In view of the current disclosure of torture in war prisons in Iraq, but also through the disclosure of mistreatment in the Brandenburg an der Havel prison, it becomes clear how explosive the concept of total institutions still is more than forty years after its publication by Goffman.
In his work Asyle, first published in 1961, Erving Goffman (1922-1982) summarizes in four essays his many years of sociological studies on the inmates of psychiatric clinics. From 1954 to 1957, Goffman was a visiting professor at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Maryland. During this time he spent over a year doing field studies at St. Elizabeth's Hospital (Washington D.C.), which then had about 7,000 inmates. Goffman's own experiences in dealing directly with the inmates of St. Elizabeth's Hospital are included in the book as well as countless descriptions of other well-known and lesser-known authors (e.g. George Orwell, Herman Melville), who spent some years of their lives in prison, in the monastery, in the boarding school, in an orphanage, in the military or in similar institutions.
Goffman first encountered the term total institution in a 1952 graduate seminar on institutions. Coined by Everett Hughes, the term must have intrigued Goffman from the start. Burns writes: "It is clear from Goffman's course notes (he gave me a copy of them) that is must have been a remarkable teaching enterprise - enlivened with allusions, encyclopedic in is coverage, and radically critical and innovative in is approach." . But while Goffman thought of the term social institution in a way that differed from Hughes', he adopted the term total institution in Hughes' sense. For Hughes, these were "social institutions which were much more shut off from the outside world" - he cites nunneries as an example - Goffman accordingly relates his observations to "the situation of those 'extruded' from society'.
In this work, the aim is first to present Goffman's concept of total institutions and to go into the points of view of the inmates, the staff and the points of contact of both groups. Subsequently, the concept should be examined and assessed with regard to its possible application and possibilities should be found to further differentiate the concept.
At a glance
- Grade: 1.3 (1.0 is the best grade)
- Applies Davies’s three variables to Goffman’s concept
- Examines Goffman’s first essay in Asyle
- Uses Etzioni’s coercive, remunerative and normative modes of compliance
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The concept of total institutions
2.1 Goffman: On the characteristics of total institutions
2.2 Assessment of the concept
3. Concluding remark
Objectives and Themes
This paper presents and assesses Erving Goffman’s concept of total institutions. It asks how the concept accounts for the experiences of inmates and staff, how it can be applied to different institutions, and whether it requires further differentiation.
- Goffman’s definition and characteristics of total institutions
- Inmates’ identities, privileges and adaptation strategies
- Staff responsibilities and institutional authority
- Encounters between inmates and staff
- Davies’s critique and variables for differentiating institutions
Excerpt from the Book
2.1.2 The occupants
All inmates have in common that they enter the institution with an identity shaped by their previous bourgeois environment.2 The individual has thus built up an identity that presents itself in a multitude of different roles, which are largely independent of each other. With admission to a total institution this previous role planning is interrupted.
“Scheduling roles in this way is now out of the question for mental patients3 the world of the mental hospital too small, their round of daily activities too routine and too uniform. The skills needed for switching roles in the circumstances of ordinary social life degenerate, and patients may come eventually to lose possession, so to speak, of some of the roles they once habitually filled.” (Burns, 1992, p. 149f).
In addition, an active role design would prevent the optimal functioning of the institution. (Cf. p. 24ff, and Miebach, 1991, p. 81f). Therefore, in addition to direct attacks on the self – Goffman describes here the most diverse types of disfigurement and contamination (cf. pp. 27-42) – there is also the systematic suppression of all occurring forms of role distance. What of it as loop serves to destroy the formal relationship between the acting individual and his actions. While the individual in bourgeois society can maintain his inner distance even in activities that contradict his self-image by making use of a variety of expressive possibilities, these protective reactions such as omissions of awe, irony or ridicule are replaced by the loop targeted punishment. Thus, the occupant is deprived of any possibility of role distance. (Cf. p. 43f, cf. also Manning, 1992, p. 108).
In addition to the process of loop Goffman cites further attacks on the inmate as an acter, which he describes with the terms regimentation and tyranny. While the individual in bourgeois society has learned a set of socially recognized standards of behavior that allow him to determine his own actions - only in rare cases, e.B. when controlling productivity, it comes to the assessment by an authority - the occupant of a total institution the “personal economy of action” (p. 45). All activities are regulated and assessed by the staff.
Chapter Summaries
1. Introduction: The introduction places Goffman’s work in context and outlines the paper’s plan to present and assess his concept.
2. The concept of total institutions: This chapter explains Goffman’s account of inmates, staff and their encounters. It then examines the concept’s applicability and discusses Davies’s proposed distinctions between institutions.
3. Concluding remark: The conclusion considers how the scope of the concept might be narrowed in light of the distinctions discussed.
Keywords
Erving Goffman, total institutions, sociology, Asyle, institutional life, inmates, staff, identity, social control, privilege system, ideal types, Christie Davies, institutional differentiation
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the paper about?
It presents and critically assesses Erving Goffman’s concept of total institutions.
What are its central themes?
Its themes include institutional control, inmates’ identities and adaptation, staff responsibilities, and differences among institutions.
What is the paper’s main objective?
It aims to explain Goffman’s concept and examine its applicability and possible differentiation.
What method does the paper use?
It develops a literature-based conceptual analysis of Goffman’s work, drawing on critical discussions by Davies and other authors. It does not report original empirical research by the paper’s author.
What does the main chapter cover?
It describes the characteristics of total institutions, considers inmates and staff, and assesses how the concept applies to different settings.
Which keywords characterize the paper?
Key terms include total institutions, social control, identity, inmates, staff, ideal types and institutional differentiation.
How does the paper use Davies’s critique?
It discusses Davies’s proposal to distinguish institutions by their openness, their purpose and the ways staff seek compliance.
What examples of contact between inmates and staff are discussed?
The paper considers institutional ceremonies and events, including newspapers, Christmas parties, theatre performances, sports and inspection visits.
Which work by Goffman is central to the discussion?
The paper focuses on the first essay in Asyle, concerning the characteristics of total institutions.
- Quote paper
- Verena Stockmair (Author), 2004, Erving Goffman. Concept of total institutions, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1177147
