Erving Goffman – Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates (1961)

Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates by Erving Goffman is one of the most influential sociological works of the 20th century. Originally published in 1961, the book presents a powerful analysis of psychiatric hospitals and similar institutions, which Goffman defines as total institutions. These settings, according to Goffman, profoundly shape the self-concept and social roles of those confined within them. The work has had a lasting impact not only on the sociology of deviance and mental health, but also on criminology, especially in relation to prisons and other closed systems.

Key Points

What Is a Total Institution?

Goffman defines a total institution as a place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals, cut off from wider society for a substantial period of time, lead an enclosed, formally administered life. Examples include prisons, psychiatric hospitals, military boot camps, and monasteries. In such environments, all aspects of life—sleep, work, leisure—occur in the same place and under a single authority.

Mortification of the Self

One of Goffman’s central concepts is the “mortification of the self”. Upon entry, the individual undergoes a process of stripping—losing personal possessions, clothing, privacy, and social roles. This breakdown of identity is replaced by institutional routines and labels. The individual becomes a “patient,” “inmate,” or “offender” rather than a person with a unique biography.

Institutional Strategies of Control

Total institutions, as described by Goffman and later analyzed by Foucault and Scheff, exercise control not merely through physical confinement but through an intricate system of administrative routines, symbolic regulations, and interactional constraints. These institutions function as spaces where individuality is stripped away, roles are reassigned, and compliance is internalized.

A key mechanism of control is the strict division between staff and inmates, which reinforces hierarchies and creates asymmetrical power relationships. This structural separation not only limits autonomy but also curtails solidarity among those institutionalized. Goffman refers to this as part of the “looping structure,” where resistance is often interpreted as further deviance.

Everyday routines are strictly regulated to reduce unpredictability and enforce uniformity. Timetables for meals, sleep, work, and social interactions serve to depersonalize the subjects and suppress spontaneous behavior. These routines act as tools of normalization—encouraging conformity to institutional expectations and marginalizing any divergence.

Moreover, the isolation from the outside world plays a crucial role. Letters are censored, visits restricted, and media access controlled. The disconnection from external reference points fosters dependency and makes individuals more susceptible to internalizing the institution’s reality.

In addition, symbolic markers such as uniforms, identification numbers, or restricted personal belongings contribute to the erosion of personal identity. These markers signal submission and difference, transforming the individual into a ‘case’ or ‘type’ rather than a person.

Finally, disciplinary practices such as surveillance, reward-punishment systems, and therapeutic interventions do not only aim at behavioral correction but also produce knowledge about the subject. Here, Foucault’s notion of the “productive” nature of power becomes evident: control is exercised not solely by repressing individuals, but by shaping their self-perception and conduct.

Theoretical Comparison: Goffman – Scheff – Foucault

All three authors—Erving Goffman, Thomas J. Scheff, and Michel Foucault—have engaged with the concept and function of total institutions, albeit from different theoretical perspectives. Goffman examines how such institutions reshape individual identity through role stripping and structured routines. Scheff, building on Goffman, emphasizes how institutional settings reinforce deviant labels and contribute to chronic mental illness through social labelling processes. Foucault, in contrast, focuses on the historical and structural mechanisms of power, discipline, and surveillance that permeate institutional spaces. Together, their works offer a multi-layered understanding of how institutions not only manage but also produce deviance, normality, and control.

Perspective	Erving Goffman	Thomas J. Scheff	Michel Foucault
Approach	Microsociological, interactionist	Labelling theory, symbolic interactionism	Macrosociological, historical-genealogical
Key Question	How do institutions affect personal identity?	How is mental illness socially constructed through labelling?	How are power relations produced and maintained within institutions?
Analytical Focus	Loss of autonomy, role stripping, routines in institutions	Social reactions, diagnosis as self-fulfilling prophecy	Discipline, normalization, surveillance, knowledge-power
View of the Individual	Negotiates and manages identity within constraints	Becomes mentally ill through social reaction	Is constituted by power and disciplinary mechanisms
Total InstitutionA total institution is a social setting in which all aspects of life are conducted under a single authority and separated from wider society.	Place of identity breakdown and role loss	Reinforces deviant labels and chronic roles	Mechanism of surveillance and internalized control (Panopticon)

Criminological Relevance

Although the book focuses primarily on psychiatric institutions, its concepts apply to prisons, juvenile detention centers, immigration detention facilities, and other custodial environments. Goffman’s work laid the groundwork for critical prison sociology, influencing scholars like Loïc Wacquant and Thomas Scheff. The idea of the total institution is key to understanding how criminal justice systems produce and reinforce deviant identities.

Critical Reception and Legacy

Asylums was groundbreaking in revealing the power dynamics and social effects of institutional life. While some critics argue that Goffman did not fully theorize structural inequality or power, his ethnographic approach provided an enduring template for analyzing social control in modern institutions. His work remains a cornerstone of sociology, criminology, and mental health studies.

Contemporary relevance: Forensic psychiatry and institutional critique
Goffman’s analysis remains highly relevant in contemporary debates about the role and legitimacy of forensic psychiatric institutions. Critics argue that many of these facilities still operate under conditions that reflect the very features of total institutions—rigid routines, limited autonomy, institutional labeling, and an ambiguous relationship between care and control. In particular, the growing use of forensic detention for individuals deemed „dangerous but not guilty“ raises ethical concerns about preventive confinement, stigmatization, and the erosion of legal safeguards. Goffman’s framework provides the analytical tools to scrutinize these developments and to question whether such institutions truly serve therapeutic goals or rather perpetuate exclusion and social control under a medical guise.

References

• Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
• Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish. New York: Vintage.
• Scheff, T. J. (1966). Being Mentally Ill. Chicago: Aldine.
• Wacquant, L. (2009). Prisons of Poverty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.