A Decade of Criminal Justice in South Africa

Rehabilitation of Prisoners in a
transforming South Africa

by
Sandy Hoffman
 
 
 
 

Sandy Hoffman is a Counselling Psychologist.

Abstract

My view on rehabilitation was arrived at while working as a prison psychologist in Pollsmoor Prison, where I encountered fundamental obstacles to providing meaningful therapy for rehabilitation.

This paper proposes that the discrepancy between high crime and recidivist rates in South Africa, and progressive policies being strived for under the label of rehabilitation, is largely influenced by the gap between dynamics underlying divergent socio-political sentiments of pre-1994 and those aimed for post-1994. I argue that repressive social contexts reinforce crime and recidivism while contexts based on empowerment, typical of progressive policies of South Africa in transformation, are conducive to sustainable rehabilitation.

I illustrate how the dynamics underlying socio-political arrangements and institutional culture find expression in individuals and their relationships. While the origins of both violating actions and effective rehabilitation are traced to the instinct to survive, they are reflected through and constructed in dialogue with society. Sustainable rehabilitation is fundamentally expressed through recognition of individual needs and feelings.

Violations are viewed as a learned system of defences, practiced individually and mirrored institutionally and socially, against alienation, or the frustrated need to be recognized. Violations consist of either attempts to remove obstacles to recognition such as differences, or attempts to use differences as tools to justify negation of others.

The socio-political and institutional contexts of alienation (understood as the opposite of recognition) and violation are then related to current rehabilitation measures. This understanding is a logical prerequisite for my view on sustainable rehabilitation in a transforming South Africa. I propose that current rehabilitative measures largely fail because they mirror psychological dynamics underlying early interpersonal violation, and reflect related dynamics operating in society and prison institutions based on a past steeped in violating ways of dealing with alienation.

Finally, I outline theoretically sound, but practical alternatives to rehabilitative measures as they are currently practiced. I propose that effective rehabilitation is a process of learning to accept and value oneself, and to assert the right to recognition as a unique person, meaningful to others and expressed in relationships, because of both difference and common ground. This approach is theoretically harmonious with the process of growth as it is envisaged in a transforming South Africa.

1. Introduction

While practising as a prison psychologist, I encountered fundamental obstacles to providing meaningful therapy for rehabilitation. The essence of these difficulties is captured by Brown (1996) who, when she writes of feminist psychology in prison, says:

...therapy encourages resistance, personal integrity and self-esteem. Resistance is not seen as unfeminine behaviour, but as a healthy response to the social and political context. Unfortunately, this contrasts sharply with correctional systems, which punish resistance. Therefore, feminist therapies are caught in a paradox where they attempt to empower women while also helping them survive in, and conform to, the oppressive prison environment.

In this article I begin by tracing the origins of both violating actions and effective rehabilitation to the instinct to survive, expressed through the innate need for recognition.

Secondly, I assert that violations are a learned system of defences against the frustrated need to be recognized. Violations consist of either attempts to remove valid and healthy differences, or attempts to use valid differences as tools to justify negation of others. Either way, the aim is recognition and validation of the self.

Thirdly I sketch the socio-political and institutional context of alienation (as the opposite of recognition) and violation as it relates to current rehabilitation measures. This understanding is a logical prerequisite for my view on rehabilitation in a transforming South Africa. I propose that current rehabilitative measures largely fail because they mirror psychological dynamics underlying early interpersonal violation. Moreover, they reflect related dynamics operating in society and prison institutions based on a past steeped in violation. On the one hand, society and institutions operating in an authoritarian manner alienate and violate individuals/groups which do not conform to socio-political dictates. On the other hand, I hold that democracy has the potential to use alienation to create mechanisms which engage with individual differences, as well as similarities.

Finally, I outline theoretically sound, but practical alternatives to rehabilitation measures as they are currently practiced. I propose that effective rehabilitation is a process of learning to be oneself and to be recognized as a unique person, meaningful to others because of both difference and common ground. This approach is theoretically aligned with the process of growth as it is envisaged in a transforming South Africa.

