I. Introduction

The United Nations has greatly stressed the importance of disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration-DDR, and has drafted reports on how DDR should be carried out. However, akin to how policy is sometimes conducted, reports are often quite ‘under theorized’. These reports, among others, suggest that former militants must be educated to respect rule of law, provided employment opportunities, learn to not use weapons as a means to achieve ends, etc.[1] These suggestions make sense, however, these suggestions are also quite obvious. Adding to this, it seems that the international community is learning how to do DDR through trial and error[2] and focusing more on the ‘dismantling the machinery of war’ and less on facilitating the re-socialization of combatants.[3] What is needed is a model of DDR that is based on established psychological and social theories that infer how to properly integrate or reintegrate the alienated, excommunicated, or outlaws of societies.

 

Using a socialization approach, I will spend a good deal of time identifying certain fundamental similarities in the social structures that are developed in both prisons and guerrilla rebel groups. I suggest that these similarities warrant the reintegration policies of ex-prisoners quite applicable to former guerrillas. Focusing primarily on the ‘reintegration’ factor, the model that I suggest should be applied is a prisoner correctional model used to reintegrate inmates into civil society. This ‘participatory managerial model’ will be applied to indicate what this might look like in the reintegration of rebel groups in Colombia. As we learn the lessons that have been taught in the socialization and reintegration of prisoners, and although this paper will quite vague in some areas with shortcomings in the model that I suggest,[4] it is my persuasion that a study of this sort will move us towards a much-needed ‘theory of DDR’.

 

II. A Few Words on DDR

As a preface to the ensuing discussion I would like to start by defining DDR and saying something quickly about its importance. The definition used for each of the words in the acronym is borrowed from Knight & Özerdem (2004). They are as follows, disarmament: the collection, control, and disposal of arms; demobilization: the process of downsizing or the complete disbanding of an armed group; reintegration: the process whereby which former combatants are reintegrated into civil society.[5] The Knight & Özerdem study has indicated that there is a ‘symbiotic relationship’ between reintegration and peacebuilding. Moreover, there cannot be a sustainable recovery if the combatants do not go through an effective reintegration process.[6] In Colombia today there are ‘new illegal armed groups’ emerging and causing substantial increases in violence and confusion. These groups have their origins in the recently demobilized and often ineffectively reintegrated paramilitaries.[7]

 

III. Parallel Social Structures

In his seminal work on the study of prison life, Clemmer was the first to indicate that an actual social structure is developed within prisons.[8] This structure includes cliques and a loutish hierarchy of power.[9] For more than five decades it has been suggested that there should be “constant observation of the inmates’ informal group structure and efforts to redirect these natural groups,”[10] as these structures that ‘naturally’ develop in prisons can be the greatest hindrance to rehabilitation and subsequently reintegration.

Schlein has theorized that these types of micro social structures develop in a variety of contexts where humans experience alienation or isolation from previous relations.[11] In the context of a prison one is alienated from the past relationships and norms of his or her prior social context. In order to prevent alienation, a condition that is undesirable to humans, prisoners adapt their actions to the context of the prison in order to form social relations.[12] In every social context, prisons included, social integration depends on the types of interpersonal actions that are representative of and enforce social norms.[13] In a prison a unique set of norms and rules govern social interactions. It is theorized that these norms and rules develop as a result of the generally ‘criminogenic character of inmates’.[14] These criminogenic rules and norms must be adapted to if one is to avoid alienation. In this process of adaptation, inmates become familiarized with the prison social context, or structure, and as the inmates become accustomed to prison life, a culture of dependence on the prison and its social structure is forged.[15] 

Clemmer calls this state of being ‘prisonized’ and the social structure ‘prison culture’.[16]  Prisoners are often elevated to positions of power in regards to other prisoners, they begin to believe that they play indispensable roles in their own social cliques, and they become dependent on the consistency and certainty of the regimented life provided by a correctional institute. The central factor to be understood is that in the isolation of individuals from their former social relations by confinement, regimenting their lives in a way that does not allow them to maintain former relations, and placing them in completely different social context forges a fundamental change in the way that a person views his or her self and subsequently the way that he or she acts.[17] Wheeler states, “The offender learns to reject [outside] society and in doing so comes to accept a conception of himself as a criminal, with an elaborate set of supporting justifications.”[18] We can surmise that individuals may come to accept different conceptions of themselves as a result of socialization in a variety of contexts.

Some scholars have suggested that there are striking similarities in various ‘total institutions’[19] in regards to the way that the socialization of individuals occurs.[20] Based on this premise, and though there are clear differences between a prison and a guerrilla rebel group, I suggest that we can draw definite parallels between the two when focusing on the social structures that develop in these two contexts.

