Hidden harmony: Converging interests in the development of prison reform
| Author | Lucas B Mazur,Mariusz Sztuka |
| Published date | 01 February 2021 |
| Date | 01 February 2021 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/1362480619875732 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
875732TCR0010.1177/1362480619875732Theoretical CriminologyMazur and Sztuka
research-article2019
Article
Theoretical Criminology
2021, Vol. 25(1) 149 –168
Hidden harmony: Converging
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
interests in the development
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480619875732
DOI: 10.1177/1362480619875732
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
of prison reform
Lucas B Mazur
Jagiellonian University, Poland; Sigmund Freud University, Germany
Mariusz Sztuka
Jagiellonian University, Poland
Abstract
The “agonistic perspective” on criminal justice posits that tensions are ubiquitous in
the field irrespective of time, place, and the given paradigm. While the study of conflict
and contestation is important, it is equally necessary to study harmony and shared
interests. In the present article, we explore a period in the history of European penal
reform that was marked by such a convergence of interests, and which would in Poland
wed institutional reactions to crime with pedagogy, rather than the field of law as seen
in many other nations. Macro-level shifts following the First World War allowed for
the convergence of three broad “currents” of the day: national penal reform; the field
of pedagogy; and the self-ascribed social mission of the Polish intelligentsia. By taking
seriously practical collaboration and ideological harmony we are also reminded that
the (penal) systems of the West (particularly the USA and the UK) are not obvious,
automatic, or necessary.
Keywords
Agonistic perspective, conflict, consensus, harmony, history, penal reform, Poland,
prison, rehabilitation, resocialization
Corresponding author:
Lucas Mazur, Philosophy, Uniwersytet Jagiellonski w Krakowie Wydzial Filozoficzny, ul. Gołębia 24, Kraków,
31-007, Poland.
Email: lucas.mazur@uj.edu.pl
150
Theoretical Criminology 25(1)
In the social sciences, considerable emphasis is placed on various kinds of tensions and
conflict. Historians study war more often than peace (Sponsel, 1996), clinical psycholo-
gists study mental illness more often than mental health (Johnson and Wood, 2017), just
as social psychologists study prejudice and conflict more often than prosocial attitudes
and cooperation (Dovidio et al., 2017) and sociologists study social tensions more often
than social collaboration (Clark, 2003). The reasons for the disproportionate emphasis on
various forms of “dysfunction” have been widely discussed. This trend may in part
reflect our cognitive bias for negatively over positively evaluated information (Cacioppo
et al., 2014). Others have argued that examples of dysfunction provide unique insights
into “normal” functioning in these various areas of human life (e.g. Carey, 2010;
Ichheiser, 1935/1936; Kahneman, 2011). Scholars, such as Ichheiser (1935/1936), have
suggested that “harmonious” interpersonal and intergroup functioning becomes like the
air we breathe—essential but invisible, and not particularly “interesting” until a problem
arises.
A recent example of this trend from the field of criminal justice is the agonistic per-
spective as laid out by Goodman et al. (2015, 2017). Rather than focusing on large-scale
ruptures in the field—widely seen shifts from the domination of one paradigm to the
domination of another—they posit that tensions are ubiquitous in the field irrespective of
time, place, and given paradigm. In other words, the agonistic perspective, as the name
suggests, is built on the working assumption that societal responses to crime are continu-
ously contested. We agree that this framework can provide considerable insights into a
wide range of social phenomena. However, we believe that it is also important to study
the periods or points of confluence in which ideological and/or social currents converge
and flow together (see Mazur, 2015). Hence, the title of the current piece—“Hidden
harmony”—is intended to complement that of Goodman et al.’s (2015) article published
in Theoretical Criminology—“The long struggle”. In the present article, we will explore
a period in the history of European penal reform that cannot be understood without pay-
ing attention to such a convergence of interests, and which would in Poland wed institu-
tional reactions to crime with pedagogy (education),1 rather than the field of law as seen
in many other nations. More specifically, the macro-level shifts that took place as part of
the post-First World War dissolution of European empires allowed for the convergence
of what can be thought of as three broad “currents” of the day: national penal reform; the
field of pedagogy (education); and the self-ascribed social mission of the Polish intelli-
gentsia (a social stratum that in the Polish context played a unique role in shaping social
reform).
