a constant feature of inmate discussion is the release bingefantasy, namely, recitals of "hat one "ill do during leave or upon release from the institution.

8ouse rules and privileges provide the functional re3uirements of the third element in theprivilege system0 punishments. These are designated as the conse3uence of breaking therules. )ne set of these punishments consists of the temporary or permanent "ithdra"al ofprivileges or abrogation of the right to try to earn them. In general, the punishments meted


7/11

out in total institutions are of an order more severe than anything encountered by the inmatein his home "orld. %n institutional arrangement "hich causes a small number of easilycontrolled privileges to have a massive significance is the same arrangement "hich lends aterrible significance to their "ithdra"al.

There are some special features of the privilege system "hich should be noted.

1irst, punishments and privileges are themselves modes of organi/ation peculiar to totalinstitutions. . . . %nd privileges, it should be emphasi/ed are not the same as prere3uisites,indulgences or values, but merely the absence of deprivations one ordinarily epects one"ould not have to sustain. The very notions, then, of punishments and privileges are notones that are cut from civilian cloth.

!econd, it is important to see that the 3uestion of release from the total institution iselaborated into the privilege system. !ome acts "ill become kno"n as ones that mean anincrease or no decrease in length of stay, "hile others become kno"n as means forlessening the sentence.

Third, "e should also note that punishments and privileges come to be geared into aresidential "ork system. 5laces to "ork and places to sleep become clearly defined asplaces "here certain kinds and levels of privilege obtain, and inmates are shifted very rapidlyand visibly from one place to another as the mechanisms for giving them the punishment orprivilege their cooperativeness has "arranted. The inmates are moved, the system isnot. . . .

Immediately associated "ith the privilege system "e find some standard social processesimportant in the life of total institutions.

-e find that an institutional lingo develops through "hich inmates epress the events thatare crucial in their particular "orld. !taff too, especially its lo"er levels, "ill kno" thislanguage, using it "hen talking to inmates, "hile reverting to more standardi/ed speech"hen talking to superiors and outsiders. (elated to this special argot, in& mates "ill possesskno"ledge of the various ranks and officials, an accumulation of lore about theestablishment, and some comparative information about life in other similar total institutions.

%lso found among staff and inmates "ill be a clear a"areness of the phenomenon ofmessing up, so called in mental hospitals, prisons, and barracks. This involves a compleprocess of engaging in forbidden activity, getting caught doing so, and receiving somethinglike the full punishment accorded this. %n alteration in privilege status is usually implied and

is categori/ed by a phrase such as 6getting busted.6 Typical infractions "hich can eventuatein messing up are0 fights, drunkenness, attempted suicide, failure at eaminations, gambling,insubordination, homoseuality, improper taking of leave, and participation in collective riots.-hile these punished infractions are typically ascribed to the offender#s cussedness, villainy,or 6sickness,6 they do in fact constitute a vocabulary of institutionali/ed actions, limited insuch a "ay that the same messing up may occur for 3uite different reasons. Informally,inmates and staff may understand, for eample, that a given messing up is a "ay forinmates to sho" resentment against a current situation felt to be un$ust in terms of theinformal agreements bet"een staff and inmates, or a "ay of postponing release "ithout


8/11

having to admit to one#s fello" inmates that one really does not "ant to go.

In total institutions there "ill also be a system of "hat might be called secondaryad$ustments, namely, technics "hich do not directly challenge staff management but "hichallo" inmates to obtain disallo"ed satisfactions or allo"ed ones by disallo"ed means.These practices are variously referred to as0 the angles, kno"ing the ropes, conniving,

gimmicks, deals, ins, etc. !uch adaptations apparently reach their finest flo"er in prisons,but of course other total institutions are overrun "ith them too. It seems apparent that animportant aspect of secondary ad$ustments is that they provide the inmate "ith someevidence that he is still, as it "ere, his o"n man and still has some protective distance,under his o"n control, bet"een himself and the institution. . . .

The occurrence of secondary ad$ustments correctly allo"s us to assume that the inmategroup "ill have some kind of a code and some means of informal social control evolved toprevent one inmate from informing staff about the secondary ad$ustments of another. )n thesame grounds "e can epect that one dimension of social typing among inmates "ill turnupon this 3uestion of security, leading to persons defined as 6s3uealers,6 6finks,6 or 6stoolies6

on one hand, and persons defined as 6right guys6 on the other. It should be added that"here ne" inmates can playa role in the system of secondary ad$ustments, as in providingne" faction members or ne" seual ob$ects, then their 6"elcome6 may indeed be ase3uence of initial indulgences and enticements, instead of eaggerated deprivations.2ecause of secondary ad$ustments "e also find kitchen strata, namely, a kind ofrudimentary, largely informal, stratification of in& mates on the basis of each one#s differentialaccess to disposable illicit commodities so also "e find social typing to designate thepo"erful persons in the informal market system.

