However, rather than focusing on the more extreme or clinically diagnostic effects of incarceration, I prefer to focus on the broader and more subtle psychological changes that occur in the current course of adjustment to prison life. The term “institutionalization” is used to describe the process by which inmates are shaped and transformed by the institutional environment in which they live. Sometimes referred to as “incarceration,” when it occurs in correctional facilities, it is short-term for the negative psychological effects of incarceration. (8) The process has been extensively studied by sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and others and involves a unique set of psychological adaptations, often occurring to varying degrees in response to the extraordinary demands of prison life. In general, the process of incarceration involves the integration of the norms of prison life into habits of thought, feeling and action. The dysfunctional consequences of institutionalization are not always immediately apparent once the institutional structure and procedural imperatives have been eliminated. This is especially true in cases where people retain a modicum of structure wherever they re-enter the free society. In addition, the most negative consequences of institutionalization may first appear in the form of internal chaos, disorganization, stress and anxiety. Nevertheless, institutionalization has taught most people to obscure their inner states and not to openly or easily reveal their feelings or intimate reactions.

Thus, the outward appearance of normality and adaptation can mask a number of serious problems of adaptation to the free world. 8. The literature sometimes distinguishes between institutionalizing psychological changes, which produce more conformist and institutionally “appropriate” thoughts and actions, and prison changes, which create a more oppositional and institutionally subversive attitude or perspective. Here I use the terms more or less interchangeably to refer to the totality of the negative transformation that can take place before prisoners are released into free society. A slightly different aspect of the process is creating a dependency on the institution to control its behaviour. Correctional facilities force inmates to adapt to an elaborate web of generally very clear boundaries and boundaries, violations of which can be swift and severe. Prisons impose careful and continuous monitoring and quickly (and sometimes severely) punish violations of restrictive rules. The process of internment in prisons can surround prisoners with external borders, immerse them so deeply in a network of rules and regulations, and so completely accustom them to coercive systems so visible that internal controls wither or, in the case of particularly young prisoners, do not develop at all.

Thus, institutionalization or imprisonment makes some people so dependent on external constraints that they gradually lose the ability to rely on internal organization and self-imposed personal boundaries to guide their actions and limit their behavior. If and when this external structure is removed, highly institutionalized individuals may find that they no longer know how to do things themselves or how to refrain from doing things that are ultimately harmful or self-destructive. Prisoners are generally deprived of their basic personal rights and lose control of the day-to-day aspects of their lives that most citizens have long taken for granted. They live in small, sometimes extremely cramped and deteriorating spaces (a 60-square-foot cell is about the size of a king-size bed), have little or no control over who they should share that space with (and the intimate contact they need), often have no choice when to get up or go to bed. When or what you can eat, and so on. Some feel infantalized, and the humiliated conditions in which they live remind them of their compromised social status and stigmatized social role as prisoners. A reduction in self-esteem and self-worth can result. In extreme cases of institutionalization, the symbolic meaning that can be derived from this treatment and these externally imposed inferior circumstances is internalized; That is, prisoners can see themselves as “the kind of person” who deserves nothing but the humiliation and stigma they suffered while in detention. (a) At the time of bringing an action under section 1997a of this Title, the Attorney General shall certify to the court (1) that he has notified in writing to the Governor or Director-General and the Attorney General or the Chief Legal Officer of the relevant governmental or political subdivision and to the Director of the institution at least 49 calendar days in advance: (A) the alleged conditions; deprive the rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and the alleged tendency or practice of resisting the full enjoyment of such rights, privileges, or immunities; In rational choice theory, institutionalization is seen as the urgency to promote general welfare, with codes of conduct limiting the choice of strategies of the actor to achieve his goals.

This is an established and widely used approach within institutional analysis and well suited to understanding the emergence of governance in all its variants (from public to private, etc.), provided that the preferences of actors are stable and their interests are transparently disclosed (as assumed, for example, under democratic conditions in relation to party competition). While rational decisions work quite well when these assumptions are satisfied in terms of analyzing highly institutionalized systems and circumstances, they are less good in situations where conflict and values are paramount. It seems that this type of explanation is adapted to political analysis and routine behavior. This type of institutionalization may very well be typical of organizations and social development as such. However, this is not typical of the political sphere: political systems are, by definition, characterised by the existence of binding rules that are formalised (e.g. by law or constitution) and can be applied independently of individual actors (as in the case of police enforcement). Although procedures may differ to some extent, rules and procedures are subject to scrutiny and external scrutiny (by the judiciary, legislature, voters, etc.) characterized by hierarchical relationships. From this perspective, human interactions within a community are prescribed and largely predictable.

Therefore, the process of institutionalization increases the stability of a system. However, it should be noted immediately that rules and procedures are also changing in the political field. For example, they can be adjusted when unintended consequences occur and the legitimacy of a political system is negatively affected by the relationship between rules and procedures, on the one hand, and by the political behavior and performance of the system, on the other. Electoral reform and decentralization are examples of restoring the institutional framework of the political system to enhance legitimacy. The debates on a constitution for the European Union (EU) and on the establishment of democracy in post-communist Europe in the 1990s reflected the attempt to regulate political behaviour and strengthen good governance. Political institutionalization is therefore not a static but a dynamic process. In the political-cultural declaration, the integration of values and norms and their influence on social and political relations are considered as constitutive of the process of institutionalization. In the cultural approach, mutual trust is the basis for accepting and justifying rule-making and perseverance. For example, it is assumed that the process of democratization depends on the cultural context in which formally binding rules operate. This approach seems appropriate for understanding the behavioral variations of political actors in institutional arrangements apparently similar to those of liberal democracy. The process of institutionalization is facilitated in cases where individuals enter institutional settings at an early age, before they have developed the ability and expectation to control their own life choices.

Since there is less tension between the demands of the institution and the autonomy of a mature adult, institutionalization takes place more quickly and less problematically with at least some younger inmates. In addition, young inmates have little independent judgment already developed, so they have little or nothing to rely on or rely on if and when the structure of the institution is removed. And the longer a person stays in an institution, the more likely it is that the process will change them. During institutionalization, however, a transformation begins.