The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1.

February 2011
ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2311.2010.00645.x

Understanding Violence in the

Society of Captives: Sykes Meets
Bourdieu in Prison
ANKE NEUBER
Senior Research Fellow, University of Kassel, Germany
Abstract: Looking at violence in prison from a sociological perspective, Sykess Society
of Captives remains a classic in penology. Influenced by structural-functionalism, he
describes the great influence of the prison structure on its inmates and emphasises the
importance of violence for the stabilisation of the prison social order. This article will
re-examine Sykess assumptions about the relationship between structure and action,
referring to Bourdieu and a biographical approach using a case example from a
qualitative longitudinal study with male inmates in young offenders institutions in
Germany. It concludes by asking how the meaning of violence in prison changes, looked at
from these different theoretical perspectives.
Keywords: violence; prison; structural functionalism; habitus; biography

Classical, as well as current, prison studies emphasise the major importance

of violence or the threat of violence (Bereswill 1999, 2001, 2002b;
Butler 2008; Edgar and ODonnell 1998; Edgar, ODonnell and Martin
2003; Kersten and von Wolffersdorff-Ehlert 1980; Neuber 2009;
Sim 1994; Sykes 1958/1999). Looking at the sociological explanations for
this phenomenon one will find considerable continuity across three
theoretical models (cf. Grapendaal 1990): The deprivation model
(for example, McCorkle and Korn 1954; Sykes 1958/1999), the importation model (Giallombardo 1966; Irwin and Cressey 1962; Ward and
Kassebaum 1965) and the integration model (for example, Thomas
and Petersen 1977; Thomas, Petersen and Zingraff 1978). They deal with
the question of why violent behaviour exists in the prison subculture.
Does it grow out of the structure of the closed institution (as assumed
in the deprivation model) or is the inmates readiness to use violence
imported from the outside world (as in the importation model)? It becomes
apparent that in research, the reasons for violence in prison are neither
seen solely on the part of the institution nor on the part of the subject.
This exclusiveness was abrogated in the integration model by relating

1
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

the dichotomous assumptions with each other. From this point of

view subjects actions are neither seen as determined by structure nor as
totally unaffected by structural conditions. At first glance, for the study of
violence in prison this perspective appears very fruitful. However, it is
noticeable that a theoretical framework of the integration model rarely
exists except in the study by Sparks, Bottoms and Hay (1996). They also
detect a dissatisfying dualism (structure and action; objectivism and
subjectivism) in the literature on prisons (p.72) and deal with the aspect of
order and disorder in prison by mediating the relationship between social
structure and personal agency, referring to Giddenss social theory. In the
following, I will not refer to Giddens but to another social theorist
Bourdieu who, like Giddens, criticises this dualism. I will ask: How can
the prison structure and the inmates action theoretically be related to each
other?
The theoretical framing of the integration or, more precisely, the
mediation between structure and action, requires a broadening of the view
and a thought experiment with a long tradition in prison research:
comprehending the inmate group as a society (see also Sparks, Bottoms
and Hay 1996, pp.33, 37). Mary Bosworth (1999) summarises this with
reference to Cressey as follows:
In such work, the prison was perceived to be both a micro society, in which all
elements had a function, and a microcosmos of the world outside the prison walls in
which the conditions and processes in the broader society are observable. (Cressey,
in Clemmer (1940, p.vii); see also Bosworth (1999, p.20))

By looking at the inmate group as a society, new findings about the

meaning of violence inside and outside prison can be gained. In the
following, Sykess (1958/1999) ethnographic study The Society of Captives,
based in a maximum-security prison from the 1950s in the US, will briefly
be considered. Next, the limit of Sykess approach in theorising the
relationship between structure and action will be extended with Bourdieus concept of social space and habitus. While Sykes proceeds from a
structural functionalistic view of society, regarding the prison as an
operating social system which can clarify our ideas about man and
his behavior (Sykes 1958/1999, p.vii), Bourdieu emphasises the differentiations of society and considers relational power relations. With the
concept of habitus, Bourdieu offers a theoretical possibility for conceiving the relationship between structure and action as mediated. Hence,
Bourdieus concept is very helpful but it does not consider the conflicts
in the subjects acquisition of the world. Therefore, a concept of biography
as a conflict-oriented approach to the mediation between structure and
action will be developed. Here, biography is meant as a theoretical concept, but in order to demonstrate the reach of the three theoretical
perspectives, the author will finally draw on a single case study with a
young male prisoner in a juvenile detention centre in Germany1 for
illustrative purposes, before drawing a conclusion (for methodological and
methodical implications of biography see the detailed explanations in
Neuber (2009)).

2
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

Sykess Society of Captives

Sykess central questions are: How do prisons shape inmates behaviour?
How does a prison subculture emerge? How do inmates adapt to the
structure of the prison? From his point of view, prisons are social systems: a
society within a society and an inmate group with its own tempo and
dynamic. Sparks, Bottoms and Hay (1996, pp.434) are clearly correct in
criticising Sykess vague, and probably misleading, conception of the
prison/society interface and that he does not consider adequately that the
boundary is: far more permeable than it appears (Sykes 1958/1999, p.8).
Sykes draws attention to the internal logic of the society of captives and
shows that social order in prison is produced by inmates conflicts. In his
study he describes the society of captives patterns of interaction,
accompanied by the inmates role-shaped patterns of behaviour.
For Sykes, the decisive aspect for the powerful internal dynamic are the
five different deprivations the inmates have to endure: the loss of liberty,
the deprivation of goods and services, the deprivation of heterosexual
relationships, the deprivation of autonomy and the deprivation of security
(Liebling and Maruna 2005, pp.56; Sykes 1958/1999, pp.6378). Sykes
(1958/1999) calls the inmates experiences of deprivation and their coping
strategies as pains of imprisonment (p.64). The pains of imprisonment:
form the uneven bedrock on which the social order of the prison is built
(Western 2007, p.xii). Thus, great effectiveness has been attributed to the
deprivations. The pains of imprisonment go far beyond the individuals
anxiety. Sykes (1958/1999) calls them an attack at a deep psychological
level (p.131). This feeling can only be mitigated by the patterns of social
interaction among the prisoners.
To examine these patterns of social interaction, Sykes (1958/1999) turns
towards the inmates social roles, which are reflected in the prison argot
(p.86). The following quote shows how Sykes imagines the patterns of
behaviour:
Argot roles are in fact generalized behavioral tendencies and the playing of a
particular role by a particular prisoner is often a matter of degree. Furthermore,
some inmates may play one role in the industrial shops, let us say, and another role
in the Wing. A prisoner may quickly assume one role on first entering the institution
and then shift to another role at a later point in time. But this is simply to reaffirm
that the patterns of behavior which I have described are social roles rather than
personality traits and that we are interested in the behavior of inmates as a system of
action rather than as a collection of individual characteristics. (p.106)

In this quote it becomes apparent that Sykes describes the inmates

behaviour with the assumption of roles which vary according to time and
space. His map of the inmate social system (p.84) shows that the roles are
related in dependency on each other. Due to the inmates role-shaped
patterns of behaviour the society of captives exists as a rigid hierarchy. In
contrast to Sykes, Crewe (2009, p.300), as well as Sparks, Bottoms and Hay
(1996), emphasise that there was almost no leadership or ruling class and
the hierarchy was non-rigid and not steeply stratified. Sykes describes the
dynamics, the stress and painful experiences of being incarcerated in his

3
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

empirical work with the pains of imprisonment, but he tries to situate his
results in a theoretical framework that does not adequately capture the
dynamics of the society of captives. Most importantly, the ambivalences
inside the inmates social role are unseen in his map of the inmate social
system.
The gap between Sykess theoretical assumptions and his empirical
results also influence his perspective on violence in prison: he emphasises
the major importance of violence for the stabilisation of the prison social
order. Each inmate has to react to violence and the inmates can never feel
safe. Violence is part of the social roles the inmates adopt in pursuing their
own interests.
According to Sykes, the development of a violent subculture is closely
linked to the pains of imprisonment. The violent behaviour of the society of
captives is the inmates answer to the deprivations. So, for Sykes, the
development of violence in prison is based on the institutional structure.
At the same time, violence is closely related to his description of the
consequences of deprivation to the painful and conflicting experiences of
incarceration. What does this mean for research on the meaning of
violence in prison? According to Bereswill (2004b), Sykes highlights: the
psychosocial patterns of coping with imprisonment without viewing these
patterns only one-sided from a psychological or individualized perspective
(p.94, own translation). Within Sykess rigid concept of social roles, the
ambivalent and conflicting experiences of imprisonment can not be
comprehended. Therefore, it is not surprising that Sykess empirical work
has stood the test of time far better than his theoretical framework. To
examine the dynamics of the society of captives, Sykess perspective will be
expanded with Bourdieus concept of social space and habitus.

Bourdieus Concept of Social Space and Habitus

Bourdieu also refers in his theory to the idea of sociology as a social
topography (Bourdieu 1982, p.277). He compares social space to a
topographic map in much the same way that Sykes describes the society of
captives as a map of the inmate social system. Whereas Sykes portrays the
inmates hierarchy as rigid, for Bourdieu, social space wields constraints
but is not static. Based on their position in social space, individuals are
involved in an ongoing struggle among themselves for change (Bourdieu
1992, pp.367). Distinctions are made by a combination of the varying
degrees of social, economic, and cultural capital (for this argument
referring to prisons, see Crewe (2009, p.259)).
Transferring his concept of social space to the society of captives (Sykes
1958/1999), the described dynamics and the constant threat of falling
down from ones position in prison from ones position in the inmate
hierarchy open up a helpful perspective for analysing the inmate group:
What dynamics in the inmates social space become visible? Which forms of
capital are relevant? How does distinction occur? How is violence an issue
in the social space of the inmate group?

4
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

For Bourdieu, the dynamic in social space arises through the struggle
for distinction and the search for reciprocal acceptance at the same time. In
order to describe this reciprocal acceptance, Bourdieu brings a fourth kind
of capital into play: symbolic capital, for example, prestige, honour or
recognition. This symbolic form of capital has to be perceived and
recognised as legitimate (Bourdieu 1985, p.22).
The major importance of symbolic capital as a resource of distinction
raises the question of the meaning of the forms of capital in the inmate
group. One can argue that because of the lack of social, economic, and
cultural capital in the inmate group, the symbolic capital becomes a more
important means of distinguishing between individuals. This argument is
also emphasised by Monica Barry (2006) in her research on youth crime.
She distances herself from Bourdieus assumption that the accumulation of
symbolic capital requires both durability and official legitimisation of the
wider society. Referring to young adults, Barry argues:
in the possible absence of other forms of capital, symbolic capital is also a viable and
vital source of identity, status, recognition, reputation and power within the
friendship group and although not necessarily durable, can accrue once legitimated
by other young people in the short term rather than by the wider society in the long
term. (p.40)

Although the inmate group is not a friendship group, her argument can
be transferred to the prison context. From this perspective, violence can be
understood as symbolic capital which is closely linked to the social position
in the inmates hierarchy.
Besides Bourdieus concepts of social space and distinctions made
because of different degrees of capital, his approach offers two more
advantages. First, with his concept of habitus he theorises the relationship
between actor and social structure as mediated (Bourdieu 1992, p.31). The
habitus concept makes clear that human beings as agents are determined
by structure in their action but at the same time structures are
(re)produced by their actions. Second, the concept of habitus expresses a
paradigm shift towards the theory of social roles (Krais and Gebauer 2002,
p.66). Sykes refers to, and offers, a different understanding of action: while
social role theory reduces the subjects action to a model of rationality
which is orientated to a rational choice model, the concept of habitus
describes a renunciation from the notion of action as a result of conscious
decisions.
This is a decisive aspect examining the meaning of violence. If violence
is part of the social role as Sykes assumes, then violence is a conscious and
rational action. Thereby, only a certain form of violence can be considered:
as a choice to achieve certain purposes. Sutterlu
ty (2004, p.105) questions
this assumption and emphasises that violent actions often occur under
uncertain and imponderable circumstances. In a conflict one cannot
predict in advance what choices will be taken and what the consequences
may be (Neuber 2008). Bourdieus understanding of action as habitual
implies that violence is not only rational and intentional, but also has
unconscious aspects (see, also, Gadd 2000, 2003).

5
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

However, if the unconscious is not understood as habitual, as in

Bourdieu, but as dynamic (conflicting contents and affects are kept away
from the conscious) as in psychoanalysis (Saller 2002), Bourdieus
theoretical approach is limited: it does not theorise the active acquisition
of the world from a conflict-oriented perspective. To grasp the unconscious
and conflicting moments of violence adequately, the meaning of violence in
prison needs to be explored by taking a different perspective on the
mediation of structure and agency or institution and subject into account.
One such approach, a biographical perspective which considers the
contradictions and ambivalences in the subject, is discussed below.
A Conflict-Oriented Model of Biography
Against the antagonism of individual and society in Sykess role theory, the
concept of biography does not comprehend this relationship as a dualism
but as a constellation of tension or a conflict relationship between social
structure and subject-related action. Hence, biography as a theoretical
concept is understood as an intersection of individual and society (Alheit
and Dausien 1991).
Crewe (2009) also emphasises the importance of a biographical
perspective taking into account both subjective experiences and structural
constraints. He updates Sykess work with an ethnographic study in a
medium-security mens training prison in England. He shows how the
modern prison exercises power by individualising the prisoner community
and demanding particular forms of compliance and engagement. While
Sykes examines the prisoners relationships within the inmate group,
Crewe regards the inmates relationship to institutional power as more
significant. Considering prisoners life-stories he develops a typology of
adaptive styles (enthusiasts, pragmatists, stoics, retreats and players),
proving how prisoners experience and respond differently to current
penal practices and the pains of imprisonment. With his work, Crewe
offers a fruitful understanding for prisoners experiences neither as
personal traits nor as a structural constraint but as a mode of adaption
shaped by institutional conditions and biographical experiences.
In what follows, biography is approached from a psychoanalytical
perspective as a multi-layered synthesis; a synthesis of conscious and
unconscious impulses and past and present experiences (Bereswill 2004a,
p.14; cf. Bereswill 2007; Gadd and Jefferson 2007; Koesling and Neuber
2007). This concept is in contrast to the current widespread assumption of
biography research that views biography as a mere result of piled-up
experiences and as a linear and chronological development (for example,
Schulze 2006; Schu
tze 1984). From the authors perspective the
psychodynamic structure of the subject is understood to be in a complex
relational interaction with institutional and societal structures. Moreover,
this relationship is characterised by constant contradictions, frictions and
intersections between internal and external structures. This implies that
one needs to consider the concept of biography as a mediator between
structure and action, between institution and subject, as in Bourdieu. Yet,

6
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

in contrast to the concept of habitus, one also needs to account for the
conflicting acquisition of the world.
Considering the acquisition of the world as conflicting, what dynamics
become visible? How is violence an issue in the inner world of the subject?
On the one hand, the meaning of violence is integrated in the social reality of
the prison and the rigid structure of the institution produces rigid patterns
of action. On the other hand, a conflict-oriented biographical perspective
seeks out the subjective meaning of violence. This meaning is closely related
to institutional dynamics and, therefore, to collective patterns of action. The
crucial point is that both the collective and the subjective dimensions are
intertwined but not equivalent. This perspective on violence enables one to
look at relationships between institutional structures and subjective ways of
acquisition; between the influence of symbolic order or cultural constructions and psychic resources of coping. If the conflicting moment of this
relationship is focused, the meaning of violence changes and an approach to
a deeper understanding of violence in prison will be revealed (Bereswill
2002a, 2003a, 2003b, 2006; Crewe 2009; Crewe and Maruna 2006; Maruna
2001; Neuber 2008, 2009). To show the range of each theoretical approach
they will be related to a case example.2
The Ball Busters Conflict of Powerlessness and Shame An Empirical
Approach
The following case example Benjamin Schreiber3 is taken from the
qualitative longitudinal study The Consequences of Incarceration
conducted at the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony (see
note 1) involving interviews with young men who have been imprisoned in
Germany (Bereswill 2004b; Koesling 2008; Neuber 2009).4 Benjamin
Schreiber is 18 years old when he is interviewed for the first time. He is
convicted for robbery, burglaries and violations of the narcotic law. During
his imprisonment he committed grievous bodily harm to an inmate.
The meaning of violence in prison for Benjamin Schreiber is best
reflected in the following quotation in which he talks about conflicts in the
inmate group: so when somebody hits me, I gotta hit back. [. . .] when it
cannot be settled with words anymore, that is when I realise he wants to do
the first blow, then I have to defend myself . (I)5
For Benjamin, hitting is a necessary means of self-defence and violent
behaviour is a natural element of his self-image. Remarkable in Benjamins
narration is the tight connection between the use of force as a social
constraint and the importance of honour, which becomes especially clear
when he talks about a violent crime he committed to a fellow inmate in the
next quotation. From his point of view it was an episode in which logically
and inevitably he had to defend his younger brothers honour. His
account of the event makes clear that the brothers loss of honour threatens
his own:
The guy who was in the wing with me told everyone like yeah, his brother and so
on, and so on, hes an idiot, puts up with everything. And my brother is only fifteen

7
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

years old, and that guy was nineteen or so. Yes and then I grabbed him and made
him explain himself and consequently I had a fight with him. It started off too
violent, I mean for him. . . . He had skull fracture, (I: Oh) a lacerated wound at the
ear (I: Hmhm) and here somehow it was the skull, but it was smashed five
millimetres or so, could only be operative or something, yes, police came within,
cause I beat him in the cell, they took articles with them, cause they thought I used
an object to hit him, but I didnt, and they found that out too, that it was not the
object. (I)

The matter-of-fact, almost medical tone of the description suggests a

sporting and technical relationship with violence. At the same time, the
passage shows Benjamins attitude towards insults: the ridiculing of weaker
(smaller) persons is dishonourable and has to be paid for. In this sense, he
understands his actions as a logical revenge it serves to re-establish the
brothers honour, but also to demonstrate his own strength and ability to
assert himself. Accordingly, Benjamin does not deal with the consequences
of his act of violence for the victim, but with the insult done to his brother
and therefore to him. Thus, his offence is not only legitimate but Benjamin
describes with a certain pride how he seriously injured an inmate with his
bare hands.
The construct of honour in this quotation is mainly about refusal of
respect and forcing respect from others, as well as rejecting humiliation,
not least to protect the self-image (for the search for respect in prison see
Butler (2008); for a differentiation of forms of respect see Crewe (2009,
pp.2489)). From Benjamins point of view, the tight connection of violence
and honour guarantees a stable position in the inmate group. Thinking
traditionally, the defence of families honour is a task for men who
legitimate violence. In prison there is also the fact that the family has major
importance. Benjamin himself refers to his family as sacred. At this point,
it appears that his self-image as a victorious lone fighter is closely related to
the desire for an emotional relationship of recognition (for more details of
the concept of recognition see Barry (2006); Gadd (2006); Honneth
(1996); Neckel (1991)). Hence, his active recourse to the ideal of rescuing
the (family) honour refers to an underlying desire and conflict (Bereswill
2003a).
Benjamins strong and invulnerable self-construction as a solitary man
of honour, ready to use violence, regularly intersects with his narration
about the pains of imprisonment. Benjamins fury with officials is central.
He talks indignantly about repeated conflicts with officers, in which a
biographical conflict of recognition and performance becomes apparent
(Bereswill 2003a). This affective part of the honourable self-defence
appears in a quotation from the beginning of the interview about his prison
experiences in which Benjamin talks about a body search following the visit
of his parents. They witness the officer slipping on rubber gloves:
Yes and then of course, the situation sufficed to embarrass you anyway, that they
should see me there, well there were also some moments when the officers came in
with gloves on, had just pulled on the glove and then said yeah, you have to go
now. Because then they searched me. (I)

8
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

The institutional practice endangers Benjamins reputation concerning his

own family the motif of (family) honour corresponds with the feeling of
shame and embarrassment. Several dimensions to shame6 are involved
here: Benjamin feels ashamed in front of his family because his humiliation
by the institution becomes visible. It might be that he is afraid, that he
makes his family ashamed because of his imprisonment. It becomes clear
that the subjective feeling of embarrassment is related to a network of social
relationships, in which the refusal of recognition is tangible (Neckel 1991,
p.16).
So far, the aforementioned constellations of honour, shame, fury and
powerlessness, which are related to family relationships and institutional
experiences, correspond with the experiences of conflict Benjamin
mentions in his biographical construction. It is remarkable that he, for
whom family has a central meaning, begins his narrative with various hints
about school and kindergarten. The first detailed account in the interview
is concerned with school, and very soon Benjamin talks about his
difficulties in the institution: he had been downgraded and only met the
requirements for starting school at the second attempt. Later on, he
changes school several times, prompted by thefts, blackmailing, or violent
behaviour.
Like the prison, school is a conflict-ridden context from two
perspectives: on the one hand, there are Benjamins difficulties with
learning and with the teachers, on the other hand, he quarrels with his
fellow pupils. Just as in his accounts of prison, Benjamin understands these
two areas of conflict to be entirely different frames of reference, from
which he might emerge the successful winner or the humiliated loser. His
acts of revenge towards the school representatives cannot obscure the fact
that he has been humiliated by them.
Benjamin is troubled by being an outsider during the lessons. His being
prepared for violence and his readiness to take concrete measures can be
understood as an attempt to compensate by proving his capability. When
asked about the experience of losing a fight, he explains:
Well for me it was as if, I dunno, [as if you] put a billion on something and lost. (both
laugh) Yes, yes. I mean, you did, I certainly tried to defeat him, right? For me it was
the only cause, defeat, defeat. When I tried to defeat and lost instead it was as if I
had gambled and lost. So the wounds, when I had a black eye or broken noses or
something, that was not important for me. (II)