-hile the privilege system provides the chief frame"ork "ithin "hich reassembly of the selftakes place, other factors characteristically lead by different routes in the same general

direction. (elief from economic and social responsibilities&much touted as part of the therapyin mental hospitals&is one, although in many cases it "ould seem that the disorgani/ingeffect of this moratorium is more significant than its organi/ing effect. ;ore important as areorgani/ing influence is the fraternali/ation process, namely, the process through "hichsocially distant persons find themselves developing mutual support and common counter&mores in opposition to a system that has forced them into intimacy and into a single,e3ualitarian community of fate. It seems that the ne" recruit fre3uently starts out "ithsomething like the staff s popular misconceptions of the character of the inmates and thencomes to find that most of his fello"s have all the properties of ordinary decent humanbeings and that the stereotypes associated "ith their condition or offense are not areasonable ground for $udgment of inmates. . . .

%daptation %lignments

The mortifying processes that have been discussed and the privilege system represent theconditions that the inmate must adapt to in some "ay, but ho"ever pressing, theseconditions allo" for different "ays of meeting them. -e find, in fact, that the same inmate"ill employ different lines of adaptation or tacks at different phases in his moral career andmay even fluctuate bet"een different tacks at the same time.


9/11

1irst, there is the process of situational "ithdra"al. The inmate "ithdra"s apparent attentionfrom everything ecept events immediately around his body and sees these in a perspectivenot employed by others present. This drastic curtailment of involvement in interactionalevents is best kno"n, of course, in mental hospitals, under the title of 6regression.6 . . . I donot think it is kno"n "hether this line of adaptation forms a single continuum of varyingdegrees of "ithdra"al or "hether there are standard discontinuous plateaus of

disinvolvement. It does seem to be the case, ho"ever, that, given the pressures apparentlyre3uired to dislodge an inmate from this status, as "ell as the currently limited facilities fordoing so, "e fre3uently find here, effectively speaking, an irreversible line of adaptation.

!econd, there is the rebellious line. The inmate intentionally challenges the institution byflagrantly refusing to cooperate "ith staff in almost any "ay. The result is a constantlycommunicated intransigency and sometimes high rebel&morale. ;ost large mental hospitals,for eample, seem to have "ards "here this spirit strongly prevails. Interestingly enough,there are many circumstances in "hich sustained re$ection of a total institution re3uiressustained orientation to its formal organi/ation and hence, paradoically, a deep kind ofcommitment to the establishment.

Third, another standard alignment in the institutional "orld takes the form of a kind ofcoloni/ation. The sampling of the outside "orld provided by the establishment is taken bythe inmate as the "hole, and a stable, relatively contented eistence is built up out of themaimum satisfactions procurable "ithin the institution. Eperience of the outside "orld isused as a point of reference to demonstrate the desirability of life on the inside and theusual tension bet"een the t"o "orlds collapses, th"arting the social arrangements basedupon this felt discrepancy. Characteristically, the individual "ho too obviously takes this linemay be accused by his fello" inmates of 6having found a home6 or of 6never having had it sogood.6 !taff itself may become vaguely embarrassed by this use that is being made of theinstitution, sensing that the benign possibilities in the situation are someho" being misused.

Coloni/ers themselves may feel obliged to deny their satisfaction "ith the institution, if onlyin the interest of sustaining the counter&mores supporting inmate solidarity. They may find itnecessary to mess up $ust prior to their slated discharge, thereby allo"ing themselves topresent involuntary reasons for continued incarceration. It should be incidentally noted thatany humanistic effort to make life in total institutions more bearable must face the possibilitythat doing so many increase the attractiveness and likelihood of coloni/ation.

1ourth, one mode of adaptation to the setting of a total institution is that of conversion. Theinmate appears to take over completely the official or staff vie" of himself and tries to act outthe role of the perfect inmate. -hile the coloni/ed inmate builds as much of a freecommunity as possible for himself by using the limited facilities available, the convert takes a

more disciplined, moralistic, monochromatic line, presenting himself as someone "hoseinstitutional enthusiasm is al"ays at the disposal of the staff. . . . !ome mental hospitalshave the distinction of providing t"o 3uite different conversion possibilities &one for the ne"admission "ho can see the light after an appropriate struggle and adopt the psychiatric vie"of himself, and another for the chronic "ard patient "ho adopts the manner and dress ofattendants "hile helping them to manage the other "ard patients "ith a stringency ecellingthat of the attendants themselves. . . .

-hile the alignments that have been mentioned represent coherent courses to pursue, fe"


10/11

inmates, it seems, carry these pursuits very far. In most total institutions, "hat "e seem tofind is that most inmates take the tack of "hat they call playing it cool. This involves a some&"hat opportunistic combination of secondary ad$ustments, conversion, coloni/ation andloyalty to the inmate group, so that in the particular circumstances the inmate "ill have amaimum chance of eventually getting out physically and psychically undamaged. Typically,the inmate "ill support the counter&mores "hen "ith fello" inmates and be silent to them on

ho" tractably he acts "hen alone in the presence of the staff. Inmates taking this line tend tosubordinate contacts "ith their fello"s to the higher claim of 6keeping out of trouble.6 Theytend to volunteer for nothing, and they may even learn to cut their ties to the outside "orldsufficiently to give cultural reality to the "orld inside but not enough to lead to coloni/ation. . ..

