Resocialization, labor, and resistance: imprisoned women and the production of the delinquent subject

Abstract

The accelerated growth of the Brazilian prison population in recent years arouses attention to public policies aimed at recovery and rehabilitation of inmates. The objective of this article is to analyze prison practices related to constitution of the subjectivity and the forms of resistance to this constitution by incarcerated women who participate in the rehabilitation program, using the concept of dispositive as a guide for this analysis. Interviews were carried out with 36 inmates in a Women’s Penitentiary enrolled in the labor rehabilitation program. The data were produced through interviews and the study used the discourse analysis developed by Michel Foucault, seeking to analyze the practices and the economic and political functions manifest in the discourses of the incarcerated women and how these functions act in their subjective and identity construction.

Keywords:
Dispositive; Resocialization; Women; Prison; Resistance

Resumo

Nos últimos anos, o acelerado crescimento da população carcerária brasileira desperta atenção para as políticas públicas voltadas à recuperação e ressocialização de apenados. Assim, adotando o conceito de dispositivo como norteador, este artigo analisa as práticas prisionais relacionadas à constituição do sujeito delinquente e as formas de resistência a essa constituição por mulheres encarceradas que participam do programa de ressocialização pelo trabalho. Foram entrevistadas 36 internas de uma penitenciária feminina localizada na Região Metropolitana da Grande Vitória. Os dados, produzidos por meio de entrevistas, foram submetidos à análise do discurso proposta por Michel Foucault, enfocando as práticas, funções econômicas e políticas manifestas nos discursos das presas e como elas atuam na constituição subjetiva e identitária dessas mulheres.

Palavras-chave:
Mulheres; Prisão; Ressocialização; Resistência; Dispositivo

Resumen

El crecimiento acelerado de la población carcelaria brasileña en los últimos años despierta atención a las políticas públicas dirigidas a la recuperación y resocialización de los presidiarios. Así, el objetivo de este artículo es analizar las prácticas penitenciarias relacionadas con la constitución del sujeto delincuente y las formas de resistencia a esta constitución por mujeres encarceladas que participan en el programa de resocialización por el trabajo, recurriendo al concepto de dispositivo como principal orientador de este análisis. Para ello se entrevistó a 36 internas de una determinada penitenciaría femenina. Los datos, producidos por medio de entrevistas, se sometieron al análisis de discurso desarrollado por Michel Foucault, buscando con ello analizar las prácticas, funciones económicas y políticas manifestadas en los discursos de las presas y cómo ellas actúan en la constitución subjetiva y de la identidad de dichas mujeres.

Palabras clave:
Dispositivo; Resocialización; Mujeres; Prisión; Resistencia

INTRODUCTION

One of the most significant issues in public safety in the Brazilian metropolitan areas is the resocialization of prisoners. However, scholars have shown that this specific issue does not gain the due attention by decision-makers in government (FELTRAN, 2012; LIMA, 2018; LIMA, BUENO and MINGARDI, 2016; LIMA, SINHORETTO and BUENO, 2015; ZALUAR, 2007). An exception is the Secretary of Justice of the State of Espírito Santo who has developed the project “Maria Marias,” aimed at offering professional training and job opportunities to incarcerated women. The process of inmates’ subjective construction through work requires that the incarcerated person self-identifies with the available discourses that support power relations, thus promoting liveability (BROWN and TOYOKI, 2013) and resulting in the produced subjectivities becoming an expression of power. However, it is an expression of nondeterministic power, in which the possibility of the subject’s resistance and agency is taken into consideration (BROWN and LEWIS, 2011).

Thus, this article analyzes the power dispositive (as understood by Foucault) related to the constitution of the delinquent subject and the possible forms of resistance. The study observed a program of resocialization through work operated with incarcerated women in the state of Espírito Santo, Brazil. The research aims to understand the action and the political strategies of the disciplinary and biopolitical apparatus in the processes of construction of the subject, and the resistance to such apparatus.

The analysis of these apparatus and the resistance related to their application makes it possible to understand the prison organization as a continuous process of constant organization construction and deconstruction, always unfinished, in motion, as opposed to a fixed, predictable entity, characterized by existing under predetermination (SOUZA, COSTA and PEREIRA, 2015). Therefore, at the same time as the state attempts to manage and promote activities to inmates’ resocialization through work, the practices in the prison context escape the state’s control. The prison is then seen as a constant and unfinished process of organizing, where identities are constructed by various discursive practices and power relations (REEDY, KING and COUPLAND, 2016).

The relevance of this study lies in its quest to break the tendency of organizational studies to use Michel Foucault’s concepts of power to mean repression, restriction, and domination only (WEISKOPF and LOACKER, 2006), neglecting the possibility of resistance. Moreover, it also seeks to fill a gap in the organizational field, regarding the use of the concept of dispositive proposed by Foucault, especially in the analysis of processes of organizing (RAFFNSØE, 2008; RAFFNSØE, GUDMAND-HOYER and THANING, 2016). Finally, there are few studies in ​administration that analyze prisons (BROWN and TOYOKI, 2013; COSTA and BRATKOWSKI, 2007; LEMOS, MAZZILLI and KLERING, 1998; ROCHA, LIMA, FERRAZ, et al., 2013; SILVA and SARAIVA, 2013, 2016; TOYOKI and BROWN, 2013), especially qualitative studies (JEWKES, 2012), breaking with the functionalist logic by which ‘organization’ means ‘capitalist enterprise’.

DISCIPLINARY AND BIOPOLITICAL APPARATUS: THE SUBJECTIVATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL

Prisons are spaces of subjective production (BROWN and TOYOKI, 2013; SILVA and SARAIVA, 2013, 2016; TOYOKI and BROWN, 2013) that try to connect the individual to an identity, building a subject. Processes of subjectivation operate and circulate through power dispositive. The dispositif coordinates the history of interrelated social technologies built to organize the way we relate to each other in society, constituting a crucial form of social analysis of the process of organizing and institutional processes (RAFFNSØE, GUDMAND-HOYER and THANING, 2016). It is crucial because it helps to unveil the inherent connection, in the process of organizing, between change, reordering, action and continuous flow of interactions between subjects. Therefore, to understand the process of organizing is to disregard the idea of ​​an organization as something orderly, fixed, and stable (a noun), assuming it as an outcome of something always in motion, a verb, which exists only through action (and interpretation) (TSOUKAS and CHIA, 2002; DUARTE and ALCADIPANI, 2016).

