The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.

The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.

The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.

The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.

The present thesis investigates two theoretically novel processes of change in groups relevant to agents for change. Specifically, it examines the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on group members’ evaluation of ingroup change-agents. Group opinion change is operationalized as the group adopting the position advocated by a change-agent, and reintegration is operationalized as the group responding more positively towards a change-agent. These formulations of change processes within groups extend past theorizing in opinion deviance research (e.g., Festinger, 1950; Schachter, 1951; Marques & Paez, 1994) by a) examining how contextual differences that result from changes in the group may affect group members’ reactions to opinion deviates, and b) considering contingencies that result in acceptance or rejection of change-agents and their messages. In addition, this thesis investigates the psychological processes that may mediate and moderate the effects of group opinion change and reintegration on appraisals of change-agents. Specifically, it considers attributed motives of change-agents (i.e., perceived constructiveness; Hornsey, 2005), and target prototypicality (e.g., Hogg, 1993; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987) as two possible mediators of these novel effects. Finally, group members’ identification with the group is examined as a moderator of these processes. Chapter 3 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of group opinion change on the evaluation of change-agents. Experiment 1 (N=100) was a scenario-based study that had a change-agent express a non-conformist view of giving water to an outgroup state at a time when the ingroup state was experiencing a water crisis. Experiment 2 (N=103) was a scenario-based study that looked at a change-agent who expressed pro-immigration views to the ingroup country at an earlier time when popular attitudes toward immigration were poor. In both experiments the deviants were marginalized initially because they endorsed non-conformist opinions. Depending on the condition, group opinions either shifted toward the positions advocated by the deviants or remained unchanged. Results showed group members’ target evaluations shifted as a function of group opinion change. Target evaluations became less favourable in Experiment 1, and more favourable in Experiment 2. There also was evidence that increased perceived constructiveness mediated more favourable target evaluations in Experiment 2. Chapter 4 presents the first two experiments that tested the effects of reintegration and group members’ identification on the evaluation of change-agents. Both Experiments 3 (N=103) and 4 (N=94) involved a scenario where there was a severe drought in the ingroup state. In Experiment 3, a deviant politician argued for more investment on water infrastructure 10 years earlier when water shortage was not a critical problem. Thus, the politician expressed a minority opinion. In Experiment 4, a deviant water commissioner expressed a controversial opinion to give water to an outgroup state at the height of the drought. Both deviants were marginalized/excluded initially by the group. Reintegration was manipulated by showing that popular support for the deviant had increased (Experiment 3) or the deviant was reinstated (Experiment 4), or the group did not increase support for the deviant at all (not reintegrated). Results showed that high identifiers evaluated the deviant less positively, and perceived the deviant as more destructive after he or she was reintegrated than when marginalization continued. Further, perceived destructiveness mediated the effects of reintegration and identification on trait evaluations. Experiment 4 also showed that high identifiers were less willing to support change after the deviant was reintegrated, than when marginalization continued. Finally, Chapter 5 tested the interactive effects of group opinion change and reintegration on evaluation of change-agents. I also assessed group members’ responses to change-agents in light of the group’s resistance to change even though the change-agents were right and the groups were wrong. Experiment 5 was a scenario-based study in a minimal-groups situation that had a deviant arguing for a more equitable research funding than the existing distribution. Experiment 6 was a scenario-based study on the disagreement between Galileo Galilei and the Catholic Church on planetary motion. Again, the deviants initially were marginalized by the groups. For opinion change, the groups either adopted or rejected the deviants’ opinions. For reintegration, the groups either treated the deviants more favourably or continued to reject them. Results showed that either opinion change or reintegration was sufficient to defuse negativity towards the deviants. More importantly, group members continued mistreating the deviants when the groups rejected opinion change and reintegration. That is, negativity towards the deviants was highest when opinion was unchanged, and marginalization continued. Overall, this thesis shows that group members’ evaluations of deviant agents for change can shift as a function of group opinion change and reintegration. Group opinion change and/or reintegration defuse negativity toward change-agents in the absence of psychological threat (i.e., perceived destructiveness). However, if threat is present, opinion change or reintegration may ironically elicit more group members’ negativity towards these targets. This thesis also contributes to the literature by showing how change promotes or inhibits group members’ endorsement of change-agents.

