Revista
de
Administração
http://rausp.usp.br/ RevistadeAdministração51(2016)366–376
Environmental
management
Alienation,
segregation
and
resocialization:
meanings
of
prison
labor
夽
Aliena¸cão,
segrega¸cão
e
ressocializa¸cão:
significados
do
trabalho
prisional
Alienación,
segregación
y
resocialización:
significados
del
trabajo
penitenciário
Clara
Luísa
Oliveira
Silva
a,∗,
Luiz
Alex
Silva
Saraiva
baUniversidadeFederaldeMinasGeraisAvenidaPresidente,UnidadeAdministrativaII,BeloHorizonte,MG,Brazil bUniversidadeFederaldeMinasGerais,BeloHorizonte,MG,Brazil
Received7July2014;accepted11February2016
Abstract
Inthispaperwedealwithsenseswhichsubjectsinprisonattributetoworkrealizedinprison,tryingtoidentifyrelationsbetweenthesesensesand theprincipleswhichtrytolegitimateworkactivitiesthatreintegratesubjecttosociety.Toreachthisobjective,we’vemadecasestudybasedonsemi structuredinterviewsinafemaleunityofacenterofsocialreintegration.Collecteddatawasthreatenthroughdiscourseanalysis.Mainconclusions arerelatedtoreinforceofproblematizationsaboutroleofworkinprison:ifitisproductorofacceptedsociabilities,orifitisreproductorofsocial inequalities,as,inlastlevel,criminalityitself.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublishedbyElsevierEditoraLtda.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBYlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords: Meaningofwork;Workinprison;Alienation;Segregation;Resocialization
Resumo
Nesteartigo,objetiva-seanalisarossentidosqueossujeitosquecumprempenaatribuemaotrabalhorealizadonaprisão,buscandoidentificaras relac¸õesentreessessentidoseosprincípiosqueprocuramlegitimarasatividadeslaborativascomoreintegradorasdosujeitoàsociedade.Para tanto,foirealizadoumestudodecasoemumaunidadefemininadeumcentrodereintegrac¸ãosocialbaseadoementrevistassemiestruturadas, posteriormentetratadaspormeiodaanálisedodiscurso.Asprincipaiscontribuic¸õesdoestudoestãorelacionadasaoreforc¸odasproblematizac¸ões sobreasmúltiplase,porvezes,ambíguasfacesdotrabalhonaprisão,seprodutordesociabilidadesconvencionalmenteaceitas,ouse,reprodutor dedesigualdadessociaise,emúltimainstância,daprópriacriminalidade.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Este ´eumartigoOpenAccesssobumalicenc¸aCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palavras-chave: Significadodotrabalho;Trabalhoprisional;Alienac¸ão;Segregac¸ão;Ressocializac¸ão
Resumen
Elobjetivoenesteartículoesanalizarlossignificadosasignadosporlospresosaltrabajoquerealizanenlapenitenciaria,buscandoidentificar lasrelacionesentreestossignificadosylosprincipiosquebuscanlegitimarlasactividadeslaboralescomofactordereintegracióndelindividuo
夽
TheauthorsaregratefultoFundac¸ãodeAmparoàPesquisadoEstadodeMinasGerais(FAPEMIG)forfundingthatenabledthestudy.
∗Correspondingauthor.
E-mail:claralosilva@hotmail.com(C.L.Silva).
PeerReviewundertheresponsibilityofDepartamentodeAdministrac¸ão,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸ãoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeSãoPaulo –FEA/USP.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rausp.2016.07.001
alasociedad.Conestefin,sellevóacabounestudiodecasoenunaunidaddemujeresdeuncentrodereinserciónsocialapartirdeentrevistas semiestructuradas,posteriormentetratadaspormediodelanálisisdeldiscurso.Lasprincipalescontribucionesdeesteestudioestánrelacionadascon elfortalecimientodecuestionessobrelosmúltiplesy,aveces,ambiguospapelesdeltrabajoenlacárcel,siefectivamenteproducelasociabilidad convencionalmenteaceptada,osireproducedesigualdadessocialesy,enúltimainstancia,elmismocrimen.
©2016DepartamentodeAdministrac¸˜ao,FaculdadedeEconomia,Administrac¸˜aoeContabilidadedaUniversidadedeS˜aoPaulo–FEA/USP. PublicadoporElsevierEditoraLtda.Esteesunart´ıculoOpenAccessbajolalicenciaCCBY(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Palabrasclave: Significadodeltrabajo;Trabajopenitenciario;Alienación;Segregación;Resocialización
Introduction
Prominentsubjectsinmediadebatesandeveryday conversa-tions,violenceandcriminalityengenderdivergentviewsinthe contextoftheBraziliansociety.Generallyspeaking,thedefense ofmorerigidmeasuresregardingthecorrectionofcriminalsand, consequently,the fight against impunity coexist side by side withthediscoursethataimstoconfirmtheinefficiencyofthe prisoninstitutionwhenitcomestoaccomplishingthegoalsof rehabilitatingcriminalsandreducingcrimelevels(Buckeridge, 2011).
However,thecomplexityaroundthethemedoesnotinvolve onlythis:italsoextendsto(orperhapsderivesfrom)theformal andinformal arrangements that conformthe so-called prison system,insofarastensionandconflictemergefromtherelations establishedamongitsplayers,ultimatelyinfluencing,toagreater oflesserextent,the outliningofpublicpolicies forthe sector (Cabral&Araújo,2010).Moreover,inthemiddleofthisweb oftensionandconflict,thediscussionspaceconcerningprison laborisbuiltasoneofthemechanismsthatwouldpartiallymake viabletheconditionsfortheresocializationofasubjectwhohas committedacrime.
Inpartoftheliteratureonthetheme,alongwiththeissueof theresocialization,thereisadiscussionthatinvestigatesthe eco-nomicandsocialimpactofprisonlabor(Browne,2007;Fletcher, 2011;Goldberg & Linda,2009; Lebaron,2012; Zatz, 2008). Weundertandthatmostoftheseworksseektoproblematizethe relationshipamongpunishment,resocializationandtheideaof economicpotential,thisbeingattributedtousingthelaborpower ofsubjectsservingtime.Inthewakeofthesestudies,thereisa concernaboutpointingoutaspectsofsituationsinvolvinglabor exploitation,impoverishmentoflaborrelations(and,often, con-ditions),andtheaccountabilityofpublicandprivateagentsfor theaccomplishmentofthesocialorder.Onecouldalsopointout discussionsthatplacetheprisonlaborasadisciplinarydevice thatrarelyencompassesatherapeuticandresocializing charac-terinaneffectivemanner(Bastos,1997;Costa&Bratkowski, 2007;Lima &Santos,2008; Ribeiro& Cruz,2002),as pro-claimedin thelegislation regardingthe penal execution(Lei, 1984).
Ingenerallines,thephenomenonoflaborasananalytic cate-goryisinsertedinaperspectiveofproduction(andreproduction) of the concretespace, the space, andthe social relations, as wellas the psychicdimension of subjects (Bastos,Pinho, & Costa,1995;Berger,1983;Clot,2006;Dejours,2004;Goulart, 2009;Lima,2007;Marx,1968;Schwartz,2000).Speakingof
alabor activity that has (or does not have)ameaning incor-poratestheapproachofindividualandsocialaspectsand,ina greaterorlesserextent,concernsasetofquestionsabout motiva-tion,commitment,remuneration,recognition,satisfaction,and qualityoflife(Andrade,Tolfo,&Dellagnelo,2012;Coutinho, 2009;Isaksen,2000;May,Gilson,&Harter,2004;Rodrigues &Barrichello,2015; Rodrigues,Barrichello,&Morin, 2015; Rosso,Dekas,&Wrzesniewski,2010;Tolfo,Coutinho,Baasch, &Cugnier,2011).
Starting fromtheseconsiderations,thispaperaimsto ana-lyzethemeaningsthatsubjectsservingtimeattributetolabor performed in prison, seeking toidentify the relations among thesemeaningsaswellastheprinciplesthataimtolegitimize laboractivitiesascapableofreintegratingsubjectsintosociety. Byadoptingaqualitativefocus,acasestudywascarriedoutat afemaleunitof acenterfor socialreintegration,inacontext that incorporates the penal executionin the open, semi-open andclosedregimes.The choicetocarryouttheresearchata resocializationcenterwasnotmade bychance. Theideaisto understand,throughtheanalyticcategory“labor”,the dynam-icsofactionsandrelationsatasocialspacethatiscategorized asaspaceconstitutedbyalternative(andmoreefficient) mod-elsofpenalexecution.Semi-structuredinterviewswerecarried out withthe womenserving timeandwho, so tospeak, per-form labor activitiesat that prison organization. The interest fellonthediscoursesoffemaleinmatesstillservingsentences andwhoare,therefore,experiencingthepracticeoftheso-called resocializinglabor,therelationsthatsuchpracticeprovideinthe contextofaprison,andtheconsiderationsthatorientthepresent andfuturepositionsofthesesubjectsinthatsocialspaceandin otherones.Whenspeakingofthesediscourses,wespeakofthe everydaylifeataresocializationcenterandwespeak,by exten-sion,oftheproduction(andcontrol)ofsubjectivities,aswellas ofpossibleresistanceactsinthescopeoftheprison,whichisa totalinstitution(Goffman,1961).Thematerialcompiledfrom thosedialogicalprocesseswiththeparticipationoftheresearch subjectswasinterpretedthroughtheprismofFrenchdiscourse analysis.
Laborandsubjectivity
Initially,wedelimittheconcordanceconcerningthe elabora-tionsbyMarx(1968),whenthisauthorperceiveslaborasevery humanactionorientatedtothe transformationof nature.This actionorconsciousactthatemergesasthe“vitalactivity”,touse thetermcoinedbyMarx(1968),ultimatelydistinguishesman from otherlivingbeings.By transforming nature,men trans-formthemselves,inasortofdialecticrelationship.Menfulfill themselvesinandthroughlabororinotherwords,throughlabor humanscanproduceandreproducethemselvesassubjects.
AuthorswhocameafterMarx (1968)alsosought,through thisor that argument, placelabor as oneof the fundamental humancategories,sotospeak,asaphenomenonthatstructure theindividualandsocialspheresofsubjects(Bastosetal.,1995; Berger,1983;Chies&Varel,2009;Clot,2006;Dejours,2004; Goulart,2009;Lima,2007;Schwartz,2000).
“Beinghumanandworkingseemtobeinexorablycorrelative notions”,asBerger(1983,p.13)pointsout.Theactofworkingis closelyrelatedtotheactofmodifyingthesocialspacesbyfilling themwithmeaning.Alongtheselines,laborappearsnotonly asameansofacquiringmaterial(and/oreconomic)resources forthesurvivalofthesubject,butitbecomesmainlyasource ofself-identification.
Theimportanceoflaborinthelivesofindividualsbecomes evidentwhen we turn toits aspect of definingand somehow legitimizing the time frame (days, months, years), the struc-tureof activities(personalandimpersonal),andthestagesof life(work,study,retirement)(Bastosetal.,1995).Thus,labor affirmsitselfasanessentialanalyticalcategoryinthe construc-tion and consolidationof individual and collectiveidentities. It is an activity that grounds and orders the ways of being andacting,aconstituentcategory,afounderofmultiple socia-bilities (Lima, 2007). Hence, labor encloses a psychological functioninso far as itmarksarupture betweenthe personal “pre-occupations”of subjects andsocial occupations thereof, involvingprocessesofinventionandrenewal,conservation,and transmissionofaheritagethatdevelopsinthejointordivided activity(Clot,2006).
Labortranscendshereinthecategoryofemployment, incor-poratingasenseofsocialrelationshipandofasocialproduction activity.Theconceptionofgestures,thedevelopmentof know-how,theuseofthebody,themobilizationoftheabilitytoreflect, interpretandreacttoacertainreality.Overall,theactof work-ingisencasedinadynamicofengagementofthebodyandthe personality,inordertoperformasetoftasksdefinedbymaterial andsocialconditions(Dejours,2004).
Despiteitsontologicalfoundationofhumanizationofbeings, laborsometimesalienatesandthusdehumanizes.Alienationcan takevariousforms.Incapitalistsociety,takingintoaccountthe divisionof peopleintotwoclasseswithantagonisticinterests, namelytheclassoftheownersofthemeansofproductionandthe classofthosewhoonlyhavethelaborforce,alienationoccurs, forexample, whenworkersproducesomething thattheymay notpossessorappropriate,thatis,whensubjectsaredetached fromtheproductoftheirlabor.Otherwise,labordehumanizes whenitbecomesameremeansofexploitation(Marx,1968).
To Schwartz (2000,p.41),laboralways involvesthe “use of oneself”. If laboristhe “useof oneself”, thenthe follow-ingquestionarises:whousesit?Atfirst,itisthe“use”thatis madeofthesubject,boundedbytheirownhistoricalconditions, suchasthoseconcerningtherelationsandmodesofproduction. However,itistheusethatisnotonlymadeofthesubject,but theusethateachindividualmakesofhimselforherselfinlabor. Thesubjectwhoworksdoesnotqualifyasa“softmass”,which passivelyrecordsthemarkingofactsofworktobeplayed.Even beforematerialandsocialconstraintssettledintheactsoflabor, thepossibilitiesofa“differentiatedmanagement”ofoneselfare opened tothe subject,whichis notrestrictedtothehistorical andconcreteconditionsofhumanexistence(Schwartz,2000). Thesubjectproducesmeaningsorgivesnewmeaningstotheir labor,eveniftheactivitiesthatcharacterizeitaretakenapriori byitsaspectofphysicalandmentaldehumanization.
Research on the meanings of labor encompasses areas of knowledge as variousaspsychology,sociology, and manage-ment,forexample,aswellasdifferenttheoreticalapproaches. Theideaofmeaningappearsinmanystudiesrelatedtoaspects oflaborcontent,labororganizationandlaborconditions,aspects whicharespecifiedinconceptssuchasmotivation,commitment, qualityoflife,recognition,remuneration, andstress(Andrade et al., 2012; Coutinho, 2009; Isaksen,2000; May, Gilson,& Harter,2004;Rodrigues&Barrichello,2015;Rodriguesetal., 2015;Rossoetal.,2010;Tolfoetal.,2011).Inthispaper,the attempttoanalyzethemeaningsoflaborisnotrestrictedtoeither oneofthesevariables,whichendupconstitutingthe functional-istimaginaryoforganizationmanagement.Thecomprehension of the meanings hereinrequires an understandingofthe pro-duction(andcontrol)ofsubjectivitiesfromdifferentdiscourses that are (re)producedindifferentsocialspaces,especiallyin total institutions;namely a social spatialityin whichpeople, usually inlarge number, live “enclosed”, separated from the broader society,having its life “managed”for a considerable periodoftime.Moreover,atthattimethesetoforganizational processes,practices,andprocedures,byfoundingitselfinthe violenceoftheautonomyofactions,makesthetotalinstitution true“[...]forcinghousesforchangingpersons;[...]anatural
experimentonwhatcanbedonetotheself”(Goffman,1961, p.22).
Understanding the significance (or meaning) of labor includestheperquisitionofasetofbeliefs,values,andattitudes inrelationtotheactofworking,asetthatisformedgradually in a continuum, before and during the process of socializa-tion of labor(Goulart,2009).AsimilardefinitionbyGoulart (2009) reminds us of the conceptionof meaning highlighted byGonzálezRey(2009).IntheviewofGonzálezRey(2009), meaningsaretheemotionalrecordstiedtotheexperiencesand needs cultivated throughout their history. The production of meanings,inturn,isnotlimitedtotheindividualorsocialfields, foritencloseswhatisformedinthetwofieldswithinasingle sys-tem.Everyproductionofmeaningislinked“[...]toapersonal
Laborinprison:somenuancesofthisdiscussion
Thediscussion aboutprison laborenclosesaproblemthat arisesfromtherelationshipamongpunishment,rehabilitation, andtheideaofeconomicpotential,giventhefactthatitusesthe laborpowerof subjectswhoareservingtime(Browne,2007; Fletcher,2011;Goldberg&Linda,2009;Lebaron,2012;Zatz, 2008).
Anunderstandingofthedifferenttheoreticalapproachesthat underliethedebateaboutprisonlaborincontemporarysociety calls usto therescue of the generalcharacteristics related to the evolutionof the prison institution, or in otherwords, the emergenceofimprisonmentasaprimarypenalty.
Foucault (2007) defends the idea that the emergence of imprisonmentcorrespondstotheperiodwhentheinstitutional mechanismsthat gave wayand rana sovereignsociety were readjustedinordertoenforcethepremisesofadisciplinary soci-ety,ofsurveillance.Specificallyinthelateeighteenthcentury andearly nineteenth century, inthe wake of social and eco-nomictransformation,liesthenotionofanewkindofexercise ofpower,capillary,whichrunsthroughthesocialbody, differ-entlyfromtheconceptofpowerassomethingcenteredandoften embodiedinthefigureofthemonarch.Inturn,indisciplinary society,andspecificallyintheprisonorganization,theforcesof thebodiesarechanneledthroughthedisciplinarydevices,inthe intentthattheybecomedocileandproductive(Foucault,2007, 1992).
Inthissense,sincethoseearlydays,laborappearsasoneof thedisciplinarymechanisms,assuminganimportancenotasa strictproductionactivity,butasoneofthedevicesthatoperated torestricttheintellect,thewill,andtheprovisionsofsubjects (Foucault,2007).InthewordsofFoucault(2007,p.204):“What, then,istheuseofpenallabor?Notprofit;noreventheformation of ausefulskill;butthe constitutionof apowerrelation, an emptyeconomicform,aschemaofindividualsubmissionand ofadjustmenttoaproductionapparatus”.
In more recent times, Lima and Santos (2008) sought to demonstratethisstrong relationshipbetweenprisonlaborand discipline,insofarasitrequirestheobedienceofrulesthat struc-turethelifeofthesubject,bysettingschedules,dresscodes,that is,routinesorspecificpostures.However,itisnecessarytoraise an issue that only inthe scope of this theoretical discussion questionstheideaofprisonlaborasapracticethatconstitutes anexampleoftheeffectivenessoftheprisonsystemstructure. Specifically,thequestionis:doeslaborasadiscipliningdevice fulfillthepurposeofrecovery(orrehabilitation)ofindividuals whotransgresssocialcodes?
ThePenalExecutionLaw(LEP),initsArticle28,statesthat: “The workof the convict, as a social duty andcondition of humandignity,shallhaveeducationalandproductivepurposes” (BRASIL,1984).AlthoughtheLEPconferstothelaborstatus ofalegalinstrumentforachievingsocialreintegration,givenits alleged“educationalpurpose”,itdoesnotimplythefulfillment of the objectivesthat justify it, northe absence of numerous criticisms(oronemightsay,re-considerations)regardingprison labor(Bastos,1997;Costa&Bratkowski,2007;Lima&Santos, 2008;Ribeiro&Cruz,2002).
Enclosingatherapeuticelement,accordingtoBastos(1997), theexerciseofthelaboractivity,asarule,allowstheindividual toforgetabouttheirdisappointments,theirtroubles,theirfears, andespecially,“tofillin”time.However,theauthorassertsthat “laborisasapalliativemedicationthatnumbsthepainbutdonot evencloselyapproximatethecauses”.Suchastatementbeckons tothefactthat,inaprison,laborsometimesissometimes con-sideredanactivitythatdignifiesindividuals,imputingthemwith asenseofproductivityandutility;atothertimesitisanactivity that exploitstheprisonerscondition, limitingtheir “freedom” whentheysodesire(Bastos,1997).Inthatcase,laborwouldbe, resortingtoanexpressionbyGoffman(1961),an“island”that revealsan apparentlivelinessthat tendstominimize the psy-chologicalstressthatcomesupagainstthemanyattacksagainst theself,whichcharacterizestheprisonasatotalinstitutionand comparingittoasortof“deadsea”.
Mostofthetime, laboractivitiesperformedbyindividuals servingsentences are markedbystrong Taylorismprinciples, insofarastheyrequirelowindividualautonomyandlacka com-monpurpose.Workinginaprison isquiteoftenperceivedas anactthatbringsalongtheopportunitytopenaltyredemption andtheabilitytogetaroundwithintheprisonspaces(Costa& Bratkowski,2007).Furthermore,RibeiroandCruz(2002)point outtothedisconnectionbetweentheoccupationalactivities car-ried out inthe prison context and the potential occupational preferencesorworkexperiencesthatperhaps thesubjectmay have had.This fact ends upadding obstaclestothe personal developmentofindividualsandtheirsubsequentrelocationin socialspacesbeyondtheprison.
In away, prison labor as a social phenomenon processed throughtherelationsbetweenconvictsandthecoordinatingteam (hereinlegitimatedbylegalprovisions)alsoproduces segrega-tions.Thereisaworldofcrime,orwhateverwouldbecalled morally reprehensible, andthere isa worldof labor,morally praiseworthy and which consists, therefore, of a promise or recovery.Prisonlabor,inthiscase,wouldbeaninstrumentto movefromoneworldtoanother,contributingeventothe con-structionofidentitiesofworkersandnon-workersinthatcontext (Lima&Santos,2008).
Prisonlaboracquirestheproposeddirectioninthelegaltext when it becomeseffective through strategiesof minimization of the social vulnerability of individuals serving prison sen-tences,strategiesthataretranslatedintoactivitiesthatenhance thehumanityofthesubjectsandgobeyondthesenseof appease-mentandcapitalizationofdiscipline(Chies&Varel,2009).
Methodology
created,manifestedoracquirecertainmeaning,ratherthanthe mereclarificationofmeasuresamongvariablesintermsof quan-tity,volume,intensity,frequency,or simplerelationsofcause andeffect(Denzin&Lincoln,2006).
Theadoptionofaqualitativeapproachismainlyalignedwith theepistemologicalassumptionsmade inthisresearch,which are: the objective reality can never be entirely captured, for theunderstandingofsomethingoccursthroughrepresentations (Denzin&Lincoln,2006);theserepresentationsareinterpreted bytheresearcherthroughits“lenses”that issituatedina his-torical and social-politicalmoment (Creswell, 2003); and by extension, knowledge has a constructive-interpretativenature (GonzálezRey,2010),thatis,theproductionofknowledgeisnot confusedwiththelinearappropriationofarealityanda conse-quentlistingofuniversalcategories.Conversely,thereflections andresearchpracticesarelegitimatedfromtheintentionof pro-ducingnew“zonesof meanings”,or intelligibilityfieldsthat, farfromexhaustingthepossibilitiesofexplanationofaresearch question,openthewaytonewandfutureinsightsintheoretical constructions(GonzálezRey,2010).
Then,inordertogeneratenew“zonesofmeanings”regarding laborinthesocialspaceoftheprisons,weoptedfor thecase study,characterizedbythoroughresearchofactualphenomena in a certain context. The case study was carried out, given the classification of prison spaces, in what one could call a resocialization center,more specifically atthe Franz de Cas-troHolzwarthSocial ReintegrationCenter ofthe Association forProtectionandAssistancetoConvicts(APAC)inthecityof Itaúna,inthestateofMinasGerais,Brazil.TheAPACisacivil entitygovernedbyprivatelawandanorganizationthatassists theJudiciaryandExecutive,respectively,inthepenalexecution process and the administration of compliance with custodial sentences in closed, semi-open and open systems (Ottoboni, 2001).
Basedonthecentralitythattheperceptionsandexperiences ofthesubjectinrelationtoaphenomenon(orreality)assume intheconstructionofqualitativeresearch(Creswell,2003),the semi-structuredinterviewtechniquewasusedaccordingtothe definitionofLavilleandDionne(1999),toelucidatethe mean-ingsexpressedbywomenservingprison sentences.Whatare theoccupationsofthesubjectwhoisservingandwhatarethe meaningstheyattributetothem?Whataretheexpectationsof thesubjectwhoisserving(andcarriesoutsomelaboractivity) regardingtheirsocialreintegration?Thesewerethetwo main issuesthatgenerallyguidedthedialogicalprocesses.Other ques-tions wereasked inorder tobetter understandaspects raised bythe subjects deriving fromthe two mainquestions, which hadbeen previously defined,considering the thoughts of the researchersonthetheoreticalframeworkthattiesthe subjectiv-ityphenomena,labor,andspecifically,prisonlabor.Overall,in theperiodfrom thesecondhalf ofSeptembertothefirsthalf ofNovemberof2012,19interviewswereconducted,lastingan averageof50minutes.Thereafter,allofthemwererecordedand transcribed.
The respondents were women serving sentences in open, semi-openandclosedsystemsandatthetime,thecorpusof par-ticipantsincludedwomenwhohadbeenimprisonedforamonth
tothosewhohadalreadybeenintheinstitutionforalmostthree years.Drugtraffickingwasthemostcommonreasonfor convic-tion,buttherewerealsooccurrencesofembezzlement,murder, theftandtraffickingassociation.Atthetime,thefemalewardof APACshelteredaround30womenandforthepurposesofthis study, wesoughttointerviewwomenwhoperformed(orhad performed)laboractivities,insideoroutsidetheprison.
Forthepurposesofanalysisandinterpretationofthe mean-ingsexpressedinthecourseoftheresearchprocess,weresorted toFrenchdiscourseanalysis.Asthesocialproductionoftexts and precisely as one of the forms of social subjectivity, dis-coursesareorganizedinmanyways,enclosingtheirvalidityto theunderstandingofsocialrealityinitsverytotality.“Theuse ofwordsisasymbolicexpression,whichinadditiontoshowing oneor morediscursivesystems, alsosignifiestheunique his-toryofthespeaker,whichdifferentiatestheassociatedemotions fromthe useof words,givingwaytoitsmeaning”(González Rey,2003,p.213).
Tohandlethecorpusobtainedfromtheinterviews,specific discursive strategies wereemployed,namely: lexicalanalysis (type of vocabulary);(ii) identificationof themes andfigures (explicitandimplicit);(iii) identificationofthekeysemantics pathsstructuredfromthethemesandfigures;(iv)identification of the interdiscursive aspects;(v) identificationof the discur-sive syntaxaspects; (vi)identificationof theaspects reflected andrefractedinthediscourses; (vii)identificationofthe con-ditionsofdiscourseproduction;(viii)identificationofthekey discourses presentinthe texts;(ix)identificationof the ideo-logicalaspectsdefendedandopposedinthediscourses;and(x) identificationofthepositionofthehegemonicdiscourseineach text, inrelationtothe hegemonicdiscourses inthe societyin which theyare situated.It is important toclarifythat not all of thesediscourse analysis strategieswere used inall discur-sive fragments.Theuseofthisorthatdiscursivestrategywas alsolinkedtotheobjectivesthatremainedintheconstruction ofeachpartoftheanalysissection,detailedbelow.Moreover, notwithstanding the completion of the 19interviews and the interpretationofthemthroughdiscourseanalysistechniques,we selectedsomediscursivefragmentsthatwererepresentativeof differentconsiderationsaboutthecollectedmaterialasawhole.
Discussionofresults
TheworkinAPAC:subject,discourses,andmeanings
ThesubjectsservingsentencesattheAPACsocialspace elab-oratethoughtsabouttherelationshiptheyestablishwithprison labor.Specificallyinthisresocializationcenter,women primar-ilyperformactivitiesrelatedtotherunningoftheorganization. Forexample, part of the womenwork inthe prison kitchen, taking careof preparing themeals that are servedeveryday. Anotherpartperformmanualservicesrelatedtosewingshoes forashoefactorythatoperatesintheregion.Furthermore,there arewomenwhoare servingsentencesinopenandsemi-open regimeswhoseworkconsistsmostoftenofperforming activ-itiesas maids,cleaners,or caretakers.Inthecaseof thelabor carriedoutinsidetheprisonandthemanufacturingoffootwear, thosewomen get paid a few centsfor each finished product andthedaysworkedcountforsentencereductionpurposes,as establishedinthecorrespondinglegislation(Lei,1984).
(001),(002),(003)and(004)arethestatementscontaining thewords(andconsiderations)oftheinmatesabouttheirwork, whichconsistsessentiallyofsewingsandalsforacompanyof NovaSerranaregion,acityinthestateofMinasGerais,Brazil.In fragment(001),whosemainthemeis“labor”,thesemanticpath of“utility”isevident,inthesenseofvaluethatlaborencloses fortheparticipatingsubject.
(001)WhatbroughtmetoAPACwasthework,youknow. Workingisveryimportantwhenyou’reservingtime.Idon’t know,Ithinkit’sbecauseofourrehabilitation.Becausethose ofuswholiveincrime,wearenotusedtoworking.Andto behonest,tomethiswholeworkthingisquitenew, tobe workingalldaylong.I’mstillgettingusedtoit.Butworking isimportant,becausewhenIcomeoutIwanttochange,I wanttodothingsdifferently,Iwanttogetagoodjob,Iwant tocomealongwithmychildrenand,tohavethat,Ihaveto startgettingusedtoitwhileI’mdoingtime.It’slikeworking outside, we startearly,we have alunch break,we have a certaintimetogobacktowork.That’swhyIthinkit’sthe placetoreadaptindeed.(R24)
Onecanidentifyinthisstatementthediscourseoflaboras amechanism for social reintegration. Atfirst, it is clear that thediscourseisenunciatedbysomeonewhosecareerwas pre-dominantlymarkedbythepracticeofillicitactivities,forR24 highlightstheaspectofnewnessthat thelaborpracticebrings intoherlife.Thisexplainsthementionoftheadjustmentperiod thatsheisgoingthrough(“I’mstillgettingusedtoit”)because workingisnotsomethingusualinthatsubject’strajectory.Inher speech,theenunciatorendsupreproducingapolarizedview,in whichthereareonlytworealities:crime,whichismorally con-demnable,andlabor,whichismorallylaudable(“Becausethose ofuswholiveincrime,wearenotusedtoworking”).Thisdual perspective,foritspart,extends thecategorizationofsubjects intocriminalsandworthycitizens(Lima&Santos,2008).
In thiscase, laborstill adds a sense of “change”(implicit theme)orevenof“rehabilitation”(explicittheme)ofthesubject whosepracticesbeforegoingtoprisonwerenotcircumscribed toakindofinstitutionalizedorderandlegitimizedbysociety’s hegemonicgroups.Em“[...]It’slikeworkingoutside,westart
early,wehavealunchbreak,wehaveacertaintimetogoback towork[...]”,laborappearsassomethingthatlegitimizesthe
subject’stimestructureandactivities(Bastosetal.,1995),asa meansofimposingagivendiscipline(Foucault,2007;Lima& Santos,2008),operatingthereforeatthelastlevel,asan instru-mentthat insinuatesthe (re)integrationof thesubject inthis socialorder.
Thesemanticpathof“utility”andthethemeof“labor”also sustainthediscourseofredemptioninthediscursivefragments (002)and(003).
(002)Workingis veryimportantinhere. Workingisgood forustoprogressinlife,somethingtokeepourmindsbusy. BecauseImean,anemptymindissomething,especiallythe mindofaconvict.Emptymindsarenotgood,weonlythink ofbadthings.AndatAPAC,there’salwayssomethingfor ustodo.Exactlyforthatreason.It’sabook,aservice,it’s everything,somethingforustokeepourmindsbusy,sowe neverthinkofbadthings.(R2)
(003)It’sgreat.Iloveworkingbecauseanidlebrainisthe devil’splayground.Sowhenweareworking,wedrawaway fromthings,wedon’tthinkofthingsoutside.AsmuchasI havemychildrenandIlovethemtoomuch,Ithinkofthem lesswhenI’mworking.SotheworkhereatAPACisvery important,very much indeed.Andyou canask anyonein here.Iwakeupearlyandifnecessary,I’llworkuntil10at nightbecauseIloveworking.Evenoutside,Iloveworking. WhileI’mworking, I’mnotarguing. Youdon’tseethings otherpeopledo.You’refocused.Soworkingisvery impor-tant here at APAC. Working is very important anywhere. (R3)
In(002),wecanperceivethediscourseofredemptionfrom the fact that, in the view of the enunciator, labor allows the realizationofasubject,offeringconditionsto“progressinlife” inawaythatislegitimizedbysociety.Fromthisideaitispossible toinfertheideaoflegitimacyinthelexicalselection:“Working isagoodthing[...]”.Inthefragment(002),theadjectivethat
qualifieslaboris“good”,inanimplicitoppositionagainstthe lexicalitem“bad”,orwhateverisnotlegitimateinthecontextof theAPAC(indisciplinebehaviors,forinstance),aswellaswithin socialspacesotherthanthatofprison.Therefore,R2reproduces thehegemonicdiscourseaboutlaborasafundamentalpractice forthedevelopmentanddignityofsubjects,orto“progressin life”. Hence, labor is configuredas amechanism that would allowtheredemptionofthedeviatedsubjectwhoisservinga sentence.
ofconsciousnessandsub-consciousnessofthatfirst.Themind’s emptinesssuggeststheactofthinkingabouteverythingthatis notlegitimizedinagivensocialspace.Theimposedlaborfills suchavoid,delimitingwhatmaybetheobjectofreflectionby thesubject:“AndatAPACthere’salwayssomethingforusto do.Exactlyforthatreason.It’sabook,aservice,it’severything, something for us tokeep our mindsbusy,so we neverthink ofbadthings”.Inthatcase,laborallowsto“escape”fromthe elaborationofacertaintypeofthoughts,regardedas“bad”.R2 issilentaboutwhat“thinkingofbadthings”consistsof,inthe scopeoftheirautonomyasasubject,forinstance.ToR2,labor isasocialpracticethatrescuesthesubjectfromcertainthoughts, eventhoughtheimplicitassumptionsuggeststheimprisonment ofthesamesubjectinotherthoughts.
In the discursive fragment (003), the theme of “escape” appearsagainintheconsiderationsofthesubjectonthevalue thatlaborentails.Theideaof“escape”incorporateshereinthe senseofsubjectsrunningawayfromthemselves,ornotreflecting someoftheirowncharacteristics,relationships,andpositions. SpecificallytoR3,laborassumesthesenseofestrangement(a themeimpliedbythelexicalitem“drawingaway”)from some-thing,thatis,thepracticeofanylaboractivityoperatesinorder todistractthesubject,makingthemponderaboutwhatcauses suffering.Forinstance,R3claimstohavelostsomeawareness ofsomeaspectsconcerningthecharacterofherpositioninthe setofrelationshipsestablishedatAPAC(“WhileI’mworking, I’mnotarguing.Youdon’tseethingsotherpeopledo”),aswell as those concerning (andlocated) inother social spaces(the situationoffamilyinthebroadersociety,forinstance).
ThemeaningsthatR2andR3attributetotheworktheycarry outatAPACresemblewhathasbeenexplainedbyBastos(1997)
onthetopicofprisonlabor.Forthisauthor,labor,inmostcases, allowsindividualsservingtimetoforgettheirdisappointments, troubles,andfears.Thefactisthatevenwhenlaborincorporates asenseof“escape”orsomethingonecouldevencallan “alien-ation”,thisagreeswiththeideasofSchwartz(2000),whenthe authorstatesthatlaborinvolvestheuseofoneselfbythisvery self.Weunderstandthatintheviewofthespeakersof(002)and (003),laborisareorganizationdeviceforlifeinprison,evenif thisdeviceimpliesestrangementfromcertainaspectsoftheir ownpersonalreality.
Thesemanticpaththatwecall“natureoflabor”characterizes thefragment(004). Inthisdiscursivefragment,themeanings concerninglaborinscribeitasasocialpracticethatallowsthe differentiationamongindividualsofdifferentsocialspacesinthe contextofprison,namely:theclosedandsemi-openregimes.
(004) In the closed regime, the workis moretherapeutic, handicraftsandall.It’smoretokeepyouthinking,pondering andall.Theworkismorelikethat.Whenyougetto semi-openit’smoredisorganized,moreagitated,yourunhere,you runthere,you cleanhere,andyou escort, andit’s already completelydifferent.Itchangeswaterintowine.Hereatthe semi-openit’smoreprofessionalizing.Hereyoucanbecome professionalized,you’reclosertofreedom.Youareentitled torightsafterexternallabor.APAChelpsus,herewehave sewingmachinesandwecanlearnthings.Theyrecommend
ushere,soIthinkwhenwechangetosemi-open,it’smore ofaprofessionalizingactivity.It’slike,asifourfreedomwas coming,like‘hey,haveyoutakenaposition?!’Youcanno longerthinklikeyouusedtowhenyouwereintheclosed regime. You have tohave moreresponsibility. I think it’s morelikethat.(R4)
Initially, R4 drawsattention tothe differencesthat perme-ate the nature of thework activitiescarried outinthe closed and semi-openregimes, whichare different socialspaces for serving sentences. The imposition of different typesof labor ultimatelyrevealsthe conceptionofthesubjectsthatconform eachsocialspaceatAPAC.Moreprecisely,intheclosedregime, whichisthefirststageofcriminalenforcement,activities con-tainatherapeuticnature,forthedeviatedsubject,perceivedas a“socialpatient”,needsconditionsandtimetoreflectuponthe processof“amendment”,whichwouldbeequivalenttoa heal-ingprocess:“Intheclosedregime,theworkismoretherapeutic, handicrafts andall.It’smoretokeepyouthinking,pondering andall”. It isassumed that theproductionof handicrafts, for example,whichinmostcasesincludestheapplicationof tech-niquesthatcannotdowithoutasignificantconcentration,would enable thedevelopmentofpatienceinthesubjects beforethe peculiarcircumstancesoftheprison.Inthesemi-openregime, laborislinkedtothethemeofprofessionalization:“Hereatthe semi-open it’s more professionalizing.Here you can become professionalized, you’reclosertofreedom”. The subjectwho advances inpenal executionis closertofreedom;itis, there-fore, necessary toassign them activitiesthat require themto improvetheirsenseofresponsibility(aidingthe“escorting”of otherinmates,forinstance),sincetheywillhaveto“beuseful” insociety,soastohavealternativesthatavoidrecidivism.
In short,toR4thecharacteristicsthat conformlabor influ-encehowsubjectsperceivethemselvesandothersinthesameor indifferentsocialspaces,whichreinforcesthepresupposition oflaborasafundamentalconstitutivecategoryoftheindividual andsocialidentitiesofsubjects(Lima,2007).Thesubjectthat occupiesthesocialspaceofthesemi-openregimethinks differ-entlyfromthesubjectwhoisservingunderaclosedregime.The lexicalselection“Youcannolongerthinklikeyouusedtowhen youwereintheclosedregime”iselucidativeinthisrespect.R4 discussestheworkshedoesand,inaway,herpositionasa sub-jectinthesemi-openregime(thisisindicatedbythechoiceof thelexicalitem“here”torefertothesocialspaceofthe semi-openregime,aswellasof“there”torefertotheclosedsystem). Nonetheless,sheacknowledges(byimplyingthatthishappens through rememberingtheirown experiencessinceallsubjects whoareinthesemi-opensystemshouldremainintheclosed regimeforacertainperiod)the“other”andthelaboractivities thatthe“other”performsintheclosedregime.
The(im)possibilitiesoflifeafterprison
intherealmsofwhatisdeviant,marginalorillegal.Thissection ofthepaperpresentsdiscursivefragmentsderivedfrom consid-erationsontherolethat theworkdonebytheAPACconvicts playsinafutureprocessofsubjectresocialization.Atthispoint, thediscursivefragmentsreinforcetheideaoflaborasapractice that are tangentto otheraspects of the livesof women serv-ingsentencesandthatwill bereleasedsometime.Yet,aspart ofthediscussionontheproduction(andcontrol)of subjectiv-ityinorganizations,the practiceof “labor”gives opportunity tosubjectstoponder abouttheirpositionsinprisonandother socialspaces,about their relations withindividualsfrom dif-ferentgroups,suchasfamily,friends,prisonofficials,andthe societyingeneral.
Generallyspeaking,thereflectionsofthesubjectsrefer,first, towhat Bastos(1997)calls infantilizationofthe subject,that is,thesubjectfeelsandpositionsthemselvesasunabletoopen newwayswithoutinstitutional “care”. Suchinfantilizationis revealedhereinenunciationsaboutthelackofpreparationand fearoffacingtheworld“outside”.Whatisalsoevidentinthese discoursesisthe awarenessof theprejudiceor stigmatization (Goffman,2008)againstsubjectswhoareserving–orsincewe aredealingwithmeaningproductionconcerninga“future”,have served–sentences.Morespecifically,R13buildsadiscoursethat encompassesthe themes of “recidivism”,“fear”, “prejudice”, and“hope”.
