WORKING IN PRISON: TIME AS EXPERIENCED BY INMATE-WORKERS Fabrice Guilbaud Ophrys | Revue française de sociologie 2010/5 - Vol. 51 pages 41 à 68 ISSN 0035-2969 Article disponible en ligne à l'adresse: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------http://www.cairn.info/revue-francaise-de-sociologie-2010-5-page-41.htm Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Pour citer cet article : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Guilbaud Fabrice , « Working in Prison: Time as Experienced by Inmate-Workers » , Revue française de sociologie, 2010/5 Vol. 51, p. 41-68. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Distribution électronique Cairn.info pour Ophrys. © Ophrys. Tous droits réservés pour tous pays. La reproduction ou représentation de cet article, notamment par photocopie, n'est autorisée que dans les limites des conditions générales d'utilisation du site ou, le cas échéant, des conditions générales de la licence souscrite par votre établissement. Toute autre reproduction ou représentation, en tout ou partie, sous quelque forme et de quelque manière que ce soit, est interdite sauf accord préalable et écrit de l'éditeur, en dehors des cas prévus par la législation en vigueur en France. Il est précisé que son stockage dans une base de données est également interdit. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R. franç. sociol., 51-1, 2010, 41-68 Fabrice GUILBAUD Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys “Prison time doesn’t move forward toward any horizon; it gapes. A gaping abyss that must be filled at any cost, they say, or else you go under. That gaping time –you’ve got to kill it. The prison administration are excellent cooks and they offer a recipe for ‘steaming’ it: ‘keep busy’. [...] Let’s live fast, intense, no holes in our time. Time is the enemy. [...] But time is the dimension in which people live. To kill time is to denature life, deprive it of meaning. To inflict the punishment of ‘time to kill’ on a man (the definition of imprisonment) is to exclude him from the realm of meaning, put him to social death.” (Lucas, 1996, p. 457).(1) ABSTRACT The practical and symbolic social effects of work on how imprisoned persons experience time are studied here from a sociology of work perspective. In the thinking of Donald Clemmer and Erving Goffman, two classic sociologists of the prison, the unity of the self-contained prison space goes together with a unity of time. In direct opposition to these approaches, the findings of a field study conducted in five French prisons suggest that the private life/work life split characteristic of paid labor is also relevant to the lives of incarcerated workers. Having inmates work improves prison security. For working inmates, meanwhile, work is a major means of re-appropriating space and time in a context of freedom deprivation. Prison labor is analyzed as an agency of socialization that connects inmates’ present lives with their past work lives. * My thanks to Danièle Linhart and Georges Benguigui for their critical remarks and suggestions in response to earlier versions of this text, and to Lucie Tanguy and Isabelle Clair for their attentive readings. The results presented are of a research study funded by the Mission de Recherche Droit et Justice and completed in 2006. A part of translation costs were covered by the “Cultures et Sociétés Urbaines” (CSU) team of the CRESPPA (Centre de Recherches Sociologiques et Politiques de Paris), a combined CNRS-Université de Paris 8 (Vincennes-Saint-Denis) research unit. (1) Claude Lucas wrote his novel Suerte in the French and Spanish prisons where he spent more than 20 years of his life. 41 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Working in Prison: Time as Experienced by Inmate-Workers* Revue française de sociologie Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Reflecting on relations between time, work and civilization, the historian E. P. Thompson ([1967] 2004) conceptualized the change in time regime that occurred with the shift from ancient to mechanized industrial societies by way of an opposition between “notation of time [...] as task orientation” and “labour timed by the clock”.(4) The time norms characteristic of our trade-centered societies are closely intertwined with our system of social organization; i.e., capitalist production, a situation that led Marx to make his famous remark: “Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at the most time’s carcass.” (Marx, [1847] 1996, p. 14). Private-life time today is largely governed by the pressure of work time. Though the proportion of people’s lives that they spend working is falling (Marchand and Thélot, 1997), this does not mean that the constraint imposed by work time has loosened; it suggests instead that private time is being “colonized” by work time (Linhart, 2005, p. 18). Moreover, the understanding in sociology is that time cannot be defined independently of space. As an epigraph to his dissertation, William Grossin (1973) cited an excerpt from Durkheim and Mauss’s Journal sociologique: “Even ideas as abstract as time and space are closely linked throughout their history to the corresponding social organization.” Forms of existence can only be within time and space; social facts and individuals alike are inscribed in space-time contexts. Of all prison activities, work usually takes up the most time; this quantitative reality qualitatively modulates time for inmates in a way few other activities do. Moreover, inmates working in prison workshops have been fitted into the division-of-labor system characteristic of market societies. Though they have been removed from social life by a judicial decision, they are nonetheless “organically” linked to society by way of their productive labor (2) The administration pénitentiaire or AP is an organization working in the service of an institution –France’s judiciary. I am referring here to Philip Selznick’s distinction between an organization as a “tool” “engineered” to serve an institution, and an institution, which shapes policy based on the values injected into it (Selznick, [1957] 1984, pp. 5-7 and pp. 16-17). (3) Prison deprives those locked up in it of many enjoyments –this is one feature that 42 makes it “omni-disciplinary” (Foucault, 1975, 1977). Sociology literature has analyzed various types of deprivation. Gresham Sykes conceived imprisonment as the deprivation of liberty, consumption goods, heterosexual relationships, autonomy and security (Sykes [1958] 1999, pp. 63-83). (4) See Pronovost (1996) for a survey of sociological analyses of time. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys In realizing its official task of implementing a sentence that necessarily implies “freedom deprivation”, prison administrations –among them France’s administration pénitentiaire(2)– organize a unique social experience for each convicted (or indicted) person: living for a certain amount of time in a particular space and thereby being deprived of their freedom of movement and the ability to dispose of their time as they please.(3) One activity that the prison makes available to its inmates does allow for filling the “gaping time” described by Claude Lucas: working. To understand what the experience of working in prison consists in, I first look at what these prisoners do with their time. The analytic framework is sociology of work, but I have also drawn on sociological studies of the prison. Fabrice GUILBAUD Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Inmate work is thus part of the passage opened by employers between prisons and the economic world. Yet sociologists of the prison world, perhaps committing the error of “carcéralo-centrisme” (Salle, 2003, p. 406), have often presented the prison world as a closed, self-contained microcosm. Emblematic of the problem are studies that focus almost exclusively on interactions among prison actors while ignoring the ways prisons are connected to the outside. Prison sociology has long seen prison as a society rather than existing within society, and this explains at least in part why the question of inmate work is so often eclipsed. The impact that working has on inmates’ experience of time –that is, the effects of work on their perceptions of time and the ways they occupy both space and time– reveals the limitations of “carcéralo-centric” approaches. Analyzing work in prison allows for contesting to some degree Goffman’s breakdown of lived time into “inmate life” and “normal life”,(6) an interpretation put forward more than fifty years ago. And it shows the limitations of the notion of prison subculture used in many sociology studies of prisons in the United States (Clemmers’ and Sykes’ works are the references here),(7) a subculture said to be characterized by perfect solidarity and loyalty among prisoners and permanent inmate hostility toward guards and their allies. Writes Antoinette Chauvenet (2005, p. 21): “Two conclusions may be drawn from the numerous analyses of the subject. (5) Work ceased being compulsory for sentenced inmates in France in 1987. (6) [The author used the French version of Asylums, which includes section subheadings not found in the English original (but approved by Goffman). “Inmate life” and “normal life” are translations of the terms “vie recluse” and “vie normale” used in one of those French subheadings –Trans.] (7) Studying the question from a different perspective that takes into account the pragmatic aspect of inmates’ language and of their moral references, Léonore Le Caisne (2004) has shown that inmates are likely to tell free persons that they are situated on a scale ranging from “political” to “pointeur”. Political prisoners, “braqueurs” [hold-up men], “voyous” [hoodlums], “délinquants” are at the top of the scale; at the bottom, in descending order, are pimps, “stups” [drug dealers] and “pointeurs” (sex offenders). These ideal-typical figures presented to the external observer are different from those that inmates refer to among themselves in constructing their “internal identity” –e.g., the “DPS” (Détenu Particulièrement Surveillé [closely watched inmate]) and the “perpète” (serving a life sentence), which are prestigious terms that can only be applied to prisoners at the top of the inmate ladder –or that they use to “communicate among themselves”– namely, the figures of the “mec bien” [“good guy”], a very extensive term covering less prestigious categories that are maintained in prison sociability, and the “sale type (“nasty”), a repulsive and largely imaginary figure, a term that allows for creating distance and a symbolic distinction. Having this “malleable” inmate hierarchy made up of various figures that do not correspond to “real social identities” allows inmates to “fake” their stories (hide stigmata, pretty up facts); this behavior in turn enables them to remain “normal” in this “zany” world. 43 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys (Durkheim, [1893] 2007). Prison inmates in France can work(5) either for the administration pénitentiaire (directly, by performing tasks linked to prison operation, or for the Régie Industrielle des Établissements Pénitentiaires, which produces and sells merchandise; this is the equivalent of the state-use system in the US) or for a private company, in the framework of a prison/company agreement for leasing inmate labor (see Box 2 for details on types of prison work). Revue française de sociologie Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys The following analysis is based on monographic study of five French prisons, selected according to management arrangements (public or semiprivate), type of prison (for inmates serving long or relatively short sentences), and security level (high- or lower-security).(8) The studies were based on reading, direct observation of inmates working in prison shops, and interviews (see Box 1 for a detailed presentation of the field). I interviewed supervisory staff at various hierarchical levels (n = 46),(9) working inmates (n = 75) and inmates who were unemployed at the time (n = 17), the aim in the last case being to discover the impact of work through its absence. The term “unemployed” here means “involuntarily deprived of work” (Ledrut, 1966).(10) (8) There are two types of prison in France: maisons d’arrêt [holding and shortstay facilities], for criminal defendants awaiting trial and convicts sentenced to less than a year or who have reached the end of longer sentences (the maisons d’arrêt I studied are designated MA1 and 2), and prisons “pour peines” [sentence-serving], of which there are two kinds: centres de détention (the ones I studied are noted CD1 and CD2), and maisons centrales (noted MC), both for convicts serving longer sentences. See table in the Appendix for the main characteristics of the prisons studied. My research was restricted to male inmates. The detention program in CDs is centered around “resocialization” whereas MCs are focused on security. Consequently, CDs offer a greater variety of activities. CD inmates can circulate fairly freely within the prison (doors are left open during the day in the residence areas), whereas MC inmates have much less freedom of movement due to the numerous surveillance and control arrangements (gates, closed-circuit cameras, security vestibules) and 44 the policy of keeping residence area doors locked at all times. (9) Wardens, surveillance officers, guards (all state civil servants) and shop foremen (either state civil servants or “civilian” employees). (10) “A jobless person is a subject prevented from working by certain social conditions whereas other social conditions incline him to hold a job.” (Ledrut, 1966, p. 2). The words “hiring” and “firing” are not used in prison; rather –and this holds for all activities– inmates are “ranked” (classé) and can be “un-ranked” (déclassé: in fact, excluded). All unemployed inmates are officially “waiting to be ranked”, meaning they have expressed a desire to work but cannot. If an inmate is sick or has to slow his activity for some other reason, there is no compensation system. I did not interview any inmates who refused to work, but such inmates were of course counted in calculating prison unemployment rates (calculations based on internal file data, except for MA1; see Appendix). Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys First, to the extent that such a culture exists, it is produced jointly by prison deprivations and the social milieu the prisoner brings with him to prison. Second, [those studies] call into question the very existence of such a culture.” It turns out that antagonism between guards and inmates may actually be neutralized in the space of the prison workshop, if only partially, fleetingly. What’s more, though hierarchies specific to the inmate group exist in the detention space, they become much less operative in the workshop: “in these places, social relations are likely to develop on the basis of other values” (Le Caisne, 2004, p. 531). For example, individuals’ socializing rites and attitudes may change: hand-shaking or speaking may be possible in the workshop but impossible anywhere else in the prison. This is related to the “partition principle”, whereby “a multitude of distinct social worlds are produced that are virtually impermeable to each other” (Chauvenet, Rostaing and Orlic, 2008, pp. 5-6). Fabrice GUILBAUD After presenting relevant French prison law and some basic information on the way prison labor is organized in France, I review the content of two sociological studies that are frequently used in analysis of the prison –Donald Clemmer’s The Prison Community ([1940] 1958) and Erving Goffman’s Asylums (1961)– focusing on what they have to say about time, or at least the implicit conceptions of it that may be discerned in their works. I then present my own findings, using them to debate these conceptions from a sociology of work perspective which runs counter to classical approaches to the prison. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys My presence in the various prison institutions that constitute the field for this study was greatly facilitated by the French state’s department of prison administration,(11) which provided me with an official letter that opened all doors. Once inside, I modified my overall research proceedings in accordance with the particularities of the prison. Two prisons managed semi-privately (MA1 and CD2) were compared with two state-run prisons of the same types (MA2 and CD1). The fifth and last institution is a high-security prison for inmates serving long sentences (MC). Here the point was to analyze the impact of security arrangements on how work is organized by comparing the MC with the two lower-security CD prisons. I was given access to various types of written information,(12) some of it sensitive (e.g., wage levels). Other information included how security regulations were to be applied in the workplace. I systematically compared the information in these documents to what could be observed in situ, which either confirmed or invalidated it. Most of my time –four days a week for six to nine weeks in each prison– was spent in the workshops. I also attended several meetings (mostly inmate worker ranking commissions) and work-related hearings of inmates. I always waited until at least the second week to begin interviewing prisoners so they could see me and identify me and so that everyone in the prison would know “the researcher” was there, including inmates who I myself had not yet encountered. Prison authorities may not be initially enthusiastic about having a researcher working on their premises, but work is part of the AP’s official mission of helping inmates get socio-economically reintegrated, and the institution and its members tend to approve researcher interest in work in prison. Inmates, meanwhile, almost always look well on external observers because observers are interested in them and in them as workers –which amounts to thinking of them as normal people. Moreover, I played a great deal on my “student-researcher” status. To inmates I always presented myself as a student preparing a doctoral dissertation; this made me “appear open (broad-minded), modest (ready to learn) and innocent (free of ill intentions)” (Bizeul, 1998, p. 763). I explained that I was specialized in questions of work and organization so they would not take me for a crime or behavior specialist. And for my first encounters with prison officials, I was lucky to have the expe.../... (11) The AP department helped draft the call for research published by the Mission de Recherche Droit et Justice. (12) Including workshop regulations and department memos, commission reports, company/prison labor-leasing contracts, incident reports. For prisons under semi-private management, I also read monthly and annual activity reports. 45 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys BOX 1. – The fieldwork Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys rienced prison sociologist Georges Benguigui with me, which greatly helped in getting myself taken seriously (I look quite young) and not being labeled a beginner. I thus appeared credible at these crucial first meetings, where I was informed generally how the prison worked and how I might proceed with my research in it (an overview of the grounds, at what moments I could do interviews, how I could move around inside the prison).(13) These specifications were then written up and diffused in a memorandum, which later enabled me to overcome the reluctance and even refusal of some prison guards to let me proceed. To prison authorities, I stressed my institutional tie to a CNRS research laboratory,(14) reminding them when necessary that my research had been commissioned and funded by the Direction de l’Administration Pénitentiaire. My doctoral student status thus enabled me to present myself as both a student and a professional researcher. Being a student was a help in many ways, but it also had its downsides; e.g., appearing ingenuous and therefore eliciting conventional discourse from inmates, meaning there could be long preambles (warnings, lessons, rumors, extremely general talk on “the prison”) before I could get the information I wanted. But as the study progressed, I managed to cut this kind of talk short (or shorter) simply by mentioning the experience I had already accumulated: already been inside a prison, already spent time there. In this connection, the attitudes one demonstrates –showing patience about getting through gates (e.g., not ringing the bell more than once), not appearing wary or frightened yet not too angelic either– are as important as indigenous knowledge (e.g., recognizing rank by stripes on a uniform, knowing what initials stand for, being familiar with prison jargon, and being willing to play the question-answer game about some aspect of a prison the respondent is familiar with). Prison work: laws and institutional framework Individually and collectively, prison inmates are deprived of the legally guaranteed power to affect production conditions and the conditions under which they exchange their labor for a wage. France’s labor law does not apply to prisons; the corresponding regulations are defined by the Code de Procédure Pénale. There are two laws that double-lock inmates into the prison work system. First, “the work of incarcerated persons is not to be the object of any work contract” (Article 720 of the Code de Procédure Pénale): having inmate status means being denied the status of a legal subject when it comes to job contracts. Second, no collective labor action of any sort is (13) I was allowed to circulate freely in all prison workshops but not in any other areas of CD1 and MC, where I had to be accompanied. In the other three prisons I was free to circulate outside the workshops as long as I wore a body alarm. (14) The CNRS has a reputation for excel- 46 lence; the acronym operates as a label and won me positive reception, particularly from mid-level supervisors and guards. Respondents’ image of the university, on the other hand, usually did not extend beyond that institution’s educational mission. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Revue française de sociologie Fabrice GUILBAUD tolerated in prison: working inmates are excluded from the sphere of labor law and one of its fundamental pillars, the right to unionize.(15) This is the political aspect of being sentenced to prison: it deprives individuals of their capacity to act, of their “voice” as an alternative to “exit” (Hirschmann, 1970, 1995). This in itself is a kind of violence, a manifestation of the “ordinary despotism” of prison life (Chauvenet, 2006). There are various types of work available to inmates. In January 2007, the French prison population came to 58,402, of whom 39% had paying work (33% in jobs, 6% in paid occupational training programs). Most inmates work at one time or another during their prison term. The same types of work are found in all prisons, but the way work is run varies greatly from one prison to another. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys “General service” refers to all inmate-performed jobs related to internal prison operation. These are primarily upkeep (laundry, indoor and outdoor cleaning), maintenance (electricity, plumbing, painting), food service, and such services as hair-cutting and working in the library. Wages are paid out of the given prison’s budget, in accordance with a national three-level flat-rate daily wage scale.(16) 37% of working inmates work in general service jobs. 1. “Contract-system labor”. Companies and prisons draw up agreements whereby the latter lease out their labor force to the former inside the walls, the prisons providing the premises (for free), while the company commits to organizing production. In reality, the company usually delegates all or part of this task to prison staff. The company usually pays the prison a lump sum covering labor and energy costs. The vast majority of inmates working in these shops are doing piecework; earnings are calculated on the basis of company productivity reports and deposited in inmate accounts by the prison accounting office. Most of these companies are small or middle-size businesses. This is the dominant form of prison work, accounting for 56% of working inmates, 12% to 15% of whom do type 4 work; i.e., managed semi-privately (see below). 2. Régie Industrielle des Établissements Pénitentiaires (RIEP) [state-use system of production and distribution]. This is direct use of the prison labor force to produce for the private and public sectors. 40% of turnover is from direct sale of products to the prisons themselves: furniture, clothes, printed administrative materials, etc. The RIEP is headed by an AP civil servant and has a trade account permitting it to do business directly; it operates primarily in rural long-term prisons and employs 7% of working inmates. .../... (15) Specialists of criminal law procedure (Danti-Juan, 1994) and labor law specialists (Auvergnon and Guillemin, 2006) alike have concluded that there is no strong legal basis justifying the prohibition to unionize in prison. (16) In 2003, the three flat-rate daily wages were 6.25€ for rank 3 workers; 8.45€ for rank 2 and 11.25€ for rank 1. Distribution of the various tasks across the three ranks is up to the prison authorities. The figures in Box 2 apply for 2007 (source: AP). 47 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys BOX 2. – Types of prison work Revue française de sociologie Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys One striking difference between the different types of prisons is amount of time spent in production. In CDs, work hours are the same as in the outside world in France; an inmate employed full time in this type of prison works 35 hours a week –compared to 27-to-30 hours in MAs or MCs. As a general rule, CD working conditions are closest to those in the outside world for both working hours and types of work available (industrial or semi-industrial). Aside from being higher security prisons than CDs, MAs are distinguished by quick workforce turnover. Low payroll costs (together with great internal flexibility) are the main attraction of inmate labor for economic actors, and production activities in MAs are primarily manual; there is little mechanization. Security is of course a high priority at MCs, and this imposes constraints on production organization(17) in the sense that –at the level of hiring and security controls– security concerns hamper production flow at various moments in the production cycle. This constraint is significantly weaker at CDs.(18) The work available in MAs is usually for companies requiring a fast production pace. Once again, prison workshops are at the end of a subcontracting chain whose components operate in competing sectors (the paper and cardboard industries, for example) and are subject to tight time constraints. Integrating prison work into the market world has had considerable impact on production pace: production demands are sudden, irregular, and prisons or companies have to be able to mobilize a big workforce fast. Production activities in CDs and MCs, on the other hand, are much more routine and planned (products have to “come out” at a regular pace for deadlines that are known in advance), and this fits much better with the pacing of prison life and the (17) Contradiction pointed out by Legge (1978). (18) I analyzed this contradiction between the 48 security approach and the production approach as it affects inmate hiring in connection with the situation in MA1 (Guilbaud, 2007). Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys 3. “Semi-private” management [close to the labor-leasing system]. In this arrangement, private companies (subsidiaries of French multinationals) handle all operations that are not officially part of the French state’s sovereign role (a role that includes prison steering, guarding and registry). This system was set up in 1987 for the “Plan 13000” (creation of 13,000 new inmate cells) and is called “mixed” or semi-private management. It is currently the preferred arrangement. Inmate labor is managed by a company that organizes a full range of services: food service, upkeep, maintenance, inmate occupational training and inmate labor. There are different setups, ranging from prisons where a single company is in charge of all state-delegated operations to prisons where one company is in charge of coordinating all such operations and may execute one of them itself, while subcontracting others to partner companies. In the latter type, clients are usually big industrial companies wishing to outsource part of their production to prisons. Prison workshops, then, are at the end of a subcontracting chain, and given the extreme production flexibility permitted by the laws governing inmate labor, they may serve as an adjustment variable. Fabrice GUILBAUD institution’s heavy emphasis on bureaucracy. This explains why conflicts between economic actors and prison authorities around bringing in and getting out the merchandise are much less likely to occur in long-term prisons. After considering how Clemmer and Goffman interpret time in the prison context, we will see how inmates’ experience of time in fact varies by length of incarceration and type of prison (short- or longer-term). Ways of experiencing time in classic analyses of confinement The question of time is often absent from or merely residual in sociological studies of places of confinement.(19) There are two major works that do examine the question: Donald Clemmer’s The Prison Community and Erving Goffman’s Asylums. It is important to present these works before taking issue with their conclusions. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Clemmer studied prisons from 1931 to 1934, and as his title indicates, he viewed prison as a community living space. His major conclusion is that the prison community produces what has since come to be called a “prison subculture”. Clemmer analyzed how inmates were involved in a process of assimilating a particular set of values, values manifested in the particular life of the prison world. He called this process “prisonization”.(20) He was particularly attentive to group formation, social relations among inmate groups, and phenomena related to leadership and domination.(21) In Clemmer’s third chapter (“Organization of the penitentiary”), in a section entitled “Industries, maintenance and labor”, Clemmer lists the kinds of jobs entrusted to inmates. He does not go beyond description, because as he puts it “it is impossible to cover adequately the labor and industrial situation as the topic itself is worthy of a book” (1940, p. 76). He explains that inmates were not paid, but that the companies did pay the prison the equivalent of a daily wage for using its workforce. Work was compulsory, and inmate work power belonged to the prison, in that the administration profited from it without having to pay inmates anything. Clearly, prison work in the United States in the 1930s was close to slavery.(22) Clemmer discusses time in chapters 9 and 11, respectively entitled “The social implications of leisure time” and “The social significance of labor”. In (19) This remark applies to literature in English and French alike. Below I mention a French exception: Marchetti (2001). (20) This concept has been translated “prisonniérisation” in French (Lemire, 1990). (21) On Clemmer’s methods and results, see Combessie (2001, p. 70). (22) See Meynaud’s review of Angela Davis’s writings (2006). 49 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Donald Clemmer and “the prison community” Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys chapter 9, his main remark is that “the distinction between leisure time and non-leisure time, which is clear in the normal community, is less evident in the penitentiary, where every hour, whether designated as leisure or not, is ‘time’ in a very real sense” (p. 206). As he defines it, leisure time is made up of both official, regulated time, framed by the prison (e.g., sports and religious activities but also movies, listening to the radio, reading newspapers and magazines, letter-writing and visits from family and friends) and non-regulated time, taken up with secret activities: gambling and games involving money, drinking, and “day-dreaming”. In chapter 11, Clemmer is interested in work quantity, the proportion of prison life and an inmate’s incarceration time accounted for by work. He also mentions inmates’ individual and collective attitudes toward work. As he sees it, work does not produce the anticipated corrective effects: “It is only an assumption that education of the prisoner in habits of work will tend to reform him.” (p. 274). On the same page he claims: “It is the writer’s opinion that the work function in prison is less important than the leisure-time function, if one considers the inmate !” Above all, as he sees it, working strengthens rather than attenuates group formation and leadership phenomena: prisonization occurs in the workplace just as in other prison contexts.(23) Despite the obligation to work, few inmates actually did (40%) and a significant part of their “work” time was spent in activities other than “producing”: “It was found that one third of the time they spent in shop and work gang, they loafed. [...] and of the total time the men spend in prison, only 16 per cent is given over to work.” (pp. 275-276). Clemmer seems to take inmate idleness for granted but he also interprets it as a result of the insufficient job supply in industry and altogether. In fact, Clemmer only analyzes prison work in quantitative terms. His study of the way prisons operate takes into account time as organized by the prison administration –and understood as standard, uneventful– and time from the point of view of the prison community, but it does not consider in any detail the way inmates experience time, except how they “kill it” –the pleasures of the solitary imagination, what Clemmer calls “reverie-plus” (pp. 244-247). Work life and the characteristics of “total institutions” according to Goffman Total institutions are cut off from the outside world, and this produces a highly particular life-setting that can be summed up as “inmate life”. Goffman first analyzes this in contrast to normal life: “A basic social arrangement in modern society is that the individual tends to sleep, play and work in different places [...] The central feature of total institutions can be described as a breakdown of the barriers ordinarily separating these three spheres of life.” (1961, pp. 5-6, 1968). For inmates, “all aspects of life are conducted in the same place and under the same single authority” (ibid.). Within this framework, the (23) Inmates work in order to “kill time”; holding a job is seen as part of this process (pp. 280-281). 50 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Revue française de sociologie Fabrice GUILBAUD Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Inmates of all kinds contrast sharply with the people who command, guard or care for them: “The staff-inmate split is one major implication of the bureaucratic management of large blocks of persons.” (p. 9). One thing that differentiates the two groups, in addition to their respective roles in the relationship of domination, is work itself. “In the ordinary arrangements of living in our society, the authority of the work place stops with the worker’s receipt of a money payment; the spending of this in a domestic and recreational setting is the worker’s private affair and constitutes a mechanism through which the authority of the work place is kept within strict bounds. But to say that inmates of total institutions have their full day scheduled for them is to say that all their essential needs will have to be planned for. Whatever the incentive given for work, then, this incentive will not have the structural significance it has on the outside.” (p. 10). The “processes of mortification” (pp. 14-43) that inmates characteristically undergo in total institutions lead to “curtailment of the self” (p. 47) or “violations of the self’s boundaries” (p. 48). The logic governing total institutions transforms the individuals who enter them, socialized individuals who are familiar with some kind of normal life, including work: “Whether there is too much work or too little, the individual who was work-oriented on the outside tends to become demoralized by the work system of the total institution.” (p. 11). Goffman concludes: “There is an incompatibility, then, between total institutions and the basic work-payment structure of our society.” (ibid.). Total institutions function within a single time-space frame, which is what constitutes the inmate world. Those persons do have some maneuvering room; a secret life that Goffman describes in terms of “primary and secondary adjustments”. But such adjustments only make sense in reference to that world: time in a total institution is monolithic; the inmate’s life is entirely governed by institutional time.(25) The understanding implicit in Goffman’s analysis is that the places he is studying are characterized not just by a unity of space but also a unity of time; i.e., the experience of time is unvarying just as the space itself is unchanging. It is this point that I would like to take issue with. Indeed, it seems to me arguable that the unicity of the place need not correspond to a sense that time is unchanging. Though that correspondence may have existed, it no longer does, at least not for working inmates. Goffman (24) Especially in maisons d’arrêt (Chauvenet, Orlic and Benguigui, 1994, p. 31). (25) My use of the adjective “institutional” echoes the term “total institution” rather than Durkheim’s understanding of work as an institution that greatly impacts on “social time” (Pronovost, 1996, p. 131). 51 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys various activities provided all comply with one major feature of total institutions: “collectively regimented” persons, and “the handling of many human needs by the bureaucratic organization of whole blocks of people” (ibid.). This is the case for prisons, where, as Goffman sees it, all activities in inmates’ lives are organized and overseen by the organization: inmates in any total institution, but especially in prisons, are extremely dependent on supervisors or guards.(24) Revue française de sociologie Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys For Robert Castel, “the ‘total institution’ is first and foremost a structural concept [...] constructed out of invariants that exist in different types of social organizations, despite the fact that those types exhibit distinct historical and empirical configurations” (1989, p. 32). In a way, Castel continues, Asylums is Goffman’s least “interactionist” work, in the sense that its approach is “two-dimensional” (ibid., p. 35), using general concepts to develop a tightly focused analysis of the hospital configuration. The “total institution” concept functions perfectly well as long as it is not applied to organizations or facts that are too remote from its typical structure or outline, as Christie Davies explains (1989) when she cautions sociologists not to apply Goffman’s concept too systematically.(27) Above all, she argues, the concept can be improved upon, namely by specifying “how total” a given institution with all the requisite characteristics is, by considering its “degree of bureaucratization” and its “openness versus closedness” (ibid., p. 96). In Goffman’s analysis, confined persons feel “dispossessed”, as if their time has been taken away from them: “among inmates in many total institutions there is a strong feeling that time spent in the establishment is time wasted or destroyed or taken from one’s life; it is time that must be written off; it is something that must be ‘done’ or ‘marked’ or ‘put in’ or ‘pulled’” (1961, p. 67, 1968). He continues: “This sense of dead and heavy-hanging time probably explains the premium placed on what might be called removal activities, namely, voluntary unserious pursuits which are sufficiently engrossing and exciting to lift the participant out of himself, making him oblivious for the time being to his actual situation.” (ibid., pp. 68-69, 1968). This strong sense of dead or plundered time is found today in short-term prisons,(28) where inmates often say, “You’ve got to do/serve your time”, or “What you’re doing here [in the workshop] is killing time”. Once work life is mentioned, however, inmates respond with two refrains, virtual leitmotive.(29) (26) Writing of the situation in the United States, Farrington (1992) speaks of the “myth” of prisons as total institutions. On loyal or partially critical uses of the “total institution” concept as well as rejections of it in French prison sociology, see Chantraine (2000, pp. 302-314). For an example of “de-totalization” based on the case of prison health professionals, see Milly (2001). 52 (27) According to Davies, Goffman’s concept has been applied “too systematically” to colonialism, ethnicity and slums. (28) Discipline in MAs is quite strict for jobless inmates; it amounts to spending 22 or 23 hours a day in a 9 m2 cell with at best one other prisoner, at worst two or three others. (29) Clearly noted by Dubéchot (2002). Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys collected his material in a psychiatric asylum in the late 1950s. His distinction between inmate life and normal life was first and foremost a means of establishing differences between antagonistic groups. While it is true that inmates live and work in the same place, this need not mean that the “time” of work life and the “time” of private life are the same in that place. My recent fieldwork shows that inmates experience time not as one-dimensional but multidimensional (the focus of the next section). I am not calling into question the validity of the “total institution” concept(26) but I do insist on its variability, and would like to demonstrate that prison is perhaps not as “total” as all that. Fabrice GUILBAUD The first –“Time goes faster [when you’re working]”– is almost always accompanied by the spatial corollary: “It gets you out of the cell”. In the interviews, these leitmotive usually get mentioned one right after the other. And for the inmates it was quite obvious that the two went together –like a diptych. The kinds of time that make up daily prison life Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Inmates see time differently. If the “time horizon” for a criminal convicted of a serious crime amounts to possible release from prison in twenty years, he will not experience time and his sentence the same way a person will who has committed a petty crime and is doing a short sentence. Moreover, given the fact that each inmate is locked up on a precise date, has to serve a sentence of a particular length, and that individual sentences can be modified once the inmate is in prison –by the various sentence reductions that all inmates are in theory entitled to, together with the fact that individual sentences may be lengthened for disciplinary misconduct– each one has his “time meter”. Indeed, “time accounting” is the main activity of a key prison office, the greffe or registry, which is in charge of doing and recording all the adding and subtracting that may modify an inmate’s court-fixed sentence. This means that the inmates themselves cannot say what day they will be getting out. CD and MC prison inmates are likely to indicate a particular year, while MA prisoners are likely to name a month.(30) Indeed, one power of the prison institution is to gain partial control over the inmate’s sentence, whereas it was only initially designed to confine him for the duration of that sentence.(31) (30) Inmates’ lives are marked by the “ordeal of uncertainty” (Combessie, 2001, p. 45), particularly acute for criminal defendants awaiting trial and possible release. (31) Foucault determined that the prison was an exhaustive disciplinary apparatus on the basis of the following three principles: it isolates the convict from the outside world, work is used as an instrument of power for subjecting individuals, and the prison has the power to modulate sentences: “The same goes for the duration of the punishment; it makes it possible to quantify the penalties exactly; to graduate them according to circumstances, and to give to legal punishment the more or less explicit form of wages.” (1977, p. 244, 1975). 53 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys As mentioned, inmates do not have work contracts; they have no access to this key component of wage-paid labor. The work provided by inmates is nonetheless paid for; there is a “wage relationship” between the inmate and the prison administration (which is the legal employer). In classic employeeemployer relations, the contract can be defined as the employer’s means of purchasing labor power; that is, he pays the worker for the time spent enhancing his capital. Such time of course cannot be dissociated from the time a person has to live. In this respect, wage labor creates a “fundamental quid-pro-quo”: “for the employer, what is at stake in work organization is objectifying time and the employee’s abilities, whereas for the employee what is at stake is the subjective reappropriation of that time and those abilities, even though they are the focus of the market exchange” (Linhart, 2005, p. 7). Revue française de sociologie Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys My observations in long- and short-term facilities confirm this analysis. CD1 offers the most striking illustration of the power of the work-time norm. In this prison, workshop opening and closing hours determine how leisure and educational activities are organized; they even determine the schedules of prison social workers. When the workshops are open, the general atmosphere elsewhere in the prison is calm, quiet; there are few people in the other areas. When the workshops close and the inmates emerge –the impression is of workers exiting a factory– the prison lurches into action again: the exercise yard fills up with inmates playing pétanque [French game of bowls], lining up to use the phone, putting in orders at the prison “canteen” [commissary].(32) Social workers appear for appointments with inmates; the education center opens, and the industrial din made by the printing press and metal shop yields to sounds of laughter, conversation, comments on what this or that one is doing, the clicking and slamming of pétanque balls. Marchetti’s analysis should be qualified for MAs, because shop schedules there are highly dependent on guards’ schedules and are broken up by the schedules of other categories of workers: doctors, teachers, social workers, visits during visiting hours. This affects inmates’ presence in the workshops. They never show up for work when they have a visit or an appointment with the doctor or social worker. I calculated that production time in MA1 was cut by 20% on visiting days. Inmate absences, especially for medical reasons, are often mentioned by workshop supervisory teams as a serious problem. As they see it, inmates are likely to malinger (though the economic cost of the absences is virtually nil since, as mentioned, most inmates do piecework). (32) Money is not allowed to circulate in prison; inmates consume by way of the “canteen” [commissary]. They fill out order forms, and the prison accounting office debits 54 their personal accounts. Inmates’ purchases are usually delivered directly to their cells, but in this prison there is a purchasing window and delivery counter. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys “Prison time is alienating time because it is necessarily dominated time [time to be spent as the penitentiary authorities say]” (Pauchet, 1984, p. 154). The inmate’s existence is run by the prison; the prison dictates paces and sequences of activities; in institutional time, nothing is left to chance. In her book on long prison terms, Anne-Marie Marchetti writes of the basic rhythm of prison life: “Clearly what punctuates the day in prison is the opening of doors and gates. The great moments of life in detention are when the doors open; i.e., the various ‘movements’ (the word speaks volumes on the immobility inherent in confinement): leaving for the workshop, walks, classes, also meals and going to the prison canteen.” (2001, pp. 167-168). This basic rhythm is organized in part around work: “In MCs, CDs and MAs alike, the way the days are divided up –and therefore the moments the doors open– is overdetermined in part by workers’ work hours. This speaks volumes on the importance attributed to work, even in places where there is precious little of it.” (p. 170). Fabrice GUILBAUD What time is like for inmates with short sentences (MAs or shortstay facilities) The population in MAs is young (around 30) and turns over quickly (average stay is five months). Most MA inmates have been convicted of petty to moderately serious crimes (26% for theft, 18% for drugs, 16% for violence). At the time of my study, 46% of inmates had been working manual jobs, 15% clerical and 33% were unemployed when they entered prison.(33) MA inmates are not likely to work.(34) Those who do(35) are ambivalent toward work; that is, they consider what they do degrading, dull and poorly paid(36) (negative practical experience) but they are very attached to the role that work plays in their prison lives (positive functional-social and psychological experience). Most of them experience time spent working as a source of spatial and temporal release; it allows them to get out of their narrow, overpopulated cells for six hours a day and to work off some physical energy: Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys For some the shop is also a framework that allows them to connect up with their past and future lives. This is especially true for men who have never been incarcerated before, are serving light sentences, were working before they went to prison and are relatively likely to find work when they get out: “I work so as not to lose contact with the outside.” (inmate, 28, 1-year sentence, no prior prison time). “I work because I’ve always worked.” (inmate, 51, awaiting trial for 8 months, no prior prison time). The instrumental view of work is particularly strong in this type of prison; inmates like the money and the relative independence that working gets them: “You’ve got to have money, you can’t always count on the outside, the others. You’ve got to keep the money coming in for everything you want to get at the canteens.” (inmate, 32, awaiting trial for 6 months, 2nd incarceration). For others, it means being able to interact with inmates and non-inmates: “It does you good to be here, you meet other guys, not always the best kinds but really, it does you good [...] It’s good to have contact with the workshop people, the civilians.” (inmate, 31, awaiting trial for 8 months, 2nd incarceration). (33) See Table 1. These data are for MA2; I could not get the equivalent information for MA1, though I did learn that 12% of arriving prisoners there were homeless. (34) In MA1, 25% prisoners were working; in MA2, 49%. Respective unemployment rates: 60% and 28%. (35) It is clear from observation of inmate-worker ranking commissions that the primary criterion is behavior in the detention space. The second is degree of poverty. Occupational experience –reduced to the mere fact of having held a job– is seldom taken into account, and if so only as a secondary point. (36) Wages are low –an average of 120€/month in MA1, 273€/month in MA2– and vary greatly, particularly in MA1. 55 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys “When you move around, you don’t feel as much like you’re in prison –not like when you’re in the cell !” and “It changes, you move, you let off steam.” (inmate, 36, 8-month sentence, 3rd prison term). Revue française de sociologie Keeping oneself busy is very much the point in MAs, where discipline is relatively strict and inmates have little chance of getting out of the straitjacket prison routine. In this context, they are on the lookout for any opportunity to get out of their cells: “[I work] to keep busy, and it means you don’t have to stay in the cell [...] Work as an activity is ok. You get up in the morning, it gets you out of the cell.” (inmate, 29, awaiting trial for 18 months, no prior prison time). Sociology researchers also provide inmates with a means of keeping busy: no one in an MA ever refused me an interview. The prison authorities were even glad to see me talking to certain unemployed inmates. In response to my request to interview an inmate, one relatively high-level female corrections officer said: “Great ! He hasn’t worked in the last two weeks ! And he hasn’t done a thing in the last three days, so this will give him something to do !” Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys The experience of long sentences in “sentence-serving” prisons Working inmates in “sentence-serving” prisons –CDs and MCs– have much fuller, more regulated jobs than inmates in MAs. In this type of prison, people did refuse to be interviewed. In fact, it was not really a refusal: the inmates agreed to speak about their work if they could do so in the workplace during the work day. This says a great deal about the image they wanted me to have of them: they would answer me as workers. The populations of these three prisons were different from MA populations in terms of average age (43) and criminal offenses (60% in CD1 and 2 were sex offenders, 24% were in for murder; in the MC the figures were 17% and 64%). Since these inmates were older, they were more likely to have past work experience: more than 70% were working before they entered prison, a significant proportion in manual (40%) or clerical (14%) jobs. However, a significant percentage (21%) were unemployed when they arrived (see Table 1). Inmates in these types of prisons have often spent several years in detention but some were unable to work in the MAs, either because there was so little work or because the sentencing judge had specifically indicated they were not to be permitted to work.(37) Some jobs are similar to what is available in MAs; others are higher-skilled; all are more regular and better paid.(38) In general, it is (37) Some inmates are not allowed to communicate with each other (criminal cases involving several defendants) and others are isolated to some degree (namely if their case has received a lot of media attention and their 56 security cannot be guaranteed otherwise). Inmates themselves may request isolation. (38) Monthly wages come to 436€ in CD2, 507€ in CD1 and 446€ in MC. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys The reaction of inmates and guards to my presence as an outside observer (discernible in whether or not I was granted an interview) thus confirms one established difference between inmates serving short prison terms and inmates serving relatively long ones: work is crucial to structuring inmates’ experience of time in long-term facilities. Fabrice GUILBAUD easier for these inmates to get jobs;(39) good behavior is extremely important but not as decisive as in MAs. Sentence length (rather than work experience, though it too is taken into account) is the main criterion for getting skilled work; e.g., work in printing at the CDs or in archive restoration at the MC, or the chance to work under an intermediate (rather than high) level of supervision. Men serving very long sentences (more than 15 years of confinement) are especially valued because they represent a promise of work force stability and will be able to train other inmates. What comes out in interviews with inmates facing long sentences is that work gives meaning to prison time. Inmates often speak of it as socially useful or a source of self-esteem: “Working makes you feel better about yourself than just hanging around. The fact that it helps preserve the heritage, all that –that’s good.” (MC inmate, 28, 4th year in prison, working in archive restoration). Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Inmate responses also reveal a different view of leisure activities. In his doctoral dissertation (1973) and an earlier study on work hours and time constraints in industry (1969), William Grossin reached the following conclusion: “Time taken up in working, i.e., time that the worker is dispossessed of, becomes, by way of the wage he receives, what allows him to set other time apart for enjoyment, time outside work, time in which existence seeks its joys and its meaning.” (1973, p. 1). In other words, to enjoy one’s free time, one needs to have the (opposite) experience of time constraint; these contradictory types or experiences of time are inherent in wage paid labor, itself distinct from the experience of time characteristic of peasant life (Rolle, 1998, p. 104). More than half a century ago, Henri Lefebvre was already enjoining us to analyze the daily-life implications of the dialectical relationship between work and leisure: “The relationship between leisure and the everyday is not a simple one: the two terms are both united and contradictory [...] Sociology should therefore study how the lives of manual workers, their place in the division of labor and in society as a whole, are ‘reflected’ in their leisure activities, or at least in their demands for leisure.” ([1945] 1958, p. 38). The following interview excerpt illustrates the multiplicity of prison inmates’ ways of experiencing social time, as well as the difference in the way time is experienced in MAs and CDs: “It’s not the work itself that’s interesting, it’s the status and the sense of mental balance it brings, without even talking about the content. In that respect, it’s a little different than in the MA. Before, the idea was to work at any cost. It was to get yourself out of the cell. [...] It feels like a kind of autonomy, or like you’re being [...] it’s to work in order to have a status for oneself, to get up every morning. It provides a kind of rhythm, a little like on the outside. After your work day, you go do sports or, for example, I wear other shoes on the weekend, I don’t dress the same on the weekend as during the week when I’m working –that’s like on the outside. For me, it’s important to keep that, and working allows you to.” (CD inmate, 30, 7th year in prison). (39) Job supply is greater and unemployment lower in these types of prisons than in MAs. At CD1, 59% of inmates were working; 75% at CD2; 58% at the MC. Respective unemployment rates were 26%, 16%, 20%. 57 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys “You invest yourself in work, it opens prospects. It’s extremely important to give us responsibilities, that proves we can be recognized, we become more credible.” (CD inmate, 35, 13th year in prison). Revue française de sociologie This same inmate, in his workshop and in the company of two fellow inmates and work “colleagues”, spoke to me of a ritual they practice every Saturday morning. Several of them work in the same printing operation and live in the same detention wing. On Saturday morning, they “canteen” croissants and set up at the “home” of one of them (a cell) or in an old “shack”,(40) where they share breakfast, including cakes that some of them have baked. They can only do this on the weekend when they’re not working. It is this ritual that “starts off” the weekend, weekend time, which is distinct from the week of labor. Clearly, then, not just the prison administration but inmates themselves have a hand in dividing up and organizing inmate time. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys The following remarks by an inmate who was unemployed at the time of the interview reveal how central working is and the degree to which it structures the experience of incarceration: “To be able to manage my days, have some occupied time [...] You know, work is first and foremost balance, it brings serenity, comfort, assurance [...] I try to keep busy doing sports, of course, but it’s not at all the same. Sports are ok when I’m working, but I can’t spend all my time doing sports. It’s like everywhere, when you work and you know how to use that [...] Everything is centered around work.” (CD inmate, 35, 13th year in prison). The following excerpt is from an interview with an inmate who had experienced periods of inactivity (one just before the interview: the shop he was working in was closed down after an accidental fire). His words clearly point up one result of my analysis of the experience of prison time: the way it can be divided up into different kinds of time, of course, but also the relativity of work time: “Q: But they closed the shop down. How did you experience the period of unemployment? A: Pretty badly. If it happened today, it would give me a rest. At the time I was coming off a job as “auxi”,(41) too easy physically and mentally –I was unsatisfied. But there was still this idea about who they were going to keep, how they were going to sort us. I said to myself, let’s hope they keep me, and the idea of ending up unoccupied, without anything to do [...] Because if, even if you like sports, you start going stir-crazy. Reading is ok for a time, but again, you can’t spend entire days reading. Anything you’ve got to do is good but it can’t last too long. If it’s part of a whole it’s ok, but otherwise [...] You manage to keep busy, but you just can’t talk to the same person from morning to night. Whereas at work, you can talk about other things, like I do with F. We can talk, it’s more interesting, we don’t see each other all the time. At least here we can talk. (40) Collective facility where inmates can cook for themselves; they still exist in older prisons. 58 (41) Auxi: Auxilliary; refers to general service jobs (see Box 2, 1). Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys We know that the work norm can be discerned with particular clarity among people who have no work. Paul Lazarsfeld and his co-authors called the free time that comes with unemployment a “tragic gift” (Lazarsfeld, Jahoda and Zeisel [1971] 2002, p. 66, [1960] 1981). The unemployed manual workers studied by these authors were not happy with their unlimited free time, and the industrial workers studied by Grossin feared it because it could amount to a tragic situation: “An individual who feels it is impossible to construct time finds himself confronted with the void of existence –indeed, time as non-existent.” (1973, p. 23). Fabrice GUILBAUD Q: And if you didn’t have this job, what difference would that make? A: I think I’d be pretty depressed. [...] Yeah, because first of all, it’s an occupation that takes up 8 hours of your day, it speeds up the time. It’s subjective, but time goes faster.” (CD inmate, 49, 3rd year in prison). Practicing an occupational activity enables a person to modulate time. There’s a central time for work, distinct from private time (life in the cell, leisure activities). Lastly, work creates meaning in that it defines leisure; unemployment is often experienced as an ordeal (Schnapper, 1981), in some cases an extremely painful one. Inmates spontaneously say that the prospect of losing one’s job immediately destabilizes what were relatively stable psychological and temporal balances. As an inmate who had been in an MA for two years put it: Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Working in prison also means being able to reactivate social rhythms that inmates may already be familiar with and to connect up again with their status as workers –to recover a status they had been deprived of. Working makes it possible to split life into private time and work time once again. Lastly, the central nature of work and its normalizing force are confirmed even in prison. Prison is a socializing authority whose purpose is to transform individuals, but in offering inmates work, it also enables them to reconnect with experiences of time and “normal” life that many have already had as free persons. In other words, the “work” institution operates within the total institution of the prison as a force for “continued socialization” (Darmon, 2006, pp. 99-121). TABLE 1. – Population structures of 4 prisons by inmate socio-occupational category* upon entrance Socio-occupational categories Farmers, crafts, tradespeople, heads of small business Managers and higher intellectual professions MA 2 CD 1 1 6.4 CD 2 MC 7.3 8 CDs + MC 7.3 All 5.7 0 4.1 0.4 0.9 1.8 1.3 3.1 10.2 4.3 7.6 7.4 6.3 Clerical and other occupations** 14.8 12.2 14.1 16 14.1 14.3 Manual workers 46.4 45.2 34.8 41.3 40.4 41.9 Unemployed 32.7 13.3 36.2*** 13.3 20.9 23.9 Mid-level occupations Retired and other unoccupied 2 8.5 2.8 12.9 8.1 6.5 All 100 100 100 100 100 100 Totals 196 294 489 225 1,008 1,204 Note: * All terms here belong to the French public statistics nomenclature. ** Clerical workers and “other” occupations were equally distributed in the files. I aggregated “other” occupations to clerical after the relevant verifications in the field. *** Inmate unemployment is high in this prison because the region it is located in is itself suffering from very high unemployment. Source: Figures established by me on the basis of administrative files on inmates registered in 2004. 59 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys “The first day, you’re glad, you think you’re going to have a rest. The second day, you’re not so glad, and after that you’re almost happy when they call you for work because when you’ve been unemployed for several weeks, you can’t take it anymore.” (inmate, 36, 3rd prison term). Revue française de sociologie Similarities and differences between the ways inmates and free workers appropriate space and time Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys If we consider how prison workshops are arranged, we realize that inmates are engaged in a “multiform process of getting a psychological grip on a territory. [...] [This process] is manifested in assertion of cognitive mastery of the place, and by styles of occupying the space. The issue is to defend one’s personal existence within a more or less satisfying, more or less depersonalizing work situation” (Fischer [1994] 1998, p. 479). In the workshops, inmates can come and go; they can circulate in larger areas than the residence buildings. And they can meet and spend time with other inmates whom they would not necessarily see in their wings or on their floors. Symbolically, the work spaces (in CD1 for example) are decorated in ways typical of male work worlds: caricatures of former inmates or foremen, photos from body-building magazines, calendars with pictures of scantily clothed women. In the MC, inmates working on computers personalize them with desktop pictures of their children or landscapes of their home region. Observing inmates’ workspaces informs us about shop discipline, and on this point the difference between semi-private and public prisons is striking: inmates are much less likely to decorate privately managed workshops. This should be interpreted as an explicit aim on the part of private-sector managers to import modern company standards into the prison: employees of private-sector companies are not permitted to personalize the production space (shop), though they can personalize spaces explicitly dedicated to non-productive time (break rooms, union and workers’ council bulletin boards). Publicly run prisons are much more tolerant of these ways of appropriating space. In this connection it is also useful to consider work breaks. In all the prisons except MA1, which is semi-privately managed (inmates there are only allowed cigarette breaks in a corner of the shop) all workshops I studied have a small space set aside for coffee breaks,(43) during which inmates may also consume canteen-bought or cell-made cakes. Clearly, the workplace is also the space-time of camaraderie, often out of sight of the guards; surveillance is slight and may be nil, particularly in CD shops. While workshops are controlled zones (entry and exit checks, (42) On this subject in work sociology, see Bernoux (1981). (43) Up to one hour per day in CD1 and 60 MC; 30 to 45 minutes in CD2; less than 30 minutes in the MAs. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys From a security perspective, putting prisoners to work helps maintain order and realize the security objectives of a defensive, warrior-like organization (Chauvenet, 1998). While work therefore serves a primary purpose of the prison organization, it also affects how inmates experience their sentence and confinement in ways that the organization had not envisaged. And it is significant that in this world characterized by dispossession, inmates do make the work their own, both temporally and spatially.(42) Fabrice GUILBAUD Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Prison work involves appropriating space but also, as in any work organization, appropriating the time implicated in task performance, namely through slowdown processes. As far as the foremen are concerned, all the shop has to do is “get out the product”; once that’s done, some are willing to let inmates stop work a half-hour to an hour before the shops officially close. Once again, this kind of latitude is more readily encountered in state-run prisons than semi-private ones, where workshop discipline is stricter. CD2, where labor is manual or semi-mechanized and paid per unit produced, calls to mind Donald Roy’s renowned 1952 article, “Quota Restriction and Goldbricking in a Machine Shop”.(45) Roy’s two means of appropriating work time are also found in prison workshops. Quota restriction There are two variants of meeting the quota; in both, workers determine a “score” to be attained, which corresponds to a daily wage.(46) In the case Roy studied, workers worked continuously and fairly quickly to be sure to get breaks and in the hopes of stopping work before actually leaving the shop; i.e., having some time just to hang out (“waste time” as Roy put it –sitting around talking, for example). I observed precisely this behavior in prisons. In MA2, for example, breaks run anywhere from ten minutes to half an hour. In CD2, the time that workers managed to glean for hanging out at the end of the day ranged from fifteen minutes to an hour in the sewing and semi-conductor (44) Guard-to-inmate ratios in MA1 and MA2 are respectively 1/50 and 1/30; foreman-to-inmate ratios are 1/14 and 1/40. In MA2, a state-run prison, guards also handle basic accounting tasks and help supervise inmate work, whereas in MA1 these tasks are done by private staff. (45) References are to the French translation, edited by Briand and Chapoulie (Roy [1952] 2006a). In the following paragraphs I quote in italics a few of the slang expressions Roy noted. (46) In MAs, quota-fixing is mostly individual (in contrast to the situation in Roy’s shop). This difference is explained by varying consumption needs, heavy turnover, massive unemployment and the absence of unions. In the CDs and the MC, quota-fixing may be collective. 61 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys unannounced body searches), they also allow inmates relative autonomy from penitentiary superiors. Work superiors take over,(44) and inmates often have favorable things to say about their foremen. In some cases the inmates themselves come close to running the shop. In the MC I studied, the production spaces are quite remote from each other because there were no shop areas in the original architectural plans. This and the fact that it is a high-security prison explain the low guard-to-inmate ratio (1 to 16). However, a shop in this prison where five inmates work is not guarded and has no foreman. In three RIEP workshops, there is a single guard per floor (a rotating position) but no permanent work supervision; inmate workers there are given instructions at the beginning of each work day. In CD1 there is no guard for the 40 inmates working in the metal shop and a single guard-foreman for the entire 38-inmate binding section of the print shop. Revue française de sociologie assembly workshops; foremen in the other shops were much less tolerant of this practice. “Goldbricking” I often observed shirking behavior among inmates working what the workers Roy studied called “stinkers” –lousy jobs. But in contrast to Roy’s co-workers, some inmates in the prisons I studied start working without knowing the piece rate (prisons often do this, though it is officially prohibited). This is particularly likely to occur in prisons managed semi-privately. In state-run prisons, companies have to indicate the piece rate before launching production. For new products, there is the classic “trial run”, and inmates find out fairly quickly whether the job is “decent” or not (“gravy jobs” are few and far between). I observed only one collective slowdown (five inmates working in CD1); it led to a reassessment of the piece rate. The work consisted in taking apart and deburring (trimming) molded metal pieces. After an hour and a half working at full speed, the inmates calculated that even after several days they would not be able to earn more than 12€ a day. For two days, they slowed production –the first order was supposed to be delivered on the third day. Alarmed by the delay, the supervisors brought in three new inmates from the metalwork shop (paid by the hour) to meet the production deadline and (47) Piecework rates are often fixed directly by the subcontracting companies, not by shop foremen, especially for annual subcontracting contracts in semi-privately run prisons and in public prisons where the company has a long-standing labor leasing agreement with the 62 prison. There are no timers in any methods departments to reassess work paces or prices. (48) However, in some shops the supervisory staff will not let inmates fix quotas; e.g., CD2 and especially MA1 packaging/conditioning shops. Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys This is where the quota-restriction variant lies: wherever production discipline is loose and there is tacit agreement between pieceworkers and foremen, inmates are relatively free to “hang out”. The important thing is to “get out” the production order, and as long as this is assured, the tacit agreement between the two holds.(47) In exchange for the foreman’s laxness, inmates are willing to accelerate if a big order comes in that has to be filled right away.(48) The quotas fixed by inmates in MAs vary greatly and depend heavily on their individual consumption needs (a heavy smoker will often have a higher quota than a non-smoker). The fact is that customer company production demands are often fairly urgent and require mobilizing the workshop’s entire production capacity. While foremen can easily increase the number of workers (given the large, immediately available in-house labor supply), it is harder to have an impact on individual productive effort. The reason for this is simple: many inmates rein in their productivity, reaching their quota through contained rather than continuous labor; that is, they try to limit their production effort by spreading it out over the work day. Foremen are relatively helpless to combat this behavior, because they cannot really pinpoint, expose, or punish it. Fabrice GUILBAUD Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys One reason workers may not know the piece rate is that the supervisors only assess it after starting production (foremen often time worker productivity rates in secret). In such cases, inmates work without knowing how much they are going to earn. There is competitive jostling between work tables; one group asks the other how far along it is at the end of an hour; the foremen may pit the groups against each other, reporting that one has done twice as much as another. Everyone knows what’s going on; inmates know that at the moment production gets under way the rate can vary for them or against them. In this situation they have little power. They know the number of jobless inmates is high and that a collective slowdown would be very hard to manage. So some inmates slow down until they see what the official rate is, convinced that they’re going to “get screwed” in any case. Most work at a moderate pace, aware that it will get them nothing to “pull out the stops” right away yet fearing that if the work supply were to dwindle they would not be kept on. Above all, pay is far from the only benefit of work. The wage is of course an incentive for working,(49) but for inmates the most important battle is the one with time. In fact, the gain to be had from a “juicy job” may sometimes be sacrificed in exchange for an extra day in the workshop (rather than the cell). The main compensation for prison work as prisoners see it –i.e., the way it uses or speeds up time– takes precedence, and may lead them to “apply a heavy foot to the production brake” ([1953] 2006b, p. 72). But they are quick to let it up again if they see a shipment of new pieces to process arriving in the stock area. In sum, inmates are likely to modulate their effort in accordance with the quantity of work to be done; they try to affect production flows because they are afraid the work will dwindle down to nothing and they dread the immediate consequence: getting sent back to the cell! * * * It is hard to define inmates’ experience of time systematically because multiple factors impact on it.(50) I have shown why inmates may be attached to work: it (re)connects them with the division of time into several types, the (49) Roy discusses the wage-making incentive in “Work Satisfaction and Social Reward in Quota Achievement: An Analysis of Piecework Incentive” ([1953] 2006b, p. 43). (50) I.e., work content, production discipline, work pace and wage levels. 63 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys keep the customer. But the inmates did obtain price reevaluation. The head of the RIEP, which was operating as a direct subcontractor for a small manufacturing company, calculated a work pace and negotiated with the company on that basis. The price for a thousand pieces was raised 50% –to which the inmates answered that they could probably “get by” on that, as they would be able to obtain a daily wage of close to 20€ after a few days (one of the lowest rates in the prison). In this particular case, the inmates “won” because they knew the starting price and they knew the RIEP director would stand by them if it proved too low. Revue française de sociologie division of time characteristic of the outside world and the free worker. However, working in prison involves experiencing work in a way that is not found outside prison walls. Inmates are alienated like other workers in that the product of their labor escapes them. In the wage relationship, work can be defined as a constraint, and it may seem that this is even more relevant for inmates since they cannot impact on the way their labor power is used. The fact is that in prison, work appears a cathartic power that makes it easier to cope with a type of social order and organization that is still more alienating than work in the free world. For inmates, work time is both alienated and “dis-alienating” time compared to cell and sentence time. Working itself is undeniably a resource that inmates use to cope with the depersonalization and dependence engendered by confinement. An inmate serving a particularly long prison term confided: “For me it’s really beneficial. I’d go to work every day, even if they didn’t pay me. For me it’s an enormous source of psychological support... it regulates my life.” (MC inmate, 45, 12th year of a 20-year sentence, 3rd prison term). Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys “Incarceration without work would drive you nuts –Saturdays and Sundays are already so long. In August it was hard, we had to put up with each other 24 hours a day. [...] Bad things would happen. Work is good for morale, for your health. It’s not the money, it’s the time. [...] I swear, if they’d told me to work for free, I would’ve. That’s incredible, but I know what prison is.” (MA inmate, 32, 2-year sentence, no prior prison term). In the classic wage relationship, the dissociation between free time and its opposite is mediated by the wage. For prison inmates, that mediation role is less significant. The big problem of incarceration is time, and this in turn may disconnect work from wage. For an inmate, working means seeing the clock hands turn faster; this explains why some went so far as to say that work alone, without pay, would be enough for them. The purpose of my reconsideration of the classic notions of two founding works in sociology of the prison is to show that we should not confine ourselves to analytic frameworks that attribute too much importance to prison as confinement or prison community life. Such analyses will certainly continue to teach us things about what prisons are in our societies, but they do not preclude using other approaches (refocusing the theory) or other social facts (refocusing empirical research), as Chauvenet has done (1998, 2006); in these respects, her studies resemble Chantraine’s call to refocus analysis of the prison (2004). In direct contrast to what might be inferred from Goffman’s analysis, the way inmate workers experience time does involve a split between work time and private time; for them, time is not one-dimensional but multi-dimensional. For this reason we cannot describe working in prison as just another form of “‘workable’ assignment” (1961, p. 219), or reduce it to the minor gratifications it procures for persons up against the social order of a total institution. My results reveal, in intaglio as it were, what incarceration is: an extreme social experience. Prison organizes thoroughgoing deprivation and the 64 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Another inmate, interviewed a few days before his release, took stock of his experience in the following terms: Fabrice GUILBAUD mutilation of living time; it is in this oppressive context that work makes itself felt as a resource for “maintaining one’s identity” (Pollak, 2000), by structuring time “on the inside” in much the same way it is structured for paid workers “on the outside”. But it is also because working in prison prolongs inmates’ status as workers and their “normal” experience of time that they are so attached to it. In this way, prison is not merely a place that induces or reinforces “illegalism”; it is just as much a place of “reinforcement socialization” (Darmon, 2006, pp. 114-116) that acts on dispositions or inclinations toward working life. Fabrice GUILBAUD Département de Sociologie – Université de Picardie Campus – Bât. E – Chemin du Thil 80025 Amiens cedex 1 – France Centre de Recherches Sociologiques et Politiques de Paris (CRESPPA) Cultures et Sociétés Urbaines (CSU) CNRS-Université de Paris 8 59-61 rue Pouchet – 75849 Paris Cedex 17 – France Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Translation: Amy Jacobs Previously published: RFS, 2008, 49-4 65 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys fabrice.guilbaud@u-picardie.fr Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys APPENDIX. – Main prison population and work characteristics for the five prisons studied (51) Ratio between the total population and working, paid inmates (including those in occupational training). (52) This prison is one of the few to have a high number of paid occupational trainee slots. (53) An approximation of the commonly accepted definition of unemployment –i.e., difference between the active population and occupied active population. These figures were calculated using several information sources (commission reports, internal files kept by the supervisory staff). The hardest figures to obtain were for inmates requesting or not requesting work (data not available for MA1) and numbers of inactive inmates (handicapped, over 65). Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Revue française de sociologie 66 Maison d’arrêt (MA) 1 Maison d’arrêt (MA) 2 Centre de détention (CD) 1 Centre de détention (CD) 2 Maison centrale (MC) Criminal defendant awaiting trial (50%), convict (50%) Convict 30 (2/3 < 30) 31 (60% < 30) 45 42 42 Prison theft: 27%; drugs 19%; theft: 24%, violence: 18%, sex crimes: 59%, sex crimes: 61% murder: 64%, populations Offenses violences: 15%; fraud: 11%; driving violations: 17%, murder: 28% (5/6 against minors), sex crimes: 17%, (types) rape: 5% rape: 14%, drugs: 13% murder: 20% organized robbery: 11% 80% sentenced to 10 or 20% sentenced to life, many Length of detention time 6 mos. (aver.) 4 mos. (aver.) 75% sentenced to 10 or + yrs + yrs to over 20 yrs 105 (78 men, 11 women, 10 580 (90 of them women; Officially 600 311 310 partial release, 6 minors) research study restricted to men) Prison In reality 800 196 (men) 303 489 (men) 225 populations (numbers) Working in a shop 110/mo. (aver. 50/day) 56+14 (in-cell work) 136 160 78 Working in gen. service 70 26 45 75 52 25% 49% 59% 75%52 58% Employment rate51 Unemployment rate53 estimated at 60% 28% 26% 16% 20% Hours/wk. 35 h (in 1 workshop, inmates 27 h 30 h 35 h 30,5 h (full-time work) work 6hr-shifts, 2 teams) Supervision guard-to- foreman-to 1/50 1/14 1/30 1/40 1/50 1/19 1/53 1/32 1/16 1/20 ratios inmate -inmate Manual: gluing, sorting, Manual: packing, bagging Printing: offset, binding, Lighting appliances; archive Semi-industrial: sewing and packing for paper and food utensils, assembly, CAD, secretarial; metal restoration (sound and packing office supplies, cardboard companies, paper- and shop: sheet metal images); computer work; Types of work tasks electric assembly, folding bagging, plastic piece envelope-making manufacture, soldering, gluing plastic pieces; bagging and bagging handbooks assembly manual separation of candy; sanding down and metal pieces assembling pieces 2/5 inmates hourly; Pay method Piece work Hourly wage Piece work 3/5 piecework Wages Average monthly pay 120€ 273€ 507€ 436€ 446€ (shops) 1-14 (30 inmates at 1-3.25 (200 inmates at 3.8 (317 inmates at 5.5 (170 inmates at 5.6 (163 inmates at Pay range 420€/mo.) 650€/mo.) 1,200€/mo.) 970€ /mo.) 914€/mo.) Old, urban zone of a Old, greater Paris metro- New, small city in rural Old, industrial city, greater New, industrial zone, midsize city, Centre region politan area zone, Nord region Paris metropolitan area Architectural characteristics outskirts of Paris Shop space: 650 m2 Shop space: 6,000 m² Shop space: 3,500 m² Fragmented shop space Shop space: 900 m2 Management Semi-private Public Public Semi-private Public Inmates’ legal status Average age Fabrice GUILBAUD Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Auvergnon P., Guillemin C., 2006. – Le travail pénitentiaire en question, Paris, La Documentation Française. Bernoux P., 1981. – Un travail à soi, Toulouse, Privat. Bizeul D., 1998. – “Le récit des conditions d’enquête: exploiter l’information en connaissance de cause”, Revue Française de Sociologie, 39, 4, pp. 751-787. Castel R., 1989. – “Institutions totales et configurations ponctuelles” in I. Joseph (ed.), Le parler frais d’Erving Goffman, Paris, Éditions de Minuit, pp. 31-43. Chantraine G., 2000. – “La sociologie carcérale: approches et débats théoriques en France”, Déviance et Société, 24, 3, pp. 297-318. — 2004. – “Prison et regard sociologique. Pour un décentrage de l’analyse critique”, Champ Pénal, vol. I [http://champpenal.revues.org/document39.html]. Chauvenet A., 1998. – “Guerre et paix en prison”, Les Cahiers de la Sécurité Intérieure, 31, pp. 91-100. — 2006. – “Privation de liberté et violence: le despotisme ordinaire en prison”, Déviance et Société, 30, 3, pp. 373-388. Chauvenet A., Monceau M., Rostaing C., Orlic F., 2005. – La violence carcérale en question, Rapport de recherche, Paris, CEMS, Mission de Recherche Droit et Justice. Chauvenet A., Orlic F., Benguigui G., 1994. – Le monde des surveillants de prison, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Chauvenet A., Rostaing C., Orlic F., 2008. – La violence carcérale en question, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Clemmer D., [1940] 1958. – The Prison Community, New York (NY), Holt Rinehart and Winston. Combessie P., 2001. – Sociologie de la prison, Paris, La Découverte. Danti-Juan M., 1994. – “Les droits sociaux du détenu” in J. Pradel (ed.), La condition juridique du détenu, Paris, Cujas, pp. 99-111. Darmon M., 2006. – La socialisation, Paris, Armand Colin. Davies C., 1989. – “Goffman’s Concept of the Total Institution: Criticisms and Revisions”, Human Studies, 12, 1-2, pp. 77-95. Dubéchot P., 2002. – “Paroles de détenus sur le travail”, Les Rapports du CREDOC, 224. Durkheim É., [1893] 2007. – De la division du travail social, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Farrington K., 1992. – “The Modern Prison as Total Institution? Public Perception Versus Objective Reality”, Crime and Delinquency, 38, 1, pp. 7-26. Fischer G. N., [1994] 1998. – “Espaces de travail et appropriation” in M. De Coster, F. Pichault (eds.), Traité de sociologie du travail, Bruxelles, De Boeck Université, pp. 475-496. Foucault M., 1975. – Surveiller et punir, Paris, Gallimard. — 1977. – Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan Sheridan, London, Penguin Books. Goffman E., 1961. – Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates, New York (NY), Anchor Books. — 1968. – Asiles, Paris, Éditions de Minuit. Grossin W., 1969. – Le travail et le temps, Paris, Anthropos. — 1973. – Les temps de la vie quotidienne, Thèse présentée devant l’université de Paris V, Reproduction par l’université de Lille III. Guilbaud F., 2007. – “Contraintes, droit et ambivalences du travail: le cas des ateliers pénitentiaires” in F. Aballéa, M. Lallement (coords.), Relations de travail, relations au travail, Toulouse, Octarès, pp. 93-100. 67 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys REFERENCES Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Hirschman A. O., 1970. – Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States, Cambridge (MA), Harvard University Press. — 1995. – Défection et prise de parole, Paris, Fayard. Lazarsfeld P., Jahoda M., Zeisel H., [1960] 1981. – Les chômeurs de Marienthal, Paris, Éditions de Minuit. — [1971] 2002. – Marienthal: The Sociography of an Unemployed Community, New Brunswick (NJ), Transaction Publishers. Le Caisne L., 2004. – “L’économie des valeurs, distinction et classement en milieu carcéral”, L’Année Sociologique, 54, 2, pp. 511-538. Ledrut R., 1966. – Sociologie du chômage, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Lefebvre H., [1945] 1958. – Critique de la vie quotidienne, tome I, Paris, L’Arche. Legge K., 1978. – “Work in Prison: The Process of Inversion”, British Journal of Criminology, 28, 1, pp. 6-22. Lemire G., 1990. – Anatomie de la prison, Montréal, Économica, Presses Universitaires de Montréal. Linhart D., 2005. – “Le contrat de travail salarié: un quiproquo fondamental” in D. Linhart, A. Moutet (eds.), Le travail nous est compté, Paris, La Découverte, pp. 7-20. Lucas C., 1996. – Suerte. L’exclusion volontaire, Paris, Plon. Marchand O., Thélot C., 1997. – Le travail en France (1800-2000), Paris, Nathan. Marchetti A.-M., 2001. – Perpétuités. Le temps infini des longues peines, Paris, Plon. Marx K., [1847] 1996. – Misère de la philosophie, with a presentation by J. Kessler, Paris, Payot. Meynaud H., 2006. – “De l’esclavage au travail forcé dans les prisons: apports d’Angela Y. Davis”, Travailler, 17, pp. 207-217. Milly B., 2001. – Soigner en prison, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France. Pauchet C., 1984. – “Le temps en milieu carcéral”, Revue Pénitentiaire et de Droit Pénal, 2, pp. 151-163. Pronovost G., 1996. – Sociologie du temps, Paris, Bruxelles, De Boeck Université. Pollak M., 2000. – L’expérience concentrationnaire, Paris, Métailié. Rolle P., 1998. – “Le travail agricole” in J. Kergoat, J. Boutet, H. Jacot, D. Linhart (eds.), Le monde du travail, Paris, La Découverte, pp. 101-111. Roy D., [1952] 2006a. – “Deux formes de freinage dans un atelier d’usinage. Respecter un quota et tirer au flan” in D. Roy, Un sociologue à l’usine, translation supervised by J.-P. Briand and J.-M. Chapoulie, Paris, La Découverte, pp. 37-69. — 1953. – “Work Satisfaction and Social Reward in Quota Achievement: An Analysis of Piecework Incentive,” American Sociological Review, 18, 5, pp. 507-514. — [1953] 2006b. – “Satisfaction au travail et gratification sociale procurées dans la réalisation de quotas de production” in D. Roy, Un sociologue à l’usine, translation supervised by J.-P. Briand and J.-M. Chapoulie, Paris, La Découverte, pp. 71-86. Salle G., 2003. – “Situation carcérales en Allemagne. Prison et politique”, Déviance et Société, 27, 4, pp. 389-411. Schnapper D., 1980. – L’épreuve du chômage, Paris, Gallimard. Selznick P., [1957] 1984. – Leadership in Administration, Berkeley (CA), University of California Press. Sykes G. M., [1958] 1999. – The Society of Captives, Princeton (NJ), Princeton University Press. Thompson E. P., 1993. – “Time, Work-Discipline and Industrial Capitalism” in Customs in Common, ch. 6, London, Penguin Books [Available on-line at http://libcom.org/library/ time-work-discipline-industrial-capitalism-e-p-thompson]. — [1967] 2004. – Temps, discipline du travail et capitalisme industriel, Paris, La Fabrique. 68 Document téléchargé depuis www.cairn.info - biblio_shs - - 193.54.110.35 - 11/12/2011 18h03. © Ophrys Revue française de sociologie