Exploring Women's Relatonships with Prisoners in Russian Reality

FAKULTY OF SOCIAL STUDIES

„Outside Prison Cultue“: Exploring women’s relatonships with prisoners in Russian reality

Master thesis

BC. DILNARA RADJAPOVA

Supervisor: doc. Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky, Ph.D.

Department of Sociology Field of study Sociology

Brno 2020

„OUTSIDE PRISON CULTUE“: EXPLORING WOMEN’S RELATONSHIPS WITH PRISONERS IN RUSSIAN REALITY

Bibliografický záznam

Autor: Bc. Dilnara Radjapova Fakulta sociálních studií Masarykova univerzita Department of Sociology Název práce: „Outside Prison Cultue“: Exploring women’s relatonships with prisoners in Russian reality Studijní program: Navazující magisterské Studijní obor: Sociology Vedoucí práce: doc. Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky, Ph.D. Rok: 2020 Počet stran: 67 Klíčová slova: vězeňská kultura, genderové role, maskulinita, feminita, sociální sítí, prizonizace, diskriminace, Rusko, obsahová analýza, misogynie

2 „OUTSIDE PRISON CULTUE“: EXPLORING WOMEN’S RELATONSHIPS WITH PRISONERS IN RUSSIAN REALITY

Bibliographic record

Author: Bc. Dilnara Radjapova Faculty of Social Studies Masaryk University Department of Sociology Title of Thesis: “Outside prison culture”: Exploring women’s relationships with prisoners in Russian reality Degree Programme: Follow-up Master ‘s programme Field of Study: Sociology Supervisor: doc. Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky, Ph.D. Year: 2020 Number of Pages: 67 Keywords: prison culture, gender roles, masculinity, femininity, social networks, prisonization, discrimination, Russian, content analysis, misogyny

3 „OUTSIDE PRISON CULTUE“: EXPLORING WOMEN’S RELATONSHIPS WITH PRISONERS IN RUSSIAN REALITY

Abstrakt

Tato magisterská práce zkoumá vězeňskou kulturu v rámci ruské reality. Hlavním cílem práce je zjistit, jak se tato kultura projevuje ve romantic- kých vztazích mezi ženami a uvězněnými muži. Studie zkoumá gende- rové role a koncepty „maskulinity“ a „feminity“ v rámci vězeňské kultury. Základní metodou použitou v této práci je metoda obsahové analýzy. Pro tuto analýzu byly vybrány komentáře a příspěvky, které byly publiko- vány na speciálních stránkách věnovaných vězeňskému životu a vězeň- ské kultuře v sociální síti VKontakte. Výsledky analýzy ukazují, že ženy přijímají kódy vězeňské kultury a reprodukují je v každodenním životě. Žena spolu s uvězněným mužem prochází transformací kulturních kódů. Muži přijímají tyto kódy během pobytu ve vezení a ženy propojuje svůj původní hodnotový systém s nově osvojenou vězeňskou kulturou.

4 „OUTSIDE PRISON CULTUE“: EXPLORING WOMEN’S RELATONSHIPS WITH PRISONERS IN RUSSIAN REALITY

Abstract

This master thesis is studying prison culture within the framework of Russian reality. The main goal of the work is to explore how this culture is manifested in the relationship between women and incarcerated men. The study examines gender roles and the concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity" within prison culture. The basic method used in this work is the content analysis method. Comments and posts selected for this analysis were published on special pages devoted to prison life and prison culture in the VKontakte social network. The results of the analysis show that women accept prison culture codes and reproduce them in everyday life. The woman, together with the imprisoned man, undergoes a transformation of cultural codes. Men adopt these codes during their imprisonment, and women connect their original value system with the newly acquired prison culture.

„OUTSIDE PRISON CULTUE“: EXPLORING WOMEN’S RELATONSHIPS WITH PRISONERS IN RUSSIAN REALITY

Declaration on honour

I hereby declare, I wrote the master thesis „Outside Prison Cultue“: Ex- ploring women’s relatonships with prisoners in Russian reality in- dependently, using only the sources cited and the help of my supervisor.

V Brně 1. ledna 2020 ...... Bc. Dilnara Radjapova

„OUTSIDE PRISON CULTUE“: EXPLORING WOMEN’S RELATONSHIPS WITH PRISONERS IN RUSSIAN REALITY

Acknowledgment

I want to thank my supervisor doc. Bernadette Nadya Jaworsky, Ph.D. for her endless patience and support in this difficult year for me, as well as for her interesting lectures and courses. I also want to thank my friends who always help me to survive with their humor, they are the best support. Many thanks to my family for the chance to get an education. I express special thanks to my father, who works as a doctor in these hard times.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Content

1 Introducton 13

2 A brief history of prison in Russia 15

3 Theoretical part 17 3.1 Prison as a total institution ...... 17 3.2 Socialization in prison: “Self” changing ...... 19 3.3 The concepts of masculinity and femininity within a prison ... 22 3.4 Features of the concepts of masculinity and femininity in Russian prisons ...... 24 3.5 Prison Culture and Prison Subculture ...... 26

4 Methods 32 4.1 Abduction and content analysis ...... 32 4.2 Research question ...... 34 4.3 Collecting data...... 34 4.4 Dividing data and choosing a frame ...... 37

5 Analysis 38 5.1 Family relationships ...... 38 5.2 Children ...... 40 5.3 Prison code ...... 42 5.4 Sexuality ...... 46 5.5 Work and finances ...... 47 5.6 The image of a woman ...... 49 5.7 The image of a man ...... 51 5.8 Attitude towards imprisonment, attitude towards the laws .... 52 5.9 The attitude towards the prison administration and the prison rules ...... 54

6 Discussion 56

7 Conclusion 58

Bibliography 59

Sourses 63

Author index 64

12 INTRODUCTON

1 Introducton

In Russian history, the topic of prison was constantly relevant. There are many reasons for this: from historical events — such as repressions, exile and changes in political regimes; to the popular culture that use the topic of a prison — these are songs and folklore, literature and art, films, and TV shows. For example, famous Russian authors like Fedor Dostoevsky, Vladimir Mayakovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Joseph Brodsky spent time in prison at least once in their lives. They have written many works on this subject. For example, a work written by Aleksandr Solzhe- nitsyn [1973] The Gulag Archipelago: An Experiment in Literary Investi- gation, is based on an artistic study of the prison and the period of repression. The work reveals prison life and describes life in custody. With the progress of the Internet and mass communications, prison stories have become more accessible. There are many groups on the popular Russian social network Vkontakte that write about prison and imprisonment. Some groups are for teenagers, others are for helping prisoners, some are for helping women who are in relationships with prisoners. With the progress and massive use of wireless communications in Russia, the number of women who have relationships with men in prisons has increased [Omelchenko 2015].Social networks and the Internet have allowed people in different places to maintain relationships over a long distance. In this work, I focus on women in relationships with prisoners. In my research, I have selected the most popular communities in Vkontakte, which help such women, and did a content analysis of posts and comments in these communities. In addition, I chose a group that opposes relations with prisoners and manifests itself as an anti-prison culture community. I also analyze their posts in order to understand the attitudes towards the prison culture and which aspects of this culture are accepted and which are rejected. The main research question in my analysis is: "How does the prison culture manifest itself in the relationship between women and prisoners?" Since this is a relationship between a man and a woman, I looked at prison culture through the prism of gender roles. In the first part, I have explained the historical context of the appearance of prison culture. Acquaintance with a brief history of Russia is necessary to understand the nuances that underlie the subject of the prison in the culture and history of this society. Further, in the theoretical part

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 13 INTRODUCTON of my work, I describe the prison in terms of sociological concepts. I also describe the gender aspects of prison culture in the framework of sociological research and add the features of prison culture in the context of Russian reality using the research of Russian scientists. Further, in the methodological part of the work, I describe the main research strategy, the reasons for choosing the content analysis and the strategy for choosing the subject of analysis. In the next part, I described the results of the analysis divided into categories and groups. As part of the discussion, I summarize the findings and described their possible causes.

14 A BRIEF HISTORY OF PRISON IN RUSSIA

2 A brief history of prison in Russia

To understand Russian reality at the current time, we need to know how the history of the prison developed in the past. Therefore, in this part of my thesis, I will describe the pivotal historical moments related to the jail, camps, and colonies in the history of Russia. The period on which I mainly focused on this part is from the 30s of the XX century to the beginning of the XXI century. Why is the focus on a period since the 30s of the XX century? Because in July 1929, a decree “On the use of the labor of prisoners” was signed in the USSR, according to which the detention of all convicts for a term of 3 years or more was transferred to the organized management of forced labor camps [Khlevniuk 2004: 9-11]. Later in 1930, the main camp directorates (glavniye upravleniya lagereiy), or merely the Gulag, were organized. It should also be mentioned that criminal law has made specific code changes. That is, for picking and stealing from the property of collective households or any other property belong- ing to the “nation,” but in fact to the state, was sentenced from 5 to 10 years in correctional camps [Khlevniuk 2004:15-18]. As a result of these changes, the number of convicted persons in places of detention has sharply increased. In 1937-1938 the so-called "great terror" began; it was characterized as a mass arrest and mass execution of convicted people in the USSR [Conquest 1968]. There are still disputes about the number of convicted and executed in these years. The estimated amount of those arrested is 1.4 million people, and about 600,000 of them were shot1 [Kropachev 2010]. However, most of these arrested were politically or ideologically inconvenient to the government of that time, and many cases were fab- ricated [Shearer 2009]. In the post-war years, in 1947-1948, criminal laws for thieves and political prisoners were tightened and changed, and any political prisoners were transferred to a group of especially dangerous people for the state. Also, in these years a lot of prisoners of war from countries of East- ern and Central Europe were in prisons and camps [Khlevniuk 2004]. In the early 1950s, the people in prisons and camps of the USSR reached the

1 This data can be challenged, as there is no single statistics and open data. There is still no consensus in Russian scientific and historical areas. Here averaged data are shown.

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 15 A BRIEF HISTORY OF PRISON IN RUSSIA maximum number - 2.5 million people. All this was as a result of the post- war tightening of criminal legislation and the social consequences of the famine of 1946-1947, which led to the theft from collective farms or to various manipulations with reporting and checking, or to the emergence of private markets or black markets [Popov 1992]. After the death of Joseph Stalin, political changes in the USSR led to the fact that on March 27, 1953, a decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet on amnesty was issued, according to which, over the next three months, almost the half of the prisoners in camps were released (approx- imately 1,200,000 of 2,500,000 people), whose term of imprisonment was less than four years [Khlevniuk 2004]. Since 1953, the number of prisoners in camps and colonies began to decline gradually until the 1970s. However, by 1985, the number of people in prisons, camps, and colonies had grown to 2 million. Additionally, the proportion of people who committed serious crimes (murders, robberies, and violence) began to rise [Zemskov 1991]. From 1986 to 1996, as a result of political and economic changes (weakening of the USSR policy and the collapse of the USSR), as well as various amnesties, more than 1 million people were released from the prisons and camps [Pavlush, Popov 2019]. Over the history of Russia since the 50s, millions of people were somehow connected to the prison. These were not only convicts who have been released, but also their families and friends, as well as the prison staff. It is worth noting that former prisoners were released at a time when various social organizations were not established to adapt prisoners. Former prisoners introduced prison practices and customs to society, which gradually mixed, spread, and acquired new features. In the following parts of the work, I will answer questions about what prison is; specific features of Russian prisons; how it can change human behavior, and people’s views on everyday life.

16 THEORETICAL PART

3 Theoretical part

In this part of my work, I will describe prison through the prism of sociological theories, using the terms and concepts of a total institution and its impact on the socialization of a person. Next, I will analyze the concepts of masculinity and femininity, especially in the framework of prison practices in Russia. Then, the concept of prisonization as the main point of spreading prison culture and its impact on the prisoner's friends and relatives also will be examined.

3.1 Prison as a total institution

The authorship of the term “total institution” belongs to Erving Goffman, who defined it as the place of residence and activity of a large number of individuals who are cut off from the outside world for quite long time and lead a reclusive life, the forms of which are explicit and carefully reg- ulated [Goffman 1961: 41]. Goffman identified several types of total institutions. He included prisons, military barracks, sea vessels, closed ed- ucational institutions, hospitals, monasteries, and other shelters, where people leave the world for religious reasons. The specifics of a “normal” life are that the spaces of work, leisure, entertainment, learning, and other activities are divided, whereas, in a total institution, this is not conceivable. Goffman notes that in total institutions, different activities are carried out in the same place under the influence of one power structure; any activity is carried out collectively based on unified rules and requirements and is based on a clear organi- zational purpose [Goffman 1961: 17]. Total institutions have a specific regulatory environment based on a system of semi-formal rules. Goffman identified such components of the regulation of relations within a total institution as the formal rules of the institution, the reward system, and the punishment system. The system of reward and punishment can be both formal and informal, depending on the specifics of each particular total institution [Goffman 1961: 51]. The specifics of managerial influence in total institutions are described in detail by Michel Foucault. Considering the specifics of the act of punishment, Foucault introduced the concept of “normalizing

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 17 THEORETICAL PART punishment” [Foucault 1999: 259]. According to Foucault, micro-punishments in total institutions take into account almost all aspects: time (late- ness, absence, breaks in work), activity (carelessness, negligence, lack of zeal), behavior (impoliteness, disobedience), speech (chatter, audacity), body (“incorrect” posture, inappropriate gestures, untidiness) and sexuality (immodesty, obscenity). Moreover, there are a significant number of elaborate procedures that are used as punishment: from light physical punishment to minor deprivation and humiliation [Foucault 1999: 259- 260]. Foucault noted that punishment in the disciplinary regime is not aimed for repression, but it correlates with actions, successes, and behavior of an individual and the whole, which is both a field of comparison, a space of differentiation, and the principle of the rule to be followed. Punishment distinguishes individuals from each other and, based on a general rule — a state that serves as a specified minimum and optimum to which people must strive, quantitatively measures and builds up the “nature” of individuals in a hierarchical order; and establishes, through this “value” measure, the degree of conformity to be achieved [Foucault 1999: 267]. Accordingly, there is a division into “normal” and “abnormal.” Total institutions operate in a similar mode of separation and stigma, in which there is a constant division into normal and abnormal, and, after that, attempts are made to correct those who have the label “abnormal” [Foucault 1999: 291-292]. According to Amitai Etzioni, the existence of total institutions is in- extricably linked with the concept of “coercive power.” The author defined “coercive power” as the application or threat of applying physical sanctions (causing pain, mutilation, deprivation of life), the formation of frustration through the restriction of freedom, movement or power control over the food needs, social comfort, etc. [Etzioni 1975: 4]. In total institutions, the level of regulation rules is high, which from aside seem as unjustified, cruel, and even ridiculous. A feature of such institutions is that within their framework, both controlled and control- ling sides often develop ways of informal regulation over the formal control system. According to the degree of use of coercion, total institutions are divided into two types: those in which the source of coercion is external to the person (prison, closed medical institutions), and those in which coercion is an act of voluntary choice of their members, their min- istry (religious organizations, etc.). This is a kind of pole between which total institutions exist.

18 THEORETICAL PART

3.2 Socialization in prison: “Self” changing

Under the conditions of a total institution, the process of socialization has clear external institutional boundaries of its course. An institution throws all its forces into directing the process of personality socialization in a particular direction, regardless of a person’s life experience, motiva- tion, needs, etc. Of course, a socialization mechanism of this kind is also determined by the specifics of the social environment of the total institution. Penitentiary institutions act as an agent of socialization, both for prisoners and employees. A prison is a separate environment that is very different from a normal society; prisoners, and prison officers, form their distinct communities and create their social norms. Officers serve as “social control agents,” thereby maintaining discipline and ensuring security [Poole, Regoli 1981]. From the prisoners' point of view, such institutions are perceived as overwhelming and domineering, causing them feelings of disobedience and contempt for the officers [Poole, Regoli 1981]. Due to a change in their social role in society, prisoners experience loneliness, a lack of emotional relationships, a decrease in identity, and a “lack of security and autonomy” [Carmi 1983]. Both social groups, prisoners, and security officers, experience nervous tension due to fear and the need for constant vigilance, which creates a problematic atmosphere inside such institutions [Poole, Regoli 1981]. Often, isolation from the outside world is imposed on newcomers to a total institution with the help of elaborate or cruel rituals. Total institutions are characterized by physical and moral coercion because it acts as the most effective means to eradicate the habits and expectations associated with the existence that was conducted before. Since no one seems to submit to them voluntarily and with pleasure, the institution should first “destroy the previous identity” for adequately achieving the ultimate goals of the organization. This is done to obtain a complete gap between people and their past lives and to ensure obeying the rules of the institution. Analyzing them, the French sociologist Louis Pinto identified methods for the implementation of this rule, aimed at denying any identity, limiting time and space, and unconditional obeying [Pinto 2001]. These procedures include all sorts of “personified” methods, due to which the organization’s agents monitor and train obstinate individuals, “wiseacres,” “roarers” (in other circumstances they would be called “arrogant” or “pretending”), and those who “full of themselves.” In many total organizations, there is a tendency for “conversion” - replacing the

“old person” with the “new one” using not so many explicit beliefs, but a set of procedures that are similar to a kind of “gymnastics” [Pinto 2001: 29-30]. Pinto emphasized that the systematic hammering of automa- tisms into the body is so significant in such institutions because, taking to the extreme the logic of all discipleship, they ensure full compliance with the “Order.” A “military spirit” is developed with the help of specific orthopedics - all of these “attention,” “at ease,” “parade rest,” the purpose of which is to eradicate both the natural and the feminine from the body [Pinto 2001: 31-32]. Total institutions, according to Goffman, are “houses” of coercion for changing people, a natural experiment on what can be done with the “Self.” According to Goffman, each institution of this kind limits the time and interests of people, that is, “has a tendency to restriction,” symboli- cally expressed in restricting communication with the outside world and prohibiting departure. Some forms of this restriction are visible to an eye (for example, locked doors, fences, barbed wire) [Goffman 1980]. Goffman emphasized that in a total institute, there is usually a large group of inhabitants and a small group of personnel, and the inhabitants are the target of the impact that the person carries out. The gap between the first and second groups is vast, which leads to stereotypes: one group perceives the other only in a negative and stereotypical framework. This abyss, this irresistible distance, according to Goffman, is the result of bu- reaucratic management of large groups of people. The inhabitants, as soon as they find themselves in a total institution, are immediately en- dowed with the presumption of guilt, which justifies everything that happens to them within the walls of the institution [Goffman 1980]. When a person becomes an “inhabitant” of a total institution, their “Self,” according to Goffman, undergoes a particular transformation, and based on this transformation, a new worldview is created. Something like deculturation or “unlearning” occurs, during which the ability to control one’s behavior, to react to a situation or adapt to changes in the outside world, is blocked. This blockage becomes the foundation on which further changes and impacts are superimposed. A person encounters, as Goffman noted, a series of humiliations, devaluations, insults, and here- sies of the “Self.” Their “Self” is consecutively, even if unintentionally, killed [Goffman 1980]. According to Goffman, the mechanisms, by which in total institutions the “Self” is killed, are standard and simple [Goffman 1980]. Anne Branaman [1997] combines such mechanisms into the following seven

20 THEORETICAL PART groups. Deprivation of the right to choose roles or free implementation of a role. Management and processing of personal identity. They are depriving the name of an individual, their property, and everything necessary for the realization of oneness. Imposing humiliating poses, situations, and imposing the need to demonstrate patterns of respect. Pollu- tion in the physical and interpersonal sense. Destruction of the connection between a person and their behavior. Deprivation of freedom to an expression of will, autonomy, and freedom to act [Branaman 1997]. The main thing is the separation from the previous social role and depriving a person of the right to individuality. A person can no longer form their own “Self,” this process is controlled by the staff of the institute instead. The staff deprives a person’s right of ownership, personal property, gives uniform clothes for everyone, prohibits the opening of individual lockers for storing personal belongings, periodically searches, carefully monitors communications with relatives and friends, checks correspondences and transfer of things. Inhabitants cannot control their appearance by themselves since they no longer have the necessary de- vices for this, and they are deprived of access to specialists (hairdressers, tailors, etc.). The human body is disfigured and distorted: it can be stigmatized, beaten, subjected to shock therapy, forced to keep the body in a humiliating position when staff and management appear (for example, to stand at attention), and prevent personal hygiene. They are always forced to beg for things they need: matches, cigarettes, water, pencils, and paper — or ask for permission to call or write a letter [Goffman 1980]. The inhabitant of the total institute is continuously in the company of a large number of other inhabitants, and the total institute never leaves them alone with themselves and, due to this, destroys their boundaries, their “Self.” A mixture of different ages, ethnic, racial groups, sexes leads to the loss of human identity. Their sexual behavior, impaired functioning of the body, are becoming noticeable to everyone. Contact with the outside world in the total institution is limited, and at the beginning of the stay, it is often wholly forbidden [Goffman 1980]. Goffman used the concepts of primary adaptation and secondary adaptation. By “primary” means adaptation to society (in particular, adjust- ment of the inhabitant of a total institution to the rules and social role imposed on). The secondary adaptation is a strategy for evading the role and image of the “Self” prescribed by the institution, unauthorized means

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 21 THEORETICAL PART of achieving unofficial goals, which allow keeping personal identity [Goffman 1980]. Among the components and examples of secondary adaptation, Goffman described various actions of evasion, renunciation of reality: playing sports, theater, scientific activity, or actively cultivating religios- ity. Evasion of the rules is the implementation of specific actions only because they are prohibited by the regulations of the total institution, such as creating of symbols and nicknames to indicate personnel and the activities they require; unofficial use of items (for example, the use of radi- ators for drying things, chopped toilet paper as handkerchiefs, socks as purses, etc.); finding positive aspects in harmful procedures (for example, after insulinocomatosis therapy, patients enjoy the opportunity to lie in bed all morning); building non-institutional relations (friendship, pat- ronage, exchange, unification for the sake of confrontation with others, etc.) [Goffman 1980]. The total institution does not create submissive personalities who forever parted with their civilian “self.” It tries to do this for effective management, but people find loopholes, workarounds that allow them to maintain self-esteem and an undeformed image of themselves. Such secondary adaptation practices are incredibly diverse. Inhabitants can hide prohibited personal items, ask others to buy them something in the hos- pital stall if they do not have the right to leave the room, provide services to each other, or to staff for money, express their attitude with gestures and words. As a result of many subconscious or conscious practices and manipulations of people in total institutions, the self-changes. Often it can take on forms that the total institution did not seek to create. These new "Self" were created as a result of adaptation while surviving under new conditions or trying to save their past "Self,” which was faced with a new reality and new norms.

3.3 The concepts of masculinity and femininity within a prison

This work is not so much about the male prisoners themselves, but about their loved ones, about their girlfriends and wives. In this sense, it is logical to examine the question of the perception of “masculinity” and “femininity” within a prison. The answer to the question of how prisoners

22 THEORETICAL PART perceive the gender world will help to partially mirror both the attitude of women to themselves and the reaction of men to them. The main change or aggravation in the “Self” of men is observed in a difference in the definition of the category of masculinity. “Masculinity” becomes exaggerated, intensified, often toxic (interfering with public and private life), and demonstrative. Such a perception can be called “hypermasculinity,” it not only regulates the internal “Self” but is also reflected in the external world - to other prisoners. “Hypermasculinity” maintains a hierarchy within a collective of men, often based on physical strength and respect/fear of power. A society of men in prison supports the concept of “brotherhood” and universal patriarchy. In prison, new rules of conduct and new standards appear that are considered acceptable or un- acceptable, which are regarded as “male” and which are classified as “female” categories [Jewkes 2005]. This hypermasculinity can be expressed openly as violence and abusive behavior [Jewkes 2005], but it can also manifest itself in a more latent form - there are changes not only in behavior, but also in conscious- ness. [Symkovych 2017a] For example, in the expression of a particular point of view, or the manifestation of misogyny and homophobia. Behind the violence there is a “facade” of the male image or perception of male behavior, where certain character traits are presented as positive and only “male-ish” (or all positive character traits are inherent only to men), for example, when they speak of fidelity, loyalty, persever- ance, honor, etc. [Oleynik 2001; Symkovych 2017a; Symkovych 2017b]. In these cases, imprisoned men build their understanding of “masculine behavior,” where destructive and non-destructive concepts often mix. For example, the different concepts or definitions of life principles and personal growth are mixed and understood as signs of “male behavior,” and contempt for weakness, unscrupulousness, and betrayal also arises - which is classified as “female behavior” [Kennedy 2016; Symkovych 2017a]. These categories of masculinity can also coexist with latent misogyny when “female character” is perceived as undesirable, shameful traits. The concept of hypermasculinity in prison represents masculinity in various and often complex ways, and ideas of masculinity can change over time [Kennedy 2016]. It is worth noting that, according to studies, inmates often adapt to prison, changing their attitude to the norms, customs, and traditions of the dominant institutional culture, using traditionally male “forms of exclusion” in their behavior. It is this behavior when demonstrative

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 23 THEORETICAL PART masculinity comes to the fore, that allows prisoners to strive for social acceptance in a highly heterosexual environment in which men domi- nate. In a prison where the social situation is continuously tense, the use of the “facade” of masculinity has become a necessary survival strategy, even though it could push other people away from themselves even more [Viggiani 2012]. The constant struggle for survival in a strictly hierarchical system contains coercion to abide by specific rules, including competitiveness, rude or courageous behavior, sexism, homophobia, maintaining its rep- utation or legality, and vulnerable exploitation of prisoners. Such behavior can be interpreted as methods of confirming a “safe” traditional male identity in prison. Constant self-censorship, loyalty to the values of the prison hegemonic social system create the conditions for the survival of people in a new environment, and adaptation to a new culture.

