Privilege affects identity, perspective and experience because it offers someone access to resources which others are denied. Identity in itself can hold privilege due to norms concerning social status which are often dictated by groups who hold power, to the expense of Others who are rendered powerless. A central role of correctional facilities is removal of an individual from society, an act which is often accompanied by a removal of both privilege and often rights from incarcerated populations. The effectiveness of this