The latest issue of
Theoretical Criminology includes an article that may interest legal historians of prisons and punishment: "
Resistance or Friction: Understanding the Significance of Prisoners’ Secondary Adjustments," by
Ashley T. Rubin
(Florida State University). Here's the abstract:
Scholars examining prisoners’ “secondary adjustments” have often
emphasized prisoners’ “resistance” to the prison regime,
particularly their agentic acts that frustrate the
prison’s rules, goals, or functions. While these agency-centered
accounts
offer an important corrective to the understanding
of prisons as totalizing institutions, they may go too far. I argue that
scholars have overused (and misused) the term
“resistance” to describe certain prisoner behaviors, creating both
analytical
and normative consequences. Instead, I suggest the
concept of “friction” more accurately describes the reactive behaviors
that occur when people find themselves in highly
controlled environments.
Here's the historical part (cribbed from the Article's intro):
Drawing on archival data from Eastern State Penitentiary (1829–1875), I discuss three episodes of prisoner activity that would normally be construed as resistance. Instead, these episodes illustrate three characteristics of friction as I define it. First, these frictional activities are normal human behaviors that happen to take place in prison. Second, these activities apparently respond to prisoners’ social and physical needs and desires rather than to their understanding of autonomy, rights, or justice. Third, these activities are largely apolitical and do not intentionally challenge the prison regime.
Subscribers may access full content
here.
