Deconstructing the Relationship between the Arts and ...

www.crimejusticejournal.comIJCJ&SD20143(1):16‐34 ISSN2202–8005

©TheAuthor(s)2014

DecorativeJustice:DeconstructingtheRelationshipbetweentheArtsandImprisonment1

LeonidasKCheliotisUniversityofEdinburgh,UK

Abstract

Thisarticlesynthesisesdiversematerialtodiscussbothstateuseoftheartsforthepurposesofcontrollingprisonersandthebroaderpublic,andtheusemadeoftheartsbyprisonersandportionsofthebroaderpublicastoolsofresistancetopenalstates.Thearticleproceedswithan analysis of the politics surrounding and underpinning the philosophy, formation,operation, effectiveness, and research evaluation of arts‐in‐prisons programmes in thecontemporary Anglo‐American world. It argues that arts‐in‐prisons programmes andpertinent evaluation research are often employed as means to a variety of latent ignobleends,with ‘decorativejustice’–thefunctionofmaskingtheinjusticesandpainfulnatureofimprisonmentbehindclaimsoffairness,benevolenceandcare–chiefamongsttheseends.Keywords

Imprisonment,punitiveness,arts,arts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes,researchevaluation.Introduction

The arts – spanning the visual, design, performing, media, musical, and literary genres –constituteanalternativelensthroughwhichtounderstandstate‐sanctionedpunishmentanditsplace in public consciousness. Perhaps this is especially so in the case of imprisonment: itsnature, its functions, and theways inwhich these register in public perceptions and desires,have historically and to some extent inherently been intertwinedwith the arts. Not that theproductsofthisintertwinementhavebeenconstantoruniform.Justasexploringimprisonmentanditspublicmeaningsthroughthelensoftheartsmayrevealhithertoobscuredinstancesofsocialcontrolwithinoroutsideprisons,sotooitmayuncoverarichandpossiblyinspirationalarchive of resistance to them. When criminological scholarship addresses the relationshipbetween the arts and imprisonment, however, the focus is disproportionately on thedevelopmentandeffectivenessofformalised,practitioner‐runprisonprogrammeswhichclaimto ‘empower’ and ‘rehabilitate’ prisoners by introducing them to the arts. A further and,arguably, related tendency in pertinent criminological scholarship is that arts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes and their research evaluation are approached uncritically, devoid of the socio‐politicaldimensionsoftheircontext,content,conductandconsequences.

LeonidasKCheliotis:DecorativeJustice:DeconstructingtheRelationshipbetweentheArtsandImprisonment

IJCJ&SD17

Onlineversionviawww.crimejusticejournal.com©20143(1)

With a view to helping stretch the scope of criminological literature beyond prison artsprogramming as such, the present article begins by offering a synthesis of material from adiverserangeofdisciplinesandsourcestodiscussbothstateuseoftheartsforthepurposesofcontrolling prisoners and the broader public, and the usemade of the arts by prisoners andportionsofthebroaderpublicastoolsofresistancetopenalstates.Buildingpartlyongeneralconclusions drawn from the foregoing, the article proceeds with an analysis of the politicssurroundingandunderpinningthephilosophy,formation,operation,effectiveness,andresearchevaluationofarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammesinthecontemporaryAnglo‐Americanworld.Itarguesthat,whilstarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammesandpertinentevaluationresearchmayperform trulypositive roles, they are often employed as means to a variety of latent ignoble ends. Chiefamongsttheseendsiswhatmaybetermed‘decorativejustice’;thatis,thefunctionofmaskingthe injustices andpainfulnatureof imprisonmentbehind claimsof fairness,benevolenceandcare.Artsinandaboutprisonsassocialcontrol

Onemaybegindissectingtherelationshipbetweentheartsandimprisonmentbyadoptingan‘objectivist’ or ‘structuralist’ viewpoint and looking ‘from the outside’ at the variousways inwhich the state and its officials have used the arts inside prisons to ensure and enhance thecrueltyandharshnessoftheexperienceofimprisonment,materiallyaswellassymbolically.Afewexamplesfollow.TheradialarchitecturaldesignofPentonvillePrisoninLondon,whichwasreplicatedaroundEuropeinthelatterhalfofthenineteenthcentury,securedthetotalisolationof prisoners fromone another. Suchprison edifices,moreover, continued tobedesigned andbuiltinthetwentiethcenturydespitestatisticsthatdemonstratedhigherratesofmentalillnessand suicide amongst isolated prisoners (O’Brien, 1998: 180–181; see also Jewkes, 2012).Prisoner vocals were harnessed in Nazi concentration camps, where inmates were made tomocktheirgrimrealitybysingingaboutcheerful,carefreethemes(Gilbert,2005:117). IntheUS today, there has been a revival of the iconic nineteenth‐century black‐and‐white‐stripeddesignofprisonclothinginordertoshameandfurtherstigmatiseprisoners(Ash,2010:155).AndinGuantánamoBay,rockmusichasbeenplayedatexcruciatingvolumesforhoursonendinordertotorturedetainees(seefurtherStaffordSmith,2008).2Stillwithinan‘objectivist’or‘structuralist’framework,onemayexplorethewaysinwhichtheartsmaybewieldedtomanagepublicunderstandingsandfeelingsaboutprisoners,prisonsandthe overarching socio‐political order. For instance, in good part as a deliberate attempt toinspire awe amongst the public, prisons have often been located in the very centre of urbanpublic space (Geltner, 2008a: 32), their exterior incorporating clear symbols of austerity anddiscipline(Smith,2008:70).Withtheaimofincitingorboostingnationalpride,prisonsintheUnitedStatesandCanadaintheearlytwentiethcenturyweredepictedonpostcardsalongsideother importantcivicbuildingsandmonumentssuchasuniversitiesandcourthouses(Miron,2011:166–168).Innineteenth‐centuryAmerica,usingtermsandtropesthatwerepartlydrawnfrom the popular literature of the age, the manifestos and pamphlets of prison reformfrequently demonised prisoners and glorified state punishment, ‘doing the work ofrepresentationandtransmissionthathadoncebeenperformedbythespectacleofthescaffold’(Smith,2009:18).Andtoday’smassmediaonbothsidesoftheAtlantictendtoinstilorinflamecrimefearandpunitivenessamongst thepublicbyoverstatingtheproblemofcrime, levellingheavy criticism against the administration of prisons for their purported laxity, and issuingurgentcallsforever‐greaterrelianceonstrictimprisonment,therebyhelpingtodivertattentionfrom real, socio‐economic insecurities that are the outcome of state policies (see furtherCheliotis,2010a;alsoAlber,2007;Carrabine,2012;Kearon,2012).Equally,however, theartsmaybe employed tohide the impositionof repressionandhumansufferinginprisonsbehindpretensionsofhumanisticcare,fromliteraryrepresentationsoftheprison as a site of benevolence for wretched creatures (Smith, 2009) to even staging and


IJCJ&SD18


mediating the promotion of arts activities amongst prisoners. Perhaps the most extremeexampleofthelatteristheusemadebytheNazisoftheconcentrationcampofTheresienstadtoutsidePrague.PrisonersinTheresienstadtwereinitiallyallowedandlateractivelyencouragedto develop a rich cultural life, spanning, amongst other channels, concerts, theatreperformances,andpaintingclasses.Butthiswasonlywiththeaimofcreatingashowpiecebywhich to appease the concerns of the outside world about the treatment of the Jews and toadvertiseNazism.Notoriously,in1944agroupofRedCrossinspectorsweremanipulatedintobelievingthatTheresienstadtwasabenignplace,whilsttheirvisitwascapturedoncameraandincorporatedintoapropagandafilmreleasedlaterinthatyearunderthetitleTheFührerGivestheJewsaCity(Moreno,2006;seefurtherPeschel,forthcoming).3EchoesofthisformofabuseoftheartshavebeenidentifiedinrecentyearsinthePhilippines,where prison authorities released on YouTube video‐recordings of prisoners engaging incollectiveartsactivitiesofmassproportionsinvariousestablishmentsaroundthecountry.Themost widely known recording (indeed, an instant global sensation) has been that from themaximum‐security prison in Cebu, where over 1,500 prisoners clad in orange jumpsuits areseendancingsynchronouslytoMichaelJacksonsongssuchasThriller,whilstanotherrecordingof lesser though still significant appeal presents the 100‐membered Bureau of CorrectionsGrandOrchestraandChoralegivingtheirinauguralperformanceinNewBilibidPrison.Allthisexposure,however,hasbeenpartofpublicrelationscampaignsthathavedistractedattentionfrom the persistently inhumane and unjust conditions in Filipino prisons: from suffocatingovercrowding, ever‐spreading diseases, and minimal healthcare to violent gang activity andsystematicofficerdiscrimination in favourofwealthyprisoners(see, forexample,BBC,2010;Dizon, 2011) – not tomentionmedia reports that prisoners in Cebu are forced into dancingpracticeforlonghoursandarephysicallymistreatediftheyrefuse(ManilaBulletin,2010).4Artsinandaboutprisonsasresistance

It iswelldocumentedthateven–orperhapsespecially– insuchoppressiveenvironmentsasprisons,theexerciseofpowerisalwaysboundtomeetwithsomedegreeofresistance.Indeed,as McEvoy (2001: 34) argues, ‘resistance and the exercise of power are mutually shaping,defining,andchanginginanongoingdialectic’.Atthelowerendofthecontinuumofpowerinprisons,thevariouswaysinwhichprisonersmayseektoexpressthemselvesthroughtheartsallowforavaluable ‘subjectivist’ insight – ‘fromtheinside’– intothefunctionsandeffectsofimprisonmentassuch.Yettheseformsofexpressionalsohelptoproblematisetheomnipotenceofpenalpower.Prisonerartwork,inotherwords,maynotonlyspeakvolumesaboutthescope,intensity,androleoftheconstraintsof imprisonment; itmayequally functionasan ‘enabling’force against those constraints, not least by bringing them to light. Prisoners need not havetrainedorotherwisespecialisedinthearts,andmayworkeitheropenlyorinsecret(notethattheconditionsunderwhichartisproducedinprisonsprovideinandofthemselvessignificantdata) to fulfill such goals as retaining or reclaiming personal dignity and self‐consciousness,achieving psychological survival, building camaraderie with other prisoners, establishingchannels of communication and rapport with the outside world, defeating the ends of anoppressivesystem,andappropriatingpower.5Let us look at a few examples from the world of political imprisonment. In Stalin’s Russia,prisoners in the infamous Solovki Prison Camp in the White Sea–Baltic Canal zone usedinstitutional theatre tosatirise theauthoritiesandmaintain theirhumanity (see, forexample,Kuziakina,2004).AtBursaPrisoninTurkeyunderKemalAtatürk’sruleinthelate1930s,NazimHikmet andOrhanKemal – the former already themost famous poet in the country and thelatter subsequently to become one of its most popular novelists – were both immersed inproducing literature to sustain their autonomy and exchange ideas (Kemal, 2010). Germanprisoners in Nazi camps used songs to raise communal sentiment and assist the cause ofunderground resistance (Gilbert, 2005). In Greece, prisoners on islands of exile during the


IJCJ&SD19


dictatorshipofGeneralMetaxas (1936–1941), theAxisOccupation (1941–1943)and theCivilWar (1946–1949) and its aftermath produced handwritten newspapers and staged Greektragedies toprotestagainst theircaptors(Kenna,2008;VanSteen,2005,2011;seealsoHart,1996;Herzfeld,1997).Andduring thecivil strife inNigeria in the late1960s, renownedpoetWoleSoyinkawroteversesontissuepaperashiswayofstruggling forpsychologicalsurvivalandestablishingcommunication(Abou‐bakr,2009; for furtherexamples,seeBernstein,2010;Deary, 2010; Gramsci, 1971/2005; Haslam, 2005; Index on Censorship, 2010; Johnson, 2012;Malik,2006;Mandela,1994;Mapanje,1993,2010;Nashir,2008;PopescuandSeymour‐Jones,2007;Scheffler,2003;WuandLivescu,2011).Turning to non‐political prisoners, in the gaols of Britain during the nineteenth century,prisoners sangballads tonurturea senseof community, assuage thepainof separation fromloved ones, and regain some of their lost autonomy – indeed, singingwas an act of defianceagainsttheruleofsilenceimposeduponprisonersatthetime(Rogers,2012).Similarly,intheprisonfarmsoftheAmericanSouthduringthe1930s,prisonerssangthebluesinordertoeasethe anguish of their lives and foment collective endurance, before the genre became animportant form of popular culture (see further Smith, 2009: 164–171). In France during theearly 1940s, JeanGenet pennedhis debutnovelOurLadyof theFlowers on thebrownpaperwhichprisonersweresupposedtousetomakebagsasaformoftherapy;aninstance,asJean‐PaulSartreputs it inhisclassicbiographyof ‘Saint’Genet,of ‘thewayout thatone invents indesperatecases’(Sartre,1952/1963:584).Andinwomen’sprisonsintheUStoday,prisonersestablish informal networks to share books and engage in reading so that they can gain self‐knowledge, contextualise their experiences in relation to larger frameworks, and develop abetter understanding of the limits and possibilities of individual agency (Sweeney, 2010; forfurther examples, see Attwood, 2010; Baer, 2005; Bruno, 2002; Carceral, 2006; Carnochan,2012; Chevigny, 2002; Gauntlett, 2012; Geltner, 2008b; Haslam, 2005; Index on Censorship,2010; Johnson, 2012;Kleinert, 2002;Maxwell, 2002;Miller, 2005;Nellis, 2012;Novek, 2005;Rymhs,2002;Scheffler,2003;Tessler,2010;Wilson,2008a,2008c).Underfreerbutnotnecessarilyunproblematiccircumstances,segmentsofthepublicmayalsoput thearts to theuseofresisting the inherent inhumanityof imprisonmentandthearrayofinjusticesitreflectsandserves.Suchactionmayattimesrelatetocasesofindividualprisoners(includingwell‐knownartists),andmaybeundertakenatalocal,nationaland/orinternationallevelbyformerprisoners,relativesofcurrentprisoners,membersofthepublicwithnodirectorindirectpersonalexperienceofimprisonment,penalreformandartsorganisations,orsomecombinationof these.For instance, fromthemid‐1950sonwards, throughhishitsongFolsomPrison Blues and a long series of benefit concerts inside prisons around the US (including,famously, one at Folsom Prison itself in 1968), Johnny Cashwas one of the nation’s leadingpublic advocates of prison reform (Tunnell and Hamm, 2009; see also Johnson and Schmitz,2008).Inthemid‐1970s,BobDylanwrote,recorded,andoftensanginpublichisanthemicsongHurricane toprotestagainst thewrongful imprisonmentofAmericanboxerRubin ‘Hurricane’Carter,whose convictionwas eventually overturned in 1985 (see furtherHirsch, 2000: 120–125).In2006,‘guerillaartist’Banksymanagedtoplacealife‐sizedreplicaofaGuantánamoBaydetaineeinsidearailroadrideatDisneylandParkinCalifornia,inordertohighlighttheplightofterrorsuspectsatthecontroversialdetentioncentreinCuba(BBC,2006).Andin2011,withaviewtorenewingfocusaroundtheworldonthedetentionofChinesedissidentartistAiWeiweibytheauthoritiesofhiscountry,theTateModernGalleryinLondoninstalledtentonnesofhishand‐craftedporcelainsunflowerseedsassembledinaspectacularconicalform(Brown,2011;forfurtherexamples,seeBrown,2012;Carrabine,2012;cummings,2012;Fahy,2012;Fiddler,2012; IndexonCensorship,2010; Jacobson‐Hardy,2002; Johnson2009, Johnston,2012;Lacey,2008;McAvinchey,2011;Rowe,2012;Ruggiero,2012;Smith,2009).6


IJCJ&SD20


Arts‐in‐prisonsprogrammesandtheirevaluation

Although the examples recruited up to this point obviously vary in terms of scale and otherspecificities, it is nevertheless possible to pull some threads together and draw preliminaryconclusions. To startwith, there is no intrinsicmoralworth to the arts in and about prisonsinasmuchastheycanbesubjugatedtomalignends.Furthermore,prisonersarenotnecessarilyresignedtoacceptingthetermsoftheirsubordination,andhavelongemployedtheartsasoneoftheirinstrumentsofoppositiontoit.Indeed,testamenttothepotencyoftheartsasameansofprisonerresistanceisthearrayofeffortscommonlymadebystateauthoritiestosuppressorcontrol them(see, forexample,Nellis,2012;andbelow).Thepoliticalutilityof theartsaside,and contrary to common conceptions of prisoners as under‐educated, under‐cultured, under‐talented, and under‐achieving, prisoner artwork may also reach exceptional standards ofculturalproductionwhetherornottheartistorartistsinquestionhaveundergoneanyformaltraining.Finally, thepublic isnot invariablyattractedor indifferent to theplightofprisonersandtheroleofprisonsmoregenerally;infact,withnolesspotentialforartisticexcellencethanprisoners,membersofthepublicmaywellutilisetheartstopromoteprogressivechangeonthesocio‐penalfront.All this throws intosharprelief thetwo ironieswhichprevail incontemporarycriminologicalliteratureontherelationshipbetweentheartsandimprisonment.Thefirstironyconsistsinthetendency to disproportionately focus attention on the development and effectiveness offormalised, practitioner‐run prison programmes which claim to ‘empower’ and ‘rehabilitate’prisonersbyintroducingthemtothearts.Thesecondand,arguably,consequentialironyisthetendency of such scholarship to approach arts‐in‐prisons programmes and their researchevaluation in an uncritical manner, as if they exist in a socio‐political vacuum. The presentarticlehasthusfarsoughttohelprectifythefirstironythroughdiscussingbothstateuseoftheartsforthepurposesofcontrollingprisonersandthebroaderpublic,andtheusemadeofthearts by prisoners and portions of the broader public as tools of resistance to penal states.Building partly on insights gained through the foregoing, the article now turns to a criticalexploration of the philosophy, formation, operation, effectiveness, and research evaluation ofarts‐in‐prisons programmes, bringing to the fore the politics surrounding and underpinningthesemultiplethemes.AsuitableamountofrehabilitationOverrecentdecades,theuseofimprisonmenthasundergoneadramaticriseinalargenumberofjurisdictionsworldwide(seefurtherVanDijk,2008:259–260).Concurrently,therehasbeena rapid expansion of so‐called ‘rehabilitation programmes’ in prisons, including programmesbasedon the arts. As concerns arts‐in‐prisons programmes in theWest at least, related non‐governmentalorganisationsandcharitieshavebeenmushrooming,fundinghasbeenrelativelyhealthy despite the financial downturn, and practitioners have seen their employmentbecoming more secure (see, for example, Teasdale, 1999; McAvinchey, 2011). Alongsideprogramming as such, research that is meant to evaluate the effectiveness of arts‐basedinterventionsinprisonshasbeenundergoingasignificantexpansionaswell.Whatwasoncethepurview of a few isolated practitioners applying basic research methods and even fewerinterested academics scattered around the world has now become an increasingly crowded,coherent and dynamic field. The number of active researchers has grown exponentially,including postgraduate students and commercial‐sector entrepreneurs. Teamwork andpartnershipsbetweenuniversities,artsorganisations,andcriminaljusticeagencieshavegainedin frequency and strength. The volume of related scholarly and policy publications isunprecedentedlyhigh(althoughliteraturereviewshavethusfarfailedtoexhaustthematerialavailable).And regional, national, and international conferencesareorganisedwith gatheringmomentum and ever‐larger audiences (see, for example, Cheliotis and Jordanoska, 2014,forthcoming).


IJCJ&SD21


The expansion of evaluation research on arts‐in‐prisons programmes is not particularlysurprisingatfirstsight,asthebroader‘whatworks’questionhasacquiredrenewedsignificancein criminal justice policy‐making and criminological research over recent years (see furtherBrown, 2008). With the culture of managerialism having come to infiltrate and dominatepenality, prison programming purports to be based on evaluation evidence of the higheststandards, a characterisation commonly and largely arbitrarily reserved for hard‐nosedstatistical analyses of quantitative data derived through experimental or at least quasi‐experimental studies (Edwards,2005;McMillan,2003). Justaswithsomanypenalandothersocialpolicyinterventions,however,thefateofarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes–theirscale,theirscope, and theirmechanics – has by nomeans been determined by findings from evaluationresearch.Thefactthatavailablepertinentevidencetendstofallshortofthestandardsrequiredof policy‐relevant evaluation research (and often of other, seemingly laxer standards) mightevenbebesidethepoint,giventhattheexpansionofarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammespredatedtheexpansionofevaluationresearchinthisarea(foranexceptionfromtheUS,seeGussak,2012).It could be claimed that arts provision to prisoners should be ensured regardless of anymeasurableimpactitmayhaveontheirlives,particularlyifequalaccesstotheartsisperceivedtobeauniversalright.Buteven ifoneweretoacceptthatthisargumentprivatelyappeals topoliticiansandpolicy‐makers,itishardlyvoicedintheopen,notleastbecauseitlackspoliticalpurchaseinthecontextofheightenedpublicpunitiveness.Ifanything,denyingprisonersaccesstotheartsiswhatmightproveaneffectivepoliticalmove,notunlikedeprivingthemofvariousother andmore basic rights such as to safety, autonomy, and privacy. Thus, for example, inNovember 2008 the then UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw publicly condemned a stand‐upcomedycourse formaximum‐securityprisonersas ‘totallyunacceptable’andorderedthat thelessonsceasewithimmediateeffect(seefurtherCoxandGelsthorpe,2012).Such punitive gestures, however, have done little to arrest the expansion of arts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes. Indeed, at least in Britain, prison arts programming has remained largelyimperviouseventotheongoingfinancialcrisisandtheattendantbudgetcutsincriminaljustice(foradifferentexamplefromtheUS,seeNagourney,2011;also,moregenerally,Meiners,2011).The immediate question concerns the justifications underlying this development: what is itexactlythatarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammesaresupposedtoachieve?Theansweralsohascrucialimplications for theprogressionof evaluationresearch in this field.Forunless themissionofgivenprogrammesisadequatelydefined,theirevaluationisboundtobebasedonspeculativeyardsticks. Neither the fact that evaluators of arts‐in‐prisons programmes disproportionatelyemphasise methodological matters, nor that they are typically in favour of qualitativetechniques, should be taken to mean that the goals of arts‐in‐prisons programmes aresteadfastlyclearandconstant(or,indeed,thatqualitativetechniquesarenecessarilybestsuitedforthetaskathand).Commonlyevokedtojustifyinvestmentinprisonartsprogrammingistheconceptofoffenderrehabilitation,eventhoughthecontoursof theconceptandtheways inwhichtheyshouldbeapplied in practice have long been far from lucid (Thompson, 2003; see also Brown, 2008;Waren, 1986). To be sure, the idea of ‘rehabilitating’ offenders, however fuzzy, has greaterpoliticalvaluethantreatingthemasequalsandgrantingthemfullrights.Thisisallthemoresowhenoffenderrehabilitationistiedtowhatwemaycallthe‘meta‐goal’ofrecidivismreduction;whereas the former still remains fuzzy, the latter is both tangible and highly appealing (seefurtherCoxandGelsthorpe,2012;DigardandLiebling,2012).But such discourses may nevertheless founder on the belief that offenders are generallyirredeemable,andthat, inanycase, ‘soft’schemessuchasthoserelatedtotheartsarewhollyinappropriatefortheoccasion(see,forexample,MarunaandKing,2004,2009).Althoughbeliefin the generic irredeemability of offenders amounts to nothing more than a stereotype, theperceivedunsuitabilityofarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes isnotwideof themark,at leastnotas


IJCJ&SD22


concernsthe ‘meta‐goal’ofreducingrecidivismrates(McMillan,2003).This isbecauseprisonartsprogrammingcannotrealisticallyaddressobviousandprovenprecursorsofoffendingsuchasunemploymentandlackofhousing.Solongastheseprecursorscontinuetogounaddressedbystatepolicy,ex‐prisonerswillbeeffectivelyforcedcloserbackintocrime(see,forexample,Uggen et al., 2005; Western, 2006), and arts‐in‐prisons programmes will have taken uponthemselves a heavy load of undeserved blame (see further McAvinchey, 2011: 78–79; alsoFraden,2001).Yet it is not even certain whether, or to what extent, offender rehabilitation is a desirableoutcome for prison authorities and the public. The penal establishment is prepared to takecreditforexceptionalachievementsbyprisonerartists,wheretheyareevokedtoadvertisetheprisonasasiteofeffectivepedagogyandrehabilitation,insofarassuchcasesdonotbecomethenorm.ErwinJames,whofamouslytookupeducationandrosetobecomearegularcolumnistforTheGuardianwhilstservingalifesentenceinvariousBritishprisons,quotesaprisongovernoras saying to him: ‘Oh, we believe in rehabilitation, but we’re not quite sure just howrehabilitatedwewant prisoners tobe.…You see, so long as societydemands retribution foroffenders,wehavetobecarefulaboutallowingyoutoomuchrehabilitation’(James,2003:165).What this quote does not convey, of course, is that prison officials may well share suchretributive sentimentswith ‘society’, not least because they themselves aremembers of thatsociety(see,forexample,Szekely,1982;andbelow).Theprospectofoffender rehabilitationspecifically through thearts canalsobe thoughtofasposinganunconsciousontologicalthreattoprisonprofessionalsandthepublic(includingartspractitioners)–nota‘fearoffalling’assuchbutafearofbeingmatchedorevenovertaken.Forartistic development signals acquisition of a prized source of symbolic capital, thus creatingpossibilities for distinction and upward social mobility to the point of upsetting establishedpower differentials (see further Bourdieu, 1996; also Cohen and Taylor, 1976: 126–129).Behindthisfearperhapsliesalatentexpectationthatprisonersaremorelikelythanmostofustoproduceinspirationalartbecause,paradoxically,oftheexceptionalstrainsunderwhichtheyfindthemselves.And,indeed,thisfearmaynotbeunfounded,giventhatprisonerartworkhasattimestranscendedtheobjectiveboundariesoftheprisonandthesymbolicboundariesofclass,enteringtheranksofpopularandeven‘high’culture;theprisonbluesintheUSandtheprisonrebetika in Greece (onwhich see Gauntlett, 2012) being but two examples from themusicalgenre(seefurtherBernstein,2010).Itseemsnoaccident thatprisonofficerssoofteneffectivelysabotagetheoperationofarts‐in‐prisons programmes, from sticking to inflexible institutional protocols that pose practicalobstacles (Cohen,2012;CoxandGelsthorpe,2012;GrantandCrossan,2012;Silber,2005), tobeing hostile to arts practitioners (Schlossman andBerger, 1997), tomockingprisonerswhotakepart(DigardandLiebling,2012), toclaimingthat trainingintheartsrunscountertotheveryspiritofpunishment(Tocci,2007)andisevenliabletoenhanceprisoners’criminalskills(Moller, 2004). But the negative stance prison officers may hold towards arts‐in‐prisonsprogrammesshouldnotbe takento implythatsystematising theprocessofengagementwiththe arts behind bars necessarily works best to discover, preserve or cultivate the creativeartistic potential of prisoners. Rather, prisoners interested in the arts are today frequentlychannelled into programmes run by practitioners with variable credentials, where they areschooledintheelementaryartisticskillstheyarepresumedtolackbydintoftheirlower‐classupbringingandethos,atthesametimeasbeingpreachedthevirtuesof‘high‐brow’bourgeoisculture as an especially demanding benchmark by which all else is to be judged. Prisonersthereby receive what we may call, paraphrasing Nils Christie (2004), a ‘suitable amount ofrehabilitation’, and are eventually trapped in what Pierre Bourdieu (1984) terms ‘culturalgoodwill’:whereastheygrowfamiliarwith,andappreciativeof,thehierarchyofsymbolicgoodsin theartistic field, theyare safelydeniedaccess to thepracticalmeansof attaining themostdesirablestandardsofartisticexpression.Tothisextent,althougharts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes


IJCJ&SD23


profess to ‘empower’ prisoners byway of rehabilitating them, boosting their autonomy, self‐control and confidence, the way in which they are practically structured and operated mayfurnishpreciselytheoppositefunction(seealsoRodríguez,2002;Sweeney,2002;Walsh,2012).Nowonderthatprisoners’artworkissubjectedtoperfidiouscondescension(asBrown(2002:131), for instance, also recognises), even by the system entrusted with their ‘acculturation’.Consider the depth and nature of the chasm in power dynamics at ceremonies where thegenteel community confers, with a self‐delegated authority reminiscent of early‐twentieth‐century coloniserswho detected traces of ‘civilisation under savagery’ (Strathern, 1990: 91),certificatestoprisonerswho‘makeitthrough’anartsscheme.7Consideralsothatself‐servinggenteeldiscoursewhichaccordsinferiorstatustoprisoners’artistictastes.Theirsareallegedly‘tastes of necessity’, to borrow another term from Bourdieu (1984), where function takesprecedence over form, where matter overrides manner, and where facile pleasure of basichumansensesprevailsoverpleasureachievedthrougheruditereflection.Inthecontextofsuchdiscourse, nude paintings produced by prisoners amount to sheer pornography; nudity inbourgeoispaintwork,bycontrast, is taken tobe reflectiveofopen‐mindednessand liberationfromregressivesocialtaboos(butseealsoCarnochan,2012).Granted, prisoners may come to develop feelings of gratitude towards their instructors andjudges, justas theymaytreat the inferiorcultural identityascribedtothemas legitimate.Butthisisperhapsbestunderstoodastheresultofsuccessful ideological incorporation–as ‘falseconsciousness’ – rather than indicatinganenvironmentof careand fairnessor anobjectivelylegitimate cultural hierarchy. Alternatively, prisoners may skilfully manipulate flattery anddeference–‘thetheatreartsofsubordination’,intheaptphraseofJamesScott(1990:35)–inorder to achieve their own ends. Albeit somewhat stereotypically, this latter possibility isillustrated in the classic 1960 British comedy Two‐Way Stretch, starring Peter Sellers. Uponreceivingan inspectionvisit fromapartyofbenevolentwomen representingaprisonreformassociation,maleprisonersparticipatinginanarts‐and‐craftsworkshopshowthemselvestobetalented dissemblers. Whilst offering their willing audience a performance of sincerecommitment to the rehabilitative spirit of the arts and crafts, they surreptitiously exploit theopportunity of the workshop to hone their criminal skills: a hand‐made cabinet project, forexample,doublesasthemeanstoalessoninbreakingbanksafes.It is ironicthateffortshavebeenmade to promote drama therapy in prisons by reference to the supposed ‘affinity thatcriminalshave for thedramatic’ in that they ‘often speakabout themasks theywearand therolestheyplay inordertofit intothecriminalworld’(CoganandPaulson,1998:37),withoutrecognising thepossibledramatic element inhowprisoners express themselvesaboutprisonartsprogrammingor,indeed,theirexperiencesofthe‘criminalworld’.ConscienceandconvenienceThere still remains the crucial question of what policy and civic functions arts‐in‐prisonsprogrammesserve.Theirproclaimedmissionofrehabilitatingoffenders isbelied, first,bythelackofofficialefforttoclearlydeterminetheambitoftheconceptandtheformarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes should assume accordingly; secondly, by the fact that offender rehabilitationthrough the arts is unrealistically tied to recidivism reduction; and thirdly, by the broadercontextofoppositiontotherehabilitativepotentialofarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes,bothatthelevel of unconscious desires and in terms of practically undermining their operations andoutputs.Animportantquestionalsoremainsastotheutilityofevaluationresearchinthisarea.Whythegrowthinresearchevaluationsafter,ratherthanbefore,theexpansioninprisonartsprogramming, especially since their dogged insistence on adopting qualitative techniquesautomaticallyprecludesthemfromseriousconsiderationinpolicy‐settingcircles?ItisusefulforpresentpurposestorecallthegeneralaccountofoffenderrehabilitationgivenbyStan Cohen in his Visions of Social Control. Drawing attention to the symbolic effects of


IJCJ&SD24


discursive constructs, Cohen argues that rehabilitation programmesmake ‘good stories’ that‘standfororsignifywhatthesystemlikestothinkitisdoing,justifyorrationalisewhatithasalready done, and indicate what it would like to be doing (if only given the chance and theresources)’(Cohen,1985:157).Viewedinthisway,arts‐in‐prisonsprogrammespartakeinthepoliticalartoflendingtheinherentlyharshprisonsystemappearancesofopen‐heartednessandcare.Thereisanobvioustheatricalelementatworkhere,withartsprovisiontoprisonersbeingitselfaplaydirectedby thestate forself‐promotionalends.That theprotagonists in thisplaytend to be females – arts‐in‐prisons programmes, for example, are commonly delivered bywomen – reaffirms its message: the state is genuinely devoted to the maternalistic task ofpromoting rehabilitation. All the while, the very fact that arts programming is added to thepanoplyofrehabilitativeinterventionsinsideprisonwallslendsfurtherretrospectivevalidationtostereotypicalperceptionsofprisoners–herethenecessaryextrasoftheplayinprocess–aspathologicalcasesinneedofinstitutionalisedtreatment.Onceaccomplished,thismoveinturnrevalidates the necessity of the programmes that have been invoked and legitimates theirhosting institution: the prison, now perceived as the arm of a ‘mother who provides andprotects’(Duncan,1996:24).Itcomesasnosurprisethathigh‐levelprisonofficialshaveoftenjoined their voices with those of arts organisations and other interested parties to call forgreaterstatefundingfortheartsinprisons.TakingCohen’saccountonestepfurther,itcouldbearguedthatprisonartsprogrammingisa‘goodstory’thatappealstothemiddle‐classsegmentofthepopulation.Itisthemiddleclasses,afterall,whosystematicallyconsecratetheloveofart(evenastheyarbitrarilyclaimmonopolyover knowledge of theways to love it; see furtherBourdieu, 1984). It is, equally, themiddleclasses who ‘donate’ money, time, and what is often their self‐ascribed competence toendeavours related to the provision of arts behind bars (including, for the most daring,unsqueamish, and perhaps voyeuristic amongst them, undertaking the initiation of prisonersinto thebasicessentialsofaestheticeducation).This isnot to say that themiddleclassesaresomehowpurifiedofpunitivesentiments;indeed,itisplausiblethattheiractivesupportfortheprovisionofarts inprisonshelpsalleviatetheir lurkingguilt forvoting intopowersuccessivepunitive governments (see further Cheliotis, 2010b), at the same time as ensuring thatprisoners learn to respect middle‐class symbolic goods but remain ignorant as to how toproduceorconsumetheminthe‘proper’manner.8Thegreatestironyhereisnotthatarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes,whetherbyofferingtoolittleorby promising too much, essentially set prisoners up for all sorts of failure, from lagging farbehindtheartisticstandardstheyaretaughttovenerate,tofallingbackintoalifeofcrimeoncetheyarereleased.Norisitthegreatestironythatsuchfailuresservetoinvestpresumptionsofoffenders as culturally and morally inferior with the symbolic force of a fait accompli. Thegreatest irony of all is that these symbolic effects have gravematerial consequences for thesupposed recipients of state and middle‐class benevolence, working to legitimate offenders’pastandongoingrepressionbywayofpenalinstitutionalisation.Cohenputsthepointastutelywhenhewrites that, in thesamewayas iatrogenic illness isattributed topurported faultsofpatients,sothemisfiresofoffenderrehabilitationschemesareblamedonoffenders:‘Aspecialgroupofoffendersisparticularlytoblame:theincorrigibles,thehardcores,thecareercriminalswhosoungratefullypersist inkeepingrecidivismratessohigh.Ifonlytheywouldcooperate!’(Cohen,1985:169).Asidefromtheirexploitationforreasonsofconscience,arts‐in‐prisonsprogrammesoftenalsoservefunctionsofwhatRothman(1980)names‘administrativeconvenience’;thatistosay,theyare employed latently (but not unconsciously) as means by which to carry out the dailyworkingsofprisonswithgreaterefficiencyandeffectiveness.Themostnotableexampleisthatofmaximisingcontroloverprisonersby rendering theirparticipation inarts‐relatedschemesdependentuponstrictconformitywiththerulesandregulationsoftheestablishment(see,forexample,Williams,2012).Andhereoneshouldnotlosesightoftheconverseprocess,whereby


IJCJ&SD25


disallowingunrulyprisonerstoenrolorstayinagivenschemeoperatesasapunitive,negativereinforcer of conformity. In the US, this process is sometimes open to the point of beingformalised,aswhenprisonersarerequiredtosignandobservea‘behaviourcontract’inordertobeabletoparticipateinarts‐in‐prisonsschemes(Palidofsky,2010).Indeed,thereisevidencetosuggestthatprisonersmaysometimesbelievemonitoringoftheirbehaviourextendseventoassessmentoftheirartworkbytutors(seeRiches,1994:94).Lesttheprospectofparticipationin an arts scheme does not suffice as an incentive, it itself is tied, like so many other‘rehabilitationschemes’,tothearduousprocessofbuildingtherightprofileforaccesstomorecovetedprivileges(forexample,transfertoalower‐securityprison,homeleaveorparole).Onewayoranother,whereastheartsandrelatedschemesaresaidtobetoolsforliberationofthemindandcreativeexploration,theyformpartoftheefforttoholdprisonersinclosecheck.These observations provide a fruitful avenue for returning to address the functions ofevaluation researchonarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes.Forwhilstnoserious studycanafford toassess the effectiveness of a given programme without paying sufficient attention to itsimplementation, evaluation research on arts‐in‐prisons programmes has generally tended toeither miss or undermine their systematic subjugation to purposes of ‘administrativeconvenience’. Although the use of participation in prison arts schemes as an incentive forcompliant custodial conduct has received more recognition of late, the goal has mainly andparadoxically been to demonstrate the effectiveness of prison arts programming in terms ofenforcing discipline amongst prisoners. Whereas, in other words, control over prisoners isinherently antagonistic to the avowedmentality of arts‐in‐prisons programmes, research hasturned it intoan indicatorof success(see furtherdiscussion inCoxandGelsthorpe,2012). Inany event,whether due to activist commitment or vested interests, evaluators appear all tooeager to locate proof that arts‐in‐prisons programmes ‘work’ (for a reflexive discussion, seeDigard and Liebling, 2012). This eagerness is more likely than careful programming to liebehindthefactthat‘[p]rojectswithevaluationasintegralhavebeenfoundtobeassociatedwithmoresuccessfuloutcomes’(BalfourandPoole,1998:221).Inthelastanalysis,however,theactualnatureandeventhefindingsofevaluationresearchmaybeofsecondary,ifofanyimportanceatall.Thisis,ontheonehand,becauseevaluationresearchmakesa‘goodstory’onitsown.Inacharacteristicallycircularfashion,thefactthattheprisonsystemallows itsprogrammes toundergoevaluation is takenas evidenceof good intentions,andgoodintentionsaretakentoattesttothesincerityofevaluation.Asexplainedearlier,ontheother hand, indications of failure do not intrinsically stand in opposition to the continuedexistence and aggrandisementof penality. (Evaluation research, too, ismore likely to expandwhen facedwith failure thanwhen discovering success in anecdotes andmarginal statisticalreductionsofsomevariable;seefurtherCohen,1985:183–191.)Concludingremarks

Indiscussingarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammesandpertinentevaluationresearch,thepresentarticlehasfocusedexclusiveattentionontheirnegativeaspectsandfunctions,aswellasontheignoblemotivesofpeopleassociatedwith thedesign, supportordeliveryof eitherof theseactivities.Noneofthis,letitbeclear,impliesacompletedearthofgenuinecareandprofessionalism;nordoesitdenythatarts‐in‐prisonsprogrammesandtheirevaluationsmayperformtrulypositiveroles.Indeed,therearesomeworksthatofferthoughtfulevidencetothecontrary(forexample,Alexander, 2010; Clemente et al., 2011; Cohen, 2012; Cox, 1992; Cox and Gelsthorpe, 2012;DigardandLiebling,2012;Gussak,2012;Hartnett,2011;LawstonandLucas,2011;Liebmann,2008; Scott‐Douglass, 2007; Shailor, 2011; Tannenbaum and Jackson, 2010; Walsh, 2012;Warner, 2001; Williams, 2012). The overarching aim of this article, however, has been toprovideareflexivecounterweighttothevastmajorityoftheliteratureonthetopic,alargeandexpandingbodyofhagiographicorotherwiseanodyneworkswhicharguablycontributetotheproblemssketchedabovebymissing,ignoringormaskingthem.Providingsuchcounterweights


IJCJ&SD26


cannot but be in accordance with the broad progressive aspirations that arts‐in‐prisonsprogrammes purport themselves to promote: the humanisation of punishment and, mostimportantly,decreasedrelianceonimprisonment.Butit isalsoinaccordancewiththecriticallessons that history amply offers, and that arts‐in‐prisons programmes and their evaluationshave todate typicallyoverlookedorundermined,bothabout themanipulabilityof thearts inthe service of social control and injustice inside and outside prisons, and about the anti‐conformistandsocialjustice‐orienteduselongmadeoftheartsbyprisonersandpocketsofthecitizenryalike.Correspondence:DrLeonidasKCheliotis,Chancellor'sFellowinLawandCo‐Director,CentreforLawandSociety,SchoolofLaw,UniversityofEdinburgh,OldCollege,SouthBridge,Edinburgh,EH89YL,UnitedKingdom.Email:[email protected]:CheliotisLK(2012)Theartsofimprisonment:Anintroduction.InCheliotisLK (ed.)TheArtsof Imprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment: 1‐26.Aldershot:Ashgate.Fortheirhelpfulandencouragingfeedback,thanksareduetoKerryCarringtonandthetwoanonymousreviewersofthejournal.

2References toconcentrationcampsand theUSdetention facilityatGuantánamoBay inCubaarenot todeny thedistinctionsbetweenthepracticesoftheseexceptionalinstitutionsandthoseofconventionalprisons,butrathertoinstancecontextswhichconstituteextremitiesinstateuseofincarceration(seefurtherAgamben,1998).

3 Inasimilarcase fromGreece, fromtheremoteprison islandofAïStratis intheaftermathof theGreekCivilWar(1946–1949), representatives of the Red Cross attended political prisoners’ theatrical production of Aeschylus’Persians under thewatchful eyes of guards, but failed to recognise (or, at least, subsequently report) prisoners’hardshipsontheisland.Aslatertestifiedbyformerprisonersthemselves,theyfelt‘hostilityattheroleoftheRedCross, forbecomingcomplicit inmaintaining illusionsabout their realhardships’ (VanSteen,2011:137).On themanifold ways in which the arts were manipulated by the Nazi regime for the purposes of propaganda, seePetropoulos(1996),HuenerandNicosia(2006),andSpotts(2009).Westerndemocracieshavealsoemployedtheartsforpropagandapurposes,asrevealed,forexample,byFrancesStonorSaunders(1999)inherbookWhoPaidthePiper?TheCIAandtheCulturalColdWar.

4AsBrown(2007:256–263)shows,Filipinoprisonshaveahistoryofcourtingpublicattention–and,indeed,theyhavebeenpopulartouristattractions–onthebasisof theartisticperformancesgivenby theirprisoners.Onthemoregeneralthemeofprisonsbeingusedastouristattractions,see,amongstothers,Barton(2012),Brown(2009),Miron(2011),WalbyandPiché(2011)andWilson(2008b).

5One should take carenot to take forgranted theeffectivenessof resistance through thearts (Johnson,2012)or,indeed,itsprogressivenature(Colvin,2012).

6Individualswhoeitherworkor,asismorecommonlythecase,havepreviouslyworkedintheprisonsystem,mayalsousethearts–autobiographiesandmemoirsinparticular–asmeansbywhichtodrawpublicattentiontotheinhumaneconditionsandpolicyfailuresofimprisonment(butalsooftentothepainsoftheirworkinprisonandtheireffortstoeffectuateprogressivechange).RecentexamplesincludebookswrittenbyKiranBedi(2002),formerInspectorGeneralofTiharjailinDelhi,India;byDavidRamsbotham(2003),formerChiefInspectorofPrisonsforEnglandandWales;byJohnPodmore(2012),formerprisongovernorandinspectorinEnglandandWales;byJimDawkins (2007), Tony Levy (2011) and Ronnie Thompson (2011), former prison officers in several Britishestablishments;byVéroniqueVasseur(2000),formerChiefPhysicianatLaSantéprisoninParis;byAviSteinberg(2010),aHarvardgraduatewhoworkedfortwoyearsasalibrarianinaBostonprison;andbyJudithTannenbaum(2000),whotaughtpoetryforfouryearsatSanQuentinprisoninCalifornia.ErikOlinWright(1973),nowawell‐known sociologist, has published a revealing account of his personal experiences as a student chaplain at SanQuentinintheearly1970s(alongwithessaysbyactivistprisonlawyersandaformerprisonpsychiatrist,amongstothers),whilstthelastbookthatrenownedcriminologistNorvalMorris(2002)wrotebeforehisdeathwasararemixoffactandfictionthattellsthefascinatingstoryofCaptainAlexanderMaconochie’stenureasthegovernorofthe British penal colony of Norfolk Island in the early 1840s and his copious efforts to reform the process ofpunishment.Similarly, it isbecoming lessuncommonforprisonresearchersandespecially for thoseattractedtoanthropology to incorporate visual means of artistic expression, for instance photography and film and videoproduction, into their fieldwork anddissemination of findings (see, for example, Goifman, 2002; Jackson, 2009),althoughdoingsoobviouslydependsinlargepartonwhetherandtheextenttowhichgatekeepersarewillingorable to formally grant and practically facilitate access. Interestingly, participation in the delivery of arts‐basedprison schemes has on occasion served as a vehicle for undertaking covert research in otherwise inaccessibleprisonsettings.


IJCJ&SD27


7 This is by nomeans to say that thepublic is invariably supportive of exhibitions of prisoners’ artwork as such.Oppositionisparticularly likelytomanifest itselfwhenprisonerartistsareknowntohavepreviouslycommittedheinouscrimessuchasmurder(seefurtherBrydonandGreenhill,2003;Weinman,2014).

8 The ‘middle class’ is not meant here as a social group ready‐made in concrete empirical reality, but rather, asWacquant (1992: 57) puts the point, as a group occupying the intermediate regions of the class structure and‘constituted throughmaterial andsymbolic struggleswagedsimultaneouslyoverclassandbetweenclasses’ (seealsoWacquant,2013).ReferencesAbou‐bakrR(2009)Thepoliticalprisonerasantihero:TheprisonpoetryofWoleSoyinkaand

’AhmadFu’adNigm.ComparativeLiteratureStudies46(2):261–286.AgambenG(1998)HomoSacer:SovereignPowerandBareLife.Stanford:StanfordUniversity

Press.AlberJ(2007)NarratingthePrison:RoleandRepresentationinCharlesDickens’Novels,Twentieth‐CenturyFiction,andFilm.NewYork:CambriaPress.

AlexanderB(2010)IsWilliamMartinezNotOurBrother?TwentyYearsofthePrisonCreativeArtsProject.AnnArbor:TheUniversityofMichiganPressandtheUniversityofMichiganLibrary.

AshJ(2010)DressbehindBars:PrisonClothingasCriminality.London:IBTauris.AttwoodS(2010)HardTime:ABritinAmerica’sToughestJail.EdinburghandLondon:

MainstreamPublishing.BaerLD(2005)Visualimprintsontheprisonlandscape:Astudyonthedecorationsinprison

cells.TijdschriftvoorEconomischeenSocialeGeografie96(2):209–217.BalfourMandPooleL(1998)Evaluatingtheatreinprisonsandprobation.InThompsonJ(ed.)PrisonTheatre:PerspectivesandPractices.LondonandNewYork:JessicaKingsleyPublishers:217–230.

BartonA(2012)Darktourismandthemodernprison.PrisonServiceJournal199(January):44–49.

BBC(9April2010)WhatkeepsFilipinoprisonersdancingtothriller.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/fast_track/8611740.stm(accessed15April2010).

BBC(11September2006)ArtistBanksytargetsDisneyland.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5335400.stm(accessed9August2010).

BediK(2002)It’sAlwaysPossible:OneWoman’sTransformationofTiharPrison.Honesdale:HimalayanInstitutePress.

BernsteinL(2010)AmericaisthePrison:ArtsandPoliticsinPrisoninthe1970s.ChapelHill:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.

BourdieuP(1996)TheRulesofArt.Cambridge:Polity.BourdieuP(1984)Distinction:ASocialCritiqueoftheJudgementofTaste.London:Routledge&

KeganPaul.BrownI(2007)SouthEastAsia:Reformandthecolonialprison.InDikötterFandBrownI

(eds)CulturesofConfinement:AHistoryofthePrisoninAfrica,AsiaandLatinAmerica.London:Hurst:221–268.

BrownM(2012)Socialdocumentaryinprison:Theartofcatchingthestateintheactofpunishment.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:99–116.

BrownM(2011)DetainedChineseartistAiWeiweirememberedwithnewTateModerndisplay.TheGuardian,17June.


IJCJ&SD28


BrownM(2009)TheCultureofPunishment:Prison,Society,andSpectacle.NewYorkandLondon:NewYorkUniversityPress.

BrownM(2008)Theroadlesstravelled:Arts‐basedprogrammesinyouthcorrections.InO’BrienAandDonelanK(eds)TheArtsandYouthatRisk:GlobalandLocalChallenges.NewcastleuponTyne:CambridgeScholarsPublishing:51–69.

BrownM(2002)InsideArt:Crime,PunishmentandCreativeEnergies.Winchester:WatersidePress.

BrunoPM(2002)‘Nimiedodelapinta,nimiedodelamuerte’:JimmySantiagoBaca’sPrisonPoems.Genre35(3–4):575–598.

BrydonAandGreenhillP(2003)Representationsofcrime:Onshowingpaintingsbyaserialkiller.InParnellPCandKaneSC(eds)Crime’sPower:AnthropologistsandtheEthnographyofCrime.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan:145‐172.

CarceralKC(2006)Prison,Inc.:AConvictExposesLifeInsideaPrivatePrison.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.

CarnochanWB(2012)Art,constraintandmemory:EgonSchieleinprison.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:131–146.

CarrabineE(2012)Tellingprisonstories:Thespectacleofpunishmentandthecriminologicalimagination.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:47‐72.

CarterP(2007)SecuringtheFuture:ProposalsfortheEfficientandSustainableUseofCustodyinEnglandandWales.London:CabinetOffice.

CheliotisLKandJordanoskaA(2014,forthcoming)Theartsofdesistance:Assessingtheroleofarts‐basedprogrammesinreducingreoffending.HowardJournalofCriminalJustice53(5).

CheliotisLK(2010a)Theambivalentconsequencesofvisibility:Crimeandprisonsinthemassmedia.Crime,Media,Culture6(2):169–184.

CheliotisLK(2010b)Governareattraversolospecchio:Neoliberismo,managerialismoelapsicopoliticadelcontrollodelladevianza.Studisullaquestionecriminale5(3):47–94.

ChevignyBG(2002)Writerswithconvictions:Doingtimeatcentury’send.Genre35(3–4):495–509.

ChristieN(2004)ASuitableAmountofCrime.London:Routledge.ClementeA,HigginsMJandSughruaWM(2011)‘Idon’tfindanyprivacyaroundhere’:

EthnographicencounterswithlocalpracticesofliteracyintheStatePrisonofOaxaca.LanguageandEducation25(6):491–513.

CoganKBandPaulsonBL(1998)Pickingupthepieces:Briefreportoninmates’experiencesofafamilyviolencedramaproject.TheArtsinPsychotherapy25(1):37–43.

CohenML(2012)‘SafeHavens’:TheformationandpracticeofprisonchoirsintheUS.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:225–232.

CohenS(1985)VisionsofSocialControl:Crime,PunishmentandClassification.Cambridge:Polity.CohenSandTaylorL(1976)EscapeAttempts:TheTheoryandPracticeofResistancetoEverydayLife.London:AllenLane.

ColvinS(2012)Resistanceorpropaganda,self‐expressionorsolipsism?PrisonwritingandtheRedArmyFactionprisonersinWestGermany,1973‐1977.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:209–224.

CoxAandGelsthorpeL(2012)Creativeencounters:Whateverhappenedtotheartsinprisons?InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:255–274.


IJCJ&SD29


CoxM(ed.)(1992)ShakespeareComestoBroadmoor:‘TheActorsareComeHither’:ThePerformanceofTragedyinaSecurePsychiatricHospital.LondonandPhiladelphia:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

cummingsadp(2012)Thuglife:Hiphop’scuriousrelationshipwithcriminaljustice.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:117–130

DawkinsJ(2007)TheLooseScrew:TheShockingTruthaboutourPrisonSystem.ClactononSea:ApexPublishing.

DearyM(2010)Radicalisation:TheLifeWritingsofPoliticalPrisoners.Abingdon:Routledge.DigardLandLieblingA(2012)Harmonybehindbarsevaluatingthetherapeuticpotentialofa

prison‐basedmusicprogramme.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:275–300.

DizonD(7June2011)GangsofBilibid:ManagingprisonsinPH.ABS‐CBNNews.com.Availableathttp://www.abs‐cbnnews.com/‐depth/06/07/11/gangs‐bilibid‐managing‐prisons‐ph(accessed7June2011).

DuncanM(1996)RomanticOutlaws,BelovedPrisons:TheUnconsciousMeaningsofCrimeandPunishment.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.

EdwardsJ(2005)Possibilitiesandproblemsforevidence‐basedpracticeinmusictherapy.TheArtsinPsychotherapy32(4):293–301.

FahyT(2012)Masculinity,violence,andartinTennesseeWilliams’‘NotAboutNightingales’.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:85–98.

FiddlerM(2012)‘Whentheprisonnolongerstandsthere’:DonovanWylie’sphotographicproject‘TheMaze’.PrisonServiceJournal199(January):50–53.

FradenR(2001)ImaginingMedea:RhodessaJonesandTheatreforIncarceratedWomen.ChapelHillandLondon:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.

GauntlettS(2012)‘Thehaircut’sonthehouse’:RebetikasongsandGreekprisons.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:147–164.

Geltner,G.(2008a)TheMedievalPrison:ASocialHistory.PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress.

GeltnerG(2008b)Copinginmedievalprisons.ContinuityandChange23(1):151–172.GilbertS(2005)MusicintheHolocaust:ConfrontingLifeintheNaziGhettosandCamps.Oxford:

Clarendon.GoifmanK(2002)KillingtimeintheBrazilianslammer.Ethnography3(4):435–441.GramsciA(1971/2005)SelectionsfromthePrisonNotebooksofAntonioGramsci(editedand

translatedbyQuintinHoareandGeoffreyNowellSmith).NewYork:InternationalPublishers.GrantDandCrossanJM(2012)Freedomtofail:Theunintendedconsequencesofaprison

drama.PerformanceResearch17(1):97–100.GussakD(2012)Comparingarttherapyinprisonsto‘arts‐in‐corrections’:Processtoproduct

andbackagain.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:243–254.

HartJ(1996)NewVoicesintheNation:WomenandtheGreekResistance,1941‐1964.IthacaandLondon:CornellUniversityPress.

HartnettSJ(ed.)(2011)ChallengingthePrison‐IndustrialComplex:Activism,Arts,andEducationalAlternatives.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress.

HaslamJ(2005)FittingSentences:IdentityinNineteenth‐andTwentieth‐CenturyPrisonNarratives.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.


IJCJ&SD30


HerzfeldM(1997)PortraitofaGreekImagination:AnEthnographicBiographyofAndreasNenedakis.ChicagoandLondon:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

HirschJS(2000)Hurricane:TheMiraculousJourneyofRubinCarter.NewYork:FirstMarinerBooks.

HuenerJandNicosiaFR(eds)(2006)TheArtsinNaziGermany:Continuity,Conformity,Change.NewYorkandOxford:BerghahnBooks.

IndexonCensorship(2010)Volume39,Number4,BeyondBars:50YearsofthePenWritersinPrisonCommittee.London:Sage.

JacksonB(2009)PicturesfromaDrawer:PrisonandtheArtofPortraiture.Philadelphia:TempleUniversityPress.

Jacobson‐HardyM(2002)Behindtherazorwire:Aphotographicessay.Ethnography3(4):398–415.

JamesE(2003)ALifeInside:APrisoner’sNotebook.London:AtlanticBooks.JewkesY(2012)Aestheticsandan‐aesthetics:Thearchitectureofincarceration.InCheliotisLK

(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:25–44.

JohnsonDKandSchmitzL(2008)JohnnyCash,prisonreformandcapitalpunishment.InHussJandWertherD(eds)JohnnyCashandPhilosophy:TheBurningRingofTruth.Peru,Illinois:CarusPublishing:153–168.

JohnsonMD(2009)Prison/culture:Anillustratedintroduction.InBlissSE,ChenKB,DickisonS,JohnsonMDandRodriquezR(eds)PrisonCulture.SanFrancisco:CityLightsFoundation:10–15.

JohnsonR(2012)Artandautonomy:Prisonwritersundersiege.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:165–186.

JohnstonH(2012)Porridge:‘ANightIn’.PrisonServiceJournal199(January):10–12.KearonT(2012)Alternativerepresentationsoftheprisonandimprisonment:Comparing

dominantnarrativesinthenewsmediaandinpopularfictionaltexts.PrisonServiceJournal199(January):4–9.

KemalO(2010)InJailwithNazimHikmet.London:Saqi.KennaME(2008)Conformityandsubversion:Handwrittennewspapersfromanexiles’

commune,1938–1943.JournalofModernGreekStudies26(1):115–157.KleinertS(2002)Passagethroughprison:ReframingAboriginalart.Genre35(3–4):537–561.KuziakinaN(2004)TheatreintheSolovkiPrisonCamp.LondonandNewYork:Routledge.LaceyN(2008)Women,Crime,andCharacter:FromMollFlanderstoTessoftheD’Urbervilles.

Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.LawstonJM.andLucasAE(eds)(2011)RazorWireWomen:Prisoners,Activists,Scholars,andArtists.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.

LevyT(2011)ATurnkeyorNot?TheAutobiographyofTonyLevy.ClactononSea:ApexPublishing.

LiebmannM(ed.)(2008)ArtTherapyandAnger.LondonandPhiladelphia:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

MalikJ(2006)Letters,prisonsketchesandautobiographicalliterature:ThecaseofFadl‐eHaqqKhairabadiintheAndamanPenalColony.IndianEconomic&SocialHistoryReview43(1):77–100.

MandelaNR(1994)LongWalktoFreedom:TheAutobiographyofNelsonMandela.Boston:Little,Brown.


IJCJ&SD31


ManilaBulletin(3September2010)CHRlooksintodancinginmates.Availableathttp://www.mb.com.ph/articles/275300/chr‐looks‐dancing‐inmates(accessed10September2010).

MapanjeJ(2010)Creativeincarcerationandstrategiesforsurvivingfreedom.InMcCarthyM(ed.)IncarcerationandHumanRights:TheOxfordAmnestyLectures2007.ManchesterandNewYork:ManchesterUniversityPress:127–144.

MapanjeJ(1993)TheChatteringWagtailsofMikuyuPrison.London:Heinemann.MarunaSandKingA(2009)Onceacriminal,alwaysacriminal?‘Redeemability’andthe

psychologyofpunitivepublicattitudes.EuropeanJournalofCriminalPolicyandResearch15(1–2):7–24.

MarunaSandKingA(2004)Publicopinionandcommunitypenalties.InBottomsA,RexSandRobinsonG(eds)AlternativestoPrison:OptionsforanInsecureSociety.Cullompton:Willan:83–112.

MaxwellB(2002)Jazzinjail:Thesupplementofthemusicians’narratives.Genre35(3–4):479–493.

McAvincheyC(2011)TheatreandPrison.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.McEvoyK(2001)ParamilitaryImprisonmentinNorthernIreland:Resistance,Management,andRelease.Oxford:Clarendon.

McMillanA(2003)Creativeartsvisionforcorrectionseducation.PaperpresentationattheconferenceUnlockingDoors–RebuildingLivesthroughEducation,9–11November,Queensland,Australia.Availableathttp://www.acea.org.au/Content/2003%20papers/Paper%20McMillan.pdf(accessed7August2010).

MeinersER(2011)Buildinganabolitiondemocracy;or,thefightagainstpublicfear,privatebenefits,andprisonexpansion.InHartnettSJ(ed.)ChallengingthePrison‐IndustrialComplex:Activism,Arts,andEducationalAlternatives.Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress:15–40.

MillerDQ(2005)ProseandCons:EssaysonPrisonLiteratureintheUnitedStates.NorthCarolina:McFarland.

MironJ(2011)Prisons,Asylums,andthePublic:InstitutionalVisitingintheNineteenthCentury.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.

MollerL(2004)Prisonwithinaprison:ABurkeananalysisoftheSingSingstageproductionof‘Slam’.JournalofCriminalJusticeandPopularCulture10(3):181–198.

MorenoJJ(2006)Orpheusinhell:Musicintheholocaust.InBrownSandVolgstenU(eds)MusicandManipulation:OntheSocialUsesandSocialControlofMusic.NewYork:BerghahnBooks:264–286.

MorrisN(2002)Maconochie’sGentlemen:TheStoryofNorfolkIslandandtheRootsofModernPrisonReform.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

NagourneyA(2011)ASafetyvalveforinmates,thearts,fadesinCalifornia.TheNewYorkTimes,30June.

NashirE(2008)PalestinianPoliticalPrisoners:IdentityandCommunity.Abingdon:Routledge.NellisM(2012)Proseandcons:AutobiographicalwritingbyBritishprisoners.InCheliotisLK

(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:187–208.

NovekM(2005)‘Heaven,hell,andhere’:Understandingtheimpactofincarcerationthroughaprisonnewspaper.CriticalStudiesinMediaCommunication22(4):281–301.

O’BrienP(1998)Theprisononthecontinent:Europe,1865–1965.InMorrisNandRothmanDJ(eds)TheOxfordHistoryofthePrison:ThePracticeofPunishmentinWesternSociety.NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress:178–201.


IJCJ&SD32


PalidofskyM(2010)Whatmusicdoes.RoundtablepresentationatArtsinPrisons:TheirImpactandPotential:AConferenceforPractitionersandResearchers,12–14February,UniversityofEdinburgh,Scotland.

PeschelL(forthcoming)PerformingCaptivity,PerformingEscape:CabaretsandPlaysfromtheTerezin/TheresienstadtGhetto.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.

PetropoulosJ(1996)ArtasPoliticsintheThirdReich.ChapelHillandLondon:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.

PodmoreJ(2012)OutofSight,OutofMind:WhyBritain’sPrisonsAreFailing.London:BitebackPublishing.

PopescuLandSeymour‐JonesC(eds)(2007)WritersunderSiege:VoicesofFreedomfromAroundtheWorld.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.

RamsbothamD(2003)Prisongate:TheShockingStateofBritain’sPrisonsandtheNeedforVisionaryChange.London:FreePress.

RichesC(1994)Thehiddentherapyofaprisonarteducationprogramme.InLiebmannM(ed.)ArtTherapywithOffenders.LondonandPhiladelphia:JessicaKingsleyPublishers:77–101.

RodríguezD(2002)Againstthedisciplineof‘prisonwriting’:Towardatheoreticalconceptionofcontemporaryradicalprisonpraxis.Genre35(3–4):407–428.

RogersH(2012)SingingatYarmouthGaol:Christianinstructionandinmatecultureinthenineteenthcentury.PrisonServiceJournal199(January):35–43.

RothmanDJ(1980)ConscienceandConvenience:TheAsylumanditsAlternativesinProgressiveAmerica.Boston:Little,Brown.

RoweA(2012)Sexuality,criminalityandthewomen’sprison:PatArrowsmith’s‘SomewhereLikeThis’.PrisonServiceJournal199(January):32–34.

RuggieroV(2012)VictorHugoandOctaveMirbeau:Asociologicalanalysisofimprisonmentinfiction.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:71–84.

RymhsD(2002)DiscursivedelinquencyinLeonardPeltier’sPrisonWritings.Genre35(3–4):563–574.

SartreJ‐P(1952/1963)SaintGenet,ActorandMartyr.NewYork:PantheonBooks.SchefflerJ(ed.)(2003)WallTappings:AnInternationalAnthologyofWomen’sPrisonWritings200tothePresent.NewYork:TheFeministPressattheCityUniversityofNewYork.

SchlossmanM.andBergerA(1997)InsideEye:WandsworthPrisonasSeenThroughthePrisoners’Eyes.London:ArtBooksInternational.

ScottJC(1990)DominationandtheArtsofResistance:HiddenTranscripts.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

Scott‐DouglassA(2007)ShakespeareInside:TheBardBehindBars.London:Continuum.ShailorJ(ed.)(2011)PerformingNewLives:PrisonTheatre.LondonandPhiladelphia:Jessica

KingsleyPublishers.SilberL(2005)Barsbehindbars:Theimpactofawomen’sprisonchoironsocialharmony.MusicEducationResearch7(2):251–271.

SmithC(2009)ThePrisonandtheAmericanImagination.NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress.

SmithP(2008)PunishmentandCulture.ChicagoandLondon:TheUniversityofChicagoPress.SpottsF(2009)HitlerandthePowerofAesthetics.WoodstockandNewYork:TheOverlook

Press.StaffordSmithC(2008)Welcometo‘TheDisco’.TheGuardian,19June.SteinbergA(2010)RunningtheBooks:TheAdventuresofanAccidentalPrisonLibrarian.New

York:AnchorBooks.


IJCJ&SD33


StonorSaundersF(1999)WhoPaidthePiper?TheCIAandtheCulturalColdWar.London:GrantaBooks.

StrathernM(1990)Outofcontext:Thepersuasivefictionsofanthropology.InManganaroM(ed.)ModernistAnthropology:FromFieldworktoText.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress:80–122.

SweeneyM(2010)ReadingismyWindow:BooksandtheArtofReadinginWomen’sPrisons.ChapelHill:TheUniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.

SweeneyM(2002)Provocationsandpossibilities:Rethinkingprisoners’discourse.Genre35(3–4):393–405.

SzekelyG(1982)Arteducationincorrectionalsettings.StudiesinArtEducation24(1):33–42.TannenbaumJ(2000)DisguisedasaPoem:MyYearsTeachingPoetryatSanQuentin.Boston:

NortheasternUniversityPress.TannenbaumJandJacksonS(2010)ByHeart:Poetry,Prison,andTwoLives.Oakland:New

VillagePress.TeasdaleC(1999)DevelopingprinciplesandpoliciesforartstherapistsworkinginUnited

Kingdomprisons.TheArtsinPsychotherapy26(4):265–270.TesslerE(2010)Sitesofresistance:Deathrowhomepagesandthepoliticsofcompassion.In

CheliotisLK(ed.)Roots,RitesandSitesofResistance:TheBanalityofGood.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan:125–150.

ThompsonJ(2003)Doubtfulprinciplesinartsinprisons.InWilliamsRM‐C(ed.)TeachingtheArtsbehindBars.Boston:NortheasternUniversityPress:40–61.

ThompsonR(2011)Screwed:TheTruthaboutLifeasaPrisonOfficer.London:HeadlinePublishing.

TocciL(2007)TheProsceniumCage:CriticalCaseStudiesinUSPrisonTheatreProgrammes.NewYork:CambriaPress.

TunnellKDandHammMS(2009)Singingacrossthescarsofwrong:JohnnyCashandhisstruggleforsocialjustice.Crime,Media,Culture5(3):268–284.

UggenC,WakefieldSandWesternB(2005)Workandfamilyperspectivesonre‐entry.InTravisJandVisherC(eds)PrisonerReentryandCrimeinAmerica.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress:209–243.

VanDijkV(2008)TheWorldofCrime:BreakingtheSilenceonProblemsofSecurity,Justice,andDevelopmentAcrosstheWorld.LosAngeles:Sage.

VanSteenG(2011)TheatreoftheCondemned:ClassicalTragedyonGreekPrisonIslands.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

VanSteenG(2005)Forgottentheatre,theatreoftheforgotten:ClassicaltragedyonmodernGreekprisonislands.JournalofModernGreekStudies23(2):335–395.

VasseurV(2000)Médecin‐ChefÀLaPrisonDeLaSanté.Paris:LeChercheMidiEditeur.WacquantL(2013)Symbolicpowerandgroup‐making:OnPierreBourdieu’sreframingofclass.JournalofClassicalSociology13(2):274‐291.

WacquantL(1992)Makingclass:Themiddleclass(es)insocialtheoryandsocialstructure.InMcNallSG,LevineRandFantasiaR(eds)BringingClassBackIn.Boulder:WestviewPress:39‐64.

WalbyKandPichéJ(2011)Thepolysemyofpunishmentmemorialisation:DarktourismandOntario’spenalhistorymuseums.Punishment&Society13(4):451–472.

WalmsleyR(2009)WorldPrisonPopulationList,8thedn.King’sCollege,London:InternationalCentreforPrisonStudies.Availableathttp://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/wppl‐8th_41.pdf(accessed1June2010).


IJCJ&SD34


WalshA(2012)AwaitingjusticeinSouthAfricanprisons:Performinghumanrightsinastateofexception.InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:301–308.

WarenSA(1986)Rationale:Artsinprisons.PrisonJournal66(2):3–10.WarnerS(2001)‘DoYouKnowWhatBitchisBackwards?’Mythicrevisionandritualreversalin

theMedeaProject:Theatreforincarceratedwomen.DialecticalAnthropology26(2):159–179.

WeinmanS(2014)Themurdererandthemanuscript.TheNewYorkTimes,10January.WesternB(2006)PunishmentandInequalityinAmerica.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.WilliamsRM‐C(2012)Teachingandlearning:Thepedagogyofartseducationinprisonsettings.

InCheliotisLK(ed.)TheArtsofImprisonment:Control,ResistanceandEmpowerment.Aldershot:Ashgate:233–242.

WilsonJZ(2008a)Peckingorders:PowerrelationshipsandgenderinAustralianprisongraffiti.Ethnography9(1):99–121.

WilsonJZ(2008b)Prison:CulturalMemoryandDarkTourism.NewYork:PeterLang.WilsonJZ(2008c)Transgressivedecor:NarrativeglimpsesinAustralianprisons,1970s–1990s.Crime,Media,Culture4(3):331–348.

WrightEO(1973)ThePoliticsofPunishment:ACriticalAnalysisofPrisonsinAmerica.NewYork:Harper&Row.

WuYandLivescuS(2011)HumanRights,Suffering,andAestheticsinPoliticalPrisonLiterature.Lanham:LexingtonBooks.

Deconstructing the Relationship between the Arts and ...

Documents

Transcript of Deconstructing the Relationship between the Arts and ...