Difference between revisions of "Pokhorony okurka (Russia and USSR)"

Secondly, informal punishment allows commanders to apply it collectively. Sticking to the formal order of disciplinary action assumes compliance with the principle of personalisation of punishment. Collective punishment, in turn, shapes the mechanism of [[krugovaia poruka]] (joint responsibility) (also see Ledeneva 2006: 91-114), where everyone looks after everyone else in the unit. ''Pokhorony okurka'', in which the entire unit of the guilty soldier must collectively undertake the forced march, induces guilt in the culprit toward the team. Informal punishment employs one of the most potent fears – the fear of social isolation. Given that the harsh conditions in the army require friendship and support, potential deprivation of such support leads to strong self-censorship. Collective punishment is not unique to the Russian army. The same mechanisms are present in the US, for instance. A US Infantry Officer reported that ‘mass punishment has been a part of the military for many years’ (Soler 2015). Scholars analysing the mechanisms of collective sanctions in the US military point out that manifestations of joint responsibility are often quite cruel. Recruits whose violations have frequently provoked the punishment of their peers are sometimes beaten in an institution known as the ‘blanket party’ (Heckathorn 1988: 538). These practices are reflected in iconic films such as ‘Full Metal Jacket’ and ‘Hacksaw Ridge’.

Secondly, informal punishment allows commanders to apply it collectively. Sticking to the formal order of disciplinary action assumes compliance with the principle of personalisation of punishment. Collective punishment, in turn, shapes the mechanism of [[krugovaia poruka]] (joint responsibility) (also see Ledeneva 2006: 91-114), where everyone looks after everyone else in the unit. ''Pokhorony okurka'', in which the entire unit of the guilty soldier must collectively undertake the forced march, induces guilt in the culprit toward the team. Informal punishment employs one of the most potent fears – the fear of social isolation. Given that the harsh conditions in the army require friendship and support, potential deprivation of such support leads to strong self-censorship. Collective punishment is not unique to the Russian army. The same mechanisms are present in the US, for instance. A US Infantry Officer reported that ‘mass punishment has been a part of the military for many years’ (Soler 2015). Scholars analysing the mechanisms of collective sanctions in the US military point out that manifestations of joint responsibility are often quite cruel. Recruits whose violations have frequently provoked the punishment of their peers are sometimes beaten in an institution known as the ‘blanket party’ (Heckathorn 1988: 538). These practices are reflected in iconic films such as ‘Full Metal Jacket’ and ‘Hacksaw Ridge’.

The third reason is that informal punishment is an element of laughter culture or the culture of ʻarmy absurdityʼ (Bannikov 2002: 191-204). The practice of ''pokhorony okurka'' is ostentatiously absurd and grotesque. Besides the fact that it is disproportionately severe to the misconduct committed, it also represents a parody and a social oxymoron, which combine the incompatible – funeral (something meaningful and even sacred for an army) and a cigarette butt (something minor and mundane). Humour and absurdity fulfil several essential functions in the army. First, absurdity is the vehicle of initial army socialisation. In his book ‘Asylums’, Erving Goffman (1961: 14) states that every total institution, and the army in particular, ʻmortifiesʼ the self by, among other things, destroying the perception of causality and logic upon entering it. At the same time, humour and irony are ingredients in socio-psychological relaxation. ‘Humour saves a person from the oppressive awareness of his subordinate position and is given to man as a moment of inner freedom’ (Bannikov 2002: 203). While in the first months, absurd humour can play a ‘socialising’ role, it can be a tool of relaxation later on.  

The third reason is that informal punishment is an element of laughter culture or the culture of ʻarmy absurdityʼ (Bannikov 2002: 191-204). The practice of ''pokhorony okurka'' is ostentatiously absurd and grotesque. Besides the fact that it is disproportionately severe to the misconduct committed, it also represents a parody and a social oxymoron, which combine the incompatible – funeral (something meaningful and even sacred for an army) and a cigarette butt (something minor and mundane). Humour and absurdity fulfil several essential functions in the army. First, absurdity is the vehicle of initial army socialisation. In his book ‘Asylums’, Erving Goffman (1961: 14) states that every total institution, and the army in particular, ʻmortifiesʼ the self by, among other things, destroying the perception of causality and logic upon entering it. At the same time, humour and irony are ingredients in socio-psychological relaxation. ‘Humour saves a person from the oppressive awareness of his subordinate position and is given to man as a moment of inner freedom’ (Bannikov 2002: 203). While in the first months, absurd humour can play a ‘socialising’ role, it can be a tool of relaxation later on.  

The fourth reason is that the role of informal punishment is not only to punish but rather to normalize the subject in a ‘disciplinary institution’ (Foucault 1979) or to disrupt self-perception in a ‘total institution’ (Goffman 1961). Besides breaking the link between cause and effect, informal punishment also uses more subtle ways of disruption of the self. As Goffman states, ‘one of the most telling ways in which one’s economy of action can be disrupted is the obligation to request permission or supplies for minor activities that one can execute on one’s own on the outside, such as smoking, shaving, going to the toilet, telephoning, spending money, or mailing letters’ (Goffman 1961: 41). Being once subjected to the practice of ''pokhorony okurka'', the soldier will act more carefully next time – he will ask his commander for permission to smoke.

The fourth reason is that the role of informal punishment is not only to punish but rather to normalize the subject in a ‘disciplinary institution’ (Foucault 1979) or to disrupt self-perception in a ‘total institution’ (Goffman 1961). Besides breaking the link between cause and effect, informal punishment also uses more subtle ways of disruption of the self. As Goffman states, ‘one of the most telling ways in which one’s economy of action can be disrupted is the obligation to request permission or supplies for minor activities that one can execute on one’s own on the outside, such as smoking, shaving, going to the toilet, telephoning, spending money, or mailing letters’ (Goffman 1961: 41). Being once subjected to the practice of ''pokhorony okurka'', the soldier will act more carefully next time – he will ask his commander for permission to smoke.

Informal punishment is a natural element of total institutions. As long as the army retains the basic features of total institutions, practices of informal punishment will persist. An all-volunteer military can significantly limit the scope of such practices since it disrupts the central feature of total institutions – the inability to choose where, when and how to work, to sleep and to relax.

Informal punishment is a natural element of total institutions. As long as the army retains the basic features of total institutions, practices of informal punishment will persist. An all-volunteer military can significantly limit the scope of such practices since it disrupts the central feature of total institutions – the inability to choose where, when and how to work, to sleep and to relax.