 Within a rebel group the process of socialization is similar as to in a prison. Newly joined guerrillas face similar challenges that new prisoners do. They face alienation from previous social relations, are in a context where there is a power hierarchy based on brute or violence, encounter rules and social norms that are unique to the group context, and are among individuals who have become familiarized and comfortable with an isolated and abnormal way of life.[21]

If the new rebel survives combat etc, and does not flee for a return to life in civil society, a socialization of the rebel occurs within the context of the guerrilla rebel group. In order to avoid alienation within the new social context, the newly joined rebel makes the necessary adaptations to become a part of the guerrilla social context. Much like a prisoner, the individual fundamentally changes the way he or she views his or her self in this process of adaptation. As the prisoner begins to view his or herself as a criminal, the once newly joined rebel’s self-perception becomes one of a guerrilla. As Clemmer calls this state of being for prisoners ‘prisonized’ and the social structure ‘prison culture’, I identify the state of adaptation to the guerrilla way of life as becoming ‘guerrillasized’ and the guerrilla social structure as ‘guerrilla culture’.

Like the ‘prisonized’ inmate, the ‘guerrillasized’ individual becomes familiar and comfortable with his or her new social context. Prior to being ‘guerrillasized’, the individual was probably intimidated by ‘guerrilla culture’. However, as the newly joined rebel became familiar with the power structure (possibly attaining some sort of rank), became familiar with ‘guerrilla culture’, accustomed to everyday guerrilla life/warfare, and was no longer emotionally dependent on previous social relations as new ones were forged, the rebel rejected a civilian life and embraced the one he or she became accustomed to as a guerrilla.

In the case of prisoners, the exact amount of time that it takes for a prisoner to become ‘prisonized’ is not clear. Among other factors, it has been indicated that it is very dependent on the length of a sentence, the amount of prior incarcerations, and the ability of the corrections institute to subdue the ‘prison culture’.[22] As it is quite vague in this area, this may be one of the greater shortcomings of ‘prisonization’ theory. However, in defence of the theory, to forge an exact timeline as to how long the ‘prisonization’ process takes, while taking the above variables into account for each prison and prisoner, proves to be a lengthy task.

Case studies of this sort have been conducted and, while different timelines are offered, the general consensus is that the phenomenon of ‘prisonization’ does occur. The questions that that the researcher should ask is not whether or not ‘prisonization’ occurs, or in what length of time, but instead, to what degree does it occur.[23] I will not explore deeply into the question of the degree of occurrence in regards to guerrillas, however, given that I am correct in positing ‘guerrillasization’, it would be even more difficult to measure the length of time that it takes for an individual to become ‘guerrillasized’. This is owing to the fact that guerrilla movements operate in a much less conventional fashion than a modern prison. The non-conventional nature of Colombian guerrilla life would make doing a controlled experiment on ‘guerrillasization’ next to impossible. This is not say that it cannot be verified that the process of ‘guerrillasization’ occurs among guerrillas, however, additional work should be done on ‘guerrilla culture’ to substantiate or refute these claims.

Although I have demonstrated some similarities, there is an important difference that need be addressed. That is, the majority of guerrillas willingly comply to join armed groups. However, there is reason to believe that the line between compliance based on will and compliance based on coercion is ‘ambiguous terrain’.[24] There is reason to believe that many individuals, though they explicitly willingly join, do so against their actual will as their will has been distorted by their social context.[25] The same could be said of prisoners. It has been argued that many criminals are products of their environments,[26] and although they go to prison unwillingly as a result of incarceration, they are often products of deficient environments that they did not choose (as is the case with many guerrillas).

 

IV. Defining the Model and Obstacles

I now move to defining the ‘Correctional Model’ that will be used. The participatory managerial model has been shown to be the most effective means of prisoner rehabilitation.[27] Though popular in theory, but less popular in practice, correctional models that are more managerial and less controlling have been shown by scholars and practitioners to be much more effective. In fact, there is a consensus that, “the control model, as has been argued by many, is counterproductive to inmate rehabilitation.”[28] The participatory managerial model suggests that in using a control model the oppositional inmate subculture is perpetuated as divisions are created between authority figures: prison workers; and those subjected to authority: inmates.[29] In using a managerial model, there is participation on the part of inmates as to how rehabilitation is carried out. This is done by creating focus groups on particular issues pertaining to ones personal life and also the function of the institution. The goal of these groups is to empower inmates by allowing them to make decisions within the institution regarding trivial matters such as laundry, entertainment, and recreation.[30]

