The Holistic Sense of Prison Phenomena in Venezuela. I. Understanding and Comprehending “Schizophrenic” Institutions

Systemic Practice and Action Research. Vol. 12, No. 1, 1999

The Holistic Sense of Prison Phenomena inVenezuela. I. Understanding and Comprehending"Schizophrenic" Institutions

Hernan Lopez-Garay1

1. INTRODUCTION

Gradually over the past 10 years, the prison issue in Latin America has come tothe foreground, together with other current subjects (such as corruption and thefading presence of the State in society). In fact, prisons have become a majorproblem not only because of the continuous riots, deaths, rapes and humiliationsto which prisoners in Latin America are subjected,2 but also because of incessantofficial statements to the effect that the serious situation of the penal institutionsis being looked into and will be effectively and efficiently solved within a shortperiod of time. However, these official statements have been to no avail.

With the intention of taking a systemic look at this crude social reality in ourcountries, some three years ago, we decided to undertake an interpretive systemic

1 Departamento de Sistemologia Interpretitiva, Escuela de Sistemas, Facultad de Ingenieria, Univer-sidad de Los Andes, Merida, 5101, Venezuela. E-mail: [email protected].

2 Reports of different international human rights organizations in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia,Mexico, and Venezuela, among other countries, attest to this.

Received January 12, 1998; revised May 26, 1998

This is the first in a series of three papers which report on the results of aninterpretive systemic study of the prison system and its reform in Venezuela. Afterexplaining the purpose and contents of the trilogy, this paper proceeds to describe theresearch process undertaken (following the methodological guidelines of interpretivesystemology) to open the scene (or uncover the background) of the distinction ofprisons as "schizophrenic" institutions. The study, as a whole, aims at both illustratingthe use of interpretive systemology concepts and helping prison reformers to have abetter understanding of the complex social situation they aspire to change.

KEY WORDS: institutional schizophrenia; institutional rationality; opening thescene; distinction; contexts of meaning (or perspective); interpretive systemology.

77

1094-429X/99/0200-0077S16.00/0 © 1999 Plenum Publishing Corporation

study of the prison phenomenon in Venezuela.3 The object of the study was tofind the social sense of the prison institutions. Following the research guidelinesof Interpretive Systemology (Fuenmayor, 1991c; Lopez Garay, 1991, 1994b) thestudy dealt with unfolding the conditions of possibility of such a phenomenon atpresent. We started our research by delving into the main prison of Merida Statein Venezuela. We participated in the daily activities at the prison and interviewedprisoners and prison staff (warden, prison board, administrators, social workers,educators and other professionals). At the same time, we began to design differ-ent interpretive contexts, which could help us to gain further systemic understand-ing and comprehension of prisons and their social sense in general (these termswill be explained below). Finally, we also began to examine the discourse of theState, mainly that of prison system reformers. These three aspects intermingledand influenced one another in different ways. The interpretive contexts helped usto unveil the different conceptions about prisons that the warden, reformers andinmates seemed to have and to understand the possible meanings that they attributeto these institutions. Even though the study did not seek to propose changes to theprison administrators or to the government, it is clear that the concepts of man, soci-ety, punishment, and justice unfolded by the research can very well serve as a basisfor a debate on what to do about the prisons in Venezuela. For instance, this debatecould deal with questions such as whether or not a reform is justified, or even if theprisons should be closed altogether.

In this series of three articles, we will present some of the more importantresults of this research. The results cover two aspects, the first of which is thesearch for the sense of the Venezuelan penal institutions. (We believe, however,that the results will also be of significance to Latin American prisons in general).4

In the first two articles, the search for sense is unfolded. This first article startswith the everyday manifestations of the phenomenon. The second article startswith the stage that the first has set up and increases our systemic understandingof prisons.

The need to search for sense comes from the realization that the prisonsystem increasingly presents itself as a "schizophrenic" institution. For this rea-son, our investigation initially attempted to answer the question: What conditionsmake it possible for the prisons to be seen as "schizophrenic" institutions at thepresent time? It should be noted that this is not a question that concerns thecause for institutional "schizophrenia," but a question about sense. That is, in

3 This study was conducted by Professor Hernan Lopez-Garay. An initial research group to carry outthe work was formed and was composed by Tomasz Suarez, Fernando Quinones, and the directorof the project.

4 We are planning to carry out comparative studies in Colombia, Peru, and Chile. The Centre forSystems Studies at Hull University in England has carried out studies of prisons in England. Giventhe academic ties we have with this institution, it is possible that their work could serve as acontrasting role for our comparative studies.

78 Lopez-Garay

the light of which context is the behavior of an institution "schizophrenic"? Inother words, it is a question about the "background" on which prison institutionsare distinguished as "schizophrenic."

Shortly, we shall see the relevance of this question in an interpretive sys-temic study and how bringing this "background" to light requires contrastingperspectives, or contexts of meaning.

In the second article, the search for sense is approached and explored fromanother angle. Its starting point is the "background" on which the prison phe-nomenon presents itself as a problem, and the question is, Which is the "back-ground" that makes us "problemize" the prison situation? (This notion will bepursued further in the second and third articles.) In fact, several studies haveshown that for some time now the prison situation has been described as serious(Gomez Grille, 1979a-c). However, it is only recently that the distinction that"the prisons are a serious social problem" has been drawn (in the sense of draw-ing a picture on a background) in the arena of public opinion. What supportsand makes this "drawing" or "distinction" possible?

As we shall see, the question the first article revolves around and that ofthe second article are closely related, since they are different revelations of the"background" on which the prison phenomenon is distinguished as a subject forhermeneutic research (Lopez-Garay, 1994a).

In the third article in the trilogy, the subject is the research itself: What lessonsdoes this research teach us with respect to the manner in which a systemic interpre-tive study is carried out? In this last article, we unfold the conceptual and method-ological "dangers" that lay in wait as the systemic interpretive study of Venezue-lan prisons evolved. For example, at a given moment, the research led to a typeof structuralist systemic study (Jackson, 1992). Later, this made us realize that theideas of Interpretive Systemology and its methodological guidelines can be inter-preted in a structuralist manner. Thanks to these "dangers," and reflecting on theirpossible causes, we became aware of the importance of reviewing the researchguidelines of Interpretive Systemology. The third article illustrates this revision.

On ending this introduction, we must say that the study we present belowtries to illustrate the research process and not only the results (i.e., systemicunderstanding and comprehension) we gained from it. There have been few stud-ies of this type in Interpretive Systemology and few open discussions regardingthe research problems encountered when attempting to carry out such studies.With the trilogy, we hope to have contributed to filling this void.

2. THE ORIGIN OF THE QUESTION CONCERNING THE "SENSE"OF VENEZUELAN PRISONS IN THE PUBLIC EYE

As mentioned before, our research started with the phenomenal manifesta-tions of prisons. In recent years, the prison drama has been the center of attention

Understanding and Comprehending "Schizophrenic" Prison Phenomena 79

of public opinion in Venezuela. The Dantesque occurrences at the Sabaneta andLa Planta prisons, where the death of dozens of prisoners could be seen on tele-vision, are not the only prison-related occurrences that are shown to us daily bythe media. The fact is that prisons have become a subject of public debate inVenezuela. Frequent brutal and bloody riots, the continuous violation of the pris-oners' human rights, and the widespread corruption of the judicial system area sort of perverse mirror image of Venezuela's current social and institutionalcrisis. The Guardian Weekly expresses this point well: "Bloody riots throughoutVenezuela's overcrowded and dilapidated prison system this year have eruptedlike a running sore on this once oil-rich nation. The sheer number and brutalnature of the deaths have turned the country's captive underworld into a per-verse mirror image of Venezuela's current social and economic ills" (GuardianWeekly, May 15, 1994). The media bombard us with the prison issue every day,and consequently, those of us living in this country cannot avoid coming intocontact—from our different perspectives and life situations—with the prison sit-uation. Hence, the ordinary citizen might ask, for example, Has madness invadedVenezuelan prisons? What is the reason for these continuous killings followedby government promises that they will not happen again? and What should wedo about this situation?

It is in times such as these that the question about the social sense of ourinstitutions becomes more important. According to the Venezuelan constitution,prisons have the mission of rehabilitating prisoners. This means that prisonsshould fulfill an educational task, making prisoners useful members of soci-ety again. But this is not happening. Then what is the social role of prisonsin Venezuela? If they are not in the business of rehabilitation, then what role arethey fulfilling?

This complex situation reminds us of a similar situation in France in the1960s, when the subject of prisons was in the limelight. Just as we are today, theFrench thinker Michel Foucault was puzzled by the institutional behavior of theprisons and of the French State, and questioned their apparent lack of sense. Heobserved that there was a kind of "schizophrenia" (our term) embodied in theprison phenomenon. On the one hand, and according to French law, the State'sformal objective for prisons was that they serve as correctors or reformers of theindividual. However, on the other hand, the history of French prisons showedthat these institutions had had the opposite effect and had served to increasecriminal behavior (Foucault, 1990, Chap. 11).

Foucault's research gave a total turn to the classical positivist way ofapproaching the study of social phenomena. Instead of focusing his study onthe search for the causes for institutional schizophrenia in the prison system,Foucault thought it was vital to ask (with respect to institutions in general) notonly what they were and what their effects were, ". . . but also what is the typeof thought (or rationality) that maintains them" (ibid., p. 215). In other words,

80 Lopez-Garay

Foucault was interested in finding a context of meaning to show the "rationality"of such behavior.

Our research is concerned with similar issues (Lopez Garay 1993, 1994a,1997; Lopez Garay et al., 1994; Suarez, 1996, 1997). In fact, we have noticedthat, like the reformers of the 1960s in France, Venezuelan reformers have takenfor granted that the prisons are simply not functioning and that their behaviorshould be qualified as irrational. For this reason, they are concerned only withcarrying out reforms to make the prisons function effectively and efficiently.That is, the reformers do not appear to have asked the basic Foucaultian question:What conditions and makes it possible for the prison phenomenon to persistentlymaintain itself with its defects (almost as if on purpose the system was designedto function exactly the opposite to what legislation formally intended)? Once aprison study is framed within the perspective of the established order, the taskof the reformer is reduced to searching for the causes for the malfunctioning ofthe prisons, with a view to "repairing them."

Contrary to this mechanistic approach to social phenomena, the Foucaultianway of studying institutions seems driven by a noticeable critical interest (in theKantian sense of uncovering "conditions of possibility"), since the context ofmeaning within which such behavior makes sense is sought and not the causesof the phenomenon. (Foucault, 1990, Chap. 11, 1977).

The question of "rationality" opens new frontiers for institutional researchthat go beyond the institutions themselves. Once we ask about the conditions ofpossibility of something, then we cannot avoid asking a second question, namely,What is the rationality behind the question of institutional rationality? Follow-ing this path, we can either end up in a sort of infinite regression, or, as hap-pened in our research, discover the notions of "distinction" and "background,"and with them the grounds for an entirely different onto-epistemology for sys-tems research (Fuenmayor, 1991a-c). This second alternative is the one we wishto present to our readers.

There are a number of ways the two questions can be embodied in thecontext of a particular research. In our case, there were two questions. The firstwas: What conditions and makes it possible for the prison situation to show itselfas schizophrenic at the present time? The second was: What is the basis for thisquestion? Likewise, why is it important that we ask ourselves these questions?In other words: What is the hidden background or platform that makes us seethe prison situation as an important and urgent problem?5

In this article, we present only a summary of the results of our research onthe first question; namely, the uncovering of the "rationality" that sustains the"schizophrenic" prison system. The second question is dealt with more exten-5 According to Robert Castel, one of the analysts of Foucault's work, these questions seem to point

toward something deeper, namely, toward the uncovering of the rationality of the present (Castel,1994).


sively by Suarez in the second article of our trilogy. We hope to show that theexploration of these two fundamental questions sheds light on the nature of the"background" on which prisons are distinguished as problematical (and also onthe nature of interpretive systemic research).

3, VENEZUELAN PRISONS AS "SCHIZOPHRENIC" INSTITUTIONS

We have said that the prison phenomenon presents itself to the ordinary cit-izen and to some researchers of Venezuela prison institutions as "schizophrenic."Let us examine why.

For the layman, the continual deaths and violation of human rights in theprisons during the past 10 years seem to have no coherent explanation. That is,they don't follow a logical trend. And when an individual, an institution, or acountry is perceived as acting incoherently and contradictorily, the adjective thatcomes to mind to qualify such behavior is insane, or "schizophrenic."

But, let us not become more confused. This "schizophrenic" label isnot given because the killing of dozens of prisoners in cold blood with theentire country as witnesses (thanks to modern communications) is perceivedas extremely barbaric; nor is it given because more than 26,000 persons arecrowded into space designed for less than 12,000. The schizophrenic label isgiven because it refers to something more obscure than what the ordinary mancan perceive, something that he cannot clearly identify, and which, nevertheless,seems to move and give force to this issue.

A succession of Ministers of Justice has persistently told us that the missionof the prisons is to "rehabilitate" prisoners, enabling them to rejoin the commu-nity as useful members of society. The constitution and the laws also speak ofthe regenerating mission of the prisons and of respect for the human rights ofprisoners. Hence, when we hear these discourses, we cannot avoid seeing anincoherent schizophrenia (remember that in Greek schizophrenia means dividedintellect or mind) between the actions of the State, which allow killings suchas those at the La Planta prison, and the formal discourse of its representativesand its laws. It is as though the State, through its institutions and representa-tives, manifests two completely different and contradictory personalities. Thisdouble personality and the lack of awareness of its contradictions are preciselythe symptoms typical of schizophrenia. It is this same schizophrenia that citizensperceive.

Now, we have said that in our research we were interested in determiningthe "rationality" that sustains these schizophrenic institutions or, equivalently,we wished to find out which conditions make such institutions possible. Thequestion as to how to approach this task now arises.

82 Lopez-Garay

4. THE UNCOVERING OF THE "RATIONALITY" OR"BACKGROUND" ON WHICH PRISONS ARE DRAWN AS"SCHIZOPHRENIC"

Suppose that we stop thinking that

(A) systems are purposeful holons independent from the observer and con-stituted beforehand by a set of interrelated parts from which the system'sproperties emerge;

(B) systems are hierarchically organized; and(C) systems are adaptive wholes immersed in environments with which they

trade resources and information.

Suppose, further, that we admit just the opposite: Systems are neither pur-poseful nor purposeless. Systems are not independent from the observer. In fact,systems and observers are acts of distinction in which the two are simultaneouslyand recursively constituted (i.e., we have to talk about system-observer as a unit).Parts "emerge" from that which is distinguished as a system. The act of distinctionnever occurs in a vacuum but in situations (i.e., involvement with circumstancesand not a state of affairs or external circumstances. For example, I distinguishedthe university of the town where I was born, and where I am now working, etc.).According to these assumptions, systems would be more like a figure-backgroundunity than like sets of interrelated parts, hierarchically organized with communi-cation and control processes and immersed in an environment. Note that this is notsimply a change of words to indicate the same ideas. In other words, we are notmerely replacing the notion of environment with that of background. In the firstnotion of system, the environment is something independent from the system andis composed of other systems and entities. In the second notion, when we say thatsomething is the "background" of a figure, we are referring to that undifferentiatedground at the back of the figure which is both constitutive of the system and con-stituted by it. In fact, if we try to examine and articulate the background, we imme-diately discover its "unindicability," by which we mean that we cannot indicate itwithout turning it into a new distinction or figure, which again has a background,and so on, and so forth.

Now, how do we study systems or phenomena thus conceived? Certainly,the basic idea is to examine the manner in which the figure fits into its back-ground. That is, the study of systems requires opening the background. It hasbeen shown (Fuenmayor 1991c, Lopez-Garay 1986, 1994a,b), however, that inorder to open a figure's background without altering its essence (i.e., withoutturning it into a new figure), one can develop different conceptual contexts ofmeaning (or interpretive contexts) and "interpret" the figure within those contexts(i.e., unfold the meaning the figure has in such a context). A context of meaning[or interpretive context (see Fuenmayor, 1991c; Lopez-Garay 1991, 1994b) is


a coherent theoretical structure centered around a fundamental idea [generativeconcept, seminal idea, or geno-idea (ibid.)] from which the rest of the structureis derived. Thus, for instance, in the three contextual models presented below,the seminal ideas are as follows.

(A) Venezuelan society is characterized by a power process dominated bypre-modern ideals, which, nonetheless, uses modernity as a mask.

(B) Venezuelan society is characterized by a struggle between pre-modernand modern forces. It is far from clear which side is wining, but thewhole of society is ridden by this struggle and by this duality.

(C) Venezuelan society is driven by post-modern ideals. However, this isa process ridden with contradictions whose nature determines the verynature of the Venezuelan identity.

We shall call the outcome of building these interpretive contexts and inter-preting the phenomenon studied in them systemic understanding (i.e., by inter-preting we mean the investigation of how the phenomenon "fits," or is explainedby means of notions provided by the context). This is because it provides us withdifferent stances, under which an idea of the system's unity is obtained. Theseries of interpretations as a whole tells us something about the figure-back-ground unity (which is precisely the systemic character we pursue). Therefore,the next step in a systemic study of this kind is to search for this unity by orches-trating a debate between the various interpretations uncovered in the previousstage. The outcome of this debate is a clearer sense of a possible answer to thequestion, What is the unity underlying the different interpretations? The answerto this question is never a tangible product (since the understanding phase isnever-ending because the background is inexhaustible). We shall call this sec-ond intangible outcome systemic comprehension.

In summary, the second notion of system that can be derived from the aboveconsiderations is strongly related to an idea of unity or wholeness. But given thepeculiar unbound and unarticulated nature of the "background," systemic un-derstanding and systemic comprehension are a never-ending task.

Using these ideas as research guidelines, we shall now give the first stepsof our research.

5. TWO CONTEXTS OF MEANING FOR GAINING SYSTEMICUNDERSTANDING AND COMPREHENSION OF THE PRISONPHENOMENON

5.1. False Modern States

Since the wars for independence in the 19th century, Venezuela has offi-cially adhered to modernity, understanding modernity as a way of seeing the

84 Lopez-Garay

world and ordering society according to the liberating role of reason (GonzalezFabre, 1995). But, in truth, this modern project, born in the 18th century Enlight-enment (this project is outlined roughly in Section 7.1), was never solidly rootedin our soil, in spite of the fact that our governments and our people importedinstitutions and imitated ways of being of the European cultures that inventedmodernity. What occurred in Venezuela—and the greater part of Latin America,and what still occurs—was the establishment of factions that, from the end ofthe wars for independence up until now, have gained control of the country andits wealth at will.6

These powerful factions have been motivated not by the desire to form amodern state, but by the desire to exploit and control the abundant wealth ofthe country for their own benefit. Dictatorships, promises of government postsin exchange for votes, and other non-democratic ways of ruling our society canbe explained by this desire to exploit and control our wealth. However, in orderto achieve this objective, Venezuela's ruling groups have had to show the facadeof a modern State.7 Moreover, this facade, or mask, has also been convenient forseducing the people with the idea that by adopting the schemes and institutionsof modernity, we will soon achieve a level of progress as high as that of thehighly developed countries (Fuenmayor et al., 1991; Lopez-Garay, 1991).

Consequently, modernity in Venezuela is of bastard lineage. It was not bornin our land as an answer to a perception of reality, socially and culturally definedand felt by our people (Gonzalez Fabre, 1995). Modernity was transplanted andused with the intention of fettering man, instead of encouraging his liberation.Hence, it can be understood why the well-being of the population has neverbeen a pressing issue for the governments in power. It can also be understoodthat the prison population is perceived by these governments as something lessthan non-existent, that is, totally marginal.

Nevertheless, in the past 20 years, factors such as the increase in population,the growing economic difficulties of the State (due in part to the limitless greedof those who have taken possession of the wealth of our country) and a cer-tain awakening of the exploited masses in all of Latin America have made theseimpoverished masses begin to protest with greater force and question the offi-cial discourse to the effect "that we are on the road to progress." These protestsand this social instability have created a lack of confidence on the part of theinternational companies with interests in Venezuela, on which the dominant fac-tions depend to remain in power. This is the reason for these factions' eagernessto show the world that "now we are seriously going to reform our country andguarantee stability for foreign capital." This also explains why the recent rush

6 See, for example, Galeano (1970).7 It suffices to mention that many of the loans iniemationai organizations grant to our country areconditioned by State implementation of certain organizations and the approval of certain legislationsimilar to that of the so-called modern or developed countries.


to reform prisons and other institutions is so popular these days. To keep theirpower, the factions need to show that they are "serious" about the task of settingup a modern State.

At this point, it is important to ask, Who is telling this story? What is his/herperspective? Note that this perspective is not necessarily that of a leftist whoignores the fact that the Berlin Wall no longer exists, that communism is practi-cally dead, and that neo-liberalism is now being sold as the ideology for savingthe entire world. It is, rather, the position of someone influenced by the ideas ofmodernity, who indignantly sees how the project has failed totally in our country.A power group has managed to maintain the country in the pre-modern phaseand, what is worse, has done so by mounting a false modernity.

According to this context of meaning, or "rationality," the "schizophrenic"behavior of the State regarding the prisons is the consequence of a power strat-egy. However, this explanation is not at all satisfactory, since it assumes a sinis-ter power organized to systematically rob and oppress the people. Nevertheless,one can give examples that indicate that at least some elements of modernityare being embedded in our soil. The efforts in the last 30 years to democratizeour country (Blank, 1973, particularly Chaps. V, VI, and X) and the growingfrequency at which citizens make use of their democratic rights—for example,through the creation of community organizations8—show that Venezuela is beingmodernized. Moreover, the explanation of a false modern State, which masksthe actual pre-modern condition of Venezuelan society, is incomplete, since itimmediately brings up the question: What is the order that has made such astate of things possible? In other words, this question invites us to ask ourselvesabout that order that has made the appearance of an authentic modern state inVenezuela impossible.

5.2. The Struggle to Set Up an Authentic Modern State

A possible answer might revolve around the idea of a struggle betweenmodern and pre-modern forces. The former want the realization of an authenticmodern state in Venezuela, but the pre-moderns do not. And the presence ofthe latter is pervasive, sometimes even in structures and behavior which livetogether with the modern ones (Echeverria, 1996). In this way of viewing thesituation, the prisons would be a mirror that reflects not only this struggle andtransition toward a modern state, but also, and on a small scale, the pre-modernand corrupt power system that disguises itself in different ways in order to holdon to its power. This process of change is not only far from being complete, butis also of great complexity, since it implies breaking up power structures anddeeply and long ingrained ways of life.

8For a more in-depth study of these organizations in Venezuela, see Ochoa (1996).

86 Lopez-Garay

The struggle, then, is causing some changes in Venezuela by forcing thosein power to implement modern institutions and, sometimes, even to make themwork! The latter gives moderns hope. Thus, for example, the defenders of anauthentic modernization of the State invite the active participation of all citizens.9

They tell us that if we only criticize or passively wait for others to make changesfor us, then we will never achieve our "Enlightenment" goals. In this discourse,tragedies, such as that of the La Planta killings, should motivate us even moreto fight for change.

In the light of this context of meaning, institutional schizophrenia is simplya manifestation of this struggle, which, nevertheless, is slowly but steadily lead-ing us to modernity. During this transition period, new and old structures mustobviously live together, and the reaction of old structures trying to stay in placecan be a great obstacle to change. Prisons and prison policies are no exception.

6. WHAT SHOULD BE DONE?

Let us suppose that we present the reformers with the above outline forthe "rationality" that sustains prison schizophrenia. In their minds, the image oftwo struggling forces persists: "good" against "evil," and this struggle generateswhat seems to be institutional schizophrenia. The question that the reformerswould now want to answer is: Under the circumstances, What should be donewith regard to the prison situation? In the light of the "rationality," or "back-ground," displayed with the aid of our interpretive contexts, let us assume thatwe want effectively to change the pre-modern "rationality," which sustains theprison institution and the Venezuelan State in general, for a modern "rationality."If we understand by a modern State one that essentially pursues the assurance ofrespect for every single one of its citizens, seen as an end in itself, then the ques-tion is, What kind of prisons should a State inspired by this ideal have? Betterstill, what we should ask ourselves before anything else is, Is the idea of impris-onment as the main punishment mechanism of a modem society compatible withthe ideals of a modern State?

Before answering this question, we should remember that the Venezuelanconstitution and laws have been greatly influenced by the ideals of modernity(Gonzalez Fabre, 1995; Plaza et al., 1996; Quintero et al., 1996) and that the ideaof punishment by imprisonment is an invention of the 18th century. Therefore, wemight conclude that it would not be necessary to think of prison reform, but onlyto carry out the law in the spirit of modernity! But, here again and once more,doubt arises. If this is so, then why are the advocates of an authentic moderniza-9COPRE is a commission appointed by the president to study, give advice to the president and

participate in the implementation of a strategy to reform the Venezuelan State (which usually meansmaking it more similar to the functioning and working of the institutions of the government of adeveloped country). See their 1986 report.


tion in Venezuela (COPRE 1986) bent on reforming the prison system? The sur-prise is even greater when in the light of the work of modern thinkers, such asImmanuel Kant, we realize that prisons are an "anomaly" (Suarez, 1996). Theyare an "anomaly" because mankind is an end in itself and, consequently, humanbeings cannot be treated as mere instruments. They are also an "anomaly" becausethe exercise of justice cannot be conveniently reduced to a matter of weighingcrime on one end of the scale against prison sentence on the other. This wouldviolate justice's essential nature of "fairness." In these terms, the only crime thatwould deserve confinement would be the crime of kidnapping (ibid.). But whyshould other crimes (e.g., robbery) also be punished with confinement? Punish-ment and crime are essentially interrelated, like two sides of the same coin. Andwisdom is required to be able to determine the correct interrelation between the twoin each case. For this reason, and except for kidnapping, imprisonment should notexist in a modern state! (Note that we are not saying that punishment should notexist in a modern society, although here we cannot enter into a discussion of howto justify punishment under the ideals of the Enlightenment).10

7. PRISON SCHIZOPHRENIA OR SOCIAL SCHIZOPHRENIA?TOWARD A DEEPER UNCOVERING OF THE "RATIONALITY"OF PRISONS

In summary, the advice we can give to the Venezuelan prison reformerswho defend the ideals of modernity is, Close the prisons down!!!!. There is noplace for them in a modern State.

Both reformers and our readers may be completely confused by this advice,and this is understandable. On the one hand, we have talked about the strugglebetween the "malignant" forces of pre-modernity and the "good" forces of mo-dernity as a way of explaining institutional schizophrenia. On the other hand, weare telling these very same "good" forces that they are wrong in their endeavorto reform prisons and that they should close them down forever if they wantto be true to the ideals of modernity. In other words, we are accusing them ofhaving two contradictory discourses.

Could it be that we are dealing with a more intense schizophrenia? In ourattempt to clarify prison schizophrenia, we have uncovered a new schizophreniaat the level of society, one that is promoted precisely by those who see them-selves as establishing a better society. It would seem that as there are geneticallyschizophrenic families, perhaps we must sadly accept that our society is geneti-cally schizophrenic, since it is apparently characterized by continually makingroom for institutions and discourses that respond to different fragmented andeven contradictory concepts.

10 See an in-depth study of this subject by Suarez (1996).

88 Lopez-Garay

But what if it is only an illusion of schizophrenia that we perceive, giventhat what we call modernity is probably not the same thing that the Venezuelandefenders of modernity believe it to be? Furthermore, what sort of privilegedposition are we, the researchers of this phenomenon, claiming for ourselves thatmakes us assert, on the one hand, that we are living in a society which gen-erates schizophrenic institutions and, on the other, that our research is exemptfrom these general processes of society? Why are we taking a totally disen-gaged stance that is free from the sociocultural processes of our society and ourtimes?

This questioning in our research opens at least two paths. On one path, wepay little attention to the last question. We simply claim that none of the contextsoffered as possible explanations for the "rationality" of the prison situation issatisfactory, and that, therefore, we must continue the search for "better" contextsor perspectives. On the contrary, on the other path, we do pay attention to thelast question. This question is more fundamental because it calls into questionnot only the stance of this entire research, but also the "rationality" that makesthe structuring of the prison situation as a problem possible. Hence, the questionsuggests the investigation of the "background" that makes the prisons an issue.As said before, this is the path that Suarez followed in the second article,'' partlyas a result of the first path leading to the need to ask again about the stance ofour whole endeavor.

Accordingly, our purpose is to pursue the first path described above in thenext two sections. We shall now present a third context that seeks to be morecomprehensive than the other two.

7.1. Post-Modern Liberalism

Let us assume that the idea of modernity that the Venezuelan reformershold is what is currently called neo-liberalism. In order to characterize a neo-liberal context, let us first outline the liberal project (Maclntyre, 1988, ch.xvii)that was born in the 18th century as a new project of man and society and whichis usually assumed to be the forerunner of neo-liberalism. In this paper, we shallcharacterize neo-liberalism as a distortion of the 18th century project.

The liberal project's goal was to build a society of free men. Freedom wasunderstood as the autonomy of Reason. Thus, man was considered free when hewas capable of giving himself rational and universal legislation and was hencenot guided by his emotions and instincts. The liberal society that Enlightenmentthinkers promoted was a "kingdom of ends," or a social system composed ofrational, free and equal human beings, linked together by universal laws thatthey themselves had enacted.

11 See also Suarez (1996, 1997).


However, this liberal project failed (Maclntyre, 1985, Chaps. 5 and 6), andinstead, a different, although related, order gradually came into being. This orderis what today is called neo-liberalism, a term that leads one to believe thatpresently there is an attempt to adapt the liberal model of society proposed bythe thinkers of the Enlightenment to our times. However, this is not the case. Inthe neo-liberal order, men are not linked by the desire to search for the realiza-tion of the above-mentioned universal unifying rational vision (the kingdom ofends). On the contrary, what motivates them is the promotion of a plurality ofways of life and ends, rejecting those concepts of life that attempt to be "total-izing. " In this respect, we can say that the liberal order has died and a differentsocial order—which we might call post-modern—is emerging.

A basic difference between the post-modern and the modern liberal ordersis that in the former there is no concern about the search for a unifying transcen-dental concept of human life. There is no will for unity, we might say. A seconddifference is that the proliferation of life styles—which takes place because ofthe absence of this concern (or will for unity)—has become the main principlegoverning modern life, that is, the principle of defense and encouragement ofmulti-cultural diversity and pluralism. We might even venture to say: the prin-ciple of repudiation of unity.12

In the social order guided by this principle, it is accepted that people havedifferent concepts of what is good. Therefore, there is no reason to search fora unique notion of the "good" life appropriate for all individuals, nor shouldit be sought. In a post-modern society, individuals must be free to be whateverthey want. This implies that to regulate these societies, their governing principlesshould not presuppose any particular cultural orientation or any unifying projectfor societies as a whole.

7.2. An Explanation of Social Schizophrenia in the Light of Post-ModernLiberalism

How can social and prison schizophrenia be justified in a post-modern (orneo-liberal) society? First, we should remember that according to what was juststated, in a liberal post-modern society, it is to be expected that the different12 For example, public places should be either neutral (in other words, symbols of social life should

be reduced to a minimum) or give equal opportunity to every cultural manifestation or concept oflife. Presently, a tendency toward neutrality in the use of public spaces can be seen. Symbols thatrefer to any particular culture or dominant point of view are being suppressed in the European andNorth American societies. Vatimo (1996) was able to grasp part of this tendency in his notion of"cultural minimalism." He illustrated this idea in a recent debate in Germany on whether or not toforbid the use of crucifixes in public school classrooms. Also, in the United States, the complaintsof certain groups of citizens from small towns, concerning the use of Christmas symbols in publicplaces during the Christmas season, illustrate the current tendency to reduce cultural manifestationsto a minimum.

90 Lopez-Garay

discourses on any topic (including, of course, the prison issue) will circulatefreely. Moreover, in such a society, increased tolerance of fragmentation is tobe expected, and an eagerness for the search for total unity (which distinguishesmodern man from the man of previous times) will be greatly diminished andeven discouraged.

Continuing with the "logic" of these societies, we now ask how the reform-ers would see prison reform. First, we should expect the reformers' discourseto show great tolerance for variety and fragmentation. And since the Stateshould not impose any particular way of life on its citizens, we expect thatimprisonment, as well as the moral notions associated with punishment, would,in fact, conflict with a post-modern liberal outlook. On the contrary, the ideaof prisons as educational centers—more specifically, prisons as rehabilitationcenters—could find approval in the discourse of the reformers. (Suarez 1996,1997). How, then, can we explain social and prison schizophrenia?

A hasty reply is that the Venezuelan State is neither a post-modern State nora modern or pre-modern one. Its "rationality" or "background" does not fall intoeither of these categories. We shall now explain this. Suppose the State wishesto follow a post-modern order closely. Under such a supposition, its missionwould consist in providing equal opportunities for all its citizens to carry outdifferent projects of life, aims and values. This means that it would have tostop being the figure of authority in society, the incarnation of power, law andjustice, and become a simple public servant*. The State is the servant of themany interests that have the right to coexist in a neo-liberal society. However,prisons pose a dilemma for the State. If the States deals with them firmly, itwould appear to be moralizing and hence would betray its preference for certainvalues over others. Therefore, what are the neutral grounds on which the Stateshould decide punishment, and, consequently, prison sentences? The State wouldhave two possibilities. One is to find a neutral discourse and proceed to outlinethe basis for a prison policy. If this neutral discourse cannot be found, then analternative is to decide not to decide. The effect of the latter is that the prisonpopulation would be left on its own, "free" to create its own micro-societies withtheir own laws, punishment, market "economies," power groups, beliefs, aims,and values.13 This is very similar to what is presently happening!

At this point, we might ask: If this is happening to the State regardingprison institutions, could the same thing not be happening to other institutions(education, health, housing, etc.)? Could it be that because of this, neo-liberalismsuggests a "minimum State," that is, the reduction of all State functions to theirminimum expression? For instance, State reform and decentralization seem topoint in the same direction: allowing each region or each community to decide its

13 Concerning the social structure of these micro-societies, see the excellent Venezuelan study onthe Sabaneta prison by Hidalgo and Jordan (1994).


own business according to its beliefs and aims. The State would simply guaranteethe agreements reached by the different groups and interests.

But if our interpretation is sustainable, then why does the prison situationbother and concern us? Why do we perceive it as schizophrenic? Let us supposethat we are greatly influenced by the post-modern spirit. Perhaps our concern isbased on the fact that we still see reflections suggestive of a powerful modernState trying to impose a model of life on a sector of society, albeit marginal asis the prison system. In fact, on the one hand, we see a State that wishes to beneutral and appear neutral because its current legitimacy lies in its neutrality. Onthe other hand, the State seems to exercise overwhelming power over a sectorof society, namely, the prison population. We then discover (in the context ofthe prison situation) that the State has the potential for being more than a simplepublic servant. Today it could direct its power toward controlling the prison pop-ulation, and likewise, tomorrow, it could direct its power toward controlling anyother social entity (hospitals, education, etc.). Could this potentially dual behav-ior be the cause for our annoyance concerning the prison crisis (Suarez 1997)?Are prisons a mirror that reflects the State's dual (schizophrenic) behavior?

Once again, we feel that we have not been able to account for the behaviorof the State with regard to prisons. Furthermore, what the three contexts haveuncovered is that there is something about the rationality of the Venezuelan Statethat requires a better understanding. Perhaps it is the fact that the Venezuelansociety is neither European nor African nor American Indian. It could be thatwhat gives this society an identity is precisely its "schizophrenic" nature, orrather its continuous struggle to be "European" (i.e., modern or post-modern),while at the same time sabotaging these efforts (i.e., pre-moderns effectivelytransforming modernity into a mere mask).14 What is the background that makessuch behavior understandable? Suarez will attempt to deal with this question inthe second article of the trilogy. Before yielding to him, allow me to conclude.

8. CONCLUSION

Based on the three interrelated interpretive contexts we have presentedabove, it is possible to build an interpretive platform that can help reformersacquire a better understanding of the perceptions, aims and values that revolvearound the prison phenomenon. We have seen in our discussion how the con-cepts of man, society and State appear and indicate that the prison problem isrooted in and points toward the social system as a whole. Thus, the neo-liberal(post-modern liberal) context gives us a current panorama characterized by frag-mentation and the rejection of any idea, action or institution that has the goalof turning itself into a totalitarian focal point for the integration of society asI4ln this regard, see a penetrating discussion in Fuenmayor and Fuenmayor (1999) in this special

issue of SPAR. Also, see Contreras (1998).

92 Lopez-Garay

a whole. We are just beginning to see a clear manifestation of this rejection inthe breakdown of the sovereign State. In this context, the prisons appear to usto be problematical because we note indecision. On one side, the State presentsitself as neutral, but on the other, it is all powerful and perhaps has the intentionof reestablishing itself as the omnipresent State of the past and even of surrep-titiously trying to sabotage the whole modernizing effort. What does this meanto reformers? If, in fact, the neo-liberal perspective is dominant in our society,paradoxically the role of the reformers would not be that of reforming the Statebut of dissolving it! All their efforts would be focused on this task. However,inasmuch as we have not been able to uncover the "rationality" of the Stateand its institutions, we must withhold our advice until the second article in ourtrilogy has presented its case.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Director of the Merida prison, Jose Agustin Rangel, was most helpful dur-ing the years that the research reported in this paper was carried out. My sincerethanks to him, his staff, and particularly to the inmates who guided us into the innermeanings and tragic world of the prison. Thanks are also extended to the staff andstudents of the master's and Ph.D. program in Interpretive Systemology for theirconstructive criticism and for their participation in the different courses and con-ferences where this project was the main topic of discussion. Last, but not least, Iam indebted to my colleague Tomasz Suarez and my students Fernando Quinonesand Joaquin Contreras, all of whom have been involved in different stages of theprison project and from whom I have learned so much.

REFERENCES

Blank, D. (1973). Politics in Venezuela, Little, Brown, Boston.Castel, R. (1994). "Problematization" as a mode of reading history. In Goldstein, J. (ed.), Foucault

and the Writing of History, Blackwell, Oxford.Contreras, J. (1998). El Senlido Historico de la Prision Rehabililadora en Venezuela, M.Sc. thesis,

Department of Interpretive Systemology, University of Los Andes, Merida, Venezuela.COPRE (1986). Proyecto Global: Reformas del Sistema de Administration de Justicia. Sub-

proyecto: Reforma Penitenciaria, Comision Presidencial para la Reforma del Estado, Venezuela.Echeverria, P. (1996). Universalist vocation and cultural fragmentation: The same masks. Diogenes,

No. 173, Vol. 44/1; Spring, Paris.Foucault, M. (1990). <,A que llamamos castigar? In Foucault, M. (ed.), La vida de los hombres

infames, Coleccion Genealogia'ia del Poder, ediciones La Piqueta, Madrid.Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of Prison, Alen Lane, London.Fuenmayor, A., and Fuenmayor, R. (1999). Researching-acting-researching: On the right to public

health services in Venezuela (II). Syst. Pracl. Act. Res. 12, 55-75.Fuenmayor, R. (1991a). The roots of reductionism. Syst. Pract. 4, 419^48.Fuenmayor, R. (1991b). The self-referential structure of an everyday-living situation: A phenomeno-

logical ontology for interpretive systemology. Syst. Pract. 4, 449-472.


Fuenmayor, R. (1991c). Truth and openness: An epistemology for interpretive systemology. Syst.Pracl. 4, 473^90.

Fuenmayor, R., Bonucci, M., and Lopez-Garay, H. (1991). An interpretive-systemic study of theUniversity of Los Andes. Syst. Pract. 4, 507-525.

Galeano, E. (1970). Las Venus Abiertas de America Latino, Siglo XXI.Gomez Grillo, E. (1979a). Las Cdrceles de Venezuela, Caracas.Gomez Grillo, E. (1979b). Presents y Futuro de la Frisian, Caracas.Gomez Grillo, E. (1979c). Bases para una Reforma Penitendaria Venezolana, Caracas.Gonzalez Fabre, R. (1995). <, Venezuela Moderna? SIC 579, 388-391.Hidalgo, R., and Jordan, M. (1994). Amotinamientos carcelarios: de lo Cambios Administrativos a

la Ruptura del Control (Sabaneta, Enero de 1994). Artfculo interne, CENIPEC, Universidad deLos Andes, Merida.

Jackson, M. C. (1992). The soul of the viable system model. Syst. Pract. S, 561-564.Lopez Garay, H. (1986). A Holistic Interpretive Approach of Systems Design, Ph.D. thesis, University

of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Lopez-Garay, H. (1991). An interpretive-systemic study of the regional planning corporation of Los

Andes in Venezuela. Syst. Pract. 4, 491-506.Lopez Garay, H. (1993). El Sentido Social de las Instituciones Carcelarias en Venezuela: proyecto de

investigacion, Departamento de Sistemologia Interpretativa, Escuela de Sistemas, Universidadde Los Andes, Merida.

Lopez Garay, H. (1994a). Technology, power, and ethical issues of systems design in Latin Amer-ica. Invited Lecture, on occasion of the Jubilee celebrations of the Faculty of Social Science,University of Umea a, Sweden, May 3.

Lopez Garay, H. (1994b). ^Modelado sistemico o diseno de medios de revelado? Revista Sistemas,Universidad de Los Andes, Merida.

Lopez-Garay, H. (1997). "Una Aproximacion Interpretivista a la Racionalidad del Sistema Carcelarioen Venezuela," Vol. 4, No. 1, FRONESIS, Instituto de Filosoffa del Derecho, Universidad delZulia, Maracaibo, 1997.

Lopez Garay, H., Suarez, T, and Quinnones, F. (1994). El Papel Social de las Carceles en Venezuela.Ponencia presentada en las Primeras Jornadas de estudio a la Problematica Penitendaria enVenezuela, Merida.

Maclntyre, A. (1985). After Virtue, 2nd ed., Duckwoth, London.Maclntyre, A. (1988). Whose Justice? Which Rationality? University of Notre Dame Press, Notre

Dame, IN.Ochoa, A. (1996). An Interpretive Systemic Study of Community Organizations in Venezuela, Ph.D.

dissertation, University of Hull, Hull, UK.Plaza, G., Perni'a, Y., and Conti, D. (1996). Informe de investigacion sobre el discurso politico ofi-

cial del Estado Venezolano en cuanto a las carceles. Monograffa, Departamento SistemologiaInterpretativa, Universidad de Los Andes, Merida.

Quintero, M., Quintero, R., and Vivas, P. (1996). Discurso formal del Estado Venezolano. Mono-graffa, Departmento Sistemologia Interpretativa, Universidad de Los Andes, Merida.

Suarez, T. (1996). Sentido y Sinsentido de la Reforma Carcelaria en Venezuela, Tesis de Maestria,Postgrado en Sistemologia Interpretiva, Departamento de Sistemologia Interpretativa, Escuelade Sistemas, Universidad de Los Andes, Merida.

Suarez, T. (1997). "El caracter problematico de la problematica penitenciaria venezolana: Hacia unasolution de fondo." Articulo enviado a la revista Fronesis, Instituto de Filosoffa del Derecho,Universidad del Zulia, Maracaibo.

Vatimo, G. (1996). Differences, conflits, minimalisme culturel (draft). Second Unesco PhilosophyForum, Paris, March 27-30.

94 Lopez-Garay

Documents

The Holistic Sense of Prison Phenomena in Venezuela. I. Understanding and Comprehending “Schizophrenic” Institutions