2. The Origin of Violation and Rehabilitation

The basic premise I take is that we create our identity in line with our instinct to survive. Because of the long time during which human children are dependent on adult nurturing for survival, their need for recognition from adults is essential to survival. Jack says:

All infants sense external forces that impinge on their bodies – the texture of surfaces, the soft mattress, the hard floor. And all experience internal forces – hunger, the need to defecate, to urinate, to move. These universal physical sensations become the reference points to which the developing mind relates more complex perception... Equally important... is culture, which interprets, socializes, and assigns meaning and value to the uses of force and space." (1999, p. 55)
2.1 Recognition

The need for recognition is innate as it is based on the instinct to survive (Kainz, 1974; Parker et. al. 1995). It is expressed initially in childhood, through the ability to cry when we are uncomfortable, or smile when happy. Emotional expressions are the basis of relatedness, which facilitate attachment to those on whom we depend for our survival (Fonagy, 1999; Meares, 2000). When unique needs and feelings are accepted by adults as valid, worthy of respect and worth responding to, even though they are often not the same as those of our carers, we feel recognized and validated. While shared meanings are important and often lead to recognition, differences often produce fertile ground for (a) alienating experiences; and (b) new understandings, of transformation and growth.

Practically, recognition is expressed in a number of ways, such as through engagement in moments of conflict; encouraging fair grievance procedures for marginalized groups; and in general facilitating interactions between groups who are divided in terms of socio-economic backgrounds, values, race, culture, sex, gender, religion etc.

2.2 Alienation

Alienation is an experience opposite to that of recognition. It refers to the experience of basic survival, without a particularly human quality to it. Life gets an overwhelming 'empty' or inauthentic feel to it.

In childhood, where the carers either predominantly shame their children's differences, or use differences to exaggerate their children's abilities and virtues, i.e. demonizing and/or romanticizing, an overwhelming sense of alienation can become pervasive to children's lives. The child either does not recognize his/her place or importance, or overstates this place in society. In other words, as Schmitt puts it: "Here alienation is...finding oneself in a world which one has not created, in which one not only does not recognize oneself, but is constantly reminded that one does not really belong" (1994, p. 3). Marx's also says that it is "'a crippling of the body and mind', of being less than fully human, failing to develop fully." (Schmitt, 1994, p. 3). In extending and tracking alienation through to other levels in society, Fanon shows that alienation in an individual's life has effects for the rest of society (Bulhan 1985).

Practically, alienation is often translated into shameful feelings accompanying feeling 'out of control', ignored, belittled, humiliated, and negated.

3. Violational Actions

Violations can, for the most part, be shown to be defences against shame arising from alienating experiences. The shame elicited through alienation usually ensures that people suppress conscious knowledge of their differences to an unconscious level. Unconscious efforts, in the form of defences (of which attack is common) are made to mask emotional pain brought about by these psychological deficits (see e.g. Cohen, 2001). I use Fanon's definition of violence which refers to "any relation, process or condition by which an individual, organisation or group violates the physical, social and/or psychological integrity of [the self and/or] another person or group." (Bulhan, 1985, p. 135.).

Violational actions can fall into any one, or a combination of three different forms:

An analysis of actions rooted in any of the above three ways of dealing with alienation will show that these actions are unconsciously directed at removing difference, and promoting recognition. The proof of this argument to be found in South Africa's past which was steeped in alienation, and violence in all the above forms, as defensive reactions against either feelings of low worth, and/or bloated self-importance.

4. The Context of alienation and violation

4.1 The Political background

Before 1994, South Africa was notorious for the way it had formally justified alienation of the majority of its citizens (e.g. Biko, 2004; Spink, 1991). The aim was to predict and control not only people's actions, but their life circumstances. This was evidenced by a host of laws such as, among others, the Group Areas Act, the pass laws, and the Bantu Consolidation Act. These laws, based on an authoritarian system which used labels, based on differences to justify prejudice, ensured that all South Africans were denied full human agency1 (Biko, 2004; Van Zyl Slabbert, 1985). Simpson says "The social history of the apartheid era is in fact an account of massive and widespread dislocation in which human beings were forced to endure lives in the most precarious and depraved of settings, punctuated by daily violence and violation." (2004, p. 7). Differences between what offenders said about their actions, and what victims' perceived perpetrators' actions meant was/is expressive of, what Baumeister calls the "magnitude gap" (1999, p. 18). This gap is also related to the way victims and perpetrators of both sides judged the human worth of others (Gobodo-Madikizela, 2003; Nicholson, 2004), which contributed to the spiral of violence. A dominant culture of human rights violations fed personal and interpersonal damage of all South African citizens in different ways (e.g. Foster, 2000; Nicholson, 2004).

Since 1994, despite policy changes such as those enshrined in our Constitution (1996) which validate respect for differences, human rights violations have remained a basic obstacle in South Africa's development to a healthy society (Schönteich, 2001; Dixon & Van der Spuy, 2004). Dynamics underlying interpersonal relations between prisoners and society seem alarmingly similar to those on which the old order flourished (Laufer, 2001). Although Dixon (2004) makes a convincing argument for scepticism regarding statistics around crime, he nevertheless states that criminal violation in this country is disproportionately high. Between 1994 and 2002, crime rose by 25%. During 2001/2002, one in three recorded crimes involved actual, or threats of violence. Property crimes made up the largest proportion of recorded crimes at 55% of the total (Leggett et al., 2003). Perhaps it was unrealistic to assume that centuries of alienation expressed through devaluation of human life and dignity would be confined to political struggle alone.