In what follows, we will first provide a brief overview of the agonistic perspective
within the study of criminal justice, including its theoretical roots in classic social theory.
We will then provide a brief overview of some of the main currents influencing the
development of criminal justice in Poland between the 19th century and the interbellum
period (up to the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939). It will be shown how peda-
gogues (experts in the field of education) and pedagogy as a field played a central role in
the development of Polish thinking regarding the real and ideal nature of penal reform.
We will then show how these interests complemented the social emancipatory and moral
national reforms which the Polish intelligentsia understood to be their mission. The
establishment of the Second Polish Republic, and the national efforts leading up to it,
Mazur and Sztuka
151
provide an interesting example of meso-level and macro-level shifts leading to a unique
confluence of interests in the establishment of the national approach to criminal justice.
While this period was certainly marked by various tensions of the sort that would be
captured within an antagonistic framework, this historical example illustrates the need to
examine the important role played by episodes of ideological and practical convergence.
Importantly, we will argue that harmonious confluences are often “hidden” from histori-
cal actors and academics alike, thereby making the study of such harmony a matter of
both historical accuracy and analytical significance.
The agonistic perspective on criminal justice
The historical study of the development of criminal justice has tended to focus on macro-
level ruptures—large-scale paradigm shifts in the field (Goodman et al., 2017) (e.g.
Foucault’s (1977) exploration of the shift to the panopticon; and more recently, wherever
the prefix “post”—as in “postmodern”—is used in order to indicate large-scale shifts,
e.g. Hallsworth, 2002; Pratt, 2000). For example, in The Culture of Control: Crime and
Social Order in Contemporary Society, David Garland (2001) focuses on the rise of an
increasingly punitive culture of control. Simplifying complex and well-developed argu-
ments, these and other scholars paint a picture of historically conflicting paradigms, from
which one paradigm emerges victorious. Importantly, once a paradigm is victorious, its
dominance is assumed to prevail, as if unchallenged, until the next period of large-scale
contestation and eventual rupture.
Scholars working within a conflict theory perspective have begun to examine the
more nuanced nature of these large-scale ruptures. For example, following the suc-
cesses of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, it has been argued that
racial inequality has been sustained by more subtle shifts in support for government
assistance and policing strategies (Hohle, 2017). Thus, while the rupture remains of
central importance, contestations of power are understood to continue even after “the
dust has settled”. In a similar spirit, the authors of the agonistic perspective do not
challenge the broad picture of social change focusing on large-scale ruptures, but
they believe that more is happing throughout the process, even in those times marked
by the dominance of a given paradigm. They assert that while history is intermit-
tently marked by macro-level shifts in penal orientations (e.g. from a focus on retrib-
utive justice to a focus on rehabilitative justice, or vice versa), various collectives
and actors always entertain differing and conflicting positions on the meso- and
micro-levels, making even periods in which a given paradigm dominates colored by
undercurrents of contestation. In line with conflict theorists, the agonistic perspec-
tive rests largely on the theoretical assumption that intergroup conflict is the motor
driving social change. More specifically, the agonistic perspective is built around
three central claims (Goodman et al., 2015: 316):
1. Penal development is the product of struggle between actors with different types
and amounts of power;
2. While contestation over how (and who) to punish is constant, consensus over
penal orientations is mostly illusory;
152
Theoretical Criminology 25(1)
3. Large-scale trends in the economy, the political arena, social sentiments, inter-
group relations, demographics, and crime affect (or condition)—but do not deter-
mine—struggles over punishment and, ultimately, local penal outcomes.
This perspective is insightful as it draws researchers’ attention to the greater complexity
of the lived experience in all periods of social life, not just those periods marked by large-
scale,...
To continue reading
Request your trial