Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

To outsiders, the surface appearances of prisoner culture often may seem inexplicable and perverse. Two dominant models attempt to explain this culture. The first, variously called the importation or “negative selection” model, sees the culture as the reflection of a fairly preestablished set of norms, values, and behaviors imported into the prison from the streets.

The second, the deprivation or “functional” model, sees the culture as a reaction to what Gresham Sykes (1958) called the “pains of imprisonment.” Critical evaluations of the deprivation model led some researchers, such as John Irwin and Donald Cressey (1962), to challenge the utility of the deprivation model in explaining the prison environment, and focused instead on the nature of prisoners themselves. The importation model shifts the focus away from responses to the deprivations of punishment as the source of inmate culture to the characteristics of prisoners themselves, which they bring with them into the prison.

Unlike deprivation theorists, who saw prisoner culture as arising from prisoners’ attempts to create a normal existence by adapting to abnormal conditions, importation theorists attempt to explain prisoner culture as the mirror of attitudes and behaviors learned on the street and used as cultural building blocks in the prison. Focusing primarily on ultra-masculine male maximum-security institutions, proponents believe that violence, aggression, and other predatory behaviors that characterize prisoner culture, especially in maximum-security prisons, generally are not unique to, developed in, or caused by the prison environment. Instead, the culture is learned on the street and expressed in the prison environment.

What is Imported?

In its simplest form, people who prey on others on the streets also prey on others in the prison. Prison culture reflects an off-balance dance between prey and predators and between predators and the staff who would control them. Inmates use a number of survival mechanisms, such as alliances between predators, and accommodations made between staff, prey, and other predators to establish a workable, if not harmonious, existence. These strategies result from several broad factors beyond the walls that shape prisoner culture. First, prisoners, by definition, have failed to comply with the rules of civil society. Therefore, they continue their resistance to rules and authority in prison. Second, prisoners are seen as possessing an excess of socially undesired characteristics, such as manipulation, willingness to use force to attain goals, low commitment to honesty or truth, and little respect for the well-being of others. Third, prisoners reflect the structure of the streets from which they come. The increase in street gang activity since the 1960s thus becomes the structure for much of prisoners’ social organization, and the gangs compete for power and other resources inside the walls. Finally, prisoners also attempt to continue their street lifestyle in prisons. This results in an underground economy in which contraband such as drugs and alcohol are valued commodities, homemade weapons (shanks) become routine weapons for protection or assault, and inmate groups compete for control of resources.

The ultimate consequence of all these factors is a culture that facilitates the continued social values inside the walls for which the prisoners were originally incarcerated. Conning is valued, violence is condoned or even necessary, success in rule violations is valued, and disciplinary problems are high. Prisoners not only are not rehabilitated, but their original behaviors and values are enforced in the culture.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading