近年来，未成年人犯罪日趋严峻，司法制度的调整也使教育矫治受到广泛关注。但我国教育学与社会学领域对此鲜有相关研究，更不论打开矫治学校的“黑箱”。由不平等范式主导的国外研究，则经常以阶层流动来衡量教育矫治的“荣辱成败”，忽视了矫治学校内文化的多样性，矫治机制的复杂性，以及学生主体意义世界的变化。我国矫治学校“去刑事化”的政策话语也表现出了不同于国外文献中所反映的趋势。
为了突破现有研究范式，呈现中国制度与文化语境下真实的教育矫治样态，本研究以城南学校为个案，经过为期四个月的田野观察，主要探讨了以下问题：在“教”与“罚”的天平中逐渐向教育倾斜的矫治学校还是通向监狱的管道吗？它究竟发挥着什么样的作用？“再社会化”越轨青少年的机制是什么？从学生自我与意义世界看，这些机制有何影响？
研究发现，尽管城南学校的官方话语是向教育的转型，但类监狱的矫治实践仍然占据主导位置。矫治学校首先通过封闭空间和占有时间获得对身体的支配权，打断原先“不正常”的社会化进程，压制与清理在原生世界中生成的自我与身体符号，同时建构起包括操练身体、强化自我凝视、量化规范在内的一套打造模范身体的技术，使纪律成为身体的行为倾向。
除了理性、高效的规训手段，作为父权与法权之双重代理的矫治学校还利用着非常规的事件，行使人格化的专断权力。这些看似低效、任意的实践在福柯理论中被迫隐身，它们的辩证性意涵也被长期忽视。具体而言，“大整顿”作为一种运动型矫治是权力的自我展演、自我修复与自我强化，它利用偶发事件提供的道德优势，灌输服从意识和道德话语。例行化的“打断”技术更是建构了“意料之外，情理之中”的心理状态，使学生将从属地位内化为不容置疑的必然性。
这些矫治技术看似在制造纪律化的统一集体，但实质上是一种对集体的解构，更不同于马卡连柯所打造的作为美学系统的集体。监管者赋予个别学生以“搞”的权力，构建出学生层级体系，把控着学生关系的裁决权。“明”与“暗”相结合的举报制度则利用亚文化价值将学生“原子化”，使个体对主导性制度结构产生依附。而在关于罪错的伦理言说、课堂教学呈现的知识世界、以家庭为核心并向更大范围的社会意识推开的道德话语中，也存在着以重塑和修复为目标的、建构“想象的共同体”的努力。然而，监管者的干预措施，以及学生在缺乏控制的主导性体验和亚文化的影响下所采取的逃避和“装好”的调适策略，都使得主体间的联结摇摇欲坠，具有教育意义的集体也难以在这里生成。矫治学校最终是制造了个体。
教与罚的张力在实践中远比制造个体与制造“想象的共同体”之间的矛盾更为复杂。在城南学校，教与罚的地位竞争不仅是矫治理念的争执，更发展为了身份斗争。改革的推进反而造成了对自身的妨碍。边缘化的社会地位与从内到外的体制性壁垒都压缩着教育的空间，教育贫困的后果却是由学生承担。同样值得关注的是，教与罚中还存在着相互敞开的教育性关系，它凸显于文化回应式的教育实践与目光中的承认。也正是教育者的创造性实践孕育着拯救教育性的可能。
然而，教育性关系终归是脆弱的，“耻感-责任”的矫治机制是城南学校走上的现实路径。以“罪”为核心的缺陷话语旨在压制与贬损越轨青少年们的“高傲”自我，呼唤耻感从而牵制与捆绑他们的“无根”自我。“从罪到耻”意味着使他们体悟到自己的行为造成了对重要他者的损害，并学会成为自我管理的责任主体。但由于矫治学校无法为青少年赋予新的自尊与面子来源，耻感只能将他们导向庸常化，使其顺从、老实地安处于自己的社会位置。矫治学校在这一意义上实现着“再社会化”。

In recent years, juvenile delinquency has become increasingly severe. The adjustments of the judicial system also draw widespread attention to correctional education. However, there is scant related research in the fields of education and sociology in China, not to mention the opening of the “black box” of correctional schools. Research in Western countries, dominated by the paradigm of social inequality, often measures the success or failure of correctional education by social mobility, neglecting the cultural diversity within correctional schools, the complexity of correctional mechanisms, and the changes in the subjective meaning world of students. The policy discourse of “de-criminalization” of correctional schools in China also shows a trend divergent from Western research.
