71 European Journal of Probation University of Bucharest www.ejprob.ro Vol. 5, No.3, 2013, pp 71 – 88 ISSN: 2006 – 2203 Desistance, reflexivity andrelationality: a case study. Elizabeth Weaver  Abstract This paper presents the analysis of a single life-story drawn from a larger study examining theindividual, relational and structural contributions to the desistance process. The emphasis here is on the contributions of key social relations in ‘Evan’s’ narrative of change. How people relate to one another, and what these relationships mean to them both as individuals and together, are critical aspects of understanding the role of social relations in desistance. This paper concludes by considering how penal practices might generate and sustain the kinds of social capital and reflexive, relational networks relevant to desistance. Key words: Desistance – Relationships – Reflexivity – Reciprocity -Supervision Introduction: Mapping the terrain: socio-theoretical perspectives on desistance Contemporary desistance studies tend to conceptualize the process of giving up crime as being somewhere on a continuum between structure and agency, that is as being influenced to various degrees by external factors (such as housing, finances, employment, relationships) and/or internal or subjective factors (such as changing motivations, aspirations, self- perceptions and self-efficacy), with different theories proposing that one or the other is of particular significance – often at a given time, or in a given situation. Other studies have further sought to identify the temporal process wherein one or other becomes more or less significant in the desistance process (see Farrall and Bowling 1999; LeBel et al. 2008 for example). Across these divergent conceptualizations of the desistance process, while there is a more or less implicit or explicit recognition of the individual as a reflexive subject, limited attention has been given to what processes of reflexivity entail (notable recent exceptions include Farrall et al 2010; King 2012; Vaughan 2007) or to how this reflexivity contributes to identity formation. Such theories therefore fail to consider how individuals‟ reasoning and actions are variously shaped, enabled or constrained by the relational, cultural and social contexts within which they are embedded. For example, theories that stress individual agency are limited in their capacities to explain what triggers reflexivity (see for example Giordano et al 2002; King 2012), and structural theories similarly fail to illuminate how social structures shape individual‟s decisions (see for example Laub and Sampson 2003). This preoccupation with the individual or the structural obfuscates what it means to be human, which is to be a reflexive individual immersed in a relationally and emotionally textured world.  Elizabeth Weaver is lecturer at University of Strathclyde. Email: elizabeth.fawcett@strath.ac.uk