Man up’: Asserting masculinity in Canadian federal prisons
Rose Ricciardelli
The current research examines how masculinity is constructed and asserted,
from the perspective of former prisoners, within Canadian federal prisons in
Ontario. Participants included over 50 formerly incarcerated men with active
warrants who voluntarily participated in 60 to 120 minute semi-structured face-toface interviews. Given that male prisons have been identified as hyper-masculine
environments, this paper seeks to understand some shared masculine ideals many
male prisoners try to embody and the tools and strategies prisoners use to assert
their masculinity within the federal prison social structure. Within the prison
culture, masculinities appear to be manifested and exerted; they govern social
relations with other prisoners and represent more normative constructions of
masculine dominance. Findings suggest that ‘prison’ masculinities are contextually
influenced and exaggerate traditional constructs of masculinity evident in larger
society. The hyper-masculine nature of the prison experience, the oppressive and
hierarchical nature of masculinities in prison, and the limited opportunities for the
expression of masculinities by prisoners are discussed.
Keywords: Masculinity, prison, incarceration, prisoners, Canada
*****
Hegemonic masculinity, as adopted in this study, is based on the work of
Connell (e.g., Connell, 1983, Carrigan et al., 1985, Connell, 1995, Connell, 1998),
who focused on the power differentials within the patriarchal system of gender
relations. Male hegemony, in this sense, is a complex phenomenon that explains
why some men occupy positions of power and wealth and others do not; while
simultaneously legitimizing and reproducing the social relations and structures that
generate positions of dominance (Carrigan et al., 1985). This dominance, however,
is not achieved via violence. Instead, it results from culture, institutions,
persuasion, and structure. Hegemonic masculinity increases in power whenever it
is challenged, either by adapting to or resisting change, and as a result molds itself
into a new hegemonic form (Connell, 1992). Conversely, hypermasculinity is an
exaggeratedly aggressive and assertive masculinity rooted in teaching of
‘traditional male socialization’ (Haney, 2011). Schroeder (2004) described it as a
‘set of behaviours and beliefs characterized by unusually highly developed
masculine forms as defined by existing cultural values’ (p. 418). Hegemonic
masculinity and hypermasculinity differ in that the former varies overtime and
across and within cultures as it incorporates cultural ideals that signify what it
‘Man up’: Asserting masculinity in Canadian federal prisons
means to be a ‘man’ (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005) while the latter is a
consistent representation of ‘hyper’ notions of ‘manliness’ or ‘manhood’ and
physicality (e.g., exaggerated muscularity and displays of prowess and strength). A
hypermasculine environment, then, is any setting that promotes exaggerated
‘traditional’ masculine understandings. The distinction is most important in the
context of this paper to explain how masculinities can be both, either, or neither
hypermasculine nor hegemonic at particular points in time and space. In this sense,
being strong in nature, heterosexual, protective of women and children, and an
employed wage earner are presentations of hypermasculinity that can also be
components of the hegemonic ideal (Clatterbaugh, 1998, Hacker, 1957, Rabow and
Stanko, 1989).
Masculinities in prison
Imprisonment, as punishment, is inherently emasculating; it deprives prisoners
of their freedom, independence, autonomy, agency, security, safety, and
heterosexuality (Sykes, 1958, Bandyopadhyay, 2006, Ricciardelli and Sit, 2013, in
review). Moreover, one of the most influential factors shaping prisoners’
experience of prison culture is gender—particularly masculinities (Newton, 1994,
Britton, 2003). Bosworth and Carrabine (2001) argued that among adult men,
gendered social identities mediated prisoner agency and relationships of power and
resistance. Phillips (2001) presented a model of prison ‘manhood’ that emphasized
bravery, style, strength, and being ‘stand-up’ (p. 16). She argued that this form of
‘manhood’ was a result of prisoners' need to adapt to an environment laced with
deprivation, danger, and social control. The role of deprivation in shaping
masculinities was explored by Bandyopadhyay (2006), , who described male
prisoners, incarcerated in Indian correctional facilities, as deprived, displaced in
terms of their ability to hold on to their identity as the dominant bread-winning
protector male and, as a result, left to deal with a ‘less than a man’ image. In this
sense, prison masculinities clearly reflect the gendered constructions of
masculinities found on the ‘street’. Past scholars utilizing the importation model
have exposed prison as a gendered space that reflects the hierarchical social
relations between men (and women) in the outside world (e.g., Denborough, 1995,
Hannah-Moffat and O'Malley, 2007, Sabo, 2001, Stanko, 2001). The same-sex
penal environment creates a new dynamic where dominant masculinities are
affirmed by preying on ‘weaker’ men—given that prisoners are limited in their
ways to express masculine dominance (Newton, 1994, Sykes and Messinger,
1960). Nonetheless, specifically in a federal Canadian context, research on
masculinities in prison is relatively limited.
Current Study
The current project builds on previous understandings of masculinities in prison
by exploring the diverse dynamical realities that underlie the establishment and
Rose Ricciardelli
assertion of masculinities among former adult male Canadian federal prisoners
within the hypermasculine penal environment.
Methods
Face-to-face interviews, semi-structured in form, were conducted with 56
former male prisoners on parole (i.e., men would had served federal prison
sentences). Participant recruitment occurred at the community level and was made
possible by people in direct contact with parolees informing them about the study.
Interviewees’ were between 19 to 58 years old (mean age of 37); 30% (n=17) selfidentified as Black; five percent (n=3) as Aboriginal; five percent (n=3) as Muslim;
55% (n=31) as White and four percent (n=2) as other (i.e., Aboriginal and Black
and Latin American). Of the interviewees 75% (n=42) had served time in at least
one provincial institution, 43% had served as a youth, 34% (n=17) had served more
than one federal sentence, and for 21% (n=12) of the respondents this was their
first experience of federal incarceration. Their sentences served ranged from two
years to life with parole and their convictions varied from non-violent non-sexual
convictions (e.g., drug manufacturing) (n=14) to violent offenses (e.g., second
degree murder) (n=33), and sex-related crimes (e.g., sexual interference) (n=9).
One respondent did not disclosure his conviction(s). Beyond time served in either
the assessment unit or the temporary detention unit (i.e., both are in maximum
security facilities), 84% of respondents had served time in a minimum security
penitentiary, 55% in medium security, and 36% in a maximum security facility.
A grounded approach was used to thematically code emergent themes (Glaser
and Strauss, 1967). Selective coding followed (e.g., less relevant data was omitted)
and central themes (composed of multiple respondents describing similar
experiences, views, and feelings) became the focus. Pseudonyms are used to
protect the identities of the respondents and other possible identifiers have been
removed.
Results
Dominance and Oppression: The ‘Solid’ Prisoner versus the Inferior Prisoner
In the deprived prison environment, respondents noted that the type of crime a
prisoner committed (e.g., his convictions) created a perception of the ‘man’ who
committed the criminal act. Some crimes generated a sense of respect for the
perpetrator and others disrespect. Former prisoners explained that men whose
convictions were related to acquiring wealth, status and power (e.g., murder, theft,
and organized crime) were positively described and respected. These men were
thought to be powerful, aggressive, and in control of their own destinies.
Unanimously, respondents linked prisoners with ‘solid’ convictions (e.g., armed
robbery, selling and/or manufacturing drugs) to higher social status in prison, while
men with convictions related to sex-offences (e.g., rape) or who had victimized
women or children were disrespected by other prisoners and at bottom of the status
hierarchy. Thus, some crimes were perceived as ‘manly’—suggesting a man’s
‘Man up’: Asserting masculinity in Canadian federal prisons
dominance, power, and status—while others were ‘unmanly’; indicative of a
prisoner’s inferiority and failed masculine embodiment. Todd, who had served over
25 years in prison, explained:
There’s a hierarchy, a hierarchy within the hierarchy. I was from
[place], and I was into manufacturing drugs. Because of that, I
got a certain amount of respect… [I] hang around with bikers
and guys like that. Bikers and one percenters; they got a lot of
respect.