4.2 The Institutional Background

Quite simply, for the most part, conventional rehabilitative measures are failing. This failure is proved in practice by the exceptionally high recidivist rate of between 85 and 94% (Muntingh, 2002), and the steadily growing crime rate (DCS, 2003). I argue that this failure can be traced to disharmony and tension within and between current policy documents. I suggest that this tension is based on residues of a past authoritarian and inherently alienating culture using processes of violational management, persisting in documents which attempt to promote a democratic culture prioritizing equal human rights.

4.2.1 Objectification in Traditional Rehabilitative Measures

Traditionally, in prison, rehabilitative measures emphasise labelling and evaluating prisoners with the aim of controlling their lives, and predicting their future actions (e.g. Williamson et al., 2003; Benda, 2003). Labelling leads to objectifying clients. Their worth as demons or gods becomes defined by people in authority through socially and legally defined shameful acts (e.g. Kellerman, 1999; Pistorius, 2002). In this process, the client loses human value – the client becomes an 'it' (Buber, 1958; Scheff, 1997). The experience is alienating and there is little space for marginalised clients to discuss or practice their own personal, unique individual needs and feelings in a safe environment. Consequent feelings of disempowerment, rage and ensuing attempts to eliminate self and/or other becomes common. This pattern typically echoes their historical emotional experiences.

Despite progressive sentiments, contained in the 'White Paper', to prioritize rehabilitation (considered to be a combination of 'correction' and 'development') based on a 'needs-based' orientation, the Department of Correctional Services continues to impose the practice of objectification (DCS, 2003), rather than respectful mutual engagement. The imperative on rehabilitating staff to: (a) 'profile' clients; and (b) determine clients' needs according to the 'Model of Intervention' relies on an approach where client needs are externally determined by others in society and the institution, and unilaterally imposed on clients (DCS, 2003). No provision is made to validate engagement with clients to determine their own unique lifeworld, or for the building of a true alliance between clients and rehabilitative staff to explore the dynamic between needs and consequent actions. Where any conflict may arise between individual and institutional/social determination of needs, it would appear the 'fault' is assumed to lie with the client, who then has to be 'corrected'. Clients are left with no alternative but to defend against definitions and labels which do not recognize and reflect their true identity in all its complexity. The importance of coming to understand their actions as being no more than inappropriate skills of defence, of valid needs and feelings, and which has implications for their view of themselves, appears to be entirely missed.

Objectification not only perpetuates, but often creates violation, through e.g. punishment. Punishment is presumed to act as a deterrent, and justifies itself as a 'rehabilitative' measure. On the contrary, however, far from stopping violence, I suggest that it stimulates crime because it may strengthen personal defences and harden suppressive measures (Gilligan, 1996). This happens precisely because punishment diminishes guilt, and stimulates shame. Shame is a major contributing factor in violence (Gilligan, 1996; 2001; Scheff, 1997). It is therefore necessary to make a distinction between guilt, referring to the feeling which may follow transgressions against society, and shame which follows transgression against the self. A client who helped me do research in 1996 captured this dynamic well: "You know, a man has pride.. and he will never want to tell you the things he did in his life or and (sic) he would never tell you the bad things or the degrading things about his life...And I've learned one thing. If you speak about the degrading and embarrassing things, that makes you a better person." (Stewart, 1996, p.18).

In short, unnecessary and destructive power imbalances, which echo childhood experiences of alienation, and which often lead to violational behaviour in the first place, are recreated and/or perpetuated in prison. The corollary of this is that the likelihood of true human encounters, based on mutual respect and trust, is reduced. Rehabilitation measures based on the past do not augur well for transformed learning involving accountability and agency for clients, therapists, prison staff or society at large (Barnes, 2002; Crossley, 1996).

4.2.2 Traditional Rehabilitation in Practice

I will just briefly mention some of a number of practical problems presently existing, which sabotage any serious attempts at rehabilitation.

The judicial inspectorate found that, due to the harsh conditions which apply in prisons such as overcrowding, the effects of incarceration may be "life altering" and that under these conditions, "no or very little rehabilitation can take place" (Office of the Inspecting Judge, n.d., p. 2). At the time I left correctional services in November 2003, there were 28 psychologists for approximately 180 000 prisoners. I have since heard from informal sources that a further 10 have left the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) in 2004. In 1996, a client had this to say about therapy: "You know, its hard also for them [therapists], they are only three of them. One has just left, and another is leaving soon. They have such a heavy workload, and they have so many prisoners they have to see every day. I mean, how can two people handle three thousand prisoners, I mean, its ridiculous." (Stewart, 1996, p. 18).

Secondly, a distinction needs to be made between 'antidotal' management of violation which focuses on outcome, and rehabilitation based on a process of transformation (Buirski & Haglund, 2001). 'Antidotal' management is reflected in any measure which reduces the likelihood of violence through sedation and/or emotional comfort, but does not lead to any personal growth (Gilligan, 1996). On the contrary, it frequently merely places its final expression in abeyance, increasing the force with which it will eventually be expressed.

Thirdly, there is an ever-present danger of confusing boundaries between therapeutic work and forensic evaluation, e.g. the requirement of parole boards, for psychological reports on clients. This has ethical implications of coercion, and may sometimes lead to transgressing boundaries of confidentiality. This undermines the paramount importance of trust as a prerequisite for effective rehabilitation.

5. Rehabilitation as an Instance of Transformation

Effective rehabilitation is a lifelong process which relies on (a) individual commitment; and (b) socio-political and institutional recognition and support. Individually, it means risking rejection by asserting oneself, so as to evolve a conscious meaning structure of oneself, in social life, as valid and worthy of mutual respect. Socio-politically and institutionally, recognition is expressed through the creation of safe channels for engagement, particularly with differences. I argue that alienation in our history does not have to result in violation today. Instead, lessons learned from history can be used to transform current alienating experiences into opportunities for transformative change (Schweitzer, 1992).

5.1 Transformed Rehabilitation in Theory

For this kind of rehabilitation, three interconnected theoretical steps are essential in therapy:

(1) Alienating experiences are important in that they provide necessary crises which facilitate experience of personal need, and energy needed for committing to change;
(2) A prerequisite for change to be constructive insists that crises are followed by relationships which encourage recognition and acceptance of differences; and
(3) The content of the rehabilitative encounter must include learning skills which rely on trust, and encourage assertion of, rather than shame for, different psychological states which may, in the past, have informed violations.

5.1.1 Transformed Rehabilitation of Clients in Practice

In practical terms, the above translates as:

It is important to note that, only when emotions are accepted and owned, can attempts be made to manage them in harmony with the rational mind. At this point, concepts such as: choice, full agency, responsibility for actions and acting with integrity become meaningful. Fonagy (1999) refers to 'reflective function', as the effort to understand one's own, as well as others' behaviour in terms of the needs and feelings underlying them. This finding has important implications for rehabilitation, in that negative cycles passed down through generations can be turned around.

5.1.2 Transformed Rehabilitation in Prison in Practice

In practical terms, the following are some suggestions:

6. Conclusion

In summary, I argue that the efficacy of rehabilitation is related to the ability of the client to assert their sense of self. This ability is learned through relationships with others (Meares 2000; Hermans & Kempen, 1993). Energy which is otherwise wasted on suppressing authentic and valid elements of the self which are not open to change can be freed to manage action, which is a matter of choice. The understanding of rehabilitation as an instance of transformation has inevitable implications for both clients and therapists, regarding engagement with the prison and society, within which the violation occurred.

As a final comment, a client's words, in a personal communication, capture the conscious experience of self-recognition which meaningful rehabilitation can have: "Thanks for the faith you have in me and for seeing what I was trying to say for what it was. When I look back over the last couple of years I must admit I feel proud of what I have achieved through a lot of help and guidance, but in the end, through what I did for myself. I will never be able to thank you for opening those doors for me and allowing me to be me".

Note:

1 Defined by Wilbraham as a "theoretical term used to convey the belief that an individual has the capacity of intention – thus, through rational thought, free will, motivation or emotion, to direct their behaviour or to make particular choices." (2004, p. 515).

References

Baumeister, R.F. (1999). Evil: inside human violence and cruelty. New York, Henry Holt & Co.

Barnes, B. (2002). Understanding agency: Social theory and responsible action. London, Sage Publications.

Benda, B.B. (2003). Survival analysis of criminal recidivism of boot camp graduates using elements form general and developmental explanatory models. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 47(1) 89-110.

Biko, S. (2004). I write what I like. Johannesburg, Picador Africa.

Brown, L.S. (1996). Subversive dialogues: Theory in feminist therapy. New York, Basic Books.

Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou. Edinburgh, T & T Clark.

Buirski, P. & Haglund, P. (2001). Making sense together: The intersubjective approach to psychotherapy. London, Jason Aronson Inc.

Bulhan, H.A. (1985). Frantz Fanon and the psychology of oppression. New York, Plenum Press.

Cohen, S. (2001). States of denial: knowing about atrocities and suffering. Malden. Blackwell Publishers.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996, Act 108. (1996).

Craig. A.P. (1992). Defamiliarisation as a learning-teaching strategy. Paper presented in SAARDHE Conference proceedings: Quality and equality in higher education (pp. 218-221). Cape Town.

Crossley, N. (1996). Intersubjectivity: the fabric of social becoming. London, Sage Publications.

Department of Correctional Services (DCS) (2003). White Paper. Pretoria, Department of Correctional Services.

Dixon, B. (2004). Introduction: Justice Gained? Crime control and criminology in transition. In B. Dixon & E. Van der Spuy (Eds.) (2004). Justice gained? Crime and crime control in South Africa's transition. Cape Town, UCT Press.

Dixon, B. & Van der Spuy, E. (Eds.) (2004). Justice gained? Crime and crime control in South Africa's transition. Cape Town, UCT Press.

Fonagy, P. (1999). Transgenerational consistencies of attachment: a new theory. Developmental and psychoanalytic discussion group, American Psychoanalytic Association Meeting. Washington DC.

Foster, D. (2000). The truth and reconciliation commission and understanding perpetrators. South African Journal of Psychology, 30(1), pp. 2–9.

Gilligan, J. (1996). Violence: reflections on a national epidemic. New York, Vintage Books.

Gilligan, J. (2001). Preventing violence. New York, Thames & Hudson Inc.

Gobodo-Madikizela, P. (2003). A human being died that night. Cape Town, David Philip.

Hermans, H.J.M. & Kempen, H.J.G. (1993). The dialogical self: meaning as movement. New York, Academic Press Inc.

Jack, D.C. (1999). Behind the mask. London, Harvard University Press.

Kainz, H.P. (1974). Hegel's philosophy or right, with Marx's commentary: a handbook for students. The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff.

Kellerman, J. (1999). Savage spawn: reflections on violent children. New York, Ballantine Publishing Group.

Laufer, S. (2001). The politics of fighting crime in South Africa since 1994. In In J. Steinberg (Ed.), Crime wave (pp. 14 -23). Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press.

Leggett, T., Louw, A., Schönteich, M., & Sekhonyane, M. (2003), November). Criminal Justice in Review 2001/2002. (Monograph No. 88). Cape Town, Institute for Security Studies.

Meares, R. (2000). Intimacy and alienation: memory, trauma and personal being. London, Routledge.

Muntingh, L. (2002). Tackling recidivism. Track Two 11(2) pp. 20–24.

Nicholson, C. (2004). Permanent removal: who killed the Cradock Four? Johannesburg, Witspress.

Office of the Inspecting Judge (n.d.). Judicial inspectorate of prisons: information to the Jali Commission of enquiry. Cape Town, Judicial Inspectorate of Prisons.

Parker, I., Georgaca, E., Harper, D., McLaughlin, T. & Stowell-Smith, M. (1995). Deconstructing psychopathology. London, Sage Publications.

Pistorius, M. (2002). Strangers on the street. London, Penguin Books.

Scheff, T.J. (1997). Emotions, the social bond, and human reality: part/whole analysis. Paris, Cambridge University Press.

Schmitt, R. (1994). Alienation and poverty: the view from Comalapa. In R. Schmitt & T.E. Moody, (Eds.), Key concepts in critical theory: alienation and social criticism (pp. 42–57). New Jersey, Humanities Press.

Schönteich, A.L.M. (2001). Playing the numbers game: promises, policing and crime statistics. In J. Steinberg (Ed.), Crime wave (pp. 41-49). Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press.

Schweitzer, D. (1992) Marxist theories of alienation and reification: the response to capitalism, state socialism and the advent of postmodernity. In F. Geyer & W.R. Heinz (Eds.). Alienation, society and the individual: continuity and change in theory and research (pp. 27–52). New Jersey, Transaction Publishers.

Spink, K. (1991). Black Sash: the beginning of a bridge in South Africa. London, Methuen.

Stewart, S. (1996). An investigation into how prisoners use relationships to cope with stress. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Durban, University of Natal.

Van Zyl Slabbert, F. (1985). The last white parliament. Johannesburg, Jonathan Ball Publishers.

Williamson, P., Day, A., Howells, K., Bubner, S. & Jauncey, S. (2003). Assessing offender readiness to change problems with anger. Psychology Crime & Law 9(4) 295-307.

 
Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation
Criminal Justice Conference Proceedings

eXTReMe Tracker