Culture Themes

% note should be added here concerning some of the more dominant themes of inmateculture.

1irst, in the inmate group of many total institutions there is a strong feeling that time spent inthe establishment is time "asted or destroyed or taken from one#s life it is time that must be"ritten off. It is something that must be 6done6 or 6marked6 or 6put in6 or 6built6 or6pulled.6 . . . %s such, this time is something that its doers have bracketed off for constantconscious consideration in a "ay not 3uite found on the outside. %nd as a result, the inmatetends to feel that for the duration of his re3uired stay&his sentence&he has been totally eiledfrom living. It is in this contet that "e can appreciate some& thing of the demorali/inginfluence of an indefinite sentence or a very long one. -e should also note that ho"everhard the conditions of life may become in total institutions, harshness alone cannot accountfor this 3uality of life "asted. (ather "e must look to the social disconnections caused byentrance and to the usual failure to ac3uire "ithin the institution gains that can be transferred

to outside life & gains such as money earned, or marital relations formed, or certified trainingreceived.

!econd, it seems that in many total institutions a peculiar kind and level of self&concern isengendered. The lo" position of inmates relative to their station on the outside, asestablished initially through the mortifying processes, seems to make for a milieu of personalfailure and a round of life in "hich one#s fall from grace is continuously pressed home. Inresponse, the inmate tends to develop a story, a line, a sad tale&a kind of lamentation andapologia&"hich he constantly tells to his fello"s as a means of creditably accounting for hispresent lo" estate. -hile staff constantly discredit these lines, inmate audiences tend toemploy tact, suppressing at least some of the disbelief and boredom engendered by these

recitations. In conse3uence, the inmate#s o"n self may become even more of a focus for hisconversation than it does on the outside.

5erhaps the high level of ruminative self&concern found among inmates in total institutions isa "ay of handling the sense of "asted time that prevails in these places. If so, then perhapsanother interesting aspect of inmate culture can be related to the same factor. I refer here tothe fact that in total institutions "e characteristically find a premium placed on "hat might becalled removal activities, namely, voluntary unserious pursuits "hich are sufficientlyengrossing and eciting to lift the participant out of himself, making 9him: oblivious for the


11/11

time to his actual situation. If the ordinary activities in total institutions can be said to torturetime, these activities mercifully kill it.

!ome removal activities are collective, such as ball games, "ood& "ork, lectures, choralsinging and card playing some are individual but rely on public materials, as in the case ofreading, solitary T= "atching, etc. 'o doubt, private fantasy ought to be included too. !ome

of these activities may be officially sponsored by staff and some, not officially sponsored,may constitute secondary ad$ustments. In any case, there seems to be no total institution"hich cannot be seen as a kind of *ead !ea in "hich appear little islands of vivid,enrapturing activity.

Conse3uences

In this discussion of the inmate "orld, I have commented on the mortification process, thereorgani/ing influences, the lines of response taken by inmates under these circumstances,and the cultural milieu that develops. % concluding "ord must be added about the long&rangeconse3uences of membership.

Total institutions fre3uently claim to be concerned "ith rehabilitation, that is, "ith resettingthe inmate#s self&regulatory mechanisms so that he "ill maintain the standards of theestablishment of his o"n accord after he leaves the setting. In fact, it seems this claim isseldom reali/ed and even "hen permanent alteration occurs, these changes are often not ofthe kind intended by the staff. -ith the possible eception presented by the greatresociali/ation efficiency of religious institutions, neither the stripping processes nor thereorgani/ing ones seem to have a lasting effect. 'o doubt the availability of secondaryad$ustments helps to account for this, as do the presence of counter&mores and thetendency for inmates to combine all strategies and 6play it cool.6 In any case, it seems thatshortly after release, the e&inmate "ill have forgotten a great deal of "hat life "as like on

the inside and "ill have once again begun to take for granted the privileges around "hich lifein the institution "as organi/ed. The sense of in$ustice, bitterness and alienation, so typicallyengendered by the inmate#s eperience and so definitely marking a stage in his moralcareer, seems to "eaken upon graduation, even in those cases "here a permanent stigmahas resulted.

2ut "hat the e&inmate does retain of his institutional eperience tells us important thingsabout total institutions. )ften entrance "ill mean for the recruit that he has taken on "hatmight be called a proactive status. 'ot only is his relative social position "ithin the "allsradically different from "hat it "as on the outside, but, as he comes to learn, if and "hen hegets out, his social position on the outside "ill never again be 3uite "hat it "as prior to

entrance. . . . -hen the proactive status is unfavorable, as it is for those in prisons or mentalhospitals, "e popularly employ the term 6stigmati/ation6 and epect that the e&inmate maymake an effort to conceal his past and try to 6pass.6

Documents

Erving Goffman - The Characteristics of Total Institutions