A Tory High Modernism? Grand Plans and Visions of Order in Neoconservative Ontario

Abstract

Trends toward mass incarceration in the United States and elsewhere raise compelling questions about the social purposes of prisons, and their role in the consolidation (and/or privatization) of the neoconservative state. This article examines two moments of penal reform that were historically distinct, but remarkably similar in their shape and intent.

Invested in Prisons: Prison Expansion and Community Development in Canada

“…It is true that conservatives have a long history of relying on new buildings and machines to reinstate older social values. This is the "Tory high modernism" mentioned above, and its influence extends at least from the opening of Kingston Penitentiary in 1835 to the closing of that same institution in 2012 (see McElligott, 2008). The original "regional complex" idea fits pretty clearly into this tradition.…”

“…Everywhere the Harris Conservatives displayed an extraordinary faith in the capacity of buildings and machines to change people's character. This "Tory high modernism" was particularly evident in the reorganization of the province's jails (McElligott, 2008).…”

“…They also produced a recommendation that CSC's 58 prisons should be consolidated into a much smaller number of "regional complexes" (CSC RP, 2007, p. 157;McElligott, 2008). Each of these would confine 1,500-2,000 prisoners -about the size of Ontario's new "superjails" and about three to four times the size of the biggest CSC prison at the time (CSC RP 2007, pp.…”

“…The Panel offered few suggestions about the internal organization of these complexes, but in Ontario and elsewhere the new centralized prisons followed the "tough, no frills" model of the US supermax (Hannah-Moffat & Moore, 2002;McElligott, 2007McElligott, , 2008. The huge size of these buildings, and their heavy reliance on walls, automation, and other impersonal forms of control, meant that every prisoner -regardless of their security level -would likely be treated more brutally than in older institutions.…”

“…This might be construed as a large public subsidy to the host community of Penetanguishene except that, as will be shown below, construction spending and other alleged benefits tend to leave town. In this instance (and others), such upfront spending might be better regarded as a subsidy to the prison management company (Management and Training Corporation), aimed at reducing its costs to make privatization appear more viable (McElligott, 2008). they would otherwise have (Hunter & Wagner, 2007).…”