‘Always gotta be two mans’: Lifers, risk, rehabilitation, and narrative labour

Abstract

All prisoners have their identity stripped from them and, ultimately, reconstructed by the institutions in which they are incarcerated. However, for life and indeterminately sentenced prisoners the effects of this process, reinforced over extended periods, creates a particular set of burdens. For it is this population, above and beyond that of other prisoners, who need to address the implications of an imposed carceral identity in both navigating the day-to-day life of the prison and securing release. The four core burdens are firstly, an ambiguity on what identity indeterminately sentenced prisoners were supposed to have. Secondly, reconciling an imposed identity that they did not necessarily feel adhered to their pre-established sense of self. Thirdly, recognition that in order to operate or perform within the prison they needed to adopt an institutionally acceptable form of their self. Fourthly, that they had to manage how their performance of self was judged and recorded by the prison. This article aims to contribute to the growing body of work on Narrative Criminology by arguing that these burdens results in what I define as narrative labour.

Narrative Rehabilitation: Manifestation of Chinese and Western Reform Ideals and Practices

“…Fox (1999) drew attention to the narrative struggle during a mandatory cognitive self-change (CSC) treatment program for violent offenders in Vermont, USA, where it was found that any doubt or resistance only further validates the judgment of “faulty” cognition in need of treatment. Warr (2020) found that, for the offenders in his study to be positively regarded by the prison officers and authority as well as to secure release, they needed to understand what was expected of them and to be able to convincingly perform that reformed self, which is confusing for most of them, who can barely understand what “cognitive” means. The demand for them to adopt abstract statements that they may not even comprehend contradicts the promotion of taking personal responsibility.…”

“…Both Chinese and Western assumptions about reform consider that the causes of offending are “lodged in the thought processes, attitudes, decisions, and behavioral propensities of the criminal, these carefully sectioned off from the interpersonal and structural context of the person’s life” (McKendy, 2006, p. 476). While the Chinese reform ideal is built into the Confucian belief in perfectibility and persuasion, Western corrections also work upon a set of underlying assumptions: the Judeo-Christian notion of offenders as being somewhat ill rather than just having made a mistake (Warr, 2020). As it is believed that the control of deviant thoughts/cognition leads to desistance from crime, intersubjective processes of “cognitive social control” can be observed across the cultural divide (Fox, 1999, p. 450).…”

“…transmute the prisoner from a person to a bureaucratic entity” (Warr, 2020, p. 2). Warr (2020) demonstrated how narrative labor is a functional activity for the individual, and it pays off the most when it is performed during engagement in activities that are high in disciplinary capital, which are events that are most visible and can be recorded, and that “communicate some symbolic connotation that achieves the disciplinary constraints the prison seeks to impose” (p. 6). Capital can be traded for goods and services or other forms of capital, and the prison gains disciplinary capital from the narrative contribution made by its offenders, which is secured by an exchange of legal or administrative incentives.…”

“…The offender’s success in showing a prosocial narrative identity is often rewarded with early release or parole (Hall & Rossmanith, 2016). This practice has drawn attention from several scholars seeking to provide a closer examination of its processes and impact, and it has been criticized for its soft coerciveness, unfounded correlation to desistance from crime, and even for causing further cognitive confusion and distortion for the offender (Fox, 1999; Hall & Rossmanith, 2016; Waldram, 2010, 2012; Warr, 2020).…”

‘Tightness’, recognition and penal power

“…At the same time, however, a distinctive quality of these modes of power is that they are subjectifying. Neither straightforwardly coercive nor legitimate (see Garland, 1997), in their 'ideal' form -that is, when they 'work' -they produce subject positions that are adopted by some prisoners without any sense of having been externally imposed, and without cynicism (although see Fleetwood, 2015;Warr, 2020). Thus, some prisoners introduce and describe themselves in terms of their risk level: 'I'm medium', 'I'm 102 [in terms of my risk score]'.…”