This shows another dimension of violence in Benjamin Schreibers life: by

his brutality, he satisfies a need for achievement, describing it in terms of
the quality of competition and gambling. At this point, there is an inner
relationship between contrasting figures. There is a little boy who is too
playful to start school, the child for whom the demands of school are too
much and who cannot defend himself against the overpowering institution. And there is the tough guy who frightens his social surroundings and
renders them helpless. At the same time, he is being excluded and caught
up in a spiral of sanctions.

9
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

The decisive moment in Benjamins attitude towards violence is the use

he makes of his ability to endure and inflict pain. This ability serves as a
resource to fight off humiliations and feelings of shame. Again, the motif of
family honour comes into play. Benjamin idealises his family, to be precise:
his father. In doing so, he draws a picture that differs strikingly from all
existing cliches concerning the socialisation of delinquents. Cheerful play
with the father, fairy-tale videos, no violence in the family, and a
harmonious parental relationship this is how the family can be depicted
on the one hand. It becomes clear that Benjamin does not dwell on
stereotypes and cliches when he talks of his childhood. Remembering
family outings, he vividly describes his fathers enthusiasm for playing. The
family ideal is crumbling: when one of Benjamins siblings dies, his mother
withdraws while the remaining children try to comfort her. Just as it does
not become clear what exactly happened, we are also left in the dark about
why Benjamins parents divorce later. Benjamin does not know or he
might not want to say in order to protect the family ideal. Facing this
crumbling idyll, it can be said that Benjamin had to struggle through life on
his own from an early age. As we saw, this struggle contains a very concrete
and violent dimension of despairing self-assertion.
What does such a biographical approach provide for understanding
violence in the society of captives in comparison with Sykess and
Bourdieus theoretical framework?
Discussion
Sykes draws attention to the powerful and violently-shaped structure of the
prison institution in order to understand the meaning of violence in
prison. His pioneering work has been a crucial catalyst for contemporary
prison research with his elaboration of the society of captives (see, for
example, Crewe 2005, 2007, 2009). Sykes is clearly right in that the
deprivations he identifies, accompanied by conflicting and painful
experiences of imprisonment, promote violence, and that violence then
structures the social order of the prison. It is important, though, to see that
Crewe (2009) emphasises that violence was not the key component in the
pecking order (p.270) or primary basis of prestige (p.299). From Sykess
point of view Benjamin Schreiber is the classical ball buster: Blatant
disobedience, physical and verbal assaults on the officials, the constant
creation of disturbances (Sykes 1958/1999, p.99). Yet, Sykess functionalist
explanation is far too rigid in its presumptions. Or as Crewe (2009) says:
In other words, context matters and any typology that presents prisoners
in static terms fails to account for the fluidities in behaviour that can occur
according to the institutional context (and the personal life-stage), albeit
within the constraints of biography and personal resources (p.151).
Beyond the chosen case example of Benjamin Schreiber, our longstanding qualitative research in juvenile detention centres in Germany
shows that despite the violently-shaped structure of the prison, violence is
not a resource of action for every inmate (for details of the study see note
1). Furthermore, the inmate hierarchy is much more dynamic than it

10
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

appears from Sykess perspective of structural functionalism and role

theory.
Bourdieus theoretical concept of social space and habitus grasps this
dynamic. The wrangling over positions in the inmates social space can be
understood theoretically, as well as the young mens self-willed dealing with
the prison structure and their room for manuvre. Viewed from
Bourdieus theoretical framework, the inmate hierarchy loses its rigid,
static nature. The inmates processes of interchange and distinction
through different kinds of capital and the meaning of violence in these
processes can be examined. Bourdieu describes the processes of distinction
and the search for reciprocal acceptance at the same time as the
development for the dynamic in the social space a dynamic which Sykes
(1958/1999) had already described when he emphasised the inmates
solidarity in opposition to the officials and the war of all against all (p.82)
within the inmate group at once. This Hobbesian view of a war of all
against all Sykes grasps has been relativised by Sparks, Bottoms and Hay
(1996):
The sociology of prison life must seek a more nuanced conception of problems of
order in captivity than either of these stark alternatives. One cannot but accept that
prisons do generate important forms of conflict, at both collective and individual
levels. Some of these are momentary and extremely violent, others are chronic and
intractable. (p.36)

