When people talk about masculinity and its extant behavior inside of prisons they are usually melding

two beliefs into one: gender expression (“doing” masculinity) and prisonization as defined by
Clemmer (1938). The reason this is true is quite simply because a portion of the inmate code
inherently defines what masculinity should look like or what “masculine” things an inmate should do.
So what is the inmate code? An overview of the code can be found in Sykes & Messinger
(1960), but at its most basic foundation consists of five rules: (1) don’t rat, (2) play it cool, (3) don’t
exploit other inmates, (4) be a man, and (5) be sharp. But this appears to be out of date by my eye
and Ricciardelli’s reported findings in 2012 seem more appropriate for inmates that are new to the
system--consequently, inmates are slowly evolving the system. (Many base factors that determine a
prisoner’s extent of prsionization can be found in Thomas, 1972 and 1977.)
Of course, just because a code exists, is well known, and is easily identifiable doesn’t mean
all or even most inmates are given to its tenets: ”There are core participants, leaders, followers, and
isolates” (Akers, Hayner, & Gruninger, 1977). However, even if the majority doesn’t agree with the
inmate code, the sentiments are so ingrained that small groups cannot change the state of things
(Weinberg, 1942).
Additionally, situational factors might dictate how any single inmate might act at any given
moment (similar to the original “right guy” or an inmate that is known to “play it cool”), making the
inmate code more like a guidebook than rule of law. This idea could be called the functional model (a
model dictated by situation response) and has its roots in early sociological studies of prisons (Hayner
& Ash, 1939; Sykes & Messinger, 1960). More recently, the functional model has become known as
the deprivation model (Cline & Wheeler, 1968).
But the deprivation model isn’t the only model of code adoption. The importation model
seeks to find in the inmate’s pre-prison history the source of the inmate code (the validity of this is
understated, in my opinion, as some people embody the inmate code almost to perfection before
introduction to the prison system).
Akers et al. (1977) points to the belief that “individual prisonization is related more to a type
of prison and inmate criminality than is the perception of a prisonized normative climate.” This
statement sounds like a self-perpetuating issue but also points toward a more recent development:
social control theory, another model of sorts to explain why prisonization occurs.
I can attest that safety is a large concern and a primary reason for adopting the inmate code,
even if only at select times. Furthermore, I have witnessed that there are different reasons for
different prisoners to adopt the code, as with anything in life, and as suggested by Ricciardelli (2012).
In effect, my observation supports that social control theory and all of its proponents are true at least
to a degree (see Ricciardelli, 2012 for a list of useful references). Social control theory essentially feels
like an extension of the deprivation model with additional measures that focus on the DOC as a
perpetuator of prisonization (it also conceals some base cognitive theory).
The most intriguing idea, though, is the “self” and how different aspects of it might relate to
prisonization and masculinity because the normal course is to mold animalistic models that are primal
and missing any human link, possibly due to inmates being seen as an entity that is beyond
comprehension. But nothing is to be had without narrowing our focus on the inmate’s psyche.
Research tends to show that this nut is hard to crack (as far as positive correlation is concerned)
(Paterline & Peterson, 1999). Their ideas ring true to me and I agree from a personal angle that their
three self-dimensions (self-evolution, self-efficacy, and identity salience) have played a large part in
my prisonization resistance and relatively low increase in masculinity.
Because traditional masculinity is assumed to be derived from markers such as heterosexual
relations, bread-winning, and possessing high levels of agency, it is easily extendable into the realm of
how these topics might impact an inmate’s personal identity and the resulting low self-esteem for
missing the marks set by an idealistic image. Tittle (1972) hits on this question but under the guise of
how prisonization is connected to self-esteem (although, he also makes a few comments about
gender and its possible role in the findings). It could be questioned if his findings are indeed causal or
not--for example, it may be possible that people with low self-esteem are more likely, quickly, and/or
easily prisonized than other inmates, or to a greater degree than is openly identifiable.
In some respects, Tittle’s data suggests the theory that males might feel a lost of masculinity
and masculine attitudes are the only cure for what ails them. However, this argument neglects to
provide reasoning for why females would experience similar low self-esteem in equivalent
environments and under equal treatment.
 Personality traits such as being fearless and tough are stereotypically masculine and
supported by fewer inmates than I expected, but research disputes my claim. Furthermore, I see
violence escalte and rarely deflate rivalry where it does exist, counter to some research (Ricciardelli,
2014). Talking tough, colloquially known as “peacocking,” however, is a ritual enacted by nearly every
inmate.
Muscularity plays a role in the perception of inmates by confirming their belief about the
social order in place (Ricciardelli, Maier, and Hannah-Moffat, 2015). In fact, once this is seen and
assumed to be true, some inmates do adopt a “feminized victim” outward personality, if not an
internal reflection of these values. But I also believe the general notion of prisons not harboring
feminine characteristics to be false; research only tends to neglect these areas.
Many inmates create a false front that hypes their masculinity to an almost mythical
proportion (for example, the inmate that would die to keep a secret and kill if one is loosed). This
amounts to a kind of “emotion work” that has been detailed in some depth (see Crewe et al. For a
more involved overview and pertinent references) and requires the inmate to juggle multiple realities,
sometimes concurrently, equivalent to maintaining the most absurd, technical, impractical, and
pointless ruse imaginable against all rational thought.
In refutation of Goffman, it is of my opinion that “backstage” behavior is almost nonexistent
because of its rarity. Although a small mental backstage surely exists within the prisoner himself and a
collection of carefully chosen confidants (primarily friends and family, be they in or out of jail; few
prison relationships surmount the considerable obstacles to achieve intimate levels of any serious
note).
The only true sanctuary I have personally experienced is in the visiting room, but other
locations in the facility, such as religious services, class rooms, cells, and vocational areas can at times
progress to a sanctuary, even if the condition lasts for but a few moments. It is striking that Crew et
al. (2014) comment on a similarity found between emotional sanctuaries: many involve what people
conventionally regard as feminine or are otherwise nurturing in nature.
Another oddity is that masculinity levels can change even when the same audience is
present, as long as the location and setting are set in such a way to call attention to an inmate that
normal prison rules do not apply (note: in a way I’m referring to the inmate code, but also to a more
generalized set of rules that inmates and staff are both aware of and act upon) (Crewe, Warr, Bennett,
& Smith, 2014).
All of this emotion-work finalizes a complete and--to varying degrees--fake persona that
trains an inmate to be an excellent actor (read: con man). If there is any school of hard knocks today,
this is the primary lesson and one of the most worried about conclusions of the new penology, in my
opinion (Feeley & Simon, 1992).
Strategic use of masculinities happens in response to vulnerabilities (Ricciardelli, Maier, &
Hannah-Moffat, 2015). But is masculinity really a defense against self-doubt and social rejection? I
believe so, but only in the limited sense that either (particularly social rejection) may signal weakness
and become a defined vulnerability. On the other hand, self-restraint is used primarily as a way to
hide weakness rather than ensuring a continuance of manliness. Masking is the most common way to
hide weaknesses, feminine traits, and other opinions that are unsavory to the inmate population as a
whole (Crewe, Warr, Bennett, & Smith, 2014).
I’ve bug to associate anti-socialness with masculinity because the social culture in prison
distorts the two into one unhealthy identity. Criminal activity is seen as masculine (you aren’t a man if
you are afraid of staff or repercussions for your illicit activity) and compounds the identity crisis. Now
masculinity, prisonization, and anti-social behavior are a triangle of traits an ideal male inmate
possesses. It makes sense that Cline and Wheeler (1968) would determine that institutions housing
inmates with greater crime experience would also exhibit the most antisocial climes.
Masculinity can dig a hole, however, that becomes so deep that there is no way to go except
farther down: your reputation requires more acts of the same spiced with occasional spikes of
intensity that must grow over time. The consequences may also become either more severe,
lengthier, or common as you form a well-known identity among correctional staff. It is a tightrope,
one which failing to correctly balance to this side or that can have dire implications.
From a personal view, a lot of the literature still referenced to this day is out of date. I’ll say
that prisons do not feel like total institutions (Winfree, Newbold, & Tub, 2002). But other assumptions
seem accurate, such as the assumption that prison violence (an extension of prisonization and
masculinity) is increased by poor management (McCorkle, Miethe, & Drass, 1995). I agree, particularly
in the light that “inmate solidarity” is dead, but possibly on the rise again with new injustices the
prison population is enduring. Like other social movements, institutional temperature may cause
waves of action followed by periods of inaction.
I must echo the opinions of Akers, Hayner, and Gruninger (1977):