Men convicted of victimizing or violating women or children were inferior,
emasculated, treated poorly and often victimized. They were avoided by the ‘solid’
prisoners within integrated populations and segregated when protective custody
was an option. Todd explained: ‘Sex offenders are the bottom of the totem pole…
Sex offenders wouldn’t last a day in general population’. Sam, for instance,
described being brutally attacked (i.e., his throat was slit) by fellow prisoners prior
to being moved to protective custody because his convictions involved his active
role in the child pornography market. Perhaps, for solid prisoners, the notion of
male dominance, power over others, and the need to protect ‘women’ was
actualized by hurting a sex offender–or any man that victimized children or
women–; these actions allowed prisoners to demonstrate their masculine and
aggressive nature (e.g., to protect their ‘women’).
Interviewees with sex related convictions demonstrated the internalization of
the inferiority and emasculation they were made to feel because of their
convictions. These men acknowledged being at the bottom of the prison hierarchy.
They described themselves as ‘losers’, ‘bottom-feeders’ or ‘scum of the earth’;
truly shameful despicable human beings with low self-respect and self-worth—
they did not feel like men at all.
‘Toughness’ and Aggression
Beyond one’s criminal past and convictions toughness and aggression were
asserted by: i) looking tough (e.g., appearance, muscularity) or ii) acting tough
(e.g., fighting, winning in altercations).
Looking ‘Tough’
Many respondents strove to increase their muscle mass and physical strength
while incarcerated. They promoted their fighting abilities and/or were proud to
train or be friends with a remarkably muscular-tough-fighter prisoner when
incarcerated. These men respected and even emulated such prisoners: ‘My original
workout partner; he's a beast; he's a monster; so I'd work out with him’ (Mark).
Respondents discussed, often with awe and sometimes envy, prisoners who were
muscular, strong, or professionally trained as fighters. These were men they felt
were ‘not to be messed with’ (Kam). This friendship appeared to increased their
Rose Ricciardelli
self-perceived worth, improved their self-esteem and self-confidence, while also
creating a sense of pseudo safety for these men via allowing a hypermasculine selfconception. Clearly, physicality and ability were valued attributes; made apparent
by how former prisoners bragged about notorious criminals they had ‘heard’ or
‘saw’ that became ‘tougher’ while imprisoned. Hypermasculinity is clearly
apparent in prison and masculine dominance is asserted and established via the
presentation of a muscular, trained, male body.
Acting Tough
Former prisoners explained that, at some point during their experience of
incarceration, they were obligated to assert their masculinity—their ‘dominance’—
by entering an altercation with another prisoner. When a prisoner chose not to
engage in an altercation, negative consequences could follow; they would possible
become victims of theft, violence, and abuse—preyed upon in prison—perhaps
even for the duration of their sentence. It was noted that fights were common, even
often, and largely over ‘nothing’ at all (Cryil) or ‘dumb shit’ (Derek). In light of the
frequency of altercations prisoners had many opportunities to enact their
‘toughness’ and ‘win’; thus, ensuring some future protection from being physically
and/or psychological violated. Indeed, the penal culture suggested it was better to
fight to the bitter ‘end’ and lose rather than ‘back down’ (Brad). The act of
retreating in a fight or losing poorly, among former prisoners, suggested one was
‘weak’ and unmanly; these prisoners experienced harder ‘time’ as a result, a
sentence riddled with exploitation, violation, and stress.
Many former prisoners also discussed wearing ‘a mask’ when incarcerated, a
disguise to suggest they were ‘tough’ and fearless (e.g., hypermasculine) rather
than scared and apprehensive. Interestingly, some men described their initial
violent self-presentation as a ‘ruse’, however, they noted that overtime their violent
tendencies were internalized; they become increasingly ‘real’ and ‘natural’
(Jeremy). Not only did these men speak openly about their own façade of bravado
and strength, they also acknowledged, rather quickly, that most prisoners wore
such masks. Some went so far as to create names for such forced presentations of
physical ability (e.g., ‘window warriors’ (Phillip)). Clearly, the lived experience of
incarceration was imbued with tension, aggression and violent experiences. The
quintessential route to survival included acting tough, using force, being ‘macho’
and generating fear and intimidation in other prisoners.
Dominance in Practice: ‘Bread-Winning’
Generally, masculine hegemony is embodied by a man with power and prestige,
who has authority over others, and provides for himself and one’s family (Connell,
1995, Hacker, 1957, Rabow and Stanko, 1989). This conceptualization is imported
into prison culture—and often is exaggerated in presentation—where many
prisoners reveal, or try to, their worth through institutional employment. Holding a
job, former-prisoners explained, increased their self-confidence, pride, and made
‘Man up’: Asserting masculinity in Canadian federal prisons
them feel successful as it is ‘what men do … we need to take care of our family’
(Gary). Paid-employment provided prisoners with dignity; they were proud to be
employed, earn money, be selected for employment, have responsibilities and be
‘doing something right’ (Kevin). Acquiring employment, for many, suggested they
possessed positive qualities that differentiated them from other prisoners. Some
spoke with pride about earning wages and raises due to their job performance,
while those without paid employment described wanting and trying,
unsuccessfully, to become employed. These former prisoners were unhappy and
often embarrassed about ‘failing’. Many who did or did not hold a job connected
unemployment with ‘unmanliness’, emasculation, and inferiority. They felt that
employment benefited all prisoners; it would ‘keep them productive. Give them
something to feel proud about, a sense of accomplishment. And, make you feel like
you're doing something productive with yourself, like ‘wow, I’ve learned’’ (Colin).
Working provided prisoners with the opportunity to learn skills; something many
would not have had outside of prison.
General Discussion
The prison environment is hypermasculine. Men with convictions tied to
gaining wealth and status or asserting power, strength or aggression—core
elements of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995)—were respected and even
emulated by other prisoners. The importation of outside life norms merged with the
deprived penal environment influenced the respect and status acquired by each
prisoner. However, some affiliations and attributes were more desirable (e.g., those
representing hypermasculinity) than others. A hierarchy existed among
masculinities—and those embodying these masculinities—constituted by such
hierarchically ranked attributes. The most powerful determinant of status and
masculinity was a prisoner’s convictions and criminal history. Being ‘solid’ was
fundamental to social acceptance in prison; without ‘solidiness’ the prisoner was
discredited as a man (e.g., their strength or aggression became void in determining
their status) and relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy. Beyond criminality, solid
offenders were hierarchically differentiated by their toughness, aggressive nature,
physical prowess and, even, muscularity. For example, the stronger of two
otherwise ‘equal’ offenders would hold a more prestigious prisoner status.
Aggression and masculinity are tied in prison, indicating the prevalence of
hypermasculine ideals. The next element used to determine a prisoner’s status on
the hierarchy was employment which carried the additional benefit of increasing
the offender’s personal sense of self-worth and confidence. These men were proud
of holding paid employment; it signified their ‘breadwinning’ potential. The social
hierarchy in prison structured within the limitations of the prison parallels the
structure of hegemonic masculinity on the ‘outside’, although perhaps with a
greater emphasis on hypermasculinity. Prisoners strive to embody, or just present
as embodying, hegemonic idealizations of masculinity that are exaggeratedly
hypermasculine due to the penal culture that promotes traditional notions of
Rose Ricciardelli
‘manliness’. Those most successful in such masculine self-presentations exert their
dominance and power over other men who cannot achieve this representation for
whatever reason (e.g., their crime, biology, ability). Prisoners deemed weak,
undesirable and devalued occupied the lower rungs of the hierarchical ladder.