The inmate is viewed as being ‘sick’ and must be treated. By empowering the inmates, and simultaneously teaching responsibility, it is theorized and has been shown that a ‘prison culture’ is substantially diffused as participatory involvement in ones own rehabilitation establishes a personal commitment to the avoidance of deviant behaviour of various types that could offset the stability of the institution which is providing the inmate purpose and recovery.[31]

The reason why managerial models are not practiced more often is because managing prisoners has proved to be a quite challenging task; participatory rehabilitation is often overlooked as focus is often placed on the immediate need to maintain order in the prison.[32] Rehabilitation is the key to effective reintegration and often times this is impeded from occurring as a result of the challenges of prison maintenance and control.

Adding to the problem of not being able to conduct rehabilitation is another. An extensive report issued by the United Kingdom House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in 2005 indicates that the central issue in rehabilitation is that most prisoners have never actually been ‘habilitated’ and were socially excluded throughout their lives from ‘properly socialized civil society’. [33] In other words, the report states that a majority of prisoners have never actually been socialized to begin with, and time spent in prison further perpetuates this problem of alienation.

A parallel can be drawn here with guerrillas as well. In her fieldwork throughout Colombia interviewing demobilized guerrillas Theidon found that “65 percent of these ex-combatants entered an armed group when they were still minors.”[34] Adding to this, most of these demobilized guerrillas grew up in areas controlled by rebels.[35] Though mostly not actually born into rebel groups, one ex-combatant stated that, “where I grew up, the state doesn’t exist.”[36] Like many prisoners are born into communities where they never actually were ‘properly socialized’ or ‘habilitated’, the majority of young Colombian rebels are born into a war context void the structures of a functioning civil society. Many have never learned what is necessary to be a ‘properly socialized’ member of civil society and these social deficiencies have been worsened by their socialization into ‘guerrilla culture’. They have never actually been integrated or ‘habilitated’, posing the concept of reintegration as an even greater challenge, one that should be secondary to ‘habilitation’.

If a process of ‘habilitation’ is accomplished, reintegration remains to be impeded by personal and psychological issues associated with the institutional experience and the unwillingness of civil society to accept ex-prisoners into their communities.[37] One author insists, “many of the psychological pains of imprisonment are revealed most clearly at the time of release rather than entry,”[38] especially as the ex-prisoners are ‘not wanted’ by most communities. Adding to this, “Prisons along with other types of ‘total institutions’ are usually assumed to have deep and long-lasting effects on the values of their members.”[39]

There are similar obstacles faced by ex-guerrillas. These are often a result of society’s unwillingness to accept former combatants into their communities and also the personal problems that need be dealt with upon demobilization. A Colombian priest who works in reintegration stated that, “The guerrilla is rotted…rotted from the inside out.”[40] In an interview conducted by Theidon, a Medellín businessman indicated that at best ex-combatants “will succeed at becoming a different social class–sort of a new race. Because of course everyone looks at them differently.”[41] This quote speaks to a common perception of the demobilized in that country, with rhetoric of civilians often including remarks about the demilitarized being of another race ‘not wanted’ by communities.[42]

Acceptance of civil society remains a great obstacle for demobilized guerrillas in Colombia as many refuse to ever show their faces in their native villages and towns. This has lead some to ‘return to the hills’,[43] rejoining the armed groups they are socially accepted in.

 

V. Applying a Participatory Managerial Model to Guerrilla Reintegration

Aside from the challenges that exist in both the rehabilitation and often ‘habilitation’ efforts of prisoners and former guerrillas, and some contextual differences, I maintain the viability of applying the participatory managerial model to guerrilla reintegration. In numerical point form, ten suggestions are made below as to what an application of the model in ‘habilitating’ and reintegrating Colombian guerrillas might look like.

1)              Guerrillas need to be institutionalized directly following demobilization, as they will not be immediately accepted into civil society;

2)              The institution should be completely correctional and therapeutic: attempting to un-socialize and properly re-socialize the ex-guerrillas; they should be viewed as ‘sick’, (the formation of informal social structures should be closely monitored);

3)              It should have an atmosphere that is un-prison-like, yet regimented with rules and curfews, simultaneously fostering ‘habilitation’ and reintegration

4)              The ex-guerrillas should be given jobs in the institution and paid wages in order to facilitate an understanding of authority and structure that is based on participative reciprocal relationships, as opposed to authoritative one-sided violent ones;

5)              There should be participation on all levels that allows the guerrillas to make decisions that effect the workings of the institution, it should be seen as ‘theirs’, this should help in familiarizing the guerrillas with the democratic process;

6)              Visits to State institutions such as court houses, legislative buildings, social service providers, and military bases should be encouraged in order to familiarize the ex-guerrillas with government structures and services;

7)              Upon arriving at set benchmarks of recovery, former family and other social relations should re-established if possible;

8)              Communities should be slowly introduced to ex-guerrillas, allowing only the most well-recovered to enter fully into societal roles;

9)              Guerrillas should be allowed to participate in civil religious life, as this may help to forge community relations based on commonality of faith, the same should be considered for athletic activities;

10)          Participants should be given the option to refuse participation, should they refuse however, they should be treated as criminals and sent to traditional correctional institutes.

As the above suggestions are based on a theoretically informed and tested model of rehabilitation, it is my supposition that they have the potential to be quite effective in the reintegration of former guerrillas in Colombia. A second look at these suggestions also reveals that they have the flexibility to possibly work in other ‘pre-postconflict’[44] situations. The greatest obstacle of institutionalizing ex-guerrillas is the potential for counterproductive socialization to occur that is based on ‘guerrilla culture’ within the rehabilitative institution. As previously indicated, this must be closely monitored and/or prevented from occurring.

 

VI. Conclusion

In the field of research pertaining to prisoners there is a well-developed body of literature regarding the social context of prisons, the rehabilitation process, as well of reintegration of inmates into society. Comparatively, there has been little work done on the social context of guerrilla groups but a great deal of work done on the reintegration of these groups, though it is very under theorized.

 

In this study I have shown that we can draw parallels between prisoner and guerrilla socialization that suggest the well-developed theories of prisoner rehabilitation or ‘habilitation’ are applicable in forming a theory of reintegration or ‘integration’ of guerrillas. I have shown that more work needs to be done on ‘guerrilla culture’, as it can be quite telling of what need be ‘undone’ in order to reintegrate. Though the reintegration theoretical model that I suggest may have shortcomings, it my conclusion that this study has moved us closer toward a much-needed theory of DDR that is based on established psychological and sociological studies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Work Cited

Robert C. Atchley; M. Patrick McCabe, “Socialization in Correctional Communities: A Replication”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 33, No. 5, October 1968, (pp. 774-785).

Ana M. Arjona; Stathis Kalyvas, “Preliminary Results of a Survey of Demobilized Combatants in Colombia”, Yale University, 11 May 2006, (pp. 1-51).

Seth Allan Bloomberg, “Toward a Science of Correctional Management”, Criminology, Vol. 15, No. 2, August 1977, (pp. 149-164).

Marshall B. Clinard, “The Group Approach to Social Reintegration”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 14, No. 2, April 1949, (pp. 257-262).

“Colombia’s New Armed Groups”, ICG Latin American Report N. 20, Bogotá/Brussels, 10 May 2007, (pp. 1-33)

Susan Clark Craig, “Rehabilitation Versus Control: An Organizational Theory of Prison Management”, The Prison Journal, Vol. 84, No. 4, December 2004, (pp. 92-114).

“Forum Report No. 22: Reintegration of Prisoners”, The National Economic and Social Forum, Dublin, Ireland, January 2002, (pp. 1-136).

George A. Hillery, Jr., “Villages, Cities, and Total Institutions”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 28, No. 5, October 1963, (pp. 779-791).

Mark Knight; Alpaslan Özerdem, “Guns, Camps and Cash: Disarmament, Demobilization and Reinsertion of Former Combatants in Transitions from War to Peace”, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 41, No. 4, July 2004, (pp. 499-516).

“Rehabilitation of Prisoners”, House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, Vol. 1, 7 January 2005.

Francisco Gutiérrez Sanín, “Telling the Difference: Guerrillas and Paramilitaries in the Colombian War”, Politics & Society, Vol. 36 No. 1, March 2008, (pp. 3-34).

Edgar H. Schein, “Interpersonal Communication, Group Solidarity, and Social Influence”, Sociometry, Vol. 23, No. 2, June 1960, (pp. 148-161).

Kimberly Theidon, “Transitional Subjects: The Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration of Former Combatants in Colombia”, The International Journal of Transitional Justice, Vol. 1, 2007, (pp. 66–90).

Stanton Wheeler, “Socialization in Correctional Communities”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 26, No. 5, October 1961, (pp. 697-712).

Alfredo Witschi-Castari, “Armed Conflict Reduction in Colombia”, UNDP, 2006, (pp. 1-13).