Thus, connecting institutions, cultures, architectures, colors, ideas, beliefs, identities and subjectivity (CONNELLAN, 2013), dispositive is formed by

[...] heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions, in short, the said and the unsaid. The dispositive itself is the network that connects these elements (FOUCAULT, 1979, p. 244).

Thus, in seeking to understand how these elements are connected, Michel Foucault does not distinguish between discursive and non-discursive fields nor treats them as dichotomic. He prefers to analyze the ways the elements of the dispositive interconnect since it always has a relational nature (RAFFNSØE, GUDMAND-HOYER and THANING, 2016).

Dispositives are not deterministic power structures, and their strategic objectives are not always achieved. This fact breaks with the dichotomy between power and freedom since power is not only harmful, restrictive, and repressive of human agency, but, above all, it produces forms of subjective existence (WEISKOPF and LOACKER, 2006). Therefore, the dispositive breaks with the structure/agency dualism, allowing the emergence of “[…] a ‘both-and’ approach that permits a demonstration of how elements of a binary opposition appear in their interrelatedness as part of the same correlation” (RAFFNSØE, GUDMAND-HOYER and THANING, 2016, p. 275), interconnecting power and resistance. Thus, despite being formed by individual, collective, and institutional instances, the subject is not determined by any of them (SOUZA, SOUZA and SILVA, 2013), since “[…] where there is power there is resistance” (FOUCAULT, 1988, p. 91). The power is never in a condition of exteriority to the resistance, and vice versa, which shows its strictly relational nature in Foucault’s thought (SOUZA, JUNQUILHO, MACHADO, et al., 2006). Power is not a phenomenon of one individual’s consolidated and homogeneous domination over the others, or the domination of one group or class over the rest (FOUCAULT, 1979). The dispositive makes it possible to analyze how objects, practices, and actions come into existence and are naturalized through their interaction between dispositives.

Foucault (2008) presents three dispositifs operating interconnected in society: legal system, disciplinary mechanisms and security/defense apparatus (biopolitical). The legal system works as a prohibitive codified social technology, which establishes an order that must be followed by all subjects and supported by punishment. The legal system codifies and prohibits, but acts only after specific unwanted action, i.e., it does not act in the prevention of unwanted actions. The mechanism, rather than denying and prohibiting, attempts to produce an economically useful and politically docile individual. The disciplinary power relations are positive in the sense that they act in the subjectification. Therefore, “[…] disciplinary power does not destroy the individual; on the contrary, it produces the subject” (MACHADO, 1979, p. 7). The disciplinary mechanism is preventive and productive, working to prevent unwanted action. To carry out this task, the mechanism produces the subject according to what is desired. The security apparatus works conductively, aiming to facilitate a population’s self-regulation (FOUCAULT, 2008). It is not designed to distinguish between what is wanted and unwanted, nor is it capable of removing (legal system) or perfecting (disciplinary mechanism) what is unwanted. It just establishes a constant readiness to predict the potential risks to society.

Despite the logical distinctions between the dispositives, they coexist, interconnect, and share common application materials, such as the individual that engaged in criminal activity. According to Foucault (2008), the disciplinary dispositive establishes a set of constant supervision, controls, and inspections over the criminal that, even before the person engages in criminal activity, it is possible to identify whether they will commit the crime again. As for the security dispositive, it is concerned in regulating a population and not an individual. It seeks to statistically predict the number of criminals at a certain time and their probable events, costs and risks to the population. Statistical predictions on the trends of a population and the economic weight of costs and risks to implement actions are the main rationales of the security dispositive (RAFFNSØE, GUDMAND-HOYER and THANING, 2016; WEISKOPF and MUNRO, 2012).

The dispositives create identity categories and hierarchies in/through the games of truth, “[…] in the end, we are judged, condemned, classified, determined in our undertakings, destined to a certain mode of living or dying, as a function of the true discourses which are the bearers of the specific effects of power” (FOUCAULT, 1999, p. 29). The subject has no existence a priori about the categories produced in/by the games of truth, on the contrary, these games constitute the individuals as subjects. In addition, the classification system and the categories constituted in these games of truth bring with them a whole system of punishment and reward that “[…] attaches him to his own identity, imposes a law of truth on him which he must recognize, and which others have to recognize in him” (DREYFUS and RABINOW 1995, p. 302). However, this process brings a paradox since becoming a subject always creates the possibility of resistance that, antagonistically, can only be exercised by submitting to the same power that constitutes them as a subject (BUTLER, 1997). Therefore, the discourse forms the subject; it is not the cause or origin of the subjects (FOUCAULT, 2010b).

The subject formed by discourse is not universal, but decentered and fragmented (SOUZA, SOUZA and SILVA, 2013), produced in a double movement in which, the subject is simultaneous ‘production’ and ‘effect.’ The concept of dispositive allows to accurately analyze these processes of production and effect, evidencing the difficulties of maintaining order and control. When breaking the structure/agency dichotomy, it is possible to analyze both power and forms of resistance to this power, showing the existence of the risk that the subject fails in accepting the control and order (RAFFNSØE, GUDMAND-HOYER and THANING, 2016). There is a mediation between control and agency beyond the control (RAFFNSØE, 2013), which allows observing complex social developments in the processes of organizing.

PRISION AND WORK

Asylums, monasteries, military academies and prisons are examples of total institutions. Total institutions are places of housing and work in which a large number of individuals are separated from society to live, for a certain period, a closed and formally managed life (GOFFMAN, 1961). Prison is considered space where the individual who is deviated from the moral, social, and legal rules of a specific society can be resocialized. It seeks, through prison pedagogy, the reconstitution of the individual and their will to work. The imprisonment will “[…] force him back into a system of interests in which labor would be more advantageous than laziness, form around him a small, miniature, simplified, coercive society [...]: ‘he who wants to live must work’” (FOUCAULT, 2010a, p. 100). In this sense, policies of resocialization through work are complex games of inclusion and exclusion produced in the meshes of legal discourses aimed at the production of a certain type of subject. They are public policies of social domestication of the subject considered abnormal, considering the abnormal as a flawed and incorrigible subject and defining and establishing the boundaries of what it is to be ‘normal.’ The great political-educational project of modernity is precisely the transformation of individuals into subjects through a series of strategies aimed at preventing and correcting incorrigible subjects (LASTA and HILLESHEIM, 2014). However, paradoxically, “[…] what defines the individual to be corrected is that he is incorrigible” (FOUCAULT, 2001, p. 73).

In Brazilian prisons, criminal groups have taken over the role of the state and have, in practice, administered facilities. The groups are disseminated inside and outside the prison system (FELTRAN, 2010; DIAS, 2017). In addition to producing subjects that comply with the norms and rules of both the state and the world of crime, the prison is a place to build knowledge about this subject. To promote changes in the inmates, it is necessary to know the danger they offer, to classify them, make notes, get to know them. There is a whole knowledge designed with the objective of managing people, an individualizing knowledge that does not have the crime as an object. The object is the daily behavior of the prisoner, which measures the danger that the person offers to society since the discipline seeks to prevent the occurrence of the unwanted by offering something the inmates are expected to want: the subject that works, helpful, and politically docile. This means that the subject may continue to be violent, a fact that would justify even more the state acting on controlling them. To be considered docile, this subject cannot become politically dangerous, threatening the system. Sociologically, violence is defined as the situation where an interaction causes “[…] damage to one or more people to different degrees, whether regarding their physical integrity, moral integrity, their possessions, or in their symbolic and cultural participation” (MICHAUD, 1989, p. 11). In the Brazilian context, violence has settled in the social fabric in such a way that it has affected the lives of men and women in any social, economic, and political condition (BITTAR, 2008), and there are many causes of this generalized and rooted violence in Brazilian society. In this sense, the causes of violence cannot be solely attributed to socioeconomic, political and cultural conditions in isolation, but must be understood from the nature of our social organization and its configurations (PORTO, 2002).

In this disciplinary process of the delinquent subject, there is the mortification of the self. The criminal arrives in prison with a conception of themself established in their reality and domestic routine. Imprisonment promotes the loss of such conceptions through “[…] a series of abasements, degradations, humiliations, and profanations of self. His self is systematically, if often unintentionally, mortified” (GOFFMAN 1961, p. 24), mutilating the individual from their previous roles and routines in order to break the roles that the individual played in their domestic life, seeking to repeal the culture obtained through it. In this way, the incarcerated person is coded as an object to be embedded in the administrative machine, seeking to produce a compliant subject through constant obedience tests regarding the new routine and prison rules (GOFFMAN, 1961), where the use of physical abuse and violence by military police and prison officers is recurrent (LEMOS, MAZZILLI and KLERING, 1998).

However, in this process of construction of self, prisoners are not passive but co-authors and resist to avoid becoming institutional zombies (TOYOKI and BROWN, 2013). Stigmatized identities as ‘delinquents’ are reinforced by the prison regime, seeking to rigidly standardize the daily activities in the facilities, creating a toxic relationship among prisoners and with prison officers and guards, maintaining and reinforcing their stigmatized identities (TOYOKI and BROWN, 2013). Gender relations also permeate the process of resocialization through work, producing other forms of stigmatization, since the activities commonly offered to incarcerated women are sewing, cleaning and handicraft production (SILVA and SARAIVA, 2016; ROCHA, LIMA, FERRAZ, et al. 2013). These work activities are strictly related to caring and reproduce social stereotypes about what is appropriate work for women limiting the offers to domestic and caring activities.

Even with the current increase in the number of female offenders, women represent a small proportion of the prison population compared to incarcerated men. The growth of female prisoners is more related to the dynamics of drug trafficking than to the likelihood of women to commit the various forms of crimes committed by men (FRANÇA, 2014). However, the service provided in prison to imprisoned women is practically the same for men, not considering their particularities. They are treated with indifference and do not receive the same attention as observed in facilities destined to male offenders, which results in a more complex process of resocialization (FRANÇA, 2014). In this sense, it is possible to argue that prison becomes just another of the various forms of violence experienced by women in society (SOARES and ILGENFRITZ, 2002; FRANÇA, 2014).

The incarceration of women has a direct impact on family arrangements, dismantling the family structure, a process that produces different effects among women when compared to men. Also, men who are part of the women family or with whom women have an affective relationship, influence and incentive the practice of criminal activity. Women are led to engage in criminal activity precisely to maintain their caregiving role in an attempt to preserve and safeguard their affective relationships (STEFFENSMEIER and ALLAN, 1996). Thus, the resocialization of women is organized around family values, mainly with the teaching and performance of domestic activities, such as cutting and sewing, crocheting, knitting, cooking and handicrafts (FRANÇA, 2014), representing the roles and places for women in society as a whole (BARCINSKY, 2009).

In this process of resocialization, discipline produces stigmatized identities, requiring the subject to manage their stigmatized identity of delinquent, all the time. This condition evidences how fragile, contradictory, and antagonistic an identity is (CLARK, BROWN and HOPE-HAILEY, 2009; TOYOKI and BROWN, 2013), which allows micro-processes of resistance by which prisoners can embrace, appropriate, modify, reject and adapt stigmatized identities (THORNBORROW and BROWN, 2009). Stigmatized identities are effects of power and can marginalize an individual, disqualifying a person and preventing their full social acceptance (TOYOKI and BROWN, 2013), producing subjects always seen as “different from us,” guilty and suspicious. Therefore, prison constitutes the delinquent subject (FOUCAULT, 1979), i.e., because of the incarceration, the offender becomes a delinquent (FOUCAULT, 2010a, 2010c; FONSECA, 2011). Consequently, most ex-offenders cannot easily find regular jobs and end up working informally, a victim of prejudice as soon as their status of ex-offenders is revealed (ROCHA, LIMA, FERRAZ, et al., 2013; SERON, 2010).

If prison seems to fail in the regeneration of individuals, its failure affirms its success, because this context generates in society a constant sense of insecurity, leading to reinforcing the justification for the prison itself and allowing an increase in state control over the entire population (FOUCAULT, 2010a, 2010c). The constant feeling of fear and insecurity of the Brazilian population (BEATO FILHO, PEIXOTO and ANDRADE, 2004; SILVA and BEATO FILHO, 2013) is used to justify the existence and the violent action of the police toward all the individuals that manifest against the state, demonstrating the close relationship between total institutions and the biopolitical security apparatus (RAFFNSØE, GUDMAND-HOYER, and THANING, 2016). Success occurs through the use of the threat of crime as a subterfuge for the state to increase its control over society (FOUCAULT, 2012). Also, there is a relationship of connivance between delinquents and police, a system in which roles are confused. Foucault exemplifies asking whether an undercover police officer is a delinquent who is a police officer, or a police officer who is a delinquent? (FOUCAULT, 2010c).

