UMass Boston as a “total institution.”
In Asylums, Goffman defines a total institution as a social system that is closed and where strict rules systematize life, norms, and schedules. An absolute authority dogs everything that occurs in a total institution. The absolute authority will is performed by members of staff who implement the standards and regulations. Laws, a distance along with shields around its possessions, often detach a total institution from the broader community. Total institutions usually have much in common and are distinctive (Goffman, 1968).
UMass Boston can be considered a total institution to some extent. This is because of the similarities that exist between it and a total institution. Some of the similarities between a total institution and UMass Boston are; people within performing almost all their functions in similar locations accompanied by other people and the existence of a rigid system that ensures those within are provided with an organized way of operation. There are, however, other differences that limit UMass Boston from being fully considered as a total institution. One of the differences is that the school has not fulfilled the characteristic of a total institution that demands that the inmates be separated from the outside world.
One of the similarities existing between UMass Boston and a total institution is that the school has a rigid system that ensures the provision of an organized way of operation to the professors and students. The fixed schedules of the events and time make the school a total institution. For example, this is evident in that the offices within the college operate from 8:30 AM to 6:00 PM. This makes the lectures in the college have limited time. These daily schedules and rules indicate where, when, and how the students and professors carry out their routines. This is different from the outside world as, for example, in a family routine are less scheduled.
UMass Boston is similar to a total institution where the students and professors perform their daily activities in the same classes and offices. One of the basic characteristics of a total institution is that those within it perform almost all their daily activities in a similar location, accompanied by other people (Goffman, 1968). The college also has a fence that confines the staff and the students inside the school. It also has rules and regulations that are followed by all the students and staff. The staff supervises the student’s activities, and they are punished in case of school rules violations. These authentic reasons make UMass Boston similar to a total institution.
However, UMass Boston has not fulfilled the characteristic of a total institution whereby the inmates of a total institution are separated from the outside world. Some students and professors reside outside the college. This is because the school provides accommodation only to some students. Students and professors are, therefore, able to interact with outsiders. Outsiders are also allowed to access the school and use some of its facilities, such as the swimming pool. These interactions with the outside world make UMass Boston different from a total institution.
Going to the total institution’s way in school might come along with more disadvantages than advantages. The restrictions in the college are encouraged to ensure issues like security are taken care of. However, putting these restrictions into practice leads to de-socialization (Mcleod, 2016). For example, the set rules and schedules in UMass Boston dictate the students’ operations in terms of how, where, and when. Some effects come along with these restrictions. For example, the professors are judgmental in the cases where, for example, a student is late to attend a certain function as a lecture class. In this case, the professors view such a student as bad.
On the other hand, numerous benefits come along with outside housing by the school. Students, for example, are offered a chance to interact with the members of society. This helps them maintain their culture, thus preventing them from unlearning the values of society. As a result, they can maintain the respect they have from their communities as they follow and do according to what their culture demands. (Goffman, 2002). It also plays a vital role in ensuring that they don’t develop anti-social behaviors, reflecting the Zimbardo de-individual model (Mcleod, 2016). The staff also benefit a lot from this. They are offered a chance to integrate with society, thus enabling them to maintain their families. UMass Boston has enabled them to live happy lives with their families by eliminating restrictions that would require them to sleep inside the college, distancing them from their families.
UMass Boston has some practices that make it similar to a total institution. These practices include schedules and rules that govern the operations of the inmates and staff in the school. However, the school has other practices that distance it from fully becoming similar to a total institution. This is evident, for example, when students and the staff are allowed to interact with the members of the society freely. This is made possible through the school’s policy of outside housing of the students and the staff.
References
Goffman, E. (1968). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. AldineTransaction. https://dl1.cuni.cz/pluginfile.php/415828/mod_resource/content/3/goffman%20-%20moral%20carrier%20of%20mental%20pacient.pdf
Mcleod, S. A. (2016). Zimbardo-Stanford Prison Experiment. Zimbardo-Stanford Prison Experiment| Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/zimbardo.html
Goffman, E. (2002). The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden City, NY, 259.