(005)Tobehonest,IthinkifIwastobefreedtoday,IthinkI stillwouldn’tbereadytogoout.IthinkIshouldstaylonger. Todaythisregimeisveryimportant,Ihavetomaturelonger, forasmuchasIfeellikegoingout.IthinkI’llhavemore, I’llvaluemyfreedommore,I’llbeabletorebuildmylife. Mylife’spurposeisanotheronealready,mydreams.Ithink the timeI’mgoingtostay in,I’ll become moreandmore mature.IfItellyouI’mreadyoleave,I’mactuallynot.Not yet.Somenegativethoughtsstillcrossmymind.Sometimes mygreatestfearistofallbackintodrugsagain.I’mafraid ofwhat’sgoingtobelikewhenIcomeoutbecauseIdon’t wanttomesswiththat anymore.It’slike,the housethatI have, Iknow if I come back to my house,I’ll also come backtocrime[...]Youknow,like,Ihavethisviewfrommy
mom,whenshecameout.Thepeoplerejectusverymuch. It’slike,you’reaformerconvict,they’llalwayssmellarat. BecauseI’vealreadycommittedacrimeandtheythinkI’ll commitanotherone.Ithinkthispartisgoingtobehard,but notimpossibletoregainpeople’strust.Mymomoftensays that shegot backtocrimelife becauseshedidn’t havean opportunity.ButIthinkthat,infact,thereshouldhavebeen moreeffortonher par,right?Becauseshedidn’t havethe will tolookfor itmore.Becauseone, two,three,eventen doors canbeclosed,butonewill opensometimes.Thisis whatIthinkwhenIleave,I’llmoveawayfromItaúna.My husbandandItalkaboutrestartingourlifesomewhereelse. IthinkaboutleavingItaúna.It’llbeeasiertorestartmylife somewhereelse.WhereIdon’tknowanyone.(R13)
Intheverybeginningofthediscursivefragment(005),R13 confessesnottobereadytoleavethesocialspaceoftheprison andthereforetooccupyanon-marginal placeinsociety.This
ideaoflackofpreparationand, soonafter,thementionof the so-called “negativethoughts” are presentedas two discursive elementsthatadducetotherecurrencephenomenon.Inthis con-text,the lackof preparationreferstothe factthat thesubject realizesthatheramendment(orcorrection)processisyettobe completed, giventhe crime committed.And inthiscase, the expression“negative thoughts” suggeststhat thesubject con-ceivesthoughtsconcerningachanceofrelapsing.
The feeling of fearpervadesthe reflections of R13on the possibilityofbeingreleasedfromprison.Therespondentsays sheisafraidtorelapseincriminalactivitywhensheisinsocial spacesoutsidethe prison.Thereturntothesocialspacesthat arepartofthesubject’strajectory(her“home”),appearsalmost asareturntocrime:“Sometimesmygreatestfearistofallback intodrugsagain.I’mafraidofwhat’sgoingtobelikewhenI comeoutbecauseIdon’twanttomesswiththatanymore.It’s like,thehousethatIhave,IknowifIcomebacktomyhouse, I’llalsocomebacktocrime[...]”.
Moreover, when pondering about her social reintegration, R13implicitlyreferstotheprejudiceagainstsubjectswhohave servedprisonsentences.Theverb“reject”andtheexpression“to smellarat”suggestthedifficultiesfacedbyindividualsleaving prisonwhentheyseektooccupynewplacessociety,different fromcrime.She isawarethatshewillprobablybeatargetof segregation uponcompletionof hersentence and,infact, the speakercogitatesmovingawayfromtown.Inotherwords,the subjectrealizesthatmovingtoanunknownlocationcanbean alternative,forbyomittingherdeviantpositionofformerconvict wouldbeawayofescaping(ormitigating)prejudice.
Inthe fragment(005),despite thepredominanceof discur-sive elementsthatsupportthethemes ofrecidivism, fear,and prejudice,R13doesnotfailtopronounceaspectsthatindicate thethemeofhopewhenitcomesitcomestosocial reintegra-tion. In someparts,R13shows herfaith inthe possibilityof buildingatrajectorythatisnolongermarkedbycriminal activ-ities.Precisely,thefragmentsare:“IthinkI’llhavemore, I’ll value my freedom more, I’ll be able to rebuild my life. My life’spurposeisanotheronealready,mydreams”and“Because one,two,three,eventendoorscanbeclosed,butonewillopen sometimes”.
(006)I’mafraidoftheworldoutside,anguishforbeingthis longawayfrommychildren,frommymother,youknow? Iregretleavingmyex-husband,hewasverygoodtome.I feelmadfordoingthat,allbecauseofthemedicines.Ihope Icanquitandtakecontrolofmymind.Icryjustbytalking aboutquittingthem.SoIgetveryanguishedaboutthat.It’s verysad.Isufferfromdepression,andwhenitsinks,Istart feelingscared,veryscared,Ifeeldrugwithdrawal,andIalso sufferfrombipolardisorder.Then,whenthisstartssinking in,Ifeellikedoingdrugs.AndI’mscaredofbeingreleased andseeing everythinghappen again, allbecause of drugs. I feel distressed knowing that at any time I’mreleased, I canbeconvictedornot.I don’tknow,honestly,I imagine myself doing drugs again if I leave APACnow [...] I’m
unfortunately,it’sthetruth.Ican’tjustgoonandsay:‘I’m doingfine’.Thatwouldbealie,andI’dbelyingtomyself. BecausethemoreIexposethisfeeling, themoreIget off mychestthesethingsI’mevenashamedofsaying,themore relievedIfeel,andIfeelstronger.Becausetwopeoplewho werewithme,doingtime,theywouldsay‘we’refine,we’re strong’,theyleftandfelloutfordrugsagain[...](R5)
Fromthesentence“I’mafraidoftheworldoutside[...]”,a
statementthatbeginsthefragment(006),wecaninferthatthe speakerconjecturestheverypossibilityofhersocialreinsertion withfear.Theimplicitassumptionisthatinthesocialspaceof APAC,i.e., aprison,the enunciatorfeels protected, whereas, beyond the prison walls, sensations of insecurity andfear of something wouldbe manifested.Initially, R5 does notdefine exactlywhatthis“thing”thatcreatesfearis,butasthefragment (006)goeson,sheendsupaffirmingwhatissofrighteningabout the“worldoutside”:thepossibilityofrelapsing.Thisiswhatshe fears.
Theactofrelapsingincriminalactivitiesisimplicitlyimplied intheexpression“seeingeverythinghappenagain”,i.e. insist-ing onthe reproduction of the same practicesthat led her to thepathofcrimeandtherefore,toprison.Inthefollowing lex-icalselections,it ispossibletonoticehowthe themesoffear andrecidivismaredeeplyintertwinedintheprocessesof pon-deringaboutthe socialreintegration ofthesubject: “AndI’m scaredof beingreleased andseeing everythinghappen again, allbecause of drugs”and “I’mafraid of whatcanhappen to metoday,tomorroworthe dayafter,whenI’mout.It’s diffi-cult”.Thereferencetotherecidivismphenomenon isevident fromtheaccountoftheexperiencesofotherindividualsserving sentencesinthesamesocialspaceasR5:“Becausetwopeople whowerewithme,doingtime,theywouldsay‘we’refine,we’re strong’,theyleftandfelloutfordrugsagain”.Inthiscontext, theverb“fallout”meansthatthesubjectwasnotabletosustain aconductalignedwiththeprincipleslegitimizedinsocietyand, inversely,sherelapsesincrime.Hencethefeelingofprotection insideAPAC(andoffearbeingoutside).
(007)WhenIgoout,it’sgoingtobedifficult.Becausewe shouldneversaythatweare rehabilitated.Becausethere’s awholelotoftemptationsoutside.It’sgoingtobedifficult indeed.Becauseyou’llhavetolive,firstofall,inthemiddle of the society with peoplewho have notserved time, it’s difficult.Therewill be adifferent side.ButI’mready for whateverhappens.IbegGodtonotletmefalldownagain. BecauseIlookedforthiswithmyownhands,nowIhaveto overcomeit.WhatIhavetodoisbuildconfidenceinsociety toliveevenbetter.(R3)
R3 uses the adjective “difficult” to characterize her pro-cessofoccupationofspaces“outside”theprisonand“outside” APAC.First, theperceived difficulty is causedbythe danger of recidivism, that is,of the subject persisting in crime.The speakerdemonstratesdisbeliefinthefullrehabilitationofformer convictsinviewof thenumerousopportunitiesofcommitting crimes:“Becauseweshouldneversaythatwearerehabilitated. Becausethere’sawholelot oftemptations outside”.Another
challenge, of which R3 is aware, refers to prejudice. While consideringtheirfuturecoexistencewiththesubjectswhohave notservedsentences,thespeakeracknowledges(andassumes) theposition(orspaces)ofwhatisdifferent,thatis,whatison themarginsofsociety.“It’sgoingtobedifficultindeed.Because you’llhavetolive,firstofall,inthemiddleofthesocietywith peoplewhohavenotservedtime,it’sdifficult.Therewillbea differentside”. Tobe“alike”istonothaving beenconvicted, whichmakesprisonsasortof“mark”ofdifferenceinrelation toallothers.
