Los cuerpos como espacios de inscripción del poder: la experiencia de la prisión política en la Argentina durante los años sesenta y setenta
Fecha
2019
Autores
Título de la revista
ISSN de la revista
Título del volumen
Editor
Universidad Nacional de Rosario. Facultad de Humanidades y Artes. Escuela de Historia
Resumen
Descripción
En este artículo me propongo demostrar, en primera instancia, que el proceso de puesta en valor del sistema penitenciario de mediados de los años sesenta, lo que las elites gobernantes llamaron “modernización carcelaria”, fue compatible con un uso amplificado de la violencia. Es en tal sentido que la administración del castigo de un número creciente de personas acusadas de cometer delitos políticos formó parte de un sistema represivo cada vez más centralizado. La “modernización carcelaria”, no solo no trajo aparejado el decrecimiento de la violencia del Estado, sino que, por el contrario, se profundizó al calor del ascenso del conflicto social. Específicamente, la trama de la ortopedia carcelaria en los años de la última dictadura militar estuvo obsesivamente unida a la idea de reformar a los “subversivos” con técnicas de disciplinamiento rigurosos, reglamentos requisitorios y restrictivos, y clasificaciones penitenciarias. En tal sentido, y en segunda instancia, me propongo demostrar que los “tratamientos de recuperación” incluyeron a la dimensión de género como un elemento constituyente de la tecnología disciplinadora. La penalización de la condición de género y de la sexualidad fue utilizada como una estrategia para ultrajar a prisioneros y prisioneras y para colocarlos en posición de víctimas y no de adversarios políticos. Así, los cuerpos se transformaron en espacios donde se inscribieron y dirimieron lógicas de poder y se convirtieron, a la vez, en un área de disputa en torno a estas atribuciones. El cuerpo de las mujeres y de los varones prisioneros políticos se delimitó como un territorio ostensible de cuya apropiación dependía el ejercicio del poder, y si bien la destrucción ideológica fue el objetivo prioritario del régimen ésta se consumó de hecho por medio del sistema sexo-género.
In this article my proposal is to, in first instance, demonstrate that the enhancing process of the penitentiary system of the mid 70’s, what the governing elites called “modernization of prison”, was compatible with an amplified utilization of violence. Hence, the penalty’s administration of an increasing number of people being accused of committing political offences took part of a repressive system, each time more centralized. The “modernization of prison”, not only did not bring the decrease of state violence along, but also, in the contrary, brought a deepening in the heat of the rising social conflict. Specifically, the weft of the prison discipline, during the last military dictatorship, was obsessively tied to the idea of reforming the “subversives” with rigorous control techniques, requisite and restrictive regulations and penitentiary classifications. Along these lines and, in second instance, my proposal is to demonstrate that the “recovery treatments” included the gender dimension as a constituent element of disciplinary technology. The criminalization of gender and sexuality was used as a strategy to outrage male and female prisoners and to place them in the position of victims and not as political adversaries. Therefore, the bodies were transformed into spaces where power logics were written and settled and, at the same time, became an area of dispute over these attributions. The body of women and male political prisoners was delimited as an ostensible territory of which appropriation depended of the exercise of power, and despite the fact that the main objective of the regime was the ideological destruction, it was, in fact, consumed through the sex-gender system.
In this article my proposal is to, in first instance, demonstrate that the enhancing process of the penitentiary system of the mid 70’s, what the governing elites called “modernization of prison”, was compatible with an amplified utilization of violence. Hence, the penalty’s administration of an increasing number of people being accused of committing political offences took part of a repressive system, each time more centralized. The “modernization of prison”, not only did not bring the decrease of state violence along, but also, in the contrary, brought a deepening in the heat of the rising social conflict. Specifically, the weft of the prison discipline, during the last military dictatorship, was obsessively tied to the idea of reforming the “subversives” with rigorous control techniques, requisite and restrictive regulations and penitentiary classifications. Along these lines and, in second instance, my proposal is to demonstrate that the “recovery treatments” included the gender dimension as a constituent element of disciplinary technology. The criminalization of gender and sexuality was used as a strategy to outrage male and female prisoners and to place them in the position of victims and not as political adversaries. Therefore, the bodies were transformed into spaces where power logics were written and settled and, at the same time, became an area of dispute over these attributions. The body of women and male political prisoners was delimited as an ostensible territory of which appropriation depended of the exercise of power, and despite the fact that the main objective of the regime was the ideological destruction, it was, in fact, consumed through the sex-gender system.
Palabras clave
Modernización carcelaria, Violencia, Penalización, Género, Sexualidad, Cuerpos, Modernization of prison