Architectures of incarceration: The spatial pains of imprisonment

Abstract

This article considers the contribution that physical environment makes to the pains of imprisonment. Synthesizing concepts and theories from critical organization studies with those that have informed criminological studies of prison design and the lived experience of imprisonment, the article discusses the ways in which the architecture and aesthetics of penal environments might be better understood with reference to the restricted economies of space found in industrial and bureaucratic organizations. It is argued that a grasp of the limits historically placed on the subjective growth of individual workers (workspaces frequently being characterized as 'iron cages' or 'psychic prisons') can enhance our understanding of the physical and psychological confinement of those in custody. Moreover, critical organization studies can inform emerging debates about what future prisons should look like and alert us to the potential fallacy in assuming that 'modern' equates to 'better'. While clean, humane and safe environments are unquestionably desirable for both prisoners and prison staff, and considerations such as natural daylight, access to outside space and aesthetic stimuli are increasingly being incorporated into penal environments around the world, this article will critically interrogate the value of such initiatives arguing that they may, in fact, represent a new and potentially more insidious form of control that bring their own distinctive 'pains'.

“doing time” in carceral space: timespace and carceral geography

“…This is not to argue that space has been overlooked by criminology and prison sociology, however. Despite a guarded acceptance of Foucault's (1979) assertion that the design of prison spaces to enable actual or perceived constant visibility and surveillance has an effect on the behaviour and control of prisoners (Alford 2000), the spaces of prisons has, until very recently, remained relatively under-researched in this field (Canter 1987;Ditchfield 1990;Fairweather and McConville 2000;Marshall 2000;Hancock and Jewkes 2011).…”

Video Links from Prison: Court “Appearance” within Carceral Space

“…Human experience and behavior are intimately influenced by spatial settings and architectural features, and the environment itself may cue particular behaviors. 108 To be located within a particular space generates reactions, and there is ''space consciousness or the sensation of space.'' 109 On this basis, it is not surprising that ''the space in which justice is done shapes what we think it means.''…”

“…52 The compressed and cellular built environment of prison impacts on behavior through sensorial deprivation: the ''anaesthetics'' of incarceration blunt the senses, and reinforce criminality. 53 It is ''the fabric of the buildings'' 54 that determines behavior and identity, and within prison there is a profound connection between spatiality, corporeality and human experience.…”

Video Links from Prison: Permeability and the Carceral World

“…I argue that video link technology, in mediating the appearance of the prisoner from a remote prison video studio, adds an additional element of concealment in an increasingly invisible justice process. The invisibility of contemporary prisons is explored by Hancock and Jewkes (2011), who note that the prison, once a highly visible and ostentatious 'flamboyant proclamation' of punishment, is now camouflaged and disguised to blend in with the surroundings (Hancock and Jewkes 2011: 618). Certainly, the two correction centres I visited were discretely located within semi-rural or rural landscapes.…”