However, R3triestoshowcourage infacing theobstacles involved in the occupation of positions (or places) in social spacesdifferentfromthoseofprison.Inthesentence“ButI’m readyforwhateverhappens”,thisnotionofcourageisimplicit, whichseemstocomefromclingingtoaspiritualor religious entity,moreprecisely,“God”.Forinstance,thestretch“Ibeg God to not letme fall down again”,the discursive character “God”appearsasresponsibleforpreventingtheenunciatorfrom reoffending.
(008)Iworkatthehouseofoneoftheworkersondutyhere, hernameisGilda[fictitiousname].AndIbenefitfromthat, youknow?Idon’tgetpaidmuch,butweseethepeople,how societyisgoingtoseeme,I’mgoingtohavecontactwith people.I’vebeenwashingclothes,doingthedishes,cleaning ahouse,doingwhatIdidbefore,justlikeinmyownhouse. Oh,peopledon’tknowI’maconvictbecauseI’mnotfrom Itaúna.AndIdon’tmentioniteither.Thepersonwhoknows istheworkeronduty,youknow?Sheknows,already,since she’sworkedheresinceIarrived,sheknowsme,youknow, sheusedtoobservethewayIbehavedandall,thewayIwas. So,it’slike,Ican’tsaymuchbecausesheknewmebefore, andpeopleouttherestill don’t knowI’maconvict. Iwas quite afraidto leave for external services,I was afraid of people,Iwasafraidofconfrontingtheworldoutside.[...]
ButI thinkthat ifI’mtofind anotherjob here, howam I going toapproach someoneandtellthemI’mdoing time, how’sthatpersongongtotreatme atthatmoment?That’s whyI’mstillwithGildabecauseshe’saworkerondutyand sawmyintimacyinhere.Shedoesn’tpaymemuch,Ican’t buyanything,butI’mafraidof howsomeoneelsewillsee mesinceI’maconvict.(R22)
Stillfromfearofnotbeingacceptedinothersocialspaces,the enunciatorconformstoworkintheplacethatwasgrantedtoher, i.e.,in“thehouseoftheworkeronduty”.Apparently,shecan onlyberesigned.TheconsiderationsofR22aremarkedbythe awarenessofthe“society’s”prejudiceagainstsubjectsserving sentences.Thelexicalselectionthatallowssuchinterpretation is:“ButIthinkthat ifI’mtofindanotherjobhere,howamI goingtoapproachsomeoneandtellthemI’mdoingtime,how’s thatpersongongtotreatmeatthatmoment?That’swhyI’mstill withGildabecauseshe’saworkerondutyandsawmyintimacy inhere.Shedoesn’tpaymemuch,Ican’tbuyanything,butI’m afraidofhowsomeoneelsewillseemesinceI’maconvict”.In thiscase,itispossibletoglimpsetheperspectiveofsegregation insertedintoakindofprocessthat,atleastapriori,wouldbe legitimizedbythe idealsofinclusion orreinsertion(Chies & Varel,2009).Inotherwords, thediscoursereproducesavery commonsituation,proposedintheresearchbyBastos(1997)
aswellas Buckeridge(2011),inwhichitfallstothewoman whoisservingorhasservedtime,inmostcases,theoccupation ofcertainsocialspaces,theperformanceofsocialroles;more specifically,theexerciseofcertaindomesticactivities(washing, cleaning,takingcareofthehouse)oftenmarkedbyeconomic andsocialdevaluation.
Finalthoughts
Thepurposeofthisstudywastoanalyzethemeaningsthat subjectsservingtimeattributetoprisonlabor,seekingtoidentify therelationsamongthesemeaningsandtheprinciplesthataim tolegitimizelaboractivitiesascapableofreintegratingsubjects intosociety.Infact,itscontributionsrunalongsomeaxes.The firstisoutlinedinordertostrengthenthehistoricalandcultural aspectsofsubjectivitytheory(GonzálezRey,2009).The pro-ductionofmeaningsbythewomenwho“speak”inthispaper relatestothepositionstheyhaveoccupiedintheworld.Nuances oftheexperienceoflivingintheworldofcrimebecomeclear whenthesubjects delimittheir perceptionoftheir workfrom adualperspective,i.e. of whatis rightor not,what dignifies themanornot,ofwhatismorallyestablishedandacceptedor not.Fromthis,itispossibletoidentifyaprocessofproduction ofsubjectivitiesthroughinstitutional discoursesandtherefore throughhegemonicdiscoursesconstructedinsociety.Precisely, thewaysofbeingatworkandthinkingaboutlaborinprisonare producedaccordingtotheperceptionthatthiswouldbe config-uredas amechanismtocorrect thesubject whooncedidnot fitinthedefinedand“naturalized”standardoflegality. Thus, thewomenwhoareservingtimerunthroughthemeaningsof recoveryand laboras something redemptive, whichcan free them.
However, laborconcomitantly incorporates asense of the subject’simprisonment,whichhasbeencalledalienationherein. Thisisbecausetheactofworking,attimes,isperceivedasan actionthatallowsthe“escape”,theestrangementfromreality, sometimespreventingthesubjectfromopeningspacesfor sin-gularization(orautonomy)throughcriticalthinking.Thelabor practice assumes the sense of an “island” that acts to mini-mizethepsychologicaltensionthat arisesfromthenumerous
attacksontheself,whichontheotherhandcharacterizeatotal institution,asGoffman(1961)hasobserved.
Laboralsorevealsitselfasasegregationmechanisminside andoutsidetheprison socialspaces,insofar asitdelimits the extentofsubjectcategories(Bastos,1997;Costa&Bratkowski, 2007;Lima&Santos,2008)ascriminalsandworkers,thatis, theinmates whoare engagedinrecovery(thosewhoperform laboractivitiesinprison)andthosewhoarenot(thosewhodo notperformlaboractivitiesinprison).Moreover,thelabor activ-itieshighlightthedifferencesamongsubjects,basedongender roles,reflecting aspects ofthe inequalityprocessthat women faceinothersocialcontexts,inthesocialspaceofprison.Itis up towomenserving timetoperformcraft works or making clothesandshoes(asformostwomeninAPACstitching san-dals).Thisisworkthat,inmostcases,circumscribeswomen’s performancetoastereotypicaldomainofthedomesticandthe private. Segregationisreproducedafter thesubject leavesthe prisonor rehearseshis departure,aswithindividualswhoare servingsentencesinthesemi-openoropenregime,whatisleft for theseis to carryout certaintypes of labor activitiesthat providelittlesatisfactioninfinancialandsocialterms.
Thispaperhelpstostrengthenadiscussionaboutthefactthat laborinprisonisnotapanaceafortheprisonsystemproblemsor evenforthecountry’ssocialsystem,inanattempttoreducethe ratesofcrimeandviolence.Thespeechesproducedhereinallow considerationsonthefactthattheresocializationcentersare pre-sentedinthediscussionsaboutthereformoftheBrazilianprison systemasalternativemodelsofpenal execution.Suchcenters canbe“alternatives”totheextent thatthemajorityisformed byajointmanagementbetweenstateandanon-governmental organization.Thisoccursbecausethelabelofalternativeis ques-tioned(that is,whatispresentedas amoreeffectiveproposal forthereintegrationofindividualswhohavecommittedcrimes) forresocializationcenterswhere,asisclearfromseveralofthe interviewscollected,subjectsprovetobedeeplydependenton institutionalcareorasortoforganizationalprotection,feeling frightenedandunpreparedaboutthefutureoccupationofplaces differentfromthedeviatingones,inthebroadersociety.
The research reinforces the problematization on how far prison labor meets its precept of producing conventionally acceptedsociabilities,orifitjustsubtlyperpetuatesthelogicof exclusionintheguiseofanallegedinclusion,functioningonlyas agearintheviciouscirclethat,insteadofminimizing,increases crime.Recipesorformulasarenotinferredfromthisstudy(and the intentionwas notthat), butthe reflections encouragedby itsuggestsomethingthatmayseemsimplistic,butthatinfact constitutesthecoreofthelegal,sociologicalorindividual mat-tersregardingprisonlabor.Moreprecisely,prisonlaborneedsto betranslatedintoamechanismforapproximation,not detach-mentfromthe“outside”world,withallitspossibilities(notits “impossibilities”).Thisgoalcannotbefulfilledwhilethe reha-bilitationmeaningsarelinkedtothealienationandsegregation of(andthrough)labor.
thewaysasubjectcanbeandrelatewithinthesocialspaceof prison,endsup(re)producing,(re)organizing,(re)adapting(or not)the waysof being andrelatingtosocialspacesdifferent fromapenalexecutionspace.
Conflictsofinterest
Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.
References
Andrade, S.P. C., Tolfo, S.R., & Dellagnelo, E. H. L. (2012).Sentidos dotrabalhoeracionalidadesinstrumentalesubstantiva:Interfacesentrea administrac¸ãoeapsicologia.RevistadeAdministra¸cãoContemporânea, 16(2),200–216.
Bastos,A.V.B.,Pinho,A.P.M.,&Costa,C.A.(1995).Significadodotrabalho: Umestudoentretrabalhadoresinseridosemorganizac¸õesformais.Revista deAdministra¸cãodeEmpresas,35(6),20–29.
Bastos,M.(1997).Cárceredemulheres.RiodeJaneiro:Diadorim.
Berger,P.(1983).Algumasobservac¸õesgeraissobreoproblemadotrabalho. RevistadeAdministra¸cãodeEmpresas,23(1),13–22.
Browne,J.(2007).Rootedinslavery:Prisonlaborexploitation.Race,Poverty &TheEnvironment,14(1),42–44.
Buckeridge,F.C.(2011).Porentreasgrades:Umestudosobreocotidiano deumaprisãofemininaDissertac¸ãodemestrado.SãoPaulo,SP,Brasil: UniversidadedeSãoPaulo.
Cabral,S.,&Araújo,U.P.(2010).Osistemaprisionalvistocomoumnexusde instituic¸õeseorganizac¸õesinstitucionalizadas.RevistadeAdministra¸cão, 45(2),103–115.
Chies,L.A.B.,&Varel,A.B.(2009).Aambigüidadedotrabalhoprisional numcontextodeencarceramentofeminino:Ocírculoviciosodaexclusão. SERSocial,11(24),10–33.
Coutinho,M.C.(2009).Sentidosdotrabalhocontemporâneo:Astrajetórias identitáriascomoestratégiadeinvestigac¸ão.CadernosdePsicologiaSocial doTrabalho,12(2),189–202.
Creswell,J.W.(2003).Researchdesign:Qualitative,quantitativeandmixed methodsapproaches(4thed.).London:Sage.
Clot,Y.(2006).Afun¸cãopsicológicadotrabalho.Petrópolis:Vozes.
Costa,S.G.,&Bratkowski,P.L.S.(2007).Paradoxosdotrabalhoprisionalnaera docapitalismoflexível:OcasodoDETRAN-RS.RevistadeAdministra¸cão Contemporânea,11(3),127–147.
Dejours,C.(2004).Subjetividade,trabalhoeac¸ão.RevistaProdu¸cão,14(3), 27–34.
Denzin,N.K.,&Lincoln,Y.S.(2006).Oplanejamentodapesquisaqualitativa: Teoriaseabordagens(2nded.).PortoAlegre:Artmed.
Fletcher,D.(2011).Thedevelopmentofworkingprisons:Transforminginmates fromthelumpenproletariattothecontingentworkforce?BritishJournalof CommunityJustice,9(1/2),111–124.
Foucault,M.(2007).Vigiarepunir:Nascimentodaprisão(36thed.).Petrópolis: Vozes.
Foucault,M.(1992).Microfísicadopoder(10thed.).RiodeJaneiro:Graal.
Goffman,E.(1961).Manicômios,prisõeseconventos.SãoPaulo:Perspectiva.
Goldberg,E.,&Linda,E.(2009).Theprison-industrialcomplex&theglobal economy.Oakland:PMPress.
GonzálezRey,F.(2010).Pesquisaqualitativaesubjetividade:Osprocessosde constru¸cãodainforma¸cão.SãoPaulo:CengageLearning.
GonzálezRey,F.(2009).Osocialnapsicologiaeapsicologiasocial:A emergên-ciadosujeito(2nded.).Petrópolis:Vozes.
GonzálezRey,F.(2003).Sujeitoesubjetividade:Umaaproxima¸cão histórico-cultural.SãoPaulo:PioneiraThomsonLearning.
Goulart, P. M. (2009). O significado do trabalho: delimitac¸ões teóri-cas (1955–2006). Cadernos de Psicologia Social do Trabalho, 12(1), 47–55.
Isaksen,J.(2000).Constructingmeaningdespitethedrudgeryofrepetitivework. JournalofHumanisticPsychology,40(3),84–107.
Laville,C.,&Dionne,J.(1999).Aconstru¸cãodosaber:Manualdemetodologia dapesquisaemciênciashumanas.PortoAlegre:Artmed.
Lebaron,G.(2012).Rethinkingprisonlabor:Socialdisciplineandthestatein historicalperspective.TheJournalofLaborandSociety,15(3),327–351.
Lei n◦ 7.210,de 11de julhode 1984 (1984).Institui aLei de Execuc¸ão
Penal. Brasília, DF. 23 January 2012. In http://www.planalto.gov.br/ ccivil03/leis/L7210.htm
Lima,A.P.S.,&Santos,M.F.S.(2008).Apropósitodaprisãoedotrabalho penitenciário.TeoriaePolíticaSocial,1(1),15–29.
Lima,M.E.A.(2007).Trabalhoeidentidade:Umareflexãoàluzdodebate sobreacentralidadedotrabalhonasociedadecontemporânea.Educa¸cão& Tecnologia,12(3),5–9.
Marx,K.(1968).Processodetrabalhoeprocessodeproduzirmais-valia.InK. Marx(Ed.),Ocapital(Vol.1)(pp.201–228).RiodeJaneiro:Civilizac¸ão Brasileira.
May,D.R.,Gilson,R.L.,&Harter,L.M.(2004).Thepsychologicalconditions ofmeaningfulness,safetyandavailabilityandtheengagementofthehuman spiritatwork.JournalofOccupationalandOrganizationalPsychology,77, 11–37.
Ottoboni,M.(2001).Vamosmatarocriminoso?MétodoAPAC.SãoPaulo: Paulinas.
Ribeiro,L.M.L.,&Cruz,M.V.G.(2002).Trabalhoprisionalcomopolítica públicaderecuperac¸ãodocriminoso:estudodemúltiploscasosemunidades penitenciáriasdeMinasGerais–Brasil.InAnaisdoEncontroAnualda Associa¸cãoNacionaldePós-Gradua¸cãoePesquisaemAdministra¸cão(p. 26).
Rodrigues,A.L.,&Barrichello,A.(2015).Embuscadasubstantivac¸ãodo con-ceitodesentidosdotrabalho:umestudocomprofissionaisdeenfermagem. InAnaisdoEncontroAnualdaAssocia¸cãoNacionaldePós-Gradua¸cãoe PesquisaemAdministra¸cão(p.39).
Rodrigues,A.L.,Barrichello,A.,&Morin,E.M.(2015).Themeaningsof workforprofessionalsfromasymphonymusicfoundation.InAnaisdo EncontroAnualdaAssocia¸cãoNacionaldePós-Gradua¸cãoePesquisaem Administra¸cão(p.39).
Rosso,B.D.,Dekas,K.H.,&Wrzesniewski,A.(2010).Onthemeaningofwork: Atheoreticalintegrationandreview.ResearchinOrganizationalBehavior, 30,91–127.
Schwartz,Y.(2000).Trabalhoeusodesi.Pro-Posi¸cões,1(5),34–50.
Tolfo,S.R.,Coutinho,M.C.,Baasch,D.,&Cugnier,J.S.(2011).Sentidos ysignificadosdeltrabajo:Umanálisiscombaseemdiferentes perspec-tivasteóricoepistemológicasemPsicología.UniversitasPsychología,10(1), 175–188.
