The Autopoietic View of Prison Organization and of Correctional Reforms

  • Effi Lambropoulou

Abstract

According to the link of a system with the environment, closed and open systems are distinguished (Bertalanffy, 1956). For the closed systems external environment is of minor importance. As it is commonly known, the transfer of the idea of open systems into the social sciences is mainly due to Talcott Parsons (1977).

Keywords

Criminal Behaviour Correction System Correctional Officer Prison System Instrumental Function 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bertalanffy, L. von, 1956, General Systems Theory, General Systems 1: 1–10.Google Scholar
  2. Clemmer, D., 1940, “The Prison Community”, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Durkheim, E., 1977, “Über die Teilung der sozialen Arbeit”, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  4. Etzioni, A., 1973, “Soziologie der Organizationen”, 4th ed., Juventa Verlag, München.Google Scholar
  5. Foucault, M., 1989, “Epitirisi ke Timoria. I Genisi tis Filakis”, Pappa, Athens (“Surveiller et Punir. Naissance de la Prison”, Galimard, Paris 1976).Google Scholar
  6. Irwin, J., 1970, “The Felon”, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
  7. Haffke, B., 1976, “Tiefenpsychologie und Generalprävention. Eine strafrechtstheoretische Untersuchung”, Sauerländer, Aarau, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  8. Luhmann, N., 1984, “Soziale Systeme”, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M.Google Scholar
  9. Luhmann, N., 1988, Organisation, in: “Mikropolitik. Rationalität, Macht und Spiele in Organisationen”, W. Küpper and G. Ortmann (eds.), Westdeutscher Verlag, Opladen, pp. 165–185.Google Scholar
  10. Maturana, H. and Varela, F., 1992, “To Dendro tis Gnossis”, Katoptro, Athens (“The Tree of Knowledge”, Scherz Verlag, Bern, Munich, Vienna 1984).Google Scholar
  11. Mathiesen, T., 1979, “Überwindet die Mauern! Die skandinavische Gefangenenbewegung als Modell politischer Randgruppenarbeit”, Luchterhand, Darmstadt.Google Scholar
  12. Mead, G.H., 1918, The Psychology of Punitive Justice, AJS 23: 557–602.Google Scholar
  13. Parsons, T., 1964, “The Social System”, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Parsons, T., 1977, “Social Systems and the Evolution of Action Theory”, Free Press, New York.Google Scholar
  15. Rusche, G., and Kirchheimer, O., 1939, “Punishment and Social Structure”, Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Schrag, C., 1961, Some Foundations for a Theory of Correction, in: “The Prison. Studies in Institutional Organization and Change”, D.R. Cressey, (ed.), Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 309–357.Google Scholar
  17. Spencer Brown, G., 1972, “Laws of Form”, Julian Press, New York.Google Scholar
  18. Sutherland, E. and Cressey, D., 1978, “Criminology”, 10th ed., Lippincott, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  19. Sykes, G., and Messinger, S.L., 1960, The Inmate Social System, in: “Theoretical Studies in the Social Organization of the Prison”, R. Cloward, et al (eds.), Social Science Research Council, New York, pp. 14–43.Google Scholar
  20. Varela, F., 1979, “Principles of Biological Autonomy”, Elsevier, New York, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Voß, M., 1979, “Gefängnis für wen?”, AJZ, Bielefeld.Google Scholar
  22. Zeleny, M., 1981, “Autopoiesis. A Theory of Living Organization”, Elsevier, New York, Oxford.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Effi Lambropoulou
    • 1
  1. 1.Panteion University of Social and Political ScienceAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations