Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Resistance and compliance in women’s prisons: Towards a critique of legitimacy

  • Essays
  • Published:
Critical Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article explores how power is negotiated in women’s prisons. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in three penal establishments in England, the author analyses the ways by which women negotiate restrictions of imprisonment and the manner in which they attempt to resist institutional control. It is proposed that power is negotiated on a private, internalised level, as women often resist the institution simply by trying to maintain an image of control over their own lives. However, this image of themselves as active, reasoning agents is undermined by institutional constraints that encourage them to exhibit traditional, passive, feminine behaviour at the same time as they deny them their identities and responsibilities as mothers, wives, girlfriends, and sisters. The author concludes that women’s modes of resistance indicate that imprisonment is contested and embattled in ways reflecting broader, social norms of behaviour and identity, and thus, that the ‘legitimacy’ of imprisonment rests, at least in part, upon gender.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Advisory Council on the Penal System, 1968.The Regime for Prisoners in Conditions of Maximum Security (Radzinowicz Report). London, HMSO

    Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, D. 1991,The Legitimation of Power. London: Macmillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Benhabib, S. 1992.Situating the Self: Gender, Community and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosworth, M., and A. Liebling. 1995.Incentives in Prison Regimes: A Review of the Literature. London: HMSO

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottoms, A., and R. Light, eds.Problems of Long-Term Imprisonment. Aldershot: Gower

  • Braidouti, R. 1994.Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1991.Patterns of Dissonance: A Study of Women in Contemporary Philosophy. Cambridge: Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, M. 1986. ‘Realism, Feminism, Methodology, and Law.’International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 14 (3/4): 255–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlen, P. 1985.Criminal Women: Autobiographical Accounts. Cambridge: Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1983.Women’s Imprisonment: A Study in Social Control, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavadino, M., and J. Dignan. 1992.The Penal System: An Introduction. London: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Clear, T. 1988. ‘Statistical Prediction in Corrections.’Research in Corrections, 1 (1): 1–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Clear, Todd, Bruce Stout, Harry Dammer, Linda Kelly, Patricia Hardyman, and Carol Shapiro. 1992. ‘Does Involvement in Religion Help Prisoners Adjust to Prison?’NCCD Focus, November

  • Clemmer, D. 1940.The Prison Community. New York: Holt, Rinchart and Wilson

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., and I. Taylor. 1972.Psychological Survival: Harmondsworth: Penguin

    Google Scholar 

  • Eaton, M. 1993.Women After Prison, Buckingham: Open University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Faith, K. 1993.Unruly Women: The Politics of Confinement and Resistance. Vancouver: Press Gang Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, M. 1977.Prisoners in Revolt. Harmondsworth: Penguin

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleisher, M. 1989.Warehousing Violence. London: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. 1979.Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, London: Penguin Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. 1989.Unruly Practices: Power: Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelsthorpe, L. 1992. ‘Response to Martyn Hammersley’s Paper “On Feminist Methodology.”’Sociology, 26 (2): 213–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelsthorpe, L. and A. Morris, eds. 1990.Feminist Perspectives in Criminology. Milton Keynes: Open University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Giallombardo, R. 1966.Society of Women: A Study of a Women’s Prison. New York: John Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. 1984.The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. 1982/1993.In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. 1969.The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Allen Lane

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1961.Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. London: Penguin Books

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths, M. 1995.Feminisms and the Self: The Web of Identity. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. 1976.Legitimation Crisis. London: Heinemann

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammersley, M. 1992. ‘On Feminist Methodology.’Sociology, 26 (2): 187–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannah-Moffat, K. 1995. ‘Feminine Fortresses: Women-Centered Prisons?’The Prison Journal, Special Issue: Women in Prisons and Jails, 75 (2): 135–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S., ed. 1987.Feminism and Methodology: Social Science Issues. Milton Keynes. Open University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Heffernan, E. 1974.Making it in Prison: The Square, the Cool, and the Life. New York: Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  • Hekman, S. 1995.Moral Voices, Moral Selves: Carol Gilligan and Feminist Moral Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, S., and D. Milovanovic. 1996.Constitutive Criminology: Beyond Postmodernism. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbest, T. 1960.Leviathan. Oxford: Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Home Office, 1984.Managing the Long-Term Prison System: The Report of the Control Review Committee. London: HMSO

    Google Scholar 

  • —. 1966.Report of the Inquiry into Prison Escapes and Security. (Mountbatten Report). London: HMSO

    Google Scholar 

  • Howe, A. 1994.Punishand Critique: Towards a Feminist Analysis of Penality. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, M. J., ed. 1993,An Ethic of Care: Feminist and Interdisciplinary Perspectives. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Learmont, J. 1995.Review of Prison Service Security in England and Wales and the Escape from Parkhurst Prison on Tuesday 3rd January 1995 London: HMSO, Cm 3020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebling, A. 1992.Suicides in Prison. London, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Locke, J. 1967.Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathiesen, T. 1965.The Defences of the Weak: A Sociological Study of a Norwegian Correctional Institution, London: Tavistock Publications

    Google Scholar 

  • Merry, S. 1995. ‘Resistance and the Cultural Power of Law.’Law and Society Review, 29 (1): 11–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • — 1990.Getting Justice and Getting Even: Legal Consciousness among Working-Class Americans. Chicago: Chicago University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, A., and C. Wilkinson. 1995. ‘Responding to Female Prisoners’ Needs.’The Prison Journal, 75 (3): 295–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padel, U., and P. Stevenson. 1988.Insiders: Women’s Experiences of Prison. London: Virago Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Player, E. 1994. ‘Women’s Prisons After Woolf,’ in E. Player and M. Jenkins, eds.,Prisons After Woolf: Reform Through Riot, 203–225, London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramazanoglu, C. 1992. ‘On Feminist Methodology: Male Reason Versus Female Empowerment.’Sociology, 26 (2): 207–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. 1971.A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinharz, S. 1992.Feminist Methods in Social Research. New York: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Richie, B. 1996.Compelled to Crime: The Gender Entrapment of Battered Black Women. New York: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rock, P. 1996.Reconstructing a Women’s Prison: The Holloway Redevelopment Project, 1968–88. Oxford: Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, J. J. 1993.The Social Contract and Discourses. London: Orion Publishing Group

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. 1985.Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Sim, J. 1994. ‘Reforming the Penal Wasteland? A Critical Review of the Woolf Report,” in E. Player and M. Jenkins, eds.,Prisons After Woolf: Reform Through Riot, 31–45, London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, R. 1994. ‘Can Prisons be Legitimate? Penal Politics, Privatization, and the Timeliness of an Old Idea,’British Journal of Criminology, 34: 14–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, R., and A. Bottoms. 1995. ‘Legitimacy and Order in Prisons.’The British Journal of Sociology, 46 (1): 45–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks, R., A. Bottoms, and W. Hay. 1996.Prisons and the Problem of Order. Oxford: Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, L. and S. Wise. 1993.Breaking Out Again. Feminist Ontology and Epistemology. London: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sykes, G. 1958.The Society of Captives: A Study of Maximum Security Prisons. Princeton: Princeton University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. 1989.Sources of the Self The Making of the Modern Identity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • — 1985.Philosophy and the Human Sciences: Philosophical Papers 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Toch, H., K. Adams, and J.D. Grant. 1989.Coping: Maladaptation in Prisons. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers

    Google Scholar 

  • Vagg, J. 1994.Prison Systems: A Comparative Study of Accountability in England, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Oxford: Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. 1968.Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, Volume I, II. Berkley: University of California Press

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. 1991. ‘Subordination, Rhetorical Survival Skills, and Sunday Shoes: Notes on the Hearing of Mrs. G,’ In M.A. Fineman and N.S. Thomadsen, eds.,At the Boundaries of Law: Feminism and Legal Theory, 40–58. New York: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, D., and G. Kassebaum. 1965.Women’s Prison: Sex and Social Structure. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, J. 1994.Report of the Enquiry into the Escape of Six Prisoners from the Special Security Unit at Whitemoor Prison. London: HMSO, Cm 2741

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolf, Lord Justice. 1991.Prison Disturbances, April 1990. London: HMSO, Cmnd. 1456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zedner, L. 1991.Women, Crime and Custody in Victorian England. Oxford: Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Cambridge, UK

    Mary Bosworth

Authors
  1. Mary Bosworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bosworth, M. Resistance and compliance in women’s prisons: Towards a critique of legitimacy. Critical Criminology 7, 5–19 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461111

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02461111

Keywords

Search

Navigation