If you have issues viewing or accessing this file, please contact us at NCJRS.gov. r-O~&3 Prisoners' Unions, Inmate Militancy, and Correctional Policymaking By STEPHEN WOOLPERT, PH.D. Depa1'tment of Govemrnent and Politics, University of Ma1'yland CHOLARLY attention has been increasingly Inmate unionization is first placed in the context drawn in recent years to the conditions of of the relationship between adaptations to in­ S prison Iifl'). The wave of prison disturbances carceration and political militancy. Survey data initiated by the Attica State Prison upl'lsmg from California state prisoners suggest that sup­ stimulated concern with political mobilization port for unionizaLion is likely to be strongest among confined criminals. The concurrent will­ among those prisoners whose prison style is the ingness of judges to modify the traditional most defiant and who are also the most genuinely "hands-off" doctrine regarding prisons has re­ militant inr_'late group. Active support for unions sulted in a spate of court rulings expanding and by other types of prisoners is likely to be limited. clarifying the legal rights of prisoners. In discussing the policy impact of the union Prisoners' unions represent a third focal point movement, I take issue with James Q. Wilson's of interest, one which manifests the perplexities argument that it represents "a major barrier to of "both inmate politicization and inmate legal effective change in criminal justice" (1975, p. activism. The two basic questions which arise in viii). Even without universal inmate participa­ connection with prisoners' unions are: (1) What tion, prisoners' unions can provide a needed do they tell us about the realities of inmate ex­ mechanism for communicating collective inmate istence? Do they signify a ne'YV degree of political interests, thereby permitting more balanced input awareness and cohesiveness among prisoners, or into the decisionmaking process and reducing the are they merely glorified outlets for inmate anger potential for violent outbursts by prisoners. with an overlay of political rhetoric? And (2) what are the policy implications of the union Prison Styles and Politieal Styles phenomenon? Are unions obstacles to the effec­ Unionization activities within prison walls tive operation of penal institutions or do they occur in a social and political context which has offer an opportunity to improve correctional de­ little in common with most other union move­ cisionmaking? ments. The coercive nature of the institution and This article addresses each of these questions. the "outcast" political status of its population PRISONERS' UNIONS, INMATE MILITANCY, AND CORRECTIONAL POLICYMAKING 41 require that close attention be given to the social ficient in aptitude for identification, are in perpetnal climate within which prisoners' unions arise. anarchistic rebellion against both normative systems and against affective involvements in general (1961 Panel data on the political attitudes of Cali­ p. 347). ' fornia prisoners (Woolpert, 1977) reveal evidence of the degree of political mobilization among Following Schrag's depiction, the inmate roles of subj ects in the California prison survey were contemporary convicts. While ~t is not the case that the distinction between criminal deviance determined by combining their degree of hostility and political marginality has become obsolete , towards correctional authority and their degree there is a noticeable convergence between the of solidarity with fellow inmates. Disaggregation two. California prisoners are more likely than of inmate political attitudes by prison role un­ the general population to have participated in veils a correspondence between prison styles and prior protest-type activities, to approve of un­ political styles. conventional forms of polItical participation, and Square J olms are the most acquiescent, alle­ to prefer violent over nonviolent tactics. More­ giant prisoners, both in their adherence to staff over, those inmates with the lengthiest criminal expectations and in their commitment to con­ records and most violent personal histories tend ventional political beliefs. Their involvement in to be more militant than their more criminally political activities, conventional or militant, is naive cohorts. well below the norm for prisoners. Less than one To conclude, however, that the politicization in three has ever taken part in any of the political of the inmate community is uniform or that the activities studied, and few voice approval of pro­ concurrent transformation of inmate grievances test politics. reflects a clear political consensus among in­ Con politicians appear to see militancy not only mates would be erroneous. In order to estimate as futile in prison, but also as counterproductive the nature and extent of inmate support for the to their strategy of optimizing personal benefits kind of politics which prisoners' unions reflect and avoiding acts which might antagonize im­ it is important to distinguish among alternativ~ portant others. They are close to the norm among adaptations to the degradation, deprivation and prisoners in terms of prior political activity. subordination of confinement. They have a strong sense of confidence in their The inmate culture is far from a unitary one; capabilities, political and otherwise. But they are it is comprised of diver.se, interacting roles. These largely self-interested and manipulative; hence roles reflect not only the physical and psycho­ they are relatively reluctant to endorse political logical pains of confinement, but also the cross­ militancy. pressures stemming from competing prison ref­ Outlaws are favorably disposed towards the use erence groups: Correctional authorities on the of violence, including political violence. However, one hand and fellow inmates on the other. they tend towards defeatism, anticipating failure The best-known typology of inmate roles is and blaming external conditions beyond their Clarence Schrag's (1961) fourfold classification control for their problems. Their low estimate of the political system is coupled not with the of "right guy~," "con politicians," "outlaws," and "Square Johns." In the restricted environment personal skills or confidence necessary to partake of the prison, the dominant themes of inmate i~ eff:ctive political action, but with relatively life revolve around the inevitable question, "How hIgh mtolerance of outgroups. 'l'heir willingness shall I do my time '!" Schrag's typology recognizes to voice approval of political militancy is best that men's responses to the opposing normative v~ewed, therefore, as a byproduct of the aggres­ SIve and violent way in which they cope with aU and behavioral expectations of the correctional manner of problems. Indeed, their actual involve­ staff and other inmates are the major determi­ ment in prior political protests is below the prison nants of tp.eir answer to that question. Schrag norm. states: Right guys, by contrast, back up their strong Briefly, inmates who fall within the "square John" verbal support for militant politics with the most configuration consistently define role requirements in terms of the prison's official social system. By contrast extensive record of involvement in dissident " rIg. ht guys". Just as regularly perceive requirements' political activities. Approval of militancy among according to the norms of prisoner society. "Con politici­ ans" shift their frame of reference from staff norms these men reflects a firm belief, held by a ma­ to inmate norms with great alacrity. "Outlaws," de- jority of right gllYS, that militancy is defensible 42 FEDERAL PROBATION as right and just. They generally see themselves community, glvmg them infiuence beyond their as fighting back against a system which has failed numbers. If such men are indeed at the forefront to perform adequately al1d which has abused and of the union movement, it would be a mistake to thwarted them. dismiss prisoners' unions as a transitory phe­ In general, then, the most authentically militant nomenon or as the work of a small handful of inmates are apt to be those whose prison style malcontents manipulated by dissidents on the out­ combines strongly negative feelings towards side. The right guy role is an enduring one which prison authorities with strongly positive feelings is in the mainstream of inmate society. towards other convicts. In addition, they are Nor is it likely that unionization is an epiphe­ likely to be among the most infiuential and re­ nomenon, involving displacement of expressive, spected prisoners. Sykes and Messinger describe apolitical frustrations onto political targets. The the right guy as politicization of right guys, at least in California, . the hero of the inmate social system. The right is neither superficial nor rhetorical. Their defiant guy is the base line, however idealized or infrequent prison style is presaged by active political in­ in reality, from which the inmate society takes its volvement prior to their arrest. Given the con­ bearings (1960, p. 10). gruence between the union movement, their prison Finally, the right guy role appears over time role and their political beliefs, it is likely that the to be the most adaptive of the four responses to concerns of this key segment of the inmate society prison cross-pressures. Within the California. in­ are symbolized accurately by the unionization mate sample, right guys were the least likely to phenomenon. abandon their prison style during confinement. On the other hand,