Clearly, the prison social hierarchy exists among men and demonstrates the
hegemonic undertones evident in prison masculinities where one form of
masculinity remains dominant over others.
‘Man up’: Asserting masculinity in Canadian federal prisons
References
BANDYOPADHYAY, M. 2006. Competing Masculinities in a Prison. Men and
Masculinities, 9, 186-203.
BRITTON, D. M. 2003. At work in the iron cage: The prison as gendered
organization, New York, New York University Press.
CARRIGAN, T., CONNELL, R. W. & LEE, J. 1985. Towards a New Sociology
of Masculinity. Theory and Society, 14, 551-604.
CLATTERBAUGH, K. 1998. What is Problematic about Masculinities? Men
and Masculinities, 1, 24-45.
CONNELL, R. W. 1983. Which Way Is Up?, London/Boston, Allen & Unwin.
CONNELL, R. W. 1992. A Very Straight Gay: Masculinity, Homosexual
Experience, and the Dynamics of Gender. American Sociological Review, 57, 735751.
CONNELL, R. W. 1995. Masculinities, Cambridge, Polity Press.
CONNELL, R. W. 1998. Masculinities and Globalization. Men and
Masculinities, 1, 3-23.
CONNELL, R. W. & MESSERSCHMIDT, J. W. 2005. Hegemonic
Masculinity: Rethinking the Concept. Gender & Society, 19, 829-859.
DENBOROUGH, D. 1995. Beyond the prison: Gathering dreams of freedom,
Adelade, Dulwich Centre Publications.
GLASER, B. G. & STRAUSS, A. L. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded
Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago, Aldine Publishing Company.
HACKER, H. M. 1957. The New Burdens of Masculinity. Marriage and
Family Living, 19, 227-233.
HANEY, C. 2011. The Perversions of Prison: On the Origins of
Hypermasculinity and Sexual Violence in Confinement. American Criminal Law
Review, 48.
HANNAH-MOFFAT, K. & O'MALLEY, P. 2007. Gendered Risks, London,
Routledge Cavendish.
NEWTON, C. 1994. Gender theory and prison sociology: Using theories of
masculinities to interpret the sociology of prisons for men. The Howard Journal,
33, 193-202.
PHILLIPS, J. 2001. Cultural construction of manhood in prison. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 2, 13-23.
RABOW, J. & STANKO, E. 1989. What do Men Want? Gender and Society, 3,
407-418.
RICCIARDELLI, R. & SIT, V. 2013, in review. Producing social (dis)order in
prison: The effects of administrative controls on inmate-on-inmate violence.
Punishment & Society.
SABO, D. 2001. Doing time, doing masculinity: Sports and prison. In: SABO,
D., KUPERS, T. A. & LONDON, W. (eds.) Prison masculinities. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
Rose Ricciardelli
SCHROEDER, K. 2004. Hypermasculinity. In: KIMMEL, M. & ARONSON,
A. (eds.) Masculinities: A social, cultural and historical encyclopedia. Santa
Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
STANKO, E. 2001. Re-conceptualising the policing of hatred: Confessions and
worrying dilemmas of a consultant. Law and Critique, 12, 309-329.
SYKES, G. M. 1958. The society of captives, Princeton, Princeton University
Press.
SYKES, G. M. & MESSINGER, S. L. 1960. The inmate social system. In:
CLOWARD, R. A., CRESSEY, D. R., GLOSSER, G. H., MCCLEERY, R.,
OHLIN, L. E., SYKES, G. M. & MESSINGER, S. L. (eds.) Theoretical Studies in
Social Organization of the Prison. New York: Social Science Research Council.