Abstract This dissertation analyzes the history of the diagnosis of psychopathy in Finland in four different contexts from the late-nineteenth century until the end of the 1960s. Due to the broad scope of the diagnosis of psychopathy, it has been used in various contexts. This study takes a look at the early history of forensic psychiatry, the pathologizing of child suicides, the use of the diagnosis in northern Finland as a form of social control after the Second World War, and patients diagnosed with transvestism, classified as a subcategory of psychopathy, and their treatment. The main constants in the use of the diagnosis have been deviance, permanence, the borderland between mental health and illness, intervention, the congenital nature of the condition, and abnormality, which manifests itself as the abnormality of the emotions, drives, and volition. The dissertation examines the background, methods, and significance of the use of the diagnosis as part in the development of the Finnish welfare state. The conceptually broad diagnosis of psychopathy should not be seen as a wastebasket diagnosis only, but should be analyzed separately in each context. / Tiivistelmä Väitöskirja tarkastelee psykopatiadiagnoosin historian vaiheita Suomessa neljässä eri yhteydessä 1800-luvun loppupuolelta 1960-luvun loppuun. Lukuisista eri konteksteista, joissa diagnoosia on käytetty, tarkastellaan tarkemmin oikeuspsykiatrian alkutaivalta, lasten itsemurhien patologisointia, diagnoosin käyttöä toisen maailmansodan jälkeisessä Pohjois-Suomessa sosiaalisen kontrollin muotona, sekä Transvestitismus-alakategorian potilaita ja hoitoa. Yhteisiä nimittäjiä psykopatiadiagnoosin käytössä ovat olleet poikkeavuus, mielenterveyden ja mielisairauden välinen rajatila, interventio, pysyvyys, synnynnäisyys sekä epänormaalius, joka liittyy tunteisiin, vietteihin ja tahtoon. Väitöskirjassa tarkastellaan psykopatiadiagnoosin käytön taustoja, tapoja ja merkitystä osana suomalaisyhteiskunnan kehitystä kohti hyvinvointivaltiota ja korostetaan, että käsitteellisesti laajan diagnoosin historiaa tulisi tarkastella aina käyttökontekstin kautta, ei pelkkänä kaatoluokan historiana.

La littérature en gestion des organisations est riche de travaux témoignant de pratiques transgressives en entreprise, aux motivations très diverses, mais qui souvent, sont le résultat d’initiatives individuelles. Rares sont les exemples de transgression collective en milieu professionnel, reposant sur un désaccord commun d’un aspect de l’organisation du travail.A partir d’une observation participante rétrospective au niveau d’un service d’une multinationale, je me suis interrogé sur ce phénomène qui peut être considéré de prime abord comme une forme de déviance, mais dont l’enquête de terrain cherche à montrer l’importance de l’impact des tensions organisationnelles et des comportements managériaux.Cette thèse a pour objectif de comprendre comment un groupe est parvenu à bâtir une action transgressive commune et à concilier les exigences contradictoires imposées par l’environnement, en étudiant les concepts de la coopération, de la connivence et du secret. / Organizational management has extensively studied organizational misbehaviors and their motivations, which often are initiated by individuals. Examples of collective deviance at work, based on a mutual disagreement on how to conduct a task, are unusual.Following a retrospective participant observation within a multinational department, I questioned this action which could be considered at first as a deviance. However I demonstrate based on fieldwork, that this action is the result of influences of organizational tensions and managerial behaviors.This thesis aims to understand how a group of individuals succeed in organizing a transgressive collective action, and how they conciliate with working requirements, using concepts such as cooperation, connivance and secret.

A presente tese se propõe a identificar a relação entre os presídios do Rio de Janeiro e o processo de exclusão e dominação, essenciais para a construção da hegemonia. Para isso, analisamos a relação da construção da ordem vigente com as unidades prisionais, desde o início do século XIX, percebendo a forma como o Estado inseriu tais unidades em sua política a fim de garantir a dominação, criminalizando os grupos subalternos. Desta forma, os presídios aparecem como rotuladores, não só de indivíduos, como também de sua identidade e espaço, além, é claro, de confirmar seu status social. Para esta investigação foram utilizados a pesquisa bibliográfica e o cruzamento de dados do Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) e do Ministério da Justiça, além do material didático utilizado pelas escolas prisionais do Rio de Janeiro. Nossa análise partiu da compreensão do presídio enquanto lócus de contenção e controle do excedente excluído, encontrada nas obras de Nilo Batista e das perspectivas de David Garland e Loic Wacquant que contextualizam estas instituições pela mesma ótica na política neoliberal. Como escopo teórico principal, alicerçamos esta pesquisa na teoria do desvio, desenvolvida por Haward Becker, e no conceito de hegemonia, tal qual Antonio Gramsci o concebe. Desta forma, observamos como percepções individuais de membros de grupos dominantes podem ser incorporadas pelo seu coletivo e ingressarem no código legal social, favorecendo e garantindo a hegemonia destes sobre os grupos subalternos. As prisões aparecem neste contexto como peça imprescindível. Concluímos, portanto, que as unidades prisionais do Rio de Janeiro possuem grande importância na afirmação da dominação social na medida em que recebem o subalterno e demarcam este grupo e seu espaço, transformando sua condição marginal em condição criminosa. Ou seja, favorecendo a criminalização de sua condição social e, portanto, justificando-a. / This thesis aims to identify the relationship between prison institutions in Rio de Janeiro and exclusion and domination practices, both essential for the construction of hegemonic process. Therefore, we analyze the relationship between the construction of existing order and prison institutions, since the early nineteenth century, noting how State incorporated such units in your own policy to ensure domination and criminalizing subaltern social groups. Thus prisons appear as labelers, not only of individuals but also of their identity and geography, and, of course, to confirm their social status. For this research, was necessary a literature review and cross-checking data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) and the Federal Ministry of Justice, in addition to the teaching materials used by correctional schools Rio de Janeiro. Our analysis was based on the understanding of prison while locus of control and containment of the social excluded surplus population in the works of Nilo Batista and the perspectives of David Garland and Loic Wacquant, both that contextualize these institutions the same approach on a neoliberal policy. As a main theoretical scope, this research was based in the theory of "deviance" , developed by Howard Becker, and the concept of " hegemony ", as Antonio Gramsci defines it. Thus, we see how individual perceptions of members of dominant groups can be incorporated by their collectiveness and integrate the legal social code, promoting and ensuring hegemonic processes of these groups over subaltern groups. The prision institution appear in this context as an essential part of the system. Therefore, we conclude that the prisons of Rio de Janeiro have great importance in the affirmation of social domination to the extent that they receive the subaltern, label this group and their geography, transforming its marginal status in criminal condition. That is, favoring the criminalization of their social status and therefore, justifying it.

Objectif : Cette recherche a pour objectif de documenter le traitement institutionnel des déviances adolescentes dans la justice des mineurs, au prisme du genre et des autres rapports de pouvoir. L'enquête vise en premier lieu à mettre au jour les scripts et attentes de genre véhiculés par les professionnel‑le‑s et à en décrire les conditions de production, reproduction et légitimation par les institutions de contrôle de la jeunesse. Au-delà des seules normes de genre, il s'agit de comprendre la manière dont différentes normes sociales liées notamment à la classe, à l'origine ethno-raciale ou à l'âge influent sur les procédures judiciaires et balisent les carrières institutionnelles des adolescent‑e‑s confronté‑e‑s à la justice.Méthode : Une enquête ethnographique d'une année a été menée au tribunal pour enfants de Créteil, et une enquête complémentaire a été réalisée durant deux mois au tribunal pour enfants de Paris. Ces investigations se sont principalement basées sur l'analyse qualitative et quantitative de dossiers judiciaires pénaux (n=133) et en assistance éducative (n=95), d'observations d'audiences, et d'entretiens (entretiens semi-directifs et focus groups) avec les acteur‑e‑s de la justice des mineurs. Résultats : L'étude des dossiers judiciaires indique l'existence d'un traitement différentiel des filles et des garçons. Cela se traduit notamment, au pénal, par un plus grand recours au soin et à des formes de contrôle para-pénales dans le cas des filles, et par une moindre prise en compte des vulnérabilités dans le cas des garçons. En assistance éducative, des schémas similaires sont à l’œuvre, mais de manière moins marquée. De plus, l'analyse approfondie des dossiers montre la perméabilité des actes de jugement à la position sociale (classe), à l'identité ethno-raciale et aux catégories d'âge. Conclusion : Cette thèse rend compte de la manière dont l'institution façonne les carrières des adolescent‑e‑s confronté‑e‑s à la justice, et aide ainsi à comprendre les mécanismes de production, reproduction ou légitimation institutionnelle des normes de genre. Il en ressort également que les normes véhiculées par l'institution renvoient à d'autres rapports de pouvoir en mesure d'influer sur les processus judiciaires, à l'instar des rapports de classe, race ou âge. Il est donc nécessaire de mettre en œuvre une approche sociologique intersectionnelle des actes d'État, et de procéder à un questionnement critique à l'égard de l'universalisme juridique tel que revendiqué par les institutions du contrôle social. / Goal: The present work aims at analyzing the institutional treatment of adolescent deviances within the juvenile justice system, based on approaches of gender and other power relations. Our main objectives are to highlight the gender-related scripts and expectations that occur in the justice system and to describe the context in which they have been produced, reproduced and legitimated by youth control institutions. Beyond gender norms, this work deepens the understanding of how multiple social norms (related to class, race and age) impact both judicial processes and institutional careers of teenagers (boys and girls) going through the justice system. Method: A one-year ethnographic survey was conducted in a French juvenile court in Créteil, complemented with a 2-month survey in the juvenile court of Paris. Judicial records in criminal (n=133) as well as civil (n=95) proceedings were analyzed, public hearings were attended and finally both semi-directive and focus group interviews with juvenile justice agents were carried out. Findings: The study of judicial records shows the existence of a differential treatment between boys and girls. In criminal proceedings, the sentencing of girls relies notably more on care and infrapenal control than the sentencing of boys, whose vulnerabilities weigh not as much. In civil proceedings, some similar patterns were observed, although not as pronounced. The in-depth analysis of records shows the permeability of sentencing to social norms linked to social position, racial identity and age categories. Conclusion: This research documents the way the judicial institution organizes the trajectory of teenagers facing the justice system, and helps to understand the mechanisms of institutional production, reproduction and legitimation of gender norms. The norms passed on by the institutions were found to be linked to other power relations, which, in turn, influence judicial processes, such as class, race or age relationships. Therefore, it is necessary to implement an intersectional sociological approach of the State’s actions and to criticize the legal universalism claimed by social control institutions.