3.4 Features of the concepts of masculinity and femininity in Russian prisons

In Russian prisons and the criminal sphere, hypermasculinity or toxic masculinity are also present. A distinctive feature of Russian prisons is a strict hierarchy and a set of unspoken rules of conduct. In Russian, there is such a word as “ponyatiya,” literally in English, it means “concepts, meaning,” but the slang meaning of this word is “rules.” “Living according to ponyatiya” means abiding by the thieves' law in life (both in prison and in freedom). Thieves' law (faith or code) - these are unwritten rules and norms of behavior in the thieves’ community during the times of the Soviet Union and in the post-Soviet space. It was developed in connection to the isolation of the social group of criminals in the context of opposition to the state. The following standards are included in the code of thieves in law: life outside the interests of an official society; refusal to serve the state, whatever the political regime; never getting a formal job or manual work; ability to adapt to any circumstances; cruelty towards traitors; honesty and decency in relations to other thieves in law; contempt for any responsibility; extensive connections in the thieves' world; never having a permanent relationship with women. It is thieves in law who maintain order in prison society and organize it. Thieves in law pro- mote a criminal lifestyle, organize a “common fund” (collective fund of

24 THEORETICAL PART money and products) and distribute it, organize “taxation” of “huck- sters,” and financially help other prisoners who need it. Thieves in law collect information about the situation in the prison and criminal world and provide contact with the outside world [Gurov 1990]. Thieves' law was jointly mixed with unspoken prison rules that gov- ern life and hierarchy in prison. Any traits that can be identified as “feminine” become punishable by other inhabitants. One of the most severe punishments is sexual abuse. A convicted person who has been sexually abused is perceived as a member who stands at the lowest level of the prison hierarchy. Such a person should not be touched except for violent purposes, nobody should eat at the same table, should not be take things from his hands, and everything that the convicted person touched would become taboo and forbidden. Any traits that can be interpreted as “feminine” are an occasion to doubt masculinity, which means honesty, honor, and dignity of a person [Lysak, Cherkasova 2006; Tishenko 2007]. This image of the prisoner and his lifestyle are reflected in the “thieves” (“blatnoy”)2 songs and stories. The following main points can be distinguished in them: • attitude to the mother (deeply respectful - although in real life this does not correspond to reality, full of compassion and tenderness); • view towards a woman in general (usually negative; even the famous “Murka” from the song of the same name turns out to be an agent of law enforcement agencies); • attitude to criminal activity (usually in the songs it is generally regretted that the author had to take the path of a criminal life for various, typically independent of him, reasons); • attitude to law enforcement agencies (extremely negative, vi- ciously ironic); • attitude to themselves (usually compassionate, seeking to justify) [Efimova 2004]. In Russian prisons, “hypermasculinity” is manifested in a negative attitude to everything that is connected or can be interpreted as “female behavior.” Since there is an idea that a woman does not represent the concept of “honor.” That is, women are prone to betrayal and cannot be

2 “Blatnoy” (usually thief in law) is a representative of the highest status group in the informal hierarchy of prisoners. Thieves song (trans. “blatnaya pesnya”) - a song genre that glorifies the hard life and customs of the criminal environment; initially targeted at prisoners and people close to the criminal world [Efimova 2004].

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 25 THEORETICAL PART trusted. Character traits or behavior that can be interpreted as “female” are perceived very negatively. And among all women, only the mother is respected. There is a saying that “only a mother deserves love,” because there is a belief in prison folklore that the mother will wait for her son from prison, and the mother will never betray her child. The female role is evaluated only in terms of their fertility. Because of this, gender boundaries are sharply delineated, which are very ambiguous [Tishenko 2007]. Also, in a prison itself, the hierarchy is built on specific rules, which can be called the “code of prisoners.” Under these rules, those men who do not comply with the standards described in the codes are at the lowest level of the hierarchy. They undertake to satisfy the sexual needs of other prisoners. Homosexual sex, especially in a passive position, is considered a degradation of “masculinity” [Symkovych 2017b; Oleynik 2001]. Many similar nuances characterize “masculinity” in Russian and post-Soviet prisons. And many men are adopting this new culture to fit into a new society and survive in prison.

3.5 Prison Culture and Prison Subculture

What is the prison “code,” prison language, symbols, and meanings of prison tattoos, as well as prison customs, norms, and rules? Such a lifestyle in various studies is called a different culture, counterculture, or subculture. So, is it a prison culture, counterculture, or a subculture?

3.5.1 Subculture American sociologist David Riesman [1962] through research derived the notion of subculture as a group of people who deliberately choose the style and values preferred by the minority. A more prominent analysis of the phenomena and concepts of the subculture was conducted by the British sociologist and media researcher Dick Hebdige [1979] in his book “Subculture: The Meaning of Style.” According to the author’s opinion, subcultures attract people with similar tastes that are not satisfied with generally accepted standards and values of the majority culture. Accord- ing to these findings, a person chooses a subculture to differ from the mainstream crowd. However, prison culture is often adopted to

26 THEORETICAL PART conversely correspond to the majority of the prison community, in order not to change from the prison mainstream and to adapt to the environment.

3.5.2 Counterculture The term "counterculture" was first used by the American sociologist Theodor Roszak [1969], who used it to denote new trends in art, opposing traditional culture to any form of deviant behavior. Counterculture usually has not only a paradigm shift from the dominant culture but also explicitly opposes itself to the dominant culture, questions the dominant cultural values, norms, and morals, and creates its system of rules and values. Counterculture is a phenomenon peculiar not only about youth movements of the 20th century. The dominant culture is not able to cover the entire symbolic space of society. Part of this space is “divided” between sub- and counterculture. An example of counterculture is also the criminal environment, in a closed and isolated atmosphere of which ideological doctrines are continually being formed and modified, literally "turning upside down" generally accepted values and norms. However, the counterculture usually turns into the mainstream over time, and then into the classics [Roszak 1969]. This happens in the case of prison culture. It has moved from counterculture in Soviet Russia and partly pene- trated the culture of post-Soviet Russia [Oleynik 2001]. Russian scientists call prison culture - as subculture or counterculture. Some researchers write that the peculiarity of a criminal3 or prison subculture is that values and norms are transmitted as subordinates and secondaries only from the legislation. And the carriers of the criminal subculture recognize absolute superiority of their views behind the scale of common system values. Concerning the patterns of behavior and values accepted in the criminal world, the concept of “subculture” correlates with the concept of “counterculture,” whose normative models are not of the nature of the formation, but strive to replace and supplant legalized and universally recognized norms. A study of the community of convicts through the prism of these two concepts helps to get rid of a one-

3 The name “criminal subculture” in Russian is used along with the term “prison subculture”, as they are very similar in meaning.

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 27 THEORETICAL PART dimensional and linear understanding of the relationship between the prison population, people living in a free society, and the administration of correctional institutions. The generally accepted view of a prison world suggests that it is a separate community, isolated from the rest of the world, in which rules and values are mutually opposed to legalized norms. Such a juxtaposition of the world “behind barbed wire” and “free” world can often be found in sociological and psychological studies [Tishchenko 2007; Lysak, Cher- kasova 2006]. So, the methodological justification for the study of prison culture in Russia is a universal approach to the study of culture, which consists of an invaluable examination of culture as “secondary reality,” “second nature,” created by people. This is a systematic approach, according to which subcultures are subsystems of culture, and allow to characterize the multicultural structure of modern society qualitatively. Various phenomena reflect the specific features of the development of the natural and social world.

3.5.3 Culture Jeffrey Alexander [2003], in his theory of cultural sociology, presents culture as one of the main factors influencing society. In this theory, culture is not constant in its state. Alexander expresses the idea of scientifically understood cultural autonomy when culture is recognized as the most crucial factor in the formation of social life. Alexander calls this a “strong program.” These are cultural representations and language interpretation of sense-generating and meaning-forming activities. Since culture is not constant, it always changes itself, forms new meanings and codes, in- fluences lifestyle, morality, and norms. Also, in Alexander’s understanding, culture is not only a dependent variable, since culture works in both directions: culture changes society, but society changes culture [Alexander 2003]. Such an approach does not imply a static phenomenon of culture, and therefore the formation of new meanings and codes over time and changes in society. In this work, I will use the concept of “prison culture.” Firstly, this culture used to be a subsystem of the holistic system of society’s culture and was a combination of lifestyle, norms, values, rituals, cultural arti- facts developed by persons serving sentences in prisons. However, today

28 THEORETICAL PART due to the progress in information technology, this culture has gone beyond the prison walls and is closely intertwined with Russian reality. Secondly, the question is open about what to consider as the primary system of Russian culture to distinguish its subsystem as a “prison subculture.” Therefore, I use the concept of “prison culture” to show its mass character, its ability to change meanings and norms, and its ability to transform itself over time. Also, the word “culture” is used by me to understand the main dominant ideas of femininity and masculinity through the prism of prison concepts, norms, and values in an in-depth analysis. Thirdly, it can be assumed that prison culture has changed over time, especially outside the prison. A peculiar “outside prison culture” may form due to the lack of mass social work and help for former prisoners, that culture distribution via the Internet and in everyday life, and its influence on relatives and friends of prisoners.

3.5.4 Prisonization What does the re-socialization of men in prison have to do with women in freedom? And how do prison mores and customs influence the existing culture of Russian reality? One of the critical factors for understanding this is the concept of “prisonization.” The term prisonization (or institutionalization) in criminological and prison literature was first coined by the American scientist Donald Clemmer [1941], the pioneer of extensive research on the prison community and social system. Prisonization is the negative socialization of convicts under the influence of prison culture, in all its negative aspects. It manifests itself in the acceptance by convicts of the mores, morals, customs, and essential culture of the penitentiary institution. A person placed in such an institution begins to perceive the prisoners' views on the prison and life outside the prison and develops feelings of hostility towards the prison staff, loyalty to other prisoners, support for their interests, which leads to a conflict with the administration. In turn, the process of prisonization covers prison administration too. Several factors contribute to the prisonization process: I) isolation of persons who make up the prison community; 2) balancing living conditions in prison; 3) conditions of physical proximity; 4) the need to adapt to prison conditions, which has a frightening effect on the individual [Clemmer 1941].

The length of the process of prisonization, according to Clemmer [1941], depends on age, previous prison experience, the length of the sentence, relations with friends, and relatives who remained in the outside world, the type of committed crime and many other factors. Gordon Hawkins [1976] found that the length of a sentence correlates positively with the degree of prisonization. Prisonization allows the inmates to quickly get used to the prison rules, reducing the number of violations of the established order. Ronald Akers identified the following factors influencing the prisonization process (associated with prison leadership): the criminality of the prison population, social factors of age and race, type of prison [Akers, Hayner, Gruninger 1977]. Terence Morris and Pauline Morris defined prisonization as the prolonged and systematic destruction of the personality as a result of the acquired experience of imprisonment. Prisonization occurs due to the assimilation of a new system of views and principles of behavior that are not only unsuitable for life outside the prison but also often make such a life impossible for people trying to act in any usual social role. The criminals representing the greatest danger to society are most easily involved in this process. Ad- aptation to prison rules and the absence of violations of the internal routine may indicate a greater or lesser degree of assimilation of prison habits, and not at all the correction of the offender [Morris, Morris 1962]. Gresham Sykes noted that the new convict is confronted with the five primaries “the pains of imprisonment”: deprivation or frustration regarding social approval, material values, heterosexual relationships, personal autonomy, and personal security. A prisoner may respond to each of these factors either by exclusion or by connecting with other prisoners [Sykes 1958]. Describing the Russian society, Yakov Gilinskiy wrote that sending more and more people to prisons, sooner or later, society receives them “back” - with “their” new morals, language, way of life. But then with the whole of society happens that, what in criminology is called the “prisonization” of everyday life, culture, and language. People see this every day in transport, on the streets, hear from TV screens. Unfortunately, this is an old Russian problem. Prison has long entered people’s life, culture with its “thieves” part [Gilinskiy 2003]. Families of prisoners, their loved ones, and friends, can also observe the process of prisonization. During detention, women change their lifestyle - they are subject to specific rules and schedule during visits, they are at increased risk of violence of various kinds [Comfort 2008]. Also,

30 THEORETICAL PART after the release of the prisoner, women often change their habits and everyday life to new, more familiar ones to the man. Also, women voluntarily or not may be involved in criminal situations. Besides, it may often be that, as a result of frequent discrimination or humiliation by the prison administration during visits, women are less tolerant of state institutions, laws, and authorities [Fishman 1990]. A similar trend in changes in women's lives can be observed in Rus- sia. Firstly, women change their lifestyles, often live from day to day waiting for the time to visit, and carefully preparing for such visits. They also often neglect official rules and the executive branch. They also feel discrimination not only from the prison administration but also from the rest of society; this is a rejection of relations with inmates, problems at work due to those relations, and so on. Besides, often during meetings and conversations with prisoners, they need to fulfill, not just formal rules, but informal prison “code” too. That is, to follow specific rules of communication and behavior, so as not to bring a problem between their boyfriend or husband and other prisoners. Also, women often use prison jargon in informal conversational speech due to different reasons: some words better describe a situation or subject; because of a habit; because of mental categories with which they evaluate reality [Omelchenko 2015].

4 Methods

In this part of my work, I will describe the main methods of data analysis: abduction and content analysis. I will also describe in detail the method of collecting, selecting, and sorting data for this work.

4.1 Abduction and content analysis

In my work, I use the strategy of abduction. Abduction is in contrast to grounded theory, where theories and conclusions are derived from the analysis and obtained data, they are formed at the end of the analysis. In the case of abduction, it is assumed that before analysis, a researcher can have theories and ideas about the field of study. As in any field, the researcher somehow has any knowledge about the field being studied, which affects interpretation. However, abduction allows one to add or change the theory following the data obtained during the analysis, spe- cifically in those moments when there are deviations or surprising data [Timmermans, Tavory 2012] This strategy is well suited for exploring cultural specificities since the social sphere is fluid and changeable, it helps to take into account contexts and meanings that may be various in different communities. Also, in my work, I use the methods of hermeneutics and content analysis of the text. Since the subject being studied is expressed in the form of writing — these are messages, comments, and blog posts, it is necessary to explore not only the text itself but the whole context. This method of hermeneutic analysis helps to consider and take into account the background and meanings. For example, Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote that the text interpreter must be outside the relationships and traditions created by the texts (effective understanding of history) to see the layers of meaning that may arise from the past, situation, and context of the case. Also, interpreters always have a preliminary understanding of the texts that they are going to interpret. There is no objectivity in the sense of right or wrong because the interpretation is a fusion of the interpreter and the meaning of the texts, but the interpretation should be open to further analysis and changes. Four essential factors play a crucial role in the interpretation: Bildung: the formation of a way of thinking; Sensus Communis: this is practical consideration and meaning; consideration:

32 METHODS classification of certain things based on a universal assumption; taste: the balance between sensual instinct and intellectual freedom [Oilman 2007]. In turn, Paul Ricoeur writes about the disclosure of the hidden meaning in the text and distinguishes two strategies. Demitologisasi is the disclosure of hidden values and characters without confirmation. De- mistisasi is the understanding of hidden meanings and the analysis of symbols [Ricoeur 2008]. In my research, the hermeneutic method will help to understand the implications within the prison culture; for example, how the usual symbols will acquire different meanings in a different context. In addition to the hermeneutic approach, in my work, I will use qualitative content analysis for texts. This method is a systematic description of the data values. Qualitative content analysis, as a method, has its stages for research. It is divided into eight steps: 1. Formulation of a research question; 2. Choosing a material; 3. Building a frame coding; 4. Segmentation; 5. Trial coding; evaluate and modify frame coding; 7. Basic analysis; 8. Presentation and interpretation of results [Schreier 2014]. The first and second stages: this is the formulation of research questions and the choice of material for analysis. The third stage: this is the construction of the coding frame and is divided into four stages: a) the selection of material; b) structuring and generation of categories; c) the definition of categories; d) revision of categories and expansion of codes. Fourth stage: this is segmentation, which involves dividing the material into units so that each unit falls under the coding frame category. These coding units are those parts of the material that can be interpreted mean- ingfully according to the subcategories, and their size can vary from a large amount of text to a single word. The size of the segments or units must be chosen so that it fits the definition of categories. The division of material into coding units requires a criterion that indicates where one unit ends, and another begins. There are two types of measures: formal and thematic. Formal criteria are composed of the internal structure of the material, and they can be words, sentences, and paragraphs in the text. In qualitative research, the thematic criterion is more useful because it includes changes in the topic and in themes that are coded, what constitutes the topic, and varies depending on the coding framework and the main categories. Fifth and sixth stages: this is the pilot coding phase. At this stage, there is a trial separation of the material. This is done to see if there is any deviation from the original coding. Or vice versa, there are

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 33 METHODS elements in the material that have one meaning, but a different expression of that meaning. This stage allows us to add categories and subcategories and new codes for a complete picture and to understand the sim- ilarities or differences from theory and questions. The eighth stage: this is the presentation of the results. This is a complete analysis and final data that are written and interpreted [Schreier 2014]. The qualitative content analysis adds structure to the formation of the method of studying texts, and the hermeneutic approach adds reflec- tion and understanding of the hidden meaning, and the abductive method allows more detailed work with a theoretical basis.

4.2 Research question

The main research question in my work is: How does the prison culture manifest itself in the relationship between women and prisoners? Re- lated questions, which I will also consider: What ideas about gender roles have women who are in relationships with prisoners? What aspects of prison culture cause hatred or rejection among groups which criticize prisoner wives/girlfriends?

4.3 Collecting data

My material and data for the research were collected from groups in the popular Russian social network VKontakte. These groups are created by women who are friends, family, or girlfriends for inmates. They discuss various issues related to life, with prison, problems of adaptation to prison life, intimate experience, and so on. Also, for contrast and for comparison, there will be a group that hates or makes fun of a woman’s group and posts in them. Analysis of this group will help to find out what some people do not accept aspects of prison culture and why this happens. To begin with, I looked through messages in 4 groups of supportive prisoners. The first group is "Our Golden Freedom - We Wait Together" ("Nasha zolotaya svoboda - Zhdem vmeste") there are 3.7 thousand participants in this group. The group’s description is: “Are you waiting for a loved one? Or are you serving a sentence? Then you are with us. The group was created for those who care about life on the other side of the

34 METHODS fence. For relatives and friends who are waiting from prison, as well as for those who are serving their term. Here you will find answers to questions of interest, support, friends, and new acquaintances. You can share your stories, experiences, as well as ask your questions. All your posts will be published anonymously.” The second group is called “✵ Overheard in Prison ✵ SIZO4 ✵ MLS5 ✵6 Official Public™”(“✵Podlushano v tyurme ✵SIZO✵MLS✵ Offi- cial Public™”), there are of 35.7 thousand participants. The group’s description is: "This community was created for those whose family and friends were on the other side of the law ... Every day you live in the hope that it will someday end ... But it is complicated to experience it alone, therefore ... Join this group, invite acquaintances and friends with the same problem! In our group, you won’t feel lonely, misunderstood, and rejected by society! For any normal person, committing a crime by a close relative, convicting him, and sending him to a prison feels like misfortune, unhappiness, grief. And the first natural reaction to what happened is the desire to help the nearest one who finds themselves in a similar situation, away from home and family, in unusual conditions of imprisonment. Questions, questions, questions ... There are many, and it’s hard for you to find answers, especially right after what happened. Of course, over time, when the pain subsides a little, you can read somewhere, talk with someone, and hear information from someone you are interested in. In our group, they will listen to you and share useful information, give useful advice, and will always support you.” The third group is called "I will wait" ("Ya obyazatelno dozhdus"), and 3.7 thousand participants are in this group. The group’s description is: “Don't count out a prison cell, a begging bowl may come as well...This group is for those who need both informative help and psychological support. Here you will find the answer to any of your questions, and you can share your own experience. Get support and find a good company. Maybe you have a backpack with a memory of prison life, and are ready

4 SIZO - this is an abbreviation for the Russian phrase “sledstvenniy izolyator,” which means pre-trial detention center. 5 MLS - this is an abbreviation for the Russian phrase “mesta lisheniya svobody,” which means places of imprisonment. 6 This sign is a “thief star,” a popular tattoo design in prisons, usually tattooed on shoulders. Only a thief in law has the right to make this tattoo.

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 35 METHODS to share this experience? Many will be grateful to you. In this territory, we are all close. We know firsthand what we're talking about.” The fourth group is called “Love Can Wait” (“Lyubov umeyet zhdat”); there are 9.2 thousand subscribers. The group’s description is: “Don't count out a prison cell, a begging bowl may come as well...This group is for those who need both informative help and psychological support. Here you will find the answer to any of your questions, and you can share your own experience...You will get support, and you’ll find good company...Maybe you have a backpack with a memory of prison life and are ready to share this experience? Many will be grateful to you. In this territory, we are all close. We know firsthand what we are talking about...Join us; together, it is much easier.” All these four groups are aimed at supporting people who are somehow connected to the prison, mainly women who have relations with prisoners write there - their wives and girlfriends, rarely mothers and daughters. These groups are selected as the most active and write about 5-10 posts per day here. All posts are published anonymously; also, many commentators use nicknames and are also anonymous. Some groups are closed, they require registration on the social network Vkontakte and joining the group for publications. A separate group was also considered, which opposes relations with prisoners and against the prison culture as a whole. This group is called “Zhduli7 || Zashquared Inc.” This group consists of 19.9 thousand people and has the following description: “Delightful stories from those who were seated on the bottle of justice8, and their loved ladies.” The content of this group mainly consists of discussing posts written by wives/girlfriends of prisoners from other groups or forums on various social networks. This group is positioned as humorous, where you can laugh at the stories/issues of women. However, it is noticeable that the comments have a lot of hate-speech, anger, and so on. I collected data from these five groups for four months from August 2019 to November 2019. This is more than 5000 posts and comments,

7 “Zhduli” - the slang name of women who are in a relationship with prisoners. The word arose from the Russian word “zhdat’,” which means “wait.” 8 This was a reference to prison practices when the person on the lowest step in the prison hierarchy or the prisoner offender was seated on a bottle. This idea of such prison practices is very common in Russian society outside of prison. It became a joke or a horror story about prisons in Russian society.

36 METHODS from which it was necessary to choose related ones and divide them into groups.

4.4 Dividing data and choosing a frame

My research focuses on the relationship between a woman and a prisoner. As part of this relationship, prison culture and perception of gender roles are being studied. Therefore, I chose posts and comments that are closely related to this area. Also, in the anti-group, which opposes women who are in relations with prisoners, I chose comments that react to the relationship between a woman and a man, attitude to gender roles, and so on. In the end, I divided all the posts and comments into several groups: Family relationships- these are posts and comments regarding family relationships, i.e., marriage registration, family problems, and so on. Children- these are posts and comments about children, subscribers’ attitude to the birth of a child, and their upbringing under the conditions that the child’s father or mother’s boyfriend/partner is in incarceration. Prison code- this is about using prison jargon, prison rules, understanding them, or reflecting them through the worldview of users in groups. Sexuality- it is the comments and posts regarding the woman’s sex life and the reactions to the sex life of other users in the groups. Work and finances- these are posts and comments related mainly to the labor sphere of life, as well as financial support and money issues. The image of a woman- it is comments and posts describing what a woman can or cannot do and what a woman should or should not be. The image of a man - it is comments and posts describing what a man can or cannot do and what a man should or should not be. Attitude to imprisonment, attitude to laws - these are comments or posts describing the reaction to the imprisonment of the husband/boyfriend and his term and sentence, as well as their relationship to the various articles in the law. The attitude towards the prison administration and the prison rules- it is about how women perceive the prison rules, their relationship with the administration, and reaction to them.

5 Analysis

Women in support groups for prisoners and their wives can be divided into two main groups. The first group is the wives of the prisoners. These women can be wives even before the moment of arrest, who decided to wait for her husband to leave prison. These women are called “zhduli,” from the word “wait” in Russian, those who are waiting for her husband to leave prison. Often the term “zhduli” is used to describe all women waiting for the release of prisoners. The second group is women who are in a relationship with prisoners, and they do not have a marriage registration. These women are called “zaochnitca”/“zao” (“extramural”), from the meaning “without presence,” also, in Russian, this word is used to denote a student studying extramurally. Some of these women began relations with men during their stay in prison: “... two years ago I met a prisoner extramurally... at first we just talked, then gradually a feeling arose ... in general love … [Love can wait cit.28.12.2019]”. Also, some of them marry prisoners: “... we met like that ... I do not regret, he is the best husband and father, and I am glad that I met him [I will wait cit.20.08.2019]” Many women describe the reasons for marriage as “I love him very much,” and there is also a practical side to the issue of dating a prisoner: “... I’m getting married ... the main reason is dating, because they don’t allow [dates] or you can only have one meeting, we are together almost three years already … [Our golden freedom cit.18.09.2019]”. In many prisons, only “short dates” are allowed for people who are not members of the family - this is a meeting for a couple of hours, it depends on the prison. And for family members in many prisons, “long dates” are allowed, which last a couple of days. The family and prisoners are provided a “barrack” where is a bed, and they also have a shared kitchen and bathroom for all who also visit their relatives.

5.1 Family relationships

Situations and discussions of relations between prisoners and their wives and girlfriends describe the various problems and dilemmas of users in groups dedicated to the prison or near-prison community (former prisoners, people in custody, wives of prisoners, women who are in a relationship with prisoners without an official marriage). In Russian prison

38 ANALYSIS culture, a twofold attitude towards creating a family can be observed. In- itially, there is a clause in the thieves’ law stating that those men who adopted a thieves culture or criminal culture should not have wives or a permanent relationship. However, along with this in prisons, these men, who are adherents of criminal culture, and especially those who have a high position in the prison hierarchy, should maintain family relations or help prisoners with family [Lysak, Cherkasova 2006; Oleynik 2001]. Some of the men who wrote to the community said that they would like to meet or start a relationship with women at freedom “for a serious long- term relationship, to make a family and raise children [Overheard in prison cit.20.10.2019]” There were also many indignant posts from different men stating that few women want “serious” relationships or do not value “serious” intentions from their side and “betraying their feelings [Overheard in prison cit.15.01.2019]” Women, in turn, in these groups often seek a husband and a serious relationship or are already in a relationship with prisoners. This relationship women often interpret as “serious.” From time to time, noticeable intolerance statements from wives to “extramural” girlfriends, as this is considered a betrayal in a married couple: “...I beat my husband on a date with a frying pan for talking online with “zao”…”; or “... I found out that he was talking with “zao”... what was he missing?... I don’t know what to think [I will wait cit.04.02.2020]”. Besides, some believe that marriage registration and the formal le- galization of relationships are an indicator of how serious people are in their relationships. This is especially true for women, that if a woman agrees and carries out registration with a prisoner, then she is “set to wait” for his release from prison for sure. The problems of separation and divorce are also often written theme by users. For example, the imprisoned man entered into another relationship: “I met the boy for three years ago, when [he was] imprisoned, I promised him to wait, and waited. But he didn’t need me; he found another… [I will wait cit.18.01.2020]” Some users agree that often after the prisoner is released, these relations have no future, but some deny this: “... my husband was released, you all say that everything is bad after prison, adaptation, but we are living well, happily… [Our golden freedom cit.03.12.2019]” Wives whose husbands are imprisoned often use the pronoun “we” when they’re describing actions. Although their husbands are far from them at this time, they still describe many of the activities as they have

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 39 ANALYSIS done it together or they perceive the term of the arrest and the imprisonment of the husband as their own: “we hired a lawyer,” “we were given five years in prison,” “we still to sit for three years,” “we were released on parole.” In groups that oppose women in relationships with prisoners, users are often annoyed by the habit of these women speaking and describing the actions with the pronoun “we” when only one member of the family commits the act. “...How annoying it is they “they released us on parole,” “they gave us a term ... as if she [wife] too lives in prison [Zhduli cit.08.10.2019]” In general, group members often do not believe that such a relationship has a future, and the imprisonment of one of the family’s members destroys everything. Since such relations cannot function “normally”: “... I don’t understand why these women will not leave, they like to run to them [prisoners] from the dates, for a date ... and the man is just lying there and doing nothing… [Zhduli cit.15.01.2020]” Similar comments are very common in this group. Users often deny the very possi- bility of the existence of love, support, or loyalty in such conditions. Of- ten, users agree that this is a self-deception of women “so as not to feel lonely [Zhduli cit.10.01.2020]”.

5.2 Children

There is no clear definition in prison culture about whether children are welcomed in relationships or in the family. Some researchers wrote that a criminal authority who is at the highest level of the criminal hierarchy cannot have native children. [Oleynik 2001; Tishenko 2007] Prison culture researchers further suggest that it is mainly women who care about children. Since this is a traditional distribution of gender roles, in addition, when a woman gives birth to a child, she moves from the category of “woman” to the category of “mother”, which is one step higher in the ponyatiya’s and traditions of criminal culture [Tishenko 2007]. Many women in support groups write that they have children. For some users, the presence of children during the imprisonment of a husband does not cause trouble or anxiety. Others try to get a benefit for the spouse’s detention, arguing that they have children: “... the husband will be judged if the lawyer can help reduce the sentence or postpone the sentence, as we have two little children… [Our golden freedom cit.

40 ANALYSIS

09.04.2020]”; “... I am pregnant, and he was convicted, can they reduce the term? [Overheard in prison cit. 15.11.2019]”. Similar posts about how having children can help reduce the term of incarceration are a very frequent occurrence. Also, the presence of children is described by some users as the pos- sibility of creating an official marriage or keeping a man in a relationship. “Girls, I’m in a difficult situation, he found another woman, and I found out that I’m pregnant, I want to tell him that... I hope it will help him decide to stay with me. [Overheard in prison cit. 20.10.2019]” Or post like that: ”I am pregnant, he does not believe that he is a father of the baby, but I know that, what I need to do, I want to marry him… [Love can wait cit. 09.02.2020]”. In the last case, comments supporting the author of the post appear often, as well as various tips that “a child should be raised up in a full family [I will wait cit.18.01.2020], or that “a man is a necessity in the household [Our golden freedom cit. 09.03.2020]”. Also, users are supporting the point of view that whatever the life situation woman is expe- riencing if “God sent her a child, then he will send opportunities for upbringing this child [Love can wait cit. 13.03.2020]”. In general, members in this group are supporting a division of responsibilities in the family by gender, where the man is involved in financial matters, and the woman is involved in household chores and children. In this format of relationships, children are one of the main criteria for a woman to get a “full- fledged” role in relationships. In the group that opposes women in relationships with prisoners, there are two main positions of users regarding children. The first position and the most popular one is the opinion that “how can you give birth to a child from a prisoner, you only bring criminals/poverty [Zhduli cit. 20.08.2019]”. Intolerance to people depending on the economic or social group is traced here. This position also supports the idea that people already have a certain habitus from birth — it is a system of strong acquired dispositions [Bourdieu 1977] in the social and economic spheres that people will support and reproduce. The second position in these groups is that users assume that “...these women simply did not find any- one from whom they can be pregnant in the real world [Zhduli cit. 23.11.2019]”. It is presuming that the choice of a woman to stay in relationships with prisoners (or have a new relationship with them) and have a child is dictated by the despair and inability of these women to find relationships outside of the prison walls. This group of opinions also includes statements that in most cases these are divorced women with

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 41 ANALYSIS children who have relations with prisoners. For example, ”...who needs these RSPs, so they go to prisons… [Zhduli cit.19.03.2020]” In this mes- sage, the author used the abbreviation for the common phrase with a dis- missive connotation describing a divorced woman with a child. In Rus- sian, there is an established expression that sounds like “razvedenka s pritcepom” (RSP), the literal translation of which is “divorcee with a trailer” — a divorced woman with “unnecessary” baggage. This view of women is quite popular in this group. In addition, there are often statements and comments on the topic like “how scary to imagine the way how they can raise their children [Zhduli cit. 07.11.2019]”, “...Is she can be a real mom? No. [Zhduli cit.19.03.2020]” or ”...can you imagine that she’ll certainly introduce her children to her prisoner… [Zhduli cit. 15.09.2019]” These comments show that in this group is the popular opinion that such women are not able to fulfill the role of a parent and raise children.

5.3 Prison code

The prison code and ponyatiyas developed within the framework of hy- permasculine representations. The authority in prison groups is earned by force and strict adherence to the code. Any inkling or connection with homosexuality or something “feminine” is the reason for the loss of authority, which entails violence and transfer to the lowest group in the prison hierarchy. [Smykovych 2017a; Smykovych 2017b] In groups supporting women who are in a relationship with prisoners, many users understand the nuances of the prison code and support this behavior. For example, ”my [husband] is an authority in the zone9 now, then he is a real man [Our golden freedom cit. 17.08.2019]” There are also, situations where both in a pair support the prison code in public, but in private communicate outside the categories of such prison concepts: ”... my be- loved, when he calls me and has cellmates next to him, he never calls me with cute nicknames, he speaks a little rudely and forbids me to say him ”sweet” or ”bunny”. I understand why he does it like it is not manly, but sometimes I'm a bit sad about such a situation … [Overheard in prison cit. 26.12.2019] ” In this case, women have to learn prison codes and control

9 “Zone” is the slang name of the prison in the Russian language.

42 ANALYSIS their actions toward men in public. Women change their habits trying not to affect the man’s status with whom they have relationships. Some women who are new in such relationships often ask and clar- ify some of the nuances and characteristics of prison concepts that are reflected in certain actions. “... I came on a date, my [boyfriend] went to the shower and a guy knocked on door and asked for a spoon and a mug. I gave it to him. Then, when [my] boyfriend found out he quarreled and for- bade me to take the dishes back and use it again. Now I always take a dis- posable tableware. People told me that the guy was “omitted”. What does it mean? And what are the risks to eat from dishes after his use? [I will wait cit.16.01.2020]”. In this case, the woman asks what is “omitted” mean and what rules from the prison code should be followed without the risks to the man’s authority in prison. “Omitted” is a prison slang word, describing a man who is at the lowest level in the hierarchy. Such a person is ignored, his opinion is not taken into account, his sleeping place is al- located closest to the toilet. Also, such a man is raped sexually and beaten by other prisoners, they do not sit at the same table with him, and do not touch him in other situations but just for forcing. There is also a rule that if another prisoner will eat with such a person from one dish, he will also go down to the lower level of the hierarchy [Lysak, Cherkasova 2006]. Many women in groups know these rules and explain all the peculiarities to new members. For example, "he is omitted — an outcast [I will wait cit.16.01.2020]”, “he’s a fagot [I will wait cit.16.01.2020]” “he was raped and your [boyfriend] will become the same if you’ll eat from one dish [I will wait cit.16.01.2020]”. Such tips and warnings are common in the community. Women have to change their behavior and views on everyday life and familiar things, depending on the prison code trying not to harm the authority of the man. There are times when women use these prison codes for their own purposes. This happens, according to posts and comments, quite rarely. However, there are posts asking for advice for revenge on ex-guys or husbands. For instance, “... I still have photos where we played cards on a bet. There is a photo where he is in lingerie in a provocative pose on the bed with another guy. What do you think, if I send such a photo to jail, will they beat him? [Love can wait cit.27.10.2019]”. As mentioned above, such photos and actions even taken as a joke or for a bet could bring a serious problem for the prisoner. He would have been affected by the peculiar "sanctions" of the prison code. Often this method of revenge is not supported by members

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 43 ANALYSIS of the group. “You realize that you’ll break a guy’s life! [Love can wait cit.27.10.2019]” or “Then he will come out and beat you! [Love can wait cit.27.10.2019]” or “... and he will be right if he will beat [Love can wait cit.27.10.2019]”. It can be said that for some members male violence is acceptable behavior. The reconciliation of power is a sign of dominance and masculinity [Smykovych 2017a]. This principle is followed by many women in these communities. And the use of violence is accepted in such cases and is interpreted as “... a man will defend his honor in this way [Our golden freedom cit. 24.08.2019]”. In addition to such manifestations of disagreement with the authors of the posts, there are similar comments from other women: “Fuu, broshenka, how humiliating to want to take revenge! [Our golden freedom 19.11.2019]”. Often women who end a relationship are called “broshenka” (in translation ”rejected” or ”outcast”). In Russian this word has a negative connotation, in using this word it doesn’t matter who initiated the breakup, the word “broshenka” describes women whom the man “rejected”. Prison code includes various aspects of prison life. It includes the daily routine, internal rules in the cells, in the dining rooms, and in the yard, as well as leisure and entertainment. Each part of prison life is subject to control not only by the prison administration and official rules, but also by the community of prisoners and their unwritten rules. For example, leisure and entertainment in prisons is usually a game of cards or backgammon. Card games are usually played with bets. They can be things, cigarettes, SIM cards, phones, or products. [Lysak, Cherkasova 2006] However, that type of bets are also accepted: “... a man called me and said that my husband lost me while he played cards. It turns out that my boyfriend put my phone number and me on the bet [Love can wait cit.23.01.2020]” then she asks for advice in this situation ”... what happens when you lose in card games? What to expect? How to behave? [Love can wait cit.23.01.2020]”. It is worth mentioning that this is not the only case mentioned in the comments. The woman in this case seems to be absolutely powerless. The strength and authority of a man, the emotional relationship of a woman to her partner/spouse, as well as the rules in a social group, puts a woman in a position that completely depends on the man. Prison or criminal concepts take card debt very seriously. Gambling debt must be repaid otherwise "sanctions" will follow in the form of loss of authority, a change in position in the prison hierarchy, and violence against the debtor. This is what women in groups write about this: “... I had a similar situation, I had to talk to the winner and send him a parcel of

44 ANALYSIS food. I was afraid that something bad would happen to my boyfriend. [Love can wait cit.23.01.2020]”. Also, users warn that “...card debt needs to be paid, but you can change the phone number and not communicate with the guy. And your husband will be “omitted” if he does not close the debt. [Love can wait cit.23.01.2020]”. Also, some women post about violence, black- mailing, and pressure on them to get consent to sex from them. For example, “... I had a story, something threatened my husband, there was a big debt, and he bet me and lost, I had to have sex once with the winner [Love can wait cit.23.01.2020]”. In the case of different prison codes, women have to put up with the situation. Since their behavior can affect their partners in prison. In fact, women also experience a transformed prison practices but outside the prison walls. In groups opposing relations with prisoners, it is interesting that many users understand the prison code, know the rules, slang, and often use it. However, prison codes and rules are one of the most important factors that anger users: “...how can you follow these rules, they are such stupid [Zhduli cit.11.08.2019]”, ".. dump code,it come up by themselves, but they suffer from it [Zhduli cit.23.12.2019]”. But at the same time, they use categories for evaluating “masculinity” similar to prison culture. For example, a comment on the post of a woman who wanted to send a photo for revenge: “...Why are they call her broshenka, RSP, stupid? It’s like her fault that her boyfriend turned out to be a whore. [Zhduli cit.27.10.2019]”. In this group the words “whore”, “fagot”, “cock”, “omitted” are often used to describe any prisoners. Users know that being in prison carries the risk of sexual abuse. However, using such statements, they often write that prisoners are at the lowest level of the hierarchy. For example, “... they are all roosters there, a normal man will not do this [Zhduli cit.16.10. 2019]” or “...they are all “omitted”, no exceptions [Zhduli cit.25.03.2020]”. That is, users use the same categories of assessment of masculinity as in the prison code. According to users, prisoners who have been victims of sexual violence by other prisoners, they also lose credibility and authority. In addition, many of the rules and nuances of prison culture are often explained in these groups. Answers are often similar to answers in opposite groups for women’s support. For example, “... the card debt is the most important, she must now pay it [Zhduli cit.10.02.2020], or ”...he would never sell his mother, but his wife he could [Zhduli cit. 23.01.2020]. Often in this group anonymous posts from other prison-related communities are quoted. And the actions, advice or words of women who are in

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 45 ANALYSIS a relationship with prisoners in these posts are automatically interpreted by the group members within the prison culture. For example, “...she will not go to the cops, since they are bastards [Zhduli 23.01.2020]”. It is a frequent explanation for why women can endure violence. This is interpreted as reluctance to cooperate with the police, since such coop- eration is contrary to the prison code.

5.4 Sexuality

Sex and intimate life were not described in the theoretical part of this work. Because there is no research on this topic in the framework of prison culture in Russia. The topic of sex is quite sensitive, but due to the fact that posts on the Internet can be published anonymously, this part of the relationship has been quite popular in communities. Women usually ask about changes in sexual life, after a man’s imprisonment: “... girls, how do you live from date to date without sex? [Our golden freedom cit.11.10.2019]. Also, for example, women face various problems in sex. ”...he made these balls for himself, now it hurts me, but I don’t know how to tell him… [Overheard in prison cit.24.11.2019]” or ”my husband now also has these balls in an intimate place, I asked him to remove them, because it hurts me, but he I didn’t do this... [Overheard in prison cit.24.11.2019]” — in this comment it is shown that some prisoners, along with tattoos, undergo another body modification. This change is that men inject metal balls under the skin of his penis. The reason for this modification is to get more pleasure and sensitivity for men. However, there are many reports in the communities that such modifications bring discomfort or pain, but complaints from women are ignored by their partners. In addition to the above problems, women also face behavioral changes after imprisonment. For example, “...now on long dates, our sex is not the same as it was before. Time ago before the incarceration, we were equal, but now he thinks only about his pleasure… [I will wait 29.09.2019]”. The problem of oral sex is also popular: “...I wanted to give him pleasure with my mouth, but he said that it is terrible. Like how then I would kiss our children with that mouth ... although he liked it before prison… [Overheard in prison cit.15.01.2019]”. In the prison and near- prison environment, there is a condemnation of oral sex. These views often influence men's behavior. In terms of sexual practices, this prison

46 ANALYSIS culture has fairly conservative views, especially toward women. For example, “Girls, your [boyfriend/husband] also refuses oral pleasure to you, but when you do it to him, he is ok? [Love can wait cit. 24.03.2020]”. Women admit that such behavior persists during detention and some time after release from prison. Users describe the reason for this man's behavior as “... it’s shameful for men to do such things in terms of their code… [Love can wait cit. 24.03.2020]”. In addition, women often admit that during detention and after release from prison, men have a lower libido. Also, some users claim that this happens due to stress and adaptation, first in prison, then in society. However, a few users are advised to seek professional help. Women interpret the reason for refusing such assistance as the reluctance of the man himself to recognize the problem, financial difficulties or distrust to such assistance and practices. In the opposing group, the majority of users agree on one viewpoint. This viewpoint is that users express impatience, criticism or contempt for women’s intimate problems, their sexual desire or behavior. For example, “...here is a whore, she has no brains at all to sleep with a prisoner, even if this is her husband… [Zhduli cit.24.03.2020]” or “... they must be happy that at least some men wander to have sex with you… [Zhduli cit.24.11.2019]”. Such slut-shaming is expressed in the fact that they criticize women for their sexuality, desires. Someone can criticize the victim of violence and rape claiming that was her choice [Keller 2015: 93]. Women who have relations with prisoners do not fit the internal criteria of “normality” and “decency” among group members.

5.5 Work and finances

In prison culture, real authority should not work in official work. Making money using legal and official methods of earning is condemned. How- ever, authority must be financially independent and have savings for a good life without need. [Lysak, Cherkasova 2006] However, de facto in the realities of life, women have great financial support helping prisoners. Most women in support groups have jobs. They have different pro- fessions and may come from different socio-economic groups. They can, for example, work as a teacher, doctor, hairdresser, taxi driver or have their own business, or work in a factory. Community members say that they often send food parcels to prison or replenish prisoners' mobile

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 47 ANALYSIS accounts. In addition, each time they collect large parcels of food, clothes and things for each date. Many women have to work in several jobs or have several shifts in order to earn money for their own life, the lives of their children, the life of a prisoner partner. The participants in the groups write that ”...a man must earn money for his wife, children, bring money to the house, but now he cannot do this from prison… [Love can wait cit. 212.02.2020]” . How- ever, often after the release women also say that “...he was released a couple of months ago, he says that there is no job for him. I'm working, and he cannot even sit with the children while I'm cooking dinner… [Overheard in prison cit.25.08.20219]”. Women often have a “double shift” or “double burden” [Moen 1989]. They are engaged in reproductive work, such as raising children and housekeeping, and in productive work such as earning money. Women can experience discrimination in their workplaces. Group members write that they often hide their relationship or the fact of marriage with prisoners from employers. For example, “... girls, you said at workplace that you are dating a prisoner or that your husband is in prison? I haven’t… [Our golden freedom cit. 23.02.2020]”. Other users are advised not to tell employers about that, as this leads to the risks of dismissal or, in the best cases, reprimands. For example, “... I work at school as a teacher, I, fell in love with a man in prison, but I didn’t talk about that at school, I’m afraid that they might fire me… [Our golden freedom cit.23.02.2020]” or “... at a previous job when they found out about my husband, they fired me, now I don’t talk about it at my workplace… [Our golden freedom cit.23.02.2020]”. Also, the wives of prisoners can lie to their employers and colleagues about the status of their husbands: “...I said in my office that the husband works on a rotational basis and is often on trips … [Our golden freedom 23.02.2020]”. There are also such reports: “...I work for myself as an individual entrepreneur, so I am lucky, but I know that many women are often fired when their colleagues find out about these relationships… [Our golden freedom 23.02.2020]”. In this cases is shown the effect of the prisonization of women by society. They are not accepted, discriminated against, and stigmatized. Often, such women are perceived by employers and colleagues as criminals, even considering the fact that their partners have already been convicted and are serving their sentences, regardless of the type of crime [Comfort 2008]. Women in this situation may also feel that they are “undesirable social elements,” discriminated against and not accepted by part of

48 ANALYSIS society. In the future, such women further decrease their confidence in social and state institutions, which leads to the risk of an even greater increase in the effect of prisonization. This, in turn, can lead to various offenses, due to the fact that official institutions lose their authority in these women's lives values [Comfort 2008]. In groups opposing relations with prisoners, community members criticize women for financial help for prisoners. For example, ”... if I had a billion dollars, I would have regretted to spend even a cent on convicts … [Zhduli 23.02.2020]” or ”... they are well settled, she earns and provides all, but he doesn’t do anything… [Zhduli 23.02.2020]”. They also often ask questions about how women can earn money for themselves, for children and for a prisoner. This fact often causes bewilderment in the comments: “... Question to the zao girls, where did you get so much money to support convicts? I am alone and I never have enough money [Zhduli 23.02.2020]”. However, the fact that women may work in well-paid jobs is unrecognized, ignored or ridiculed. “...ha-ha-ha she is an “individual entrepreneur” probably doing manicures at home for 300 rubles [Zhduli 23.02.2020]”. Such comments expressing bewilderment and distrust of women's professional skills, can often be accompanied by their rejection in certain areas. For example, “... if I found out that in our school such woman is working, I would demand for her dismissal, what can such a person teach our children... [Zhduli 23.02.2020]”. Opinions through the personal life of a woman have been judged on her professional skills are very common. Often, these judgments are against women who are in a relationship with prisoners, as they are based on the stereotype that the choice of a partner shows the intelligence of such women.

5.6 The image of a woman

In support groups, the image of a woman has poorly described; statements about what a real man is often quoted. The reason may be that the whole prison culture is about male domination. And the prison or thieves code indicates how to keep this domination within the framework of such a culture. [Tishenko 2007; Smykovych 2017b] In posts and comments in all groups, it can be found the phrase “as the wife of the Decembrist”. This is a common concept and image of a woman that appeared in Russia in the 19th century, closely associated

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 49 ANALYSIS with historical events of that time. This expression is connected to the Decembrist uprising, known in Russian history, on December 26, 1825. As known, the uprising was crushed and Emperor Nikolay I severely punished the rebels, sending most of them to exile in Siberia. 121 participants of the Decembrist uprising were found guilty. 23 Decembrists were married. 11 wives went to Siberia with their husbands (fiance). Af- ter leaving for Siberia, the Decembrists’ wives, like their husbands, lost noble privileges and were transferred to the position of wives of convicts: for them the rights to movement, to correspondence or to the dis- position of their property were limited. The wives of the Decembrists were forbidden to take their children with them, and they were not always allowed to return to the European part of Russia even after the death of their husband. [Pavlyuchenko 1986] “The Decembrist’s wife” is a faithful wife who is ready to share grief and misfortune with her husband and will never give up and betray him. Such an image has become in Russia an ideal image of a faithful and lov- ing wife [Pavlyuchenko 1986]. A positive attitude towards such fidelity, and at times the sacrifice of women, which occurs without regard to living conditions, is also often found in prison culture. The disagreement of women with such relationships or some of their aspects is perceived in prison culture as a betrayal. [Tishenko 2007] In the group against relations with prisoners, a comparison of these women with the “Decembrists' wives” is ridiculed and not accepted. “...they think that they are the “wife of the Decembrists”, but actually they simply can’t find a man in the real world, because they are ugly and nobody wants them… [Zhduli cit.30.01.2020]”. Discussion of the image of a woman often spills over into a discussion of a woman's appearance. It is worth noting that this group often publishes photographs of women taken from their personal profiles or prisoner support communities. These photos are rated by commentators in terms of “normality”. This framework includes subjective assessments of beauty and attractiveness. The age of the woman, her body and face affect the estimates. Un- der these photos you can often see comments with a similar meaning: “...well, it’s clear why she is waiting for a prisoner, no one would have looked at that… [Zhduli cit.15.02.2020]”. However, when, according to the general opinion of the community, a portrait of an attractive woman occurs, she is recorded as the “exception to the rule” category. At such moments, users ask the question: “... what did she find in the prisoner? She is a normal girl. Why does she need this relationship? [Zhduli cit.15.02.2020]”. To

50 ANALYSIS that comment which many arguments appear, this women are indicated as “... she is still young, stupid [Zhduli cit.15.02.2020]” or they deceived “...a prisoner probably lied to her about eternal love, and she believed [Zhduli cit.15.02.2020]”. Interestingly, the frequency of photos of women as “exceptions to the rule” is no less than the photo of “right” women who fit into the image of those who could have relations with prisoners. But this fact is ignored in the group and the image of the “typical zao” or “zhdulya” is supported. This is a woman, after 30, who does not fit into the framework of the community about beauty and attractiveness; a woman who cannot find relationships and this fact is forced to look for relationships in prison; a woman who is not popular among men and who is sufferinging because of this.

5.7 The image of a man

In the prison or thieves code, there is an image of a man as the main authority. A man is faithful, if not to a woman, then to an idea or to his word; a real man does not betray; a real man is the opposite of a woman in everything. [Efimova 2004]. A similar image of how a “real man” should be is common among members of a women's support group. In this group they publish statements, pictures with quotes about this topic. For example, “...a man is first of all names and you should bear it worthily in life, do not forget about the honor and dignity that always remain with you...No one has the right to doubt your words and actions for no reason. If the man promised something, he could die, but do… [Our golden freedom cit.27.11.2019]”. This is the image of a “real man”, which shows for the participants of these groups, that a man appears as a person with honor and dignity. However, no one in the group describes what is meant by the terms of honor and dignity. What actions (other than those described in the thieves' code [Efimova 2004]) can be perceived as a shame and man can lose his ”honor and dignity”. The main criterion is that a man must fulfill his promises. And this criterion of “... keep your word” is common in communities. In addition, the dominant position of a man is often emphasized. It is the position of an independent person, who does not obey other authorities if there is no reason for that. In the opposition group, on the contrary, members oppose such a definition of the image of a man. Members of the group write that one of

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 51 ANALYSIS the main criteria besides “honor and dignity” is that “...the real men wouldn't be in prison, it is shameful [Zhduli cit. 27.11.2019]”. Other commentators add that even if men are in prison, “... real men don’t live on the money of their wives. They wouldn't mooch off of women’s money [Zhduli cit. 27.11.2019]”. Because a man should not be dependent on either the state or on a woman in economic terms. The appearance of a man in a group is rarely discussed, although at times photos of prisoners are posted. In response to comments on the appearance of prisoners, especially negative ones, often other members of the group write that in prison conditions it is impossible to look healthy or attractive. The appearance of men is a consequence of living conditions and does not really matter how a man looks.

5.8 Attitude towards imprisonment, attitude towards the laws

In support groups, women have a different attitude towards imprisonment or crime. Many women admit that in the beginning, they do not believe that their spouse or partner can commit a crime. Especially when it comes to violent crimes: “...I do not believe that my husband has committed what he is accused of… [Love can wait cit.22.09.2019]”. This is a common phrase in all groups. Many users say that they do not trust the court and the judicial system in Russia. “... you know how it is going in our coun- try. They just want to close the case, so they put everyone in prison without the right process … [I will wait cit.12.10.2019]”. Such an attitude toward the system, which is expressed in distrust of the authorities of both the judicial and the executive systems, corresponds to codes in the prison culture. Where power and state lose their importance and authority in human life [Efimova 2004; Lysak, Cherkasova 2006]. In prison culture, namely in folklore, in songs, in stories and poems, the fact of imprisonment of a person is perceived and expressed as "fate." The concept of fate is describing something from which it is impossible to escape, and a crime is an action that is a consequence of forces and circumstances beyond human control [Efimova 2004]. A similar description of crimes is also found in women's communities. For example, “... let's just imagine that you have a family. You gave birth to a child, raised, and he connects out of folly with the wrong company and begins to use

52 ANALYSIS drugs, he needs money for the next dose, and so, in connection with his ill- ness (drug addiction), he’ll go and steal something. He enters the house ... and there are two women ... because of shock, plus physical pain, and maybe hallucinations, he takes a knife and attacks. In the end, cops will find him and incarcerate him. The question is, will you as a mother and wife, leave him? [Overhead in prison cit.18.12.2019]”. Similar messages usually come up with questions about how a person can commit a crime, especially with the use of violence. Users have certain gradations in the se- verity of the crime. Some will not accept if there is a murder, or murder may be committed only for the purpose of self-defense; other members of the group accept theft, but not robbery with violence. For example, ”I'm wondering what they feel when they look in the eyes of their victims and how they are still waiting for someone after release? Don't you feel sorry for the victims of crime? ... I'm not talking about those who used drugs and were incarcerated. Everyone can choose what to do with their life. I'm not talking about self-defense killings. Just about those who killed someone while robbing houses… [Our golden freedom cit. 16.10.2019]”. Each member of the group decides which crimes are acceptable within their moral categories. These categories can vary significantly among women without regard to the image of a prisoner as a “hostage of the situation” which is popular in prison culture. In general, in support groups, women are sensitive in comments and judgments about the crime. It's a rare situation when someone writes publicly about a type of crime committed by a partner or spouse. Groups rarely discuss the moral aspects of a particular crime; they are more focused on how long term judges can give for certain criminal code; is it possible to release by parole; what the attitude of other prisoners will be as reaction to various crimes in prison and so on. In the group, which opposes relations with prisoners, the attitude of the community members towards crimes is sharply negative. Members of the group do not accept any crime, often write that “there is no justification for any crime [Zhduli cit. 18.12.2019]” or in the more rude way: ”... it is impossible to justify these human scum [Zhduli cit. 18.12.2019]” At times, controversy is caused by the fact that the use of any drugs in Rus- sia can lead to criminal punishment. However, when users repost prisoner stories from other groups or various publications that show someone's story about drug use and imprisonment due to that fact, this causes a different reaction in the comments. Some members of the group are indignant that in Russia there is a law on drug use: ”...in normal

Šablona DP 3.0.7-FSS (2020-04-14) © 2014, 2016, 2018, 2019 Masarykova univerzita 53 ANALYSIS countries, there are no such laws, a person has the right to create anything with his body [Zhduli cit. 05.02.2020]”. Other commentators do not believe the story which is a reposted prisoner support group. “...if you prisoners, then you'll figure out that everyone in prison due to drug use ... they are lying, it's just the most convenient crime to say about [Zhduli cit. 05.02.2020]”. Such distrust arises from the ambiguity of the criminal law about drug use and the reaction to it in the public sphere. This law can raise more sympathy to the prisoner and dissatisfaction with the existing rules and laws.

5.9 The attitude towards the prison administration and the prison rules

Women in support groups write about administrative rules in prisons: how to go through the verification procedure before a date or what is the attitude of the prison administration towards women. The attitude of the prison administration toward women is usually negative or neutral. It depends on how the prison administration treats visitors. For example, “... I hate these people in our administration. Each visit is always accompanied by insulting jokes about why I came to visit my husband ... and I can’t complain or my husband will be punished [Love can wait cit.25.08.2019]” Women try not to show their attitude towards the prison administration and show discontent in the presence of the administration at the institute itself. Formal complaints about the administration, in case of any problems may be accompanied by risks to the prisoner. Other prisoners can beat him, or other officers can lock him in the punishment cell, they can also blackmail his safety and demand money. It is also the effect of prisonization of prisoners' relatives when the attitude towards the prisoner is transferred to his family [Comfort 2008]. More often, women say that their spouses or partners asked for a SIM card. Ignoring the ban on the phone is the most important and most common violation of the administrative rules in the prison. And due to the fact that the SIM card needs to be taken outside the prison territory, prisoners often ask their mothers, wives or girlfriends to bring it: “...my husband asked me for a long date, and I wanted to carry the SIM card in my mouth ... we need a SIM card, in the colonies they are very expensive [Overheard in prison cit.28.03.2020]”.

54 ANALYSIS

Typically, in the comments, group members also share tips and questions on how to make sure that the administration does not find anything during a search and inspection. For example, “...I planned to put a SIM card in a diaper, but if they start checking it, maybe I will swallow it. Do you think it can get stuck in me? [I will wait cit.19.11.2019]”. Users also advise a variety of ways to carry a SIM card secretly through the prison administration checking. For example, they suggest carrying it in hygiene products, in underwear or in food. The discussion of administrative rules in prison is practically ab- sent in the group that oppose prisoners. This can be explained by the fact that community users do not encounter prison administration in life, do not know the internal rules, conditions for visits and so on. More often, group members comment on women asking for advice on how to secretly bring a SIM card into prison. Comments on these posts, in most cases, do not relate to resolving moral issues or discussing rules and laws. They comment on the actions of women from the point of view of her interpersonal relations with her husband or boyfriend, for example: “... first they buy them SIM cards, and then they cry when their husbands have a new love affair from the “outside”. Just do not carry phones and SIM cards. Let them call you from the payphone saying they’re alive, healthy, not dead… [Zhduli cit.19.11.2019]”. Therefore, there is also no discussion of prison issues related to the administration. Users discuss what interests them and what causes an emotional reaction.

6 Discussion

In my analysis, I describe various aspects of prison culture in various spheres of life. According to analysis, it can be understood that prison culture is based on strict division of gender roles. Gender hierarchy in relation to men and women is the central idea underlying the prison culture. Power, strength, rights and responsibilities are all distributed in prison culture in accordance with gender roles. At the moment when a man is in prison, women also undergo a transformation in living conditions, in the views on many aspects of her life such as family, finances, power, and laws, and so on. Prisoners go through the transformation of “Self”, which is due to a new life in a different environment. They erase past understandings of the world around and build new ones [Goffman 1980]. In this case, they accept prison culture as a new foundation for building relationships. Men accept prison culture voluntarily or not voluntarily under the influence of circumstances and under the influence of a desire to survive and adapt to new conditions. Women also become hostages in this situation. In order to maintain relationships with their partners, they have to accept and follow many aspects of prison culture. The adoption of women of a new culture takes place without erasing the previous foundations, concepts, and codes. The prison culture is peculiarly layered on the existing one and turns it into a new “outside prison culture”. With the new transformed cultural codes for women, the transformation of the perception of gender roles begins. For example, they greatly affect the relationship between a man and a woman. A woman has to accept that, according to these roles she is in a dependent position, and the man dominates. And in case of refusal of such distribution of roles, its action will be perceived by the part of society as “betrayal”. At the same time, consent to relationships within the prison culture codes will be stigmatized by other parts of society too. As a result, there are great risks of discrimination. In groups that are directed against women who have relationships with prisoners, one aspect of prisonization is observed. In these groups there is intolerance towards women supporting prisoners. Users perceived these women as potential carriers of guilt and crime committed by their partners. Because the charge of the crime that was imposed on

56 DISCUSSION the man also affects his family, which leads to the stigmatization of their wives or partners in a negative way. [Comfort 2008, Clemmer 1941] Interestingly, in groups that oppose prison culture and make fun of it, the evaluation of other people's actions also takes place within the framework of gender perceptions of masculinity and femininity. These statements in groups are similar to codes in prison culture and the idea of how power is distributed in relations between a man and a woman. If we consider both groups of people in a macro aspect, then the community lies in the whole system of patriarchy. Everything that happens in the patriarchal system is the construction of the differences between masculinity and femininity — it is the political difference between freedom and submission. [Pateman 1988] And in this sense, prison culture is the transformation of the patriarchal system codes into a new one, but with similar systems of values and evaluation. One of the key problems of the patriarchy (which was adopted by prison culture too) is that it erases the personal qualities of both women and men, driving them into the framework of “feminine” and “masculine” behavior. [Pateman 1988] One of the main aspects of discrimination against women who are in relations with prisoners is the idea of “feminine” and “masculine” behavior. In this case, it is worth noting the discrimination of single women in society. Patriarchal culture dictates that a single woman is not right in terms of a system of values. Since in this system a woman is in an inferior position, the desire for an independent life, the desire not to marry for various reasons may be a reason for the negative stigmatization of such women. Various words appear in the language, with an abusive or dis- criminative connotation, to describe single or divorced women. [Gong, Tu and Jiang 2107; Sandfield, Percy 2003] Such pressure and stigmatization by the part of society can lead to the fact that women will need a permanent relationship to maintain their status. As a result of this, the woman will look for possible ways to maintain the existing relationship, despite problems or look for new ones, also ignoring the circumstances. Such reasons should be sought through in-depth interviews, while the analysis in this work cannot describe the full picture and situation. But making an in-depth interview is quite problematic, as many women do not want to contact and discuss a very sensitive part of their lives. They may fear discrimination or condemnation from other people. However, such a study would be a good chance to explore this group of people who live and communicate openly only within their community.

7 Conclusion

In conclusion of this work, I will repeat the main points drawn from the analysis. In this work, women who are in a relationship with prisoners were studied. In addition to them, a group that opposed such relations was also studied. The content analysis was carried out using posts and comments on the social network Vkontakte, which is very popular in Russia. The analysis showed that women, during relations with prisoners, adopt some codes of prison culture and in-prison concepts. This is manifested in the use of slang, a possible change in attitudes towards the judiciary and the executive systems. In addition, since prison culture is based on the separation of gender roles and on the idea of “feminine” or “masculine” behavior, women also adopt these concepts. This can be expressed in personal relationships between partners, in relationships with children, in everyday life and at work. Also, because of this, women can be discriminated against by the rest of society at work and in their private life. Prison culture is supported by a patriarchal system that has common features in matters of power and dominance. Therefore, often the criteria for evaluating women and men in prison culture and culture outside prison are similar in many respects. The main difference is the attitude to state institutions.

58 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography

1. Akers, R. L., Hayner, N. S., Gruninger, W. 1977. Prisonization in five countries: Type of prison and inmate characteristics. Crimi- nology, 14: 527–554. 2. Alexander, J. C. 2003. The meanings of social life. A Cultural Soci- ology. Oxford University Press: New York. 3. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press. 4. Branaman, A. 1997. Goffman's Social Theory. In Lemert C. (ed.), Branaman A. The Goffman Reader. Wiley-Blackwell. 5. Carmi, A. 1983. The role of social energy in prison. In Dynamis- che Psychiatrie, 16 (5–6): 383–406. 6. Clemmer, D. 1941. The Prison Community. New York: Holt, Rine- hart and Winston. 7. Comfort, M. 2008. Doing Time Together: Love and Family in the Shadow of the Prison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 8. Conquest, R. 1968. The great terror: Stalin's purge of the thirties. New York: The Macmillan Company. 9. Efimova, E. S. 2004. Modern prison: life, traditions and folklore. (Originally: Ефимова Е.С. Современная тюрьма: быт, традиции и фольклор). Мoskva. 10. Etzioni, A. 1975. Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizati- ons. New York: Free Press of Glencoe. 11. Fishman, L. 1990. Women at Wall: a Study of Prisoners' Wives Doing Time on the Outside. New York: State University of New York Press. 12. Foucault, M. 1999. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Moscow: Ad Marginem. 13. Gilinskiy, J. 2003. Russian prisonization. In Otechestvenniye Za- pisky, 2 (11). (Originally: Гилинский, Я. Призонизация по- русски). [online]. Link: http://www.strana-oz.ru/2003/2/prizo- nizaciya-po-rossiyski. 14. Goffman, E. 1961. Asylums. The Essays on the Social Situation of the Mental Patients and Other Inmates. New York: Doubleday, 1961.

15. Goffman, E. 1980. The characteristics of total insitutions. In A sociological reader on complex organizations. Edited by A. Etzioni, E. Lehman. The 3-rd edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Win- ston. 16. Gong, W. Tu, C., Jiang, L. C. 2107. Stigmatized Portrayals of Single women: a Content Analysis of News Coverage on Single Women and Single Men in China. In Journal Of Gender studies, 26 (2). 17. Gurov, A. I. 1990. Professional Crime Past and Present. Moscow: Iuridicheskaia Literatura. 18. Hawkins, G. 1976. The Prison: Policy and Practice. Chicago: Uni- versity of Chicago Press. 19. Hebdige, D. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London & New York: Routledge. 20. Jewkes, Y. 2005. Men Behind Bars: “Doing” Masculinity as an Adaptation to Imprisonment. In Men and Masculinities, 8 (1): 44-63. 21. Keller, J. 2015. Girls’ Feminist Blogging in a Postfeminist Age. London: Routledge. 22. Kennedy, L. 2016. “He Must Learn What Being a Man is All About”: Negotiating the Male Code at the Louisiana State Peni- tentiary. In Deviant Behavior, 2. 23. Khlevniuk, O. V. 2004. The history of the Gulag: from collecti- vization to the great terror. New Haven :Yale University Press. 24. Kropachev, S. А. 2010. The latest Russian historiography on the scale of official repressions in 1937-1938. (Originally: Кропавчев, С. А. Новейшая отечественная историография о масштабах политических репрессий в 1937—1938 годах). In Rossiyskaya Istoriya, 1: 166—172. 25. Levant, R. F. 1996. The new psychology of men. In Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 27 (3): 259—265. 26. Lysak, I. V., Cherkasova, Y. Y. 2006. Prison Subculture in Russia. Taganrog. (Originally: Лысак И. В., Черкасова Ю. Ю. Тюремная Субкультура В России) 27. Moen, P. 1989. Working Parents. University of Wisconsin Press. 28. Morris, T., Morris, P. 1962. The experience of imprisonment. In British Journal of Criminology, 2: 337–360.

60 BIBLIOGRAPHY

29. Oilman, P.J. 2007. Hermeneutics in research practice. The principles of knowledge creation. Massachusetts: Edwar Elgar Pu- blishing. 30. Oleynik, A. N. 2001. Prison subculture in Russia: from everyday life to state government authority. Moskva. (Originally: Олейник, А. Н. Тюремная субкультура в России: от повседневной жизни до государственной власти). 31. Omelchenko, Е. 2015. In Near Prison: Female Support Networks for Prisoners. Edited by Omelchenko, Е., Pallot, J. Saint Peter- sburg: Alteya. (Originally: Омельченко, Е. Около тюрьмы: женские сети поддержки заключенных). 32. Pateman, C. 1988. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford Uni- versity Press. 33. Pavlush, D., Popov, M. V. 2019. "Saints" nineties. (Originally: Павлуш, Д., Попов, М. В. "Святые" девяностые). Saint-Peter- sburg: Piter. 34. Pavlyuchenko, E. A. 1986. In a Voluntary Exile. (originally: Павлюченко, Э. А. В добровольном изгнании). Moscow: Nauka. 35. Pinto, L. 2001. Experience Vecue Et Exigence Scientifique D'ob- jectivite. In Champagne, P., Lenoir, R., Merllie, D., Pinto, L. Initia- tion à la pratique sociologique. Saint-Petersburg: Alteya. 36. Poole, E. D., Regoli. R. M. 1981. Alienation in Prison. In Crimino- logy, 19 (2): 251–270. 37. Popov, V. P. 1992. State terror in Soviet Russia, 1923-1953: sources and their interpretation. (Originally: Попов, В. П. Государственный террор в советской России, 1923—1953 гг.: источники и их интерпретация). In Otechestvenniye arhivy, 2. 38. Ricoeur, P. 2008. From text to action: essays in hermeneutics, II. Bloomsbury: Bloomsbury Publishing. 39. Riesman, D. 1962. The lonely crowd; a study of the changing American character. New Haven: Yale University Press. 40. Roszak, T. 1969. The making of a counter culture: reflections on the technocratic society and its youthful opposition. Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books.

41. Sandfield, A., Percy, C. 2003. Accounting for Single Status: Hete- rosexism and Ageism in Heterosexual Women's Talk about Marriage. In Feminism & Psychology. [online]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/09593535030134013 42. Schreier, М. 2014. Qualitative Content Analysis. In U. Flick, The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Data Analysis. London: Sage. Pp. 170-183. 43. Shearer, D. R. 2009. Policing Stalin`s Socialism. Repression and Social Order in the Soviet Union, 1924—1953. New Haven: Yale University Press. 44. Solzhenitsyn, I. A. 1973. The Gulag Archipelago. (1st ed.). New York: Harper & Row. 45. Sykes, G. M. 1958. The society of captives. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 46. Symkovych, A. 2017a. Do Men in Prison Have Nothing to Lose but Their Manhood? Masculinities of Prisoners and Officers in a Ukrainian Correctional Colony. In Men and Masculinities, 10. 47. Symkovych, A. 2017b. The ‘inmate code’ in flux: A normative system and extralegal governance in a Ukrainian prison. In Current Sociology, 7. 48. Timmermans, S., Tavory, I. 2012. Theory Construction in Qualita- tive Research: From grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. In SAGE Journal, 30 (3): 167-186. 49. Tishenko, N. V. 2007. Gender Aspects Of Prison Subculture In Modern Russia. Saratov: Nauka. (Originally: Тищенко, Н. В. Гендерные Аспекты Тюремной Субкультуры в Современной России). 50. Viggiani, N. 2012. Trying to be Something You Are Not. In Men and Masculinities, 3. 51. Zemskov, V. N. 1991. Prisoners, special settlers, exiled settlers, exiles and deportees (Statistical and geographical aspect). (Origi- nally: Земсков В. Н. Заключенные, спецпоселенцы, ссыльнопоселенцы, ссыльные и высланные (Статистико- географический аспект)). In History of USSR, 5: 151—165.

62 SOURSES

Sourses

I Will Wait. (Originally: Я Обязательно Дождусь). [online]. Avai- lable from: https://vk.com/public126652778 Love Can Wait. (Originally: Любовь Умеет Ждать). [online]. Avai- lable from: https://vk.com/lovecanwait1 Our Golden Freedom - We Wait Together. (Originally: Наша Золотая Свобода - Ждем Вместе). [online]. Available from: https://vk.com/svoboda_zolotaiya ✵ Overheard in Prison ✵ SIZO ✵ MLS✵Official Public™ (Originally: ✵Подслушано в тюрьме ✵СИЗО✵МЛС✵ Official Public™). [online]. Available from: https://vk.com/turmapodslushano Zhduli || Zashquared Inc. (Originally: Ждули || Zashquared Inc). [online]. Available from: https://vk.com/zashqared

Author index

A Ch Akers, 30 Cherkasova, 25, 28, 39, 43, 44, 47 Alexander, 28 J B Jewkes, 23 Bourdieu, 41 Jiang, 57 Branaman, 20, 21 Brodsky, 13 K C Kennedy, 23 Khlevniuk, 15, 16 Clemmer, 29, 30, 57 Kropachev, 15 Comfort, 30, 48, 49, 54, 57 Conquest, 15 L D Lysak, 25, 28, 39, 43, 44, 47, 52 Dostoevsky, 13 M E Mayakovsky, 13 Moen, 48 Efimova, 25, 51, 52 Morris, 30 Etzioni, 18 O F Oilman, 33 Fishman, 31 Oleynik, 23, 26, 27, 39, 40 Foucault, 17, 18 Omelchenko, 13, 31

G P Gilinskiy, 30 Pateman, 57 Goffman, 17, 20, 21, 22, 56 Pavlush, 16 Gong, 57 Pavlyuchenko, 50 Gruninger, 30 Percy, 57 Gurov, 25 Pinto, 19, 20 Poole, 19 H Popov, 16 Hawkins, 30 R Hayner, 30 Hebdige, 26 Regoli, 19 herkasova, 52 Ricoeur, 33 Riesman, 26 Roszak, 27

64 AUTHOR INDEX

S Tishenko, 25, 26, 40, 49, 50 Tishchenko, 28 Sandfield, 57 Tu, 57 Shearer, 15 Schreier, 33, 34 V Smykovych, 42, 44, 49 Solzhenitsyn, 13 Viggiani, 24 Stalin, 16 Sykes, 30 Symkovych, 23, 26 Z Zemskov, 16 T Tavory, 32 Timmermans, 32