To break through existing research paradigms and present the true state of correctional education in the context of Chinese society, this study takes Chengnan School as a case study. Through four months of field observation, it mainly explores the following questions: Are correctional schools, which are gradually leaning towards education on the balance between “education” and “punishment” still pipelines to prison? What role do they actually play? What are the mechanisms of “re-socialization” for deviant adolescents? From the perspective of students’ self and meaning world, what impacts do these mechanisms have?
The study found that although Chengnan School’s official discourse is transitioning towards education, prison-like correctional practices still dominate. Correctional schools first gain control over students’ bodies through closed spaces and occupation of time, interrupting the previously “abnormal” socialization process, suppressing and clearing self and bodily symbols formed in the home world. Simultaneously, by constructing a set of techniques including physical training, enhanced self-surveillance, and meticulous quantitative norms to create standard bodies, discipline becomes a behavioral tendency of students’ bodies.
In addition to rational and efficient disciplinary methods, correctional schools, as dual agents of paternal authority and legal authority, also employ irregular events to exercise personalized arbitrary power. These seemingly inefficient and arbitrary practices are hidden in Foucault’s theory. Their dialectical significance has also long been ignored. Specifically, “Intense Rectification” as a kind of campaign-styled correction is the self-presentation, self-repair, and self-strengthening of power, using the moral advantage provided by accidental events to instill obedience consciousness and moral discourse. The routine “interruption” techniques further construct a psychological state of “unexpected but reasonable”, making students internalize their subordinate status as an unquestionable inevitability.
These correctional techniques appear to be creating a disciplined unified collective, but in essence, they are a form of deconstruction of the collective, fundamentally different from the collective as an aesthetic system created by Makarenko. Supervisors grant certain students the power to “manage”, building student hierarchy systems and controlling the adjudication of student relationships. The informing system, combining “light” and “dark”, utilizes subcultural values to atomize students, making individuals dependent on the dominant institutional structure. There is also a noteworthy effort to construct “imagined communities” that aim at reshaping and rehabilitation. Through ethical narratives about deviance, the knowledge world presented in the classroom, and moral discourse centered on family and extending to broader social consciousness, Chengnan School intends to reconstruct the social relationships of deviant adolescents and achieve resocialization through moralized “imagined communities”. However, the intervention measures of supervisors, as well as the avoidance and “pretending to be good” adaptation strategies adopted by students under the influence of subcultures and the dominant experience of losing control, have made the inter-subjective connections fragile. An educationally meaningful collective is difficult to form here. Ultimately, what correctional schools create are individuals.
The tension between education and punishment in practice is far more complex than the contradiction between making individuals and making communities. In Chengnan School, the competition between education and punishment is not only a dispute over ideal correctional methods but has also developed into struggles for identity. The advancement of reform has instead hindered itself. The marginalized social status and institutional barriers from within and without compress the space for education, with the consequences of educational poverty borne by the students. It is also worth noting that there are mutually open educational relationships in both education and punishment, mainly manifesting in culturally responsive educational practices and recognition in the gaze. It is precisely the creative practices of educators that nurture the possibility of saving educational values.
However, educational relationships are ultimately fragile. The “shame-responsibility” correction mechanism is the realistic path Chengnan School has taken. The defect discourse centered on “sin” suppresses and diminishes the “proud” self of deviant adolescents, aiming at invoking a sense of shame to restrain and bind their “rootless” self. “From sin to shame” means making them realize their actions have harmed those significant others and learning to become self-managing responsible subjects. However, since correctional schools cannot provide new sources of self-esteem and face, it seems that shame only leads them to ordinariness, making them submissive and docilely settle into their social positions. It is in this sense that correctional schools achieve “re-socialization”.