A presente tese se propõe a identificar a relação entre os presídios do Rio de Janeiro e o processo de exclusão e dominação, essenciais para a construção da hegemonia. Para isso, analisamos a relação da construção da ordem vigente com as unidades prisionais, desde o início do século XIX, percebendo a forma como o Estado inseriu tais unidades em sua política a fim de garantir a dominação, criminalizando os grupos subalternos. Desta forma, os presídios aparecem como rotuladores, não só de indivíduos, como também de sua identidade e espaço, além, é claro, de confirmar seu status social. Para esta investigação foram utilizados a pesquisa bibliográfica e o cruzamento de dados do Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE) e do Ministério da Justiça, além do material didático utilizado pelas escolas prisionais do Rio de Janeiro. Nossa análise partiu da compreensão do presídio enquanto lócus de contenção e controle do excedente excluído, encontrada nas obras de Nilo Batista e das perspectivas de David Garland e Loic Wacquant que contextualizam estas instituições pela mesma ótica na política neoliberal. Como escopo teórico principal, alicerçamos esta pesquisa na teoria do desvio, desenvolvida por Haward Becker, e no conceito de hegemonia, tal qual Antonio Gramsci o concebe. Desta forma, observamos como percepções individuais de membros de grupos dominantes podem ser incorporadas pelo seu coletivo e ingressarem no código legal social, favorecendo e garantindo a hegemonia destes sobre os grupos subalternos. As prisões aparecem neste contexto como peça imprescindível. Concluímos, portanto, que as unidades prisionais do Rio de Janeiro possuem grande importância na afirmação da dominação social na medida em que recebem o subalterno e demarcam este grupo e seu espaço, transformando sua condição marginal em condição criminosa. Ou seja, favorecendo a criminalização de sua condição social e, portanto, justificando-a. / This thesis aims to identify the relationship between prison institutions in Rio de Janeiro and exclusion and domination practices, both essential for the construction of hegemonic process. Therefore, we analyze the relationship between the construction of existing order and prison institutions, since the early nineteenth century, noting how State incorporated such units in your own policy to ensure domination and criminalizing subaltern social groups. Thus prisons appear as labelers, not only of individuals but also of their identity and geography, and, of course, to confirm their social status. For this research, was necessary a literature review and cross-checking data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE) and the Federal Ministry of Justice, in addition to the teaching materials used by correctional schools Rio de Janeiro. Our analysis was based on the understanding of prison while locus of control and containment of the social excluded surplus population in the works of Nilo Batista and the perspectives of David Garland and Loic Wacquant, both that contextualize these institutions the same approach on a neoliberal policy. As a main theoretical scope, this research was based in the theory of "deviance" , developed by Howard Becker, and the concept of " hegemony ", as Antonio Gramsci defines it. Thus, we see how individual perceptions of members of dominant groups can be incorporated by their collectiveness and integrate the legal social code, promoting and ensuring hegemonic processes of these groups over subaltern groups. The prision institution appear in this context as an essential part of the system. Therefore, we conclude that the prisons of Rio de Janeiro have great importance in the affirmation of social domination to the extent that they receive the subaltern, label this group and their geography, transforming its marginal status in criminal condition. That is, favoring the criminalization of their social status and therefore, justifying it.