“...if the intent is to move inmates toward a more positive orientation toward the institution and its
programs or to increase their participation in prison programs, then institutional policy should move
the organization toward the more open, treatment end of the continuum. Such a change would also
have some impact on the inmates’ hostile or cooperative attitudes regarding the normative
expectations of the staff…”

REFERENCES
Akers, R., Hayner, N., & Gruninger, W. (1977). Prisonization in five countries: Type of prison and
inmate characteristics. Criminology, 14, 527-554.
Clemmer, D. (1938). The Prison Community. Boston: Christopher.
Cline, H.F. & Wheeler, S. (1968). The determinants of normative patterns in correction institutions.
Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, 2, 173-184.
Crewe, B., Warr, J., Bennett, P., Smith, A. (2014). The emotional geography of prison life. Theoretical
Criminology, 18(1), 56-74.
Feeley, M. M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections
and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449-474.
Hayner, N. & Ash, E. (1939). The prison community as a social group. Amer. Soc. Rev., 4(June), 362-
369.
McCorkle, R. C., Miethe, T.D., & Drass, K. A. (1995). The roots of prison violence: A test of deprivation,
management, and “not-so-total” institution models. Crime & Delinquency, 41(3), 317-331.
Paterline, B. A., & Petersen, D. M. (1999). Structural and social psychological determinants of
prisonization. Journal of Criminal Justice, 27(5), 427-441.
Ricciardelli, R. (2014). An examination of the inmate code in Canadian penitentiaries. Journal of Crime
and Justice, 37(2), 234-255.
Ricciardelli, R., Maier, K., & Hannah-Moffat, K. (2015). Strategic masculinities: Vulnerabilities, risk and
the production of prison masculinities. Theoretical Criminology, 19(4), 491-513.
Sykes, G. M. & Messinger, S. L. (1960). The inmate social system in R. Cloward (ed.) Theoretical
Studies in Social Organization of the Prison. New York: Social Science Research Council.
Thomas, C. W. (1977). Theoretical perspectives on prisonization: A comparison of the importation and
deprivation models. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 68(1), 135-145.
Thomas, C. W., & Foster, S. C. (1972). Prisonization in the inmate contraculture. Social Problems, 20,
229-239.
Tittle, C. R. (1972). Institutional living and self-esteem. Social Problems, 20, 65-77.
Weinberg, S. K. (1942). Aspect of the prison’s social structure. American Journal of Sociology, 47, 717-
726.
Winfree, T., Newbold, G. & Tubb, H. (2002). Prisoner perspectives on inmate culture in New Mexico
and New Zealand. The Prison Journal, 82(2), 213-233.