English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The building and managing of places of confinement-whether for paupers, felons, or the insane-has always excited reformers, including social scientists in the contemporary period. What most gives reason for excitement is that these institutions appear to offer the possibility of imposing total social control. Total social control is a vaulting idea. It has inspired generations of reformers to think that they can create the perfect social order, and that the perfect social order will rehabilitate those subjected to it. Little wonder that institutions give rise to utopian dreams and projects. Indeed, it was various utopian dreams that led reformers to create institutions in the first place. And when each system of social control failed to rehabilitate, new utopian projects were undertaken, leading to periodic shifts in the architecture, the social stmcturing, and in the managing of places of confinement. Before the invention of institutions, offenders were pretty much treated as by nature incoi'rigible, which justified killing them. Or they were viewed as just enough in control of their natural impulses to obey the rules if whipped, branded, or maimed. Institutional n1ovements, by contrast, define social behavior as less a product of human nature and more a product of societal arrangements: perfect social arrangements, perfect social obedience.

Social Determinism and Social Disobedience: A Reply to Fraley