Writing a Two-Part Response

As you have seen, the reaction response includes a partial summary or is written with the
assumption that readers have read the original piece. However, your instructor may prefer that
you separate each form—for example, by presenting a clear, concise summary followed by a
reaction response. This format is especially useful for critical examination of a text or for
problem-solving assignments because it requires you to understand and repeat another’s
views or experiences before responding. The two-part approach also helps you avoid the
common problem of writing only a summary of the text when your instructor wants you to
both summarize and evaluate or otherwise react. In writing a summary and a reaction it is a
good idea to ask your instructor if you should separate your summary from your response.

Total Institutions: A Summary and a Reaction Michael Balleau

Part I: Summary
In “Total Institutions,” Seymour Feshbach and Bernard Weiner explain that a
total institution encompasses the lives of its residents, who share three common
traits: The residents must do everything in the same place, must do things together,
and must do things according to the institution’s schedule. The institution takes away
the residents’ roles they had in society, takes away their appearance by issuing
uniforms, takes away their personal property by confiscation, and takes away their
privacy by making life communal. The authors say that some residents adapt
negatively by developing psychological problems, but most form relationships and
new roles within the institution. Upon release, these residents must learn to function
in the free world all over again as they start at the bottom of society. This shift “may
be further demoralizing.”

Part 2: Reaction [Page number documentation was not required.]

The basic ideas in “Total Institutions” gave me an insight into the behavior of
my older cousin. Let’s call him George. He spent almost five years in prison for a
white-collar crime he committed at the bank where he worked. Before George was
incarcerated, he was an individual, almost to the extreme of being a rebel. When he
got out, he was clearly an institutionalized person. Following the pattern of
institutionalized behavior laid out in “Total Institutions,” George had become a group
person without knowing it. Many of “the habits needed to function in the outside
world [had] been lost.” Even at home after he returned, he had to be around people.
He wanted some of us to be with him all the time, and he liked the noise of a radio
or television. When we went out, he found it difficult to make decisions, even in
buying a simple item, such as a shirt, or ordering food in a restaurant. Once when he
was driving, we were stopped by a police officer because his car’s taillight was out,
and George became transformed into someone who was on automatic pilot in
answering questions. It was his “institutional personality.” Minutes later, he seemed
hostile and had bad, unwarranted things to say about the officer. Altogether, George
did five years in prison, and it took him about three more to adjust before he seemed
like sort of what he was before. He was certainly never the same. As the authors say,
every person reacts differently to “total institutions,” and some institutions are more
extreme than others, but each one has a profound effect on the resident’s individuality.