Data analysis will show that the programs of resocialization through work seek to build a labor identity in incarcerated women, but produce a fragile labor identity, with essential aspects of the process of organizing - regarding practices and interpretation on what they are doing (BROWN and TOYOKI, 2013). The constant application of disciplinary mechanisms demonstrates that prisoners will never fully surrender to these mechanisms (SEWELL, 2008), causing any process of prison resocialization to become limited when it uses only coercion as a mode of correction and identity production. Mainly because the female inmate will only accept and validate the regime established by prison managers if their subjugations are not complete. The existence of physical violence, racism, sexism and inefficiency of justice in the prison facility promote the occurrence of elements delegitimizing resocialization (MATHEUS, 1999) and only punishing the inmates makes resocialization perceived exclusively as suffering, preventing the possibility of establishing a positive relationship between resocialization and pleasure (LEMOS, MAZZILLI and KLINGER, 1998).

METHODOLOGY

For the production of the research data, semi-structured interviews were carried out with the inmates of a women’s prison located in the Greater Vitória Metropolitan Region. The penitentiary was founded in 2010 offering a new model of prison management for the State of Espírito Santo, considering the application of innovative resocialization techniques. This innovation caught the researchers’ attention and motivated its selection for the study. Before carrying out the interviews, previous visits were made to the prison with the objective of knowing its operation and daily routine, allowing a direct interaction with the prisoners. The interviewees were incarcerated women selected by the prison’s managers. The study interviewed 36 inmates, 14 of them serving their sentence in the semi-open regime (where the prisoner can work outside the prison and must come back every night), and 22 interviewees serving their sentence in the closed regime. The first and second parts of the interview script were designed to produce data on personal, family and professional aspects. The third part explored aspects related to the prisoner’s history in the world of crime, the life in prison, and the participation in resocialization programs. All interviews were recorded with prior authorization and transcribed to facilitate data analysis. In order to avoid identification of the inmates and considering the name of the state’s project (Maria Marias) that offers training courses and work opportunities for inmates of the prison unit, all the interviewees’ names were replaced randomly by the name of historical figures, shown here in Portuguese, that were called Maria. Of the 36 Marias interviewed, 27 had low schooling (up to 8-years of education, equivalent to elementary school) and only 3 Marias had never worked in the market before prison, and their experience was limited to domestic services. Their main criminal activity was trafficking of narcotics, and some of the interviewees were convicted for association with the drug trafficking.

The data collected were submitted to discourse analysis as proposed by Michel Foucault. Foucault’s approach is not based on the methods of linguistics, i.e., discourse, in this case, is not a synonym of speech, and the method does not seek a hidden sense throughout the statements. It seeks the function that can be attributed to what is said (through written texts and oral communications, for example) and to the unsaid (through social practices, building architecture, and management techniques, for example). To analyze the unsaid of the discourse, Foucault (2003) developed the concept of dispositive. As mentioned before, dispositive is heterogeneous and encompasses discursive and non-discursive practices, incorporating in its analysis communications, texts, laws, norms, institutions, space, architecture, administrative practices, morality. The dispositive seeks to analyze how social practices (since all discourse is a practice) organize a social reality, producing and organizing subjects, without, however, considering the subject the origin of these practices.

In this way, disciplinary and biopolitical dispositives related to the program of resocialization through work of imprisoned women were analyzed, focusing the political strategies of these dispositifs, manifested in the practices observed. Subsequently, the study analyzes the forms of the inmates’ resistance to the construction of the delinquent identity and the punishments to such resistance.

THE GAMES OF TRUTH AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DELINQUENT

The analysis of the disciplinary and biopolitical power apparatus allows verifying the constant and unfinished process of construction and deconstruction of identities, revealing the process of organizing and its relation with the production of identity. The following paragraphs seek to understand the social technologies that work in an interrelated way to organize the relationships in the prison environment and to understand how the disciplinary and security elements are connected, demonstrating the relational nature between the dispositives.

The women’s prison facility was inaugurated in 2010, presenting good physical-spatial disposition and good conservation status, being managed by a woman director. Although treated as a single prison unit, it is composed of two penitentiaries: one for inmates serving sentences in the closed regime (324 capacity) and another for inmates in the semi-open regime (112 capacity). There is a whole routine that the incarcerated women must fulfill and the full occupation of their daily time is closely related to their behavior/discipline. The optimization of the time is a disciplinary technique that aims to maximize the use of time, regulating and decomposing the activity in an anatomo-chronological way, articulating the body-object (FOUCAULT, 2010a), transforming each inmate into a coordinated piece of the prison machine (GOFFMAN, 1961).

The production of the delinquent subject begins with imprisonment in the system. The prisoners recognize that the delinquent identity produced by/in the prison system will mark them:

I’m a bit scared, right, because four years in here, almost five years, but it’s not fear to go back [to commit a crime], because this has gone. I [...] have this fear of society seeing me as a prisoner, because we get scarred, whether we want it or not, that’s the burden we carry (Maria do Céu).

The fear the inmates have to be labeled as delinquent after being released, operates in their subjectivation as delinquents through the recognition by others of their status of ex-offender, reinforcing their self-identification as a delinquent (FOUCAULT, 1979; DREYFUS and RABBIN, 1995). Therefore, prisoners must at the same time recognize delinquency in themselves and be recognized by others as delinquents in order to effectively constitute themselves as delinquents in this process. The games of truth work on the subjectivation of the incarcerated women, and certain characteristics and attributes act as a law of truth recognized by them and others, linking them to the delinquent identity (BUTLER, 1997), circulating daily practices around this identity (FONSECA, 2011).

The legal dispositive, when codifying and describing what is prohibited, defines which subject needs to be resocialized (RAFFNSØE, GUDMAND-HOYER and THANING, 2016). The criminal subject, upon being arrested, becomes a delinquent subject. Transformed into a delinquent, they will be classified and recognized as an abnormal, flawed, and incorrigible subject (FOUCAULT, 2001; LASTA and HILLESHEIM, 2014). In this way, resocialization through work produces a great paradox when defining who is the individual who must be resocialized, marking them as someone with a delinquent identity; and by marking as a delinquent, makes them incorrigible and morally flawed. The process by which the subject is constantly compelled to identify themself and to be identified as delinquent is present when Maria do Céu affirms that:

If there’s a robber at the counter, ah, you’re an ex-offender, you are the suspect. Even on the bus, something happens on the bus and as you are an ex-offender they will say that it is your fault.

Delinquent women must follow the prison rules. When they are in the process of resocialization and therefore following the rules of the process, they are marked/identified as incorrigible and, consequently, always prone to crime, producing a constant sense of insecurity in society. The sense of insecurity establishes a society in constant readiness, foreseeing potential risks, operating a security awareness on the population that justifies the general police action of the State. It also promotes a constant statistical readiness, continuously collecting and treating data to help to predict potential risks. This is an example of the relational nature of disciplinary and security dispositives, demonstrating the interconnection between disciplinary and biopolitical dispositives, as well as their co-operation in the same application subject: the incarcerated women (RAFFNSØE, GUDMAND-HOYER and THANING, 2016).

Thus, to affirm that incarceration produces delinquents does not only mean to affirm that the prison professionalizes, stimulates recidivism, and contributes to increases criminality. It also means to state that, after the release, the ex-offender will always be seen, classified, identified, and treated as delinquent (ROCHA, LIMA, FERRAZ, et al., 2013; SERON, 2010). Finally, incarceration “fails” not only by not reducing crime, but by including and marking certain subjects perpetually delinquent, as if they had a “natural” propensity for crime, producing a stigmatized identity, an effect of power that marginalizes, builds subjects constituted with guilt, suspicion, and a binary “we/they” relationship (CLARKE, BROWN and HOPE-HAILEY, 2009; THORNBORROW and BROWN, 2009; TOYOKI and BROWN, 2013). However, this “failure” constitutes its political success, since it generates a widespread and constant feeling of insecurity in society, authorizing the State to use violence and the police force (FOUCAULT, 2012).

The process of internalizing delinquent identity is constructed through assessments carried out every three months by prison officials and aims to classify the inmate according to their daily behavior, manifesting the preventive logic of the disciplinary mechanism. The constant assessment of the incarcerated women seeks to prevent unwanted behaviors and events. According to the inmates, the use of bracelets:

It is the method here, right, is the method of individualizing, so, we are evaluated. Individually, you know? Each one with their behavior. Then we will have some benefits from that (Maria Eugenia).

The bracelets act as punishment or reward, because, according to the color of the bracelet, the inmates have the right to work, attend professional courses, learn to read, and occupy certain spaces in prison:

These bracelets are an individual classification method. The green bracelet is the second phase; the blue is the third, and red is the fourth. Each person reaches a level and are evaluated by the prison employees, agent, head of security, director, social worker, psychologist, health personnel (Maria Tomásia).

The green bracelet entitles you to take courses, [...]. The blue bracelet gives you the right to work - which is what I had [...]. I’m telling you what they told us, if this is the story they want you to buy, I´m selling the story I bought from them - the red bracelet, in this case, the director is obliged to send a letter to the judge saying that the inmate is re-socialized [...] if the judge finds it appropriate for her to serve in the semi-open regime he will award her with this (Maria Curie).

The bracelets distribute the inmates in certain spaces (FOUCAULT, 2010a) due to the danger they offer. As it is necessary to know and classify the prisoners, a disciplinary examination to collect data is applied, interrelating different social technologies (exam, assessment, vocational course, school, space, bracelet color, work, freedom and identity) through the process of organizing, that is, through the practices (and daily interpretations) of organizing, establishing a network with the said and unsaid elements (Foucault, 1979), declaring the relational character among the factors that make up the disciplinary dispositive. The goal is to affirm that only those obeying rules and being useful will be released:

They mean you have behaved well, because if you have passed the stage, it is because you have good conduct, then you change the bracelet (Maria Cristina).

The bracelets give intelligibility to the games of truth, motivating the inmates to behave in an adequate way so they get the bracelet of a specific color, i.e., the resocialization becomes visible and materializes in the bracelets:

Thank God, I’m already on the blue bracelet: third stage. [...] This is the first thing I see regarding resocialization, the resocialization bracelet and stage, it is here that I see. (Maria Augusta).

Maria Curie had gained the blue bracelet, however, due to her bad behavior, she was demoted to the green bracelet and can no longer work in the companies that operate inside the prison. Good behavior, on the other hand, is to be docile, submissive to the prison agents, not to be violent and not to resist the actions carried out by the agents - called procedures:

If you are an inmate that says “I’m not staying,” or “Madam. I do not want to” when the agent calls for a “procedure.” You have to say “procedure, fine,” you leave quietly; an inmate who behaves, respects themselves, because for you to have respect, you must first respect yourself. Here you are in a unit that has rules, like everywhere [...]. So everything here has limits, everything has a rule. So here you will have to learn to respect the limits (Maria Tomásia).

The so-called ‘procedures’ aim to break with the previous domestic routines, producing a series of relegations, degradations, humiliations, and desecration of the self to destroy the concept that the inmates have of themselves. ‘Procedures’ transform inmates into objects that must be embedded in the administrative machine, mortifying them to remove them from previous roles that they performed, and produce an obedient subject through a series of procedures, assessments and examinations of obedience to the new routine and norms (GOFFMAN, 1961), as well as trying to produce an economically useful subject. In this context, having good behavior becomes synonymous with resocialization:

So that is how we are […] going through the resocialization and so we comply with the rules of the prison. It’s good behavior (Maria Eugenia).

Good behavior is when the person is complying with the norms of the prison facility (Maria Leopoldina).

However, any power relation brings with it forms of resistance that are part and are present in the subjectivation of the inmates (BUTLER, 1997; FOUCAULT, 1979, 2004). Thus, some questions emerge:

• What are the forms of resistance in the studied context?

• What happens to offenders who show resistance to subjectivation as delinquents?

The next topic seeks to answers to these questions analyzing the prisoners’ forms of resistance and the punishment they are subjected to.

FORMS OF RESISTANCE AND PUNISHMENT

Dispositives are processes of organizing, and even though the process of resocialization through work aims to manage, control, and make the inmates’ attitudes, behaviors, thoughts, and actions predictable, there will always be resistance (RAFFNSØE, GUDMAND-HOYER and THANING, 2016). Thus, although the strategies used in the process of resocialization through work aim at the construction of a loyal, politically docile, and economically useful subject, this does not mean that the process is free from resistance or that the goal is achieved.

Prisoner resistance is considered insubordination by agents and officials and is registered in the PAD (Administrative Disciplinary Procedure). The most common form of prisoner resistance is not obeying prison officers. Even though most of the inmates are punished for shouting and arguing with the agents, this is not the only form of resistance observed:

Yes, a mistake. Fighting, arguing with an agent, a lack of respect like that, understand? To pass things to other cells, they call it “make a run.” When you do these things that are not allowed in the facility, then you are taken there (Maria Quitéria).

“You are taken there” means having your name registered on the PAD:

[...] they punish you for little things ... you cannot take some sun cream to sunbath, or you will be registered on the PAD; you must wear a blouse inside the cell, you cannot be without it: everything goes on the PAD. [...] break the rules... you cannot scream at the window, you cannot scream at the door, all rules (Maria Lacerda).

The punishments are aimed at combating resistance, and vary according to the broken rules. The most common punishments are solitary confinement, increased length of stay in the closed regime, and not being allowed to work in the companies operating in the prison unit. The type of punishment (such as having to stay in the closed regime or being sent to solitary confinement) varies according to the offense committed. The use of solitary confinement, for example, is a disciplinary mechanism that intends to limit the possibilities of the inmates’ resistance, since resistance means new possibilities of existence that, in a certain way, jeopardize and endanger the identity offered: to be docile and useful (LASTA and HILLESHEIM, 2014).

The most feared punishment is an increase in the time spent in the closed regime, which can occur directly or indirectly. The direct form is when the judge declares that the inmate cannot be released to the semi-open regime. The indirect form is when the inmate is prohibited from carrying out work activities since every three days worked reduces one day of the penalty (this kind of reduction is called ‘remission’):

I was supposed to be in the semi-open regime already, but as all this happened to me, there is the PAD, which is the administrative process, which is the discipline. So, I was rejected, because of bad behavior. Then I had the right to be in the semi-open regime since December 14, 2011; now in December it’s going to be one year that I could be in it and I’m locked (Maria Beatriz).

The need for constant disciplinary control over the inmates reveals the instability and indeterminability of power, which means the non-determinism and incompleteness of the power mechanisms (SEWELL, 2008). Every dispositive brings with it spaces for micro processes of resistance, spaces of resistance by which delinquent identity is modified or rejected by the prisoners (THORNBORROW and BROWN, 2009), showing that the stigmatized identities are fragile, contradictory and even antagonistic (CLARKE, BROWN and HOPE-HAILEY, 2009; TOYOKI and BROWN, 2013). This finding explains why the production of an inmate’s work identity is fragile, and the presence of this fragility is not something accidental, unwanted or an external element and strange to established power relations. It is instead, an intrinsic aspect that is part of the process itself (BROWN and TOYOKI, 2013). The stability, predictability, acceptability of routines and prison rules, as well as the production of job identity of the inmates, are always fragile.

The PAD is more than just a report that contains information on the behavior of the prisoners. The advantages and punishments are established around this document, which aims to reduce the forms of resistance, leading the inmate toward the benefits they can receive if they accept and identify with the delinquent identity offered. However, this is not the only form of discipline and punishment to suppress resistance. There are other forms not provided for in the legal dispositive or the prison’s formal rules, such as physical violence, coercion, and public humiliation. These forms of punishment devalue and stigmatize the inmates’ identity (TOYOKI and BROWN, 2013), mortifying the self (GOFFMAN, 1961).

[...] I told her [agent] that I was already sick of procedures, with my hands on my back and my head down. I told her I was not going to stay like that. The agents went out of their minds, yelled at me and sent me back; then I came back, and they came with the leg cuffs and handcuffs. Then they took me to the full body search room. They wanted me to turn my back so they could perform the “carrinho” procedure, which is a procedure where they pull you headlong on the floor, drag your head to the floor, put your hands back, and usually dislocate it here [she points to the shoulder]. [...] It is like this: take my arms with all their strength and throw them back, then put my two hands here [their hands were above the head]. Here, back. Many prisoners, have dislocated it here, even broken collarbones. And the face [...] your face is dragged on the ground (Maria Curie).

The above statement demonstrates the internal antagonisms of the resocialization process and the relationship of connivance and exchange of roles between those who are delinquent and those who are law agents (FOUCAULT, 2010c). Therefore, the stigmatized identity of a delinquent is reinforced at all times by the agents through a toxic relationship between prison officers and prisoners, manifested in the violence and physical abuse practiced by prison officers (LEMOS, MAZZILLI and KLERING, 1998; TOYOKI and BROWN, 2013). On the one hand, the prison puts posters in the cells with rules that prohibit shouting, humiliation, coercion, and violence against the other inmates, on the other hand, the agents do the things considered inappropriate and prohibited. The antagonism present in daily prison practices reinforces the idea that for someone to impose themself and be respected, they must be coercive and physically violent. Such an antagonism causes many of them not to believe in the process of resocialization:

Sometimes it’s different to what we think. Oh, it’s different! For example, you go seeking change, right? Sometimes change does not happen, you freak out, I don’t know. And sometimes you go into the project [resocialization] thinking it’s one thing and you realize it is something else. An agent comes and shows you the opposite (Maria Firmina).

As already said, violence must be understood here as a sociological problem in which interaction occurs that produces “[…] damage to one or more people to different degrees, regarding either their physical integrity, moral integrity, their possessions, or in their symbolic and cultural participation” (MICHAUD, 1989, p. 11). Violence is so entrenched in Brazilian society that it affects everyone (BITTAR, 2008), making it something natural in society. Therefore, it is inappropriate to say that agents are the origin and producers of this antagonism. These discourses demonstrate and manifest the very contradictions that underlie the daily life of Brazilian society through its form of social organization and its configurations (PORTO, 2002). They contribute to build a society that, regardless of social class and economic condition of the subject, naturalizes the culture of violence (BITTAR, 2008), causing violence to be in the whole social fabric and practiced and naturalized on soccer fields, road rage, violence against homosexuals, academic bullying during the defense of theses, femicide, verbal and physical assaults that occur every day in schools, police violence in peaceful demonstrations or police killings. The violence, coercion, and humiliation practiced within the prison only manifests the institutionalization of such practices in Brazilian society.

This finding makes it possible to consider violence in Brazil as an element that forms both the disciplinary and the security dispositives (the forms in which violence operates in each of them and the strategic objectives it intends to achieve are specific and related to the logic of each dispositive). It is a naturalized social practice that circulates in every society, present and legitimized in the disciplinary practices of prisons, schools, and industries, in search for the constitution of a particular type of subject, as well as in the practices of biopolitical security carried out by the police with a view to controlling delinquent population.

CONCLUSION

On the relational nature of the disciplinary and security dispositives, three forms of relationship were observed: a) although they have different logics of functioning, the disciplinary mechanisms and security apparatus act in a relational and joint way toward the inmate, but in a non-hierarchical way; b) the elements that are said (rules of the prison, laws, communication) and unsaid (space, time, bracelets, violence) that form and are part of each dispositive, are related to each other; and c) a dispositive is only successful in its work if it establishes a relationship with the individuals it intends to transform into subjects. Simultaneously, the dispositive affects and is affected in the relationship. Thus, the use of dispositives as a form of power relations analysis made it possible to understand the dynamics of the processes of organizing in the prison unit studied, demonstrating the difficulties of maintaining full control, while allowing the analysis of both power strategies and their forms of resistance, breaking with the structure/agency dichotomy.

Empirical observation corroborates Foucault’s argument that resocialization through work produces a delinquent subject and stigmatizes this subject as incorrigible. In this sense, it forms the delinquent identity by seeking to constitute a politically docile and economically useful subject, but that the delinquent carries with them a constant danger, which is their propensity to perform criminal acts. This eternal propensity for crime only occurs when the person passes through the prison system. Thus, prison produces, brand and stereotype their identities. Therefore, even with the implementation of the project of resocialization through work, there are still significant obstacles for ex-offenders to get a formal job, contributing to the vicious circle that makes them even more likely to return to crime. Moreover, this process of training the criminal into a delinquent is not free from resistance - seeking to deny, modify or appropriate the delinquent identity.

It is possible to verify that the process of mortification of the self occurs by constant humiliation, violence, and degradation to which prisoners are subject, making it difficult for them to see prison as a legitimate space for resocialization. The resocialization process will effectively work only if inmates consider prison as a legitimate space. The use of these forms of coercion in the production of the inmate’s identity makes them establish a fragile and contradictory identity because without the establishment of a positive relationship during the process of constitution of the subject there is no resocialization. The total institutions act as beacons for all members of society, giving visibility to the forms of subjective existence that are valued and hegemonic in a given time and space, making it possible to perceive the capillarity of the power relations that circulate games of truth in a specific moment in history. Therefore, total institutions need to be studied in the field of administration, in a more consistent and focused way. Questions about how these institutions work in producing differences and social hierarchies related to sex, gender, class, and race identities, as well as the political strategies and social functions they exercise, are elements that deserve to be explored in future research.

REFERÊNCIAS

• BARCINSKY, M. Centralidade de gênero no processo de construção da identidade de mulheres envolvidas na rede do tráfico de drogas. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, v. 14, n. 5, p. 1843-1853, 2009.
• BEATO, FILHO C. C.; PEIXOTO, B. T.; ANDRADE, M. V. Crime, oportunidade e vitimização. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, v. 19, n. 55, p. 73-90, 2004.
• BITTAR, E. C. B. Violência e realidade brasileira: civilização ou barbárie? Revista Katálysis, v. 11, n. 2, p. 214-224, 2008.
• BROWN, A. D.; LEWIS, M. Identities, discipline and routines. Organization Studies, v. 32, n. 7, p. 871-896, 2011.
• BROWN, A. D.; TOYOKI, S. Identity work and legitimacy. Organization Studies, v. 34, n. 7, p. 875-896, 2013.
• BUTLER, J. The psychic life of power: theories in subjection. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 1997.
• CLARKE, C.; BROWN, A. D.; HOPE-HAILEY, V. Working identities? Antagonistic discursive resources and managerial identity. Human Relations, v. 62, n. 3, p. 323-352, 2009.
• CONNELLAN, K. The psychic life of white: power and space. Organization Studies, v. 34, n. 10, p. 1529-1549, 2013.
• COSTA, S. G.; BRATKOWSKI, P. L. S. Paradoxos do trabalho prisional na era do capitalismo flexível: o caso do Detran-RS. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, v. 11, n. 3, p. 127-147, 2007.
• DREYFUS, H.; RABINOW, P. Michel Foucault, uma trajetória filosófica: para além do estruturalismo e da hermenêutica. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 1995.
• DUARTE, M. F.; ALCADIPANI, R. Contribuições do organizar (organizing) para os estudos organizacionais. Organizações & Sociedade, v. 23, n. 76, p. 57-72, 2016.
• FELTRAN, G. S. The management of violence on the periphery of São Paulo: a normative apparatus repertoire in the “PCC era”. Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, v. 7, n. 2, p. 109-134, 2010.
• FELTRAN, G. S. Governo que produz crime, crime que produz governo: o dispositivo de gestão do homicídio em São Paulo (1992-2011). Revista Brasileira de Segurança Pública, v. 6, n. 2, p. 232-255, 2012.
• FONSECA, M. A. Michel Foucault e a constituição do sujeito. São Paulo: Educ, 2011.
• FOUCAULT, M. Microfísica do poder. Rio de Janeiro: Graal, 1979.
• FOUCAULT, M. História da sexualidade: a vontade de saber. Rio de Janeiro: Graal, 1988. v. 1.
• FOUCAULT, M. Em defesa da sociedade: curso no Collège de France (1975-1976). São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 1999.
• FOUCAULT, M. Os anormais. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2001.
• FOUCAULT, M. Diálogo sobre o poder. In: MOTTA, M. B (Org.). Estratégia, poder-saber. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2003. p. 253-266.
• FOUCAULT, M. A ética do cuidado de si como prática da liberdade. In: MOTTA, M. B(Org.). Ética, sexualidade, política. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2004. p. 264-287.
• FOUCAULT, M. Segurança, território, população: curso dado no Collège de France (1977-1978). São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2008.
• FOUCAULT, M. Vigiar e punir: nascimento da prisão. 38. ed. Petrópolis: Vozes, 2010a.
• FOUCAULT, M. O sujeito e o poder. In: DREYFUS, H.; RABINOW, P. (Ed.). Michel Foucault: uma trajetória filosófica - para além do estruturalismo e da hermenêutica. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2010b. p. 231-249.
• FOUCAULT, M. Estratégia, poder-saber. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2010c.
• FOUCAULT, M. Segurança, penalidade e prisão. Rio de Janeiro: Forense Universitária, 2012.
• FRANÇA, M. H. O. Criminalidade e prisão feminina: uma análise da questão de gênero. Revista Ártemis, v. 18, n. 1, p. 212-227, 2014.
• GOFFMAN, E. Asylums: essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1961.
• JEWKES, Y. Autoethnography and emotion as intellectual resources: doing prison research differently. Qualitative Inquiry, v. 18, n. 1, p. 63-75, 2012.
• LASTA, L. L.; HILLESHEIM, B. Políticas de inclusão escolar: produção da anormalidade. Psicologia & Sociedade, v. 26, p. 140-149, 2014. Edição especial.
• LEMOS, A. M.; MAZZILLI, C.; KLERING, L. R. Análise do trabalho prisional: um estudo exploratório. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, v. 2, n. 3, p. 129-149, 1998.
• LIMA, R. S. Violence and public safety as a democratic simulacrum in Brazil. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology, n. 7, p. 159-172, 2018.
• LIMA, R. S.; BUENO,S; MINGARDI, G. Estado, polícias e segurança pública no Brasil. Revista Direito GV, v. 12, n. 1, p. 49-85, 2016.
• LIMA, R. S.; SINHORETTO, J.; BUENO S. A gestão da vida e da segurança pública no Brasil. Sociedade e Estado, v. 30, n. 1, p. 123-144, 2015.
• MACHADO, R. Introdução: por uma genealogia do poder. In: FOUCAULT, M. Microfísica do poder. Rio de Janeiro: Graal, 1979. p. vii-xxii.
• MANSO, B. P.; DIAS, C. N. PCC, sistema prisional e gestão do novo mundo do crime no Brasil. Revista Brasileira de Segurança Pública, v. 11, n. 2, p. 10-29, 2017.
• MATHEUS, R. Doing time: an introduction to sociology of imprisonment. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1999.
• MICHAUD, Y. A violência. São Paulo: Ática, 1989.
• PORTO, M. S. G. Violência e meios de comunicação de massa na sociedade contemporânea. Sociologias, v. 4, n. 8, p. 152-171, 2002.
• RAFFNSØE, S. Qu’est-ce qu’un dispositif? L’analytique sociale de Michel Foucault. Canadian Journal for Continental Philosophy, v. 12, n. 1, p. 44-66, 2008.
• RAFFNSØE, S. Beyond rule, trust and power as capacities. Journal of Political Power, v. 6, n. 2, p. 241-260, 2013.
• RAFFNSØE, S.; GUDMAND-HOYER, M.; THANING, M. S. Foucault’s dispositive: the perspicacity of dispositive analytics in organizational research. Organization, v. 23, n. 2, p. 272-298, 2016.
• REEDY, P.; KING, D.; COUPLAND. Organizing for Individuation: Alternative Organizing, Politics and New Identities. Organization Studies, v. 37, n. 11, p. 1553-1573, 2016.
• ROCHA, V. F. T. et al. A inserção do egresso prisional no mercado de trabalho cearense. Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração, v. 7, n. 4, p. 185-207, 2013.
• SERON, P. C. Egressos do sistema prisional: contribuições do trabalho e da família no processo de (re)inserção social. In: JORNADA INTERNACIONAL DE PRÁTICAS CLÍNICAS NO CAMPO SOCIAL, 1., 2010, Maringá. Anais... Maringá, PR: Universidade Estadual de Maringá, 2010.
• SEWELL, G. Discipline. In: CLEGG, S. R.; BAILEY, J. R. (Ed.). International encyclopedia of organization studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, 2008. p. 386-388.
• SILVA, B. F. A.; BEATO FILHO, C. C. Ecologia social do medo: avaliando a associação entre contexto de bairro. Revista Brasileira de Estudos de População, v. 30, Supl., p. 155-170, 2013.
• SILVA, C. L. O.; SARAIVA, L. A. S. Lugares, discursos e subjetividades nas organizações: o caso de uma prisão. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 11, n. 3, p. 383-401, 2013.
• SILVA, C. L. O.; SARAIVA, L. A. S. Alienation, segregation and resocialization: meanings of prison labor. Revista de Administração USP, v. 51, n. 4, p. 366-376, 2016.
• SOARES, B. M.; ILGENFRITZ, I. Prisioneiras: vida e violência atrás das grades. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond, 2002.
• SOUZA, E. M.; COSTA, A. S. M.; PEREIRA, S. J. N. A organização (in)corporada: ontologia organizacional, poder e corpo em evidência. Cadernos EBAPE.BR, Rio de Janeiro, v. 13, n. 4, p. 727-742, 2015.
• SOUZA, E. M.; SOUZA, S. P.; SILVA, A. R. L. Pós-estruturalismo e os estudos críticos de gestão: da busca pela emancipação à constituição do sujeito. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, v. 17, n. 2, p. 198-217, 2013.
• SOUZA, E. M. et al. A analítica de Foucault e suas implicações nos estudos organizacionais sobre poder. Organizações & Sociedade, v. 13, n. 36, p. 13-25, 2006.
• STEFFENSMEIER, D.; ALLAN, E. Gender and crime: toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, v. 22,p. 459-487, 1996.
• THORNBORROW, T.; BROWN, A. D. ‘Being regimented’: aspiration, discipline and identity work in the British parachute regiment. Organization Studies, v. 30, n. 4, p. 355-376, 2009.
• TOYOKI, S.; BROWN, A. D. Stigma, identity and power: managing stigmatized identities through discourse. Human Relations, v. 67, n. 6, p. 715-737, 2013.
• TSOUKAS, H.; CHIA, R. On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change. Organization Science, v. 13, n. 5, p. 567-582, 2002.
• WEISKOPF, R.; LOACKER, B. “A snake’s coils are even more intricate than a mole’s burrow”: individualization and subjectivation in post-disciplinary regimes of work. Management Revue, v. 17, n. 4,p. 395-419, 2006.
• WEISKOPF, R.; MUNRO,II. Management of human capital: discipline, security and controlled circulation in HRM. Organization, v. 19, n. 6, p. 685-702, 2012.
• ZALUAR, A. Democracia inacabada: o fracasso da segurança pública. Estudos Avançados, v. 21, n. 61, p. 31-49, 2007.

• [Translated version] Note: All quotes in English translated by this article’s translator.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  30 May 2019
• Date of issue
  Apr-Jun 2019

History

• Received
  16 Aug 2017
• Accepted
  18 Dec 2018