When looking through Bourdieus eyes onto Benjamin Schreibers selfnarration the importance of violence as symbolic capital becomes apparent.
The meaning of violence from his perspective is a struggle for honour,
reputation, recognition and respect. Symbolic capital provides for a high
position in the inmate hierarchy.
Furthermore, Bourdieu makes clear that inmates cannot adapt to, and
remove themselves from, social roles at will. With his concept of habitus he
offers a theoretical tool with which to interpret structure and action as
mediated. In the habitus, the experiences of the agents appear; the habitus
is simultaneously both cause and result of group distinctions. If this
perspective is referred to the initially-mentioned three models (deprivation, importation and integration) one can see that Bourdieu provides a
useful framework for theorising the integration model with his mediation
between structure and action. But Crewe (2009) is clearly right in saying
that a perspective which combines structural characteristics and biographical experiences makes it difficult to generalise: how the institution
affects the individual, and how the individual shapes and navigates their
environment. There is no simple model of prisonization (p.458). Looking
at the case example of Benjamin Schreiber one can see that the structure of
the prison promotes violence. He talks about constant conflicts with
officials and he acts violently against inmates. His fights provide a high
position for him in the inmate hierarchy. At the same time it is clear
that Benjamins acting in the institution is not only a result of being
incarcerated. Coping with imprisonment is a question of habitus or of
biographical processes: for Benjamin this is linked to his experiences with

11
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

institutions and his family. Yet, the deeper meaning of violence is not
recognisable within the concept of habitus because it does not theorise the
active acquisition of the world. It only becomes apparent within a conflictoriented concept of biography which traces the unconscious and
conflicting moments of violence adequately.
If we look at the meaning of violence for Benjamin Schreiber as a
defence of honour against the background of his biographical experiences
of conflict, a deeper meaning becomes apparent: Benjamin Schreibers
bemoaned loss of a carefree childhood points to two tracks accompanying
his constant fight for acknowledgement. One of the tracks leads to the
discrepancy between family history and family image. He demands social
acknowledgement and respectability for the family even after its break-up,
suggesting how strongly the family is tied to his own self-image. The
second track consists of repeated scenarios of overtaxing at school which
are not to be underestimated concerning their influence on Benjamins
patterns of action.
Violence becomes the result of an angry self-defence against official
institutional norms. Again, Benjamin does not meet the demands of the
institution, at the same time depending on institutional acknowledgement.
It is part of his biographical pattern of action that he forfeits being
acknowledged by falling back on violence but it is also part of the way he
is treated by the institution. This dynamic proves to be an interactive
trap which is reproduced in the prison context. Violence, to Benjamin Schreiber, is a category of identity. This category is compulsively unambiguous and only just covers up childlike fears of failure and
loss.
What do the previous theoretical and empirical reflections mean for the
relationship between structure and action, subject and institution? How
can we understand violence in the prisoner society? If we look at the
meaning of violence in prison from the three theoretical perspectives we
see that violence in the inmates society is more than just action determined
by the structure of the institutions or part of the social role each inmate
adopts. Furthermore, violence in prison can not only be understood by
symbolic orders and cultural constructions and as symbolic capital. Even in
the closed institution of the prison, in which violence is the norm, violence
underlies a biographical Eigensinn7 and the meaning of violence is closely
related to biographical experiences of conflict. With a conflict-oriented
concept of biography, Sykess pains of imprisonment could be framed
theoretically. This perspective draws attention to the biographical coping
with imprisonment and, therefore, opens up a different approach from the
integration model.8

Notes
1 This qualitative study The Consequences of Incarceration is a longitudinal study that
was conducted at the Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony (KFN),
Germany, between 1998 and 2004. The qualitative part was directed by Mechthild
Bereswill and funded by the Volkswagen Foundation. The project focused on

12
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

3
4
5

7
8

biographical processes of coping with imprisonment and the (re-)integration of young

men. From September 2005 until September 2007 learning processes have been
explored in the qualitative follow-up study Fragile Transitions The integration of
young men with prison experience into work and training, which was also directed by
Mechthild Bereswill, and funded by the Foundation Deutsche Jugendmarke. Both
studies are based on biographical and theme-centred interviews about the life history,
prison and release experiences of young men who have been imprisoned in young
offenders institutions. Initially, interviews with 43 prisoners were conducted. It was
possible to follow up 30 of the initial sample, and 20 of those have been repeatedly
interviewed over a period of eight years.
As already mentioned, biography has been used as a theoretical concept so far. Now a
biographical case study is presented. The interviews were analysed by a combination of
objective hermeneutics (Oevermann et al. 1979) and deep hermeneutics (Bereswill
2007; Klein 2004; Lorenzer 1986). For a critical discussion of the methodological
extent of both methods see Neuber (2009).
All names and places used here are pseudonyms.
With a focus on violence and masculinity the case example, Benjamin Schreiber, has
been presented from a different perspective in a research paper by Mechthild
Bereswill (2002a).
The interpretation is based on word-for-word transcripts. The interviews are marked
as (I) and (II). Interview (I) signifies the theme-centred interview about the prison
experiences, interview (II) the young mans biographical account. They were
conducted within one or two weeks during imprisonment.
Shame indicates a tension between ego and ego ideal. In contrast, guilt describes a
tension between ego and super-ego. Feelings of guilt refer to violation of others,
whereas feelings of shame refer to violation of self. A direct manifestation of shame
could be shyness or insult; forms of defence could be arrogance, social withdrawal or
escape into addictive drugs or violence. Therefore, violence could be an expression of
shame (cf. Hilgers (1996, p.10); for a detailed explanation about shame and shaming
see Harris and Maruna (2005)).
Eigensinn could be translated as obstinacy, but in German, Eigensinn captures a
mixture of stubbornness and empowerment.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank Mechthild Bereswill, Shadd Maruna and the
two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. I would also like to thank the
publishing editor of the journal for helping with improving the text.

References
Alheit, P. and Dausien, B. (1991) Biographie ein modernes Deutungsmuster?
Sozialstrukturelle Brechungen einer Wissensform der Moderne, in: M. Meuser
and R. Sackmann (Eds.), Analyse sozialer Deutungsmuster: Beitrage zur empirischen
Wissenssoziologie, Pfaffenweiler: Centaurus.
Barry, M. (2006) Youth Offending in Transition: The Search for Social Recognition, London
and New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.
Bereswill, M. (1999) Gefangnis und Jugendbiographie: Qualitative Zugange zu Jugend,
Mannlichkeitsentwurfen und Delinquenz (KFN-Forschungsberichte Nr. 78, JustBericht Nr. 4), Hanover: Criminological Research Unit of Lower Saxony.
Bereswill, M. (2001) Die Schmerzen des Freiheitsentzugs Gefangniserfahrungen
berlebensstrategien mannlicher Jugendlicher und Heranwachsender in
und U
Strafhaft, in: M. Bereswill and W. Greve (Eds.), Forschungsthema Strafvollzug,
Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Bereswill, M. (2002a) Doing Violence, Concepts of Masculinity, and Biographical Subjectivity
Three Case Studies (KFN-Forschungsberichte Nr. 85), Hanover: Criminological
Research Unit of Lower Saxony.

13
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

Bereswill, M. (2002b) Wenn es mit Worten nicht mehr zu regeln ist Gewalthandeln
im Gefangnis im biographischen Kontext: zwei Fallinterpretationen, in: M.
Bereswill and T. Hoynck (Eds.), Jugendstrafvollzug in Deutschland: Grundlagen,
Konzepte, Handlungsfelder. Beitrage aus Forschung und Praxis, Monchengladbach:
Forum Verlag Godesberg.
Bereswill, M. (2003a) Gewalt als mannliche Ressource? Theoretische und empirische
Differenzierungen am Beispiel junger Manner mit Hafterfahrungen, in: S. Lamnek
and M. Boatca (Eds.), Geschlecht Gewalt Gesellschaft, Opladen: Leske und Budrich.

Bereswill, M. (2003b) Gewalthandeln, Mannlichkeitsentwu

rfe und biographische
Subjektivitat am Beispiel inhaftierter junger Manner, in: F. Koher and K. Pu
hl
(Eds.), Gewalt und Geschlecht: Konstruktionen, Positionen, Praxen, Opladen: Leske und
Budrich.
Bereswill, M. (2004a) Inside out. Resocialisation as a psycho-societal process:
methodological reflections on social exclusion and biographical integration
(lecture at the International Summer School in Lifelong Learning, Graduate
School in Life Long Learning, Roskilde University Center, Denmark, 5 August,
unpublished).
Bereswill, M. (2004b) The society of captives Formierungen von Mannlichkeit im
Gefangnis: Aktuelle Bezu
ge zur Gefangnisforschung von Gresham M. Sykes,
Kriminologisches Journal, 36, 92108.
Bereswill, M. (2006) Mannlichkeit und Gewalt: Empirische Einsichten und
theoretische Reflexionen u
ber Gewalt zwischen Mannern im Gefangnis, Feministische Studien, 24, 24255.
Bereswill, M. (2007) Fighting like a wild cat: a deep hermeneutic interpretation of the
jack-roller, Theoretical Criminology, 11, 46984.
Bosworth, M. (1999) Engendering Resistance: Agency and Power in Womens Prisons,
Aldershot: Ashgate.
Bourdieu, P. (1982) Die feinen Unterschiede: Kritik der gesellschaftlichen Urteilskraft,
Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Bourdieu, P. (1985) Sozialer Raum und Klassen: Lecon sur la Lecon, Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
Bourdieu, P. (1992) Die verborgenen Mechanismen der Macht, Hamburg: VSA.
Butler, M. (2008) What are you looking at? Prisoner confrontations and the search for
respect, British Journal of Criminology, 48, 85673.
Clemmer, D. (1940) The Prison Community, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wilson.
Crewe, B. (2005) Codes and conventions: the terms and conditions of contemporary
inmate values, in: A. Liebling and S. Maruna (Eds.), The Effects of Imprisonment,
Cullompton: Willan.
Crewe, B. (2007) Power, adaption and resistance in a late-modern mens prison,
British Journal of Criminology, 47, 25675.
Crewe, B. (2009) The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaption, and Social Life in an English Prison,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crewe, B. and Maruna, S. (2006) Life narratives and fieldwork methodology, in:
D. Hobbs and R. Wright (Eds.), The Handbook of Fieldwork, London: Sage.
Edgar, K. and ODonnell, I. (1998) Assault in prison: the victims contribution,
British Journal of Criminology, 38, 63550.
Edgar, K., ODonnell, I. and Martin, C. (2003) Prison Violence: The Dynamics of Conflict,
Fear and Power, Cullompton: Willan.
Gadd, D. (2000) Masculinities, violence, and defended psychosocial subjects,
Theoretical Criminology, 4, 42949.
Gadd, D. (2003) Reading between the lines: subjectivity and mens violence, Men and
Masculinities, 5, 122.

14
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

Gadd, D. (2006) The role of recognition in the desistance process: a case study of
a far-right activist, Theoretical Criminology, 10, 179202.
Gadd, D. and Jefferson, T. (2007) On the defensive: a psychoanalytically
informed psychosocial reading of the Jack-Roller, Theoretical Criminology, 11,
44367.
Giallombardo, R. (1966) Society of Women: A Study of a Womens Prison, New York: John
Wiley.
Grapendaal, M. (1990) The inmate subculture in Dutch prisons, British Journal of
Criminology, 30, 34157.
Harris, N. and Maruna, S. (2005) Shame, shaming and restorative justice: a critical
appraisal, in: D. Sullivan and L. Tifft (Eds.), Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global
Perspective, London: Routledge.
Hilgers, M. (1996) Scham: Gesichter eines Affekts, Go
ttingen, Zu
rich: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht.
Honneth, A. (1996) The Struggle for Recognition: Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Irwin, J. and Cressey, D.R. (1962) Thieves, convicts and the inmate culture, Social
Problems, 10, 14255.
Kersten, J. and von Wolffersdorff-Ehlert, C. (1980) Jugendstrafe: Innenansichten aus dem
Knast, Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Klein, R. (2004) Tiefenhermeneutische Zugange, in: E. Glaser, D. Klika and
A. Prengel (Eds.), Handbuch Gender und Erziehungswissenschaft, Bad Heilbrunn:
Klinkhardt.
Koesling, A. (2008) . . . weil die mir auch gewisse Sachen im Leben beigebracht
haben Beziehungsorientierungen junger Manner in Haft, in: J. Go
rdeler and
P. Walkenhorst (Eds.), Jugendstrafvollzug in Deutschland: Neue Gesetze, neue
Strukturen, neue Praxis?, Mo
nchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg.
Koesling, A. and Neuber, A. (2007) The homesickness of the Jack Roller, Theoretical
Criminology, 11, 50113.
Krais, B. and Gebauer, G. (2002) Habitus, Bielefeld: (transcript) Verlag.
Liebling, A. and Maruna, S. (2005) Introduction: the effects of imprisonment
revisited, in: A. Liebling and S. Maruna (Eds.), The Effects of Imprisonment,
Cullompton: Willan.
Lorenzer, A. (1986) Tiefenhermeneutische Kulturanalyse, in: H.D. Ko
nig,
A. Lorenzer, H. Lu
dde, S. Nagbol, U. Prokop, G. Schmid Noerr and A. Eggert
(Eds.), Kulturanalysen. Psychoanalytische Studien zur Kultur, Frankfurt am Main:
Fischer.
Maruna, S. (2001) Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives,
Washington, DC.: American Psychological Association Books.
McCorkle, L.W. and Korn, R. (1954) Resocialization within walls, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 293, 8898.
Neckel, S. (1991) Status und Scham: Zur symbolischen Reproduktion sozialer Ungleichheit,
Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Neuber, A. (2008) Gewalt und Mannlichkeit bei inhaftierten Jugendlichen, in:
J. Luedtke and N. Baur (Eds.), Die soziale Konstruktion von Mannlichkeit: Hegemoniale
und marginalisierte Mannlichkeiten in Deutschland, Opladen: Barbara Budrich Verlag.
Neuber, A. (2009) Die Demonstration kein Opfer zu sein: Biographische Fallstudien zu Gewalt
und Mannlichkeitskonflikten, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Oevermann, U., Allert, T., Konau, E. and Krambeck, J. (1979) Die Methodologie
einer objektiven Hermeneutik und ihre allgemeine forschungslogische
Bedeutung in den Sozialwissenschaften, in: H.-G. Soeffner (Ed.), Interpretative
Verfahren in den Sozial- und Textwissenschaften, Stuttgart: Metzler.

15
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd

The Howard Journal Vol 50 No 1. February 2011

ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 116

Saller, V. (2002) Die Leib-Seele-Problematik in der Psychoanalyse, Ethnologie und

Ethnopsychoanalyse, in: W. Egli, V. Saller and D. Signer (Eds.), Neuere
Entwicklungen der Ethnopsychoanalyse, Mu
nster: Lit-Verlag.
Schulze, T. (2006) Biographieforschung in der Erziehungswissenschaft: Gegenstandsbereich und Bedeutung, in: H.-H. Kru
ger and W. Marotzki (Eds.),
Handbuch erziehungswissenschaftliche Biographieforschung, Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Schu
tze, F. (1984) Kognitive Figuren des autobiographischen Stegreiferzahlens, in:
M. Kohli and G. Robert (Eds.), Biographie und soziale Wirklichkeit: Neue Beitrage und
Forschungsperspektiven, Stuttgart: Metzlersche J.B. Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Sim, J. (1994) Tougher than the rest? Men in prison, in: T. Newburn and E.A. Stanko
(Eds.), Men, Masculinities, and Crime: Just Boys Doing Business?, London: Routledge.
Sparks, R., Bottoms, A. and Hay, W. (1996) Prisons and the Problem of Order, Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Sutterlu
ty, F. (2004) Ist Gewalt rational?, WestEnd, 1, 10115.
Sykes, G.M. (1958/1999) The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Thomas, C.W. and Petersen, D.M. (1977) Prison Organization and Inmate Subcultures,
Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merril Company.
Thomas, C.W., Petersen, D.M. and Zingraff, R.M. (1978) Structural and social
psychological correlates of prizonisation, Criminology, 16, 38393.
Ward, D.A. and Kassebaum, G.G. (1965) Homosexuality: a mode of adaptation in a
prison for woman, Social Problems, 12, 15977.
Western, B. (2007) Introduction to society of captives, in: G.M. Sykes, Society of
Captives, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Date submitted: March 2010

Date accepted: August 2010

16
r 2010 The Author
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice r 2010 The Howard League and Blackwell Publishing Ltd