The DA recently read Abigail Rowe’s BJC
article, ‘‘Tactics’, Agency and Power in Women’s Prisons’. The article was based on
ethnographic research and semi-structured interviews conducted in two women’s
prisons in England. Rowe writes that women’s agency has traditionally been
framed in terms of resistance, and their coping strategies have generally been considered in the context of
inter-personal relationships. In contrast to this approach, Rowe focuses on how
agency can manifest as problem-solving, and how women engage with the power of
penal regimes.
Rowe explores how prisoners and staff manage the constraints of the prison environment, and divides her findings into
the issues of: visibility and discipline, dependency and hierarchy, and staff
tactics of ‘lending’ and ‘poaching’. These latter terms are taken from Certeau
(1984), whose theory Rowe uses to good effect throughout in her explication of
agency and power. Rowe writes that Certeau’s ideas emerged in response to the
monolithic, everywhere and nowhere, accounts of power proposed by Foucault in Discipline and Punish (1977). Certeau’s
work concentrates on how those with limited power navigate these structures. The
concept of ‘poaching’ in this context refers to ‘The subversion of a system to
fulfil a private goal’ (at 337). Using Certeau’s ‘tactics’, Rowe's research adds to the
complexity of the concept of the post-disciplinary prison.
Surveillance and Visibility
Rowe highlights the ‘very public
nature of prison living’ (335) and the repercussions of this for relationships.
For example, disagreements between prisoners can quickly be escalated and
officially labelled as bullying. Although this is a protective mechanism, it is
also a label with harsh outcomes for the individual accused of bullying.
Rowe offers examples of poaching
which demonstrate how the systems of power in penal regimes can be exploited by
prisoners for their own ends. Institutional mechanisms, such as the official
response to bullying, can be used by prisoners to satisfy their own goals. The example
is offered of one prisoner who was moved to another wing after false
allegations of bullying were made against her. Rowe brands this a ‘tactic’, whereby other
prisoners on the wing achieved their desired outcome through use of existing
systems.
The DA noted that the necessary
structure of complaint mechanisms, which in Rowe’s terms created points of
invisibility as well as hypervisibility, was one of the primary areas of
conflict and tension within prison, for prisoners and staff. It was noted by the group that certain allegations can
effectively ruin the careers of staff, and can prejudice the release prospects
of prisoners. This use of penal systems for personal ends therefore offers an effective example of ‘poaching’.
Dependency and Hierarchy
The dependency of prisoners on
staff, and the hierarchy of the prison, offered another opportunity for the use
of ‘tactics’. While the inequality of prison regimes can be disguised when all
goes well, any resistance reveals its true nature.
The DA noted that within this
fragile environment, prisoners are just as engaged in the business of affective
labour as prison officers. Rowe reported numerous instances recounted by
prisoners of how they managed the moods of staff, including stories of how they
indulged the jokes of staff, and sussed them out as to their current mood.
Contrasting readings of the
same incident were also notable, especially with regard to the women’s stated
need to repeatedly ask, sometimes asking multiple staff members, to ensure that
basic requests were carried out. This demonstrated starkly the dependency and
prison hierarchy. However, prison staff perceived this very differently, as
annoyance and as potentially humiliating if women went above their heads to
request something. However, incorporating Goffman’s (1963) concept of ‘spoiled
identities’, Rowe noted that repeated asking was a ‘tactic’ women used to
ensure that simple needs were catered to. The DA discussed how women prisoners are
perceived as a needier cohort than male prisoners, however from this perspective the stated and
restated needs can be reframed as a means of achieving an outcome that might not
otherwise happen.
Staff Tactics: ‘lending’ and ‘poaching’
Rowe’s research also looked at
how staff resorted to strategies in the prison environment. However,
throughout, staff members’ position as agents of power within the prison was
noted. One staff member, who recounted that her attitude towards rude prisoners
was framed by knowing that they would need her sooner or later, was quick to
state that this ‘wasn’t necessarily a power thing’. The DA noted the lack of
reflexivity in these attitudes. However, they also pointed to the powerlessness felt by many prison staff, who were often seen as unloved cogs in the penal machine, slotted between the management and the prisoners. The comments of staff offered in this section were fascinating, and could have provided material for an article on this subject alone.
In summary, Rowe states that she has sought to investigate and explicate the ‘relational, intersubjective
dynamics through which penal regimes are delivered and negotiated’ (346). The article offers an alternative approach to theorising the experience of women prisoners. The use of Certeau's framework, and in particular the notion of 'poaching', offered considerable insight into how the institutionalised power in prisons can be adapted for prisoners' needs. The offering of this different theoretical slant on prison research provided new perspective on how individuals navigate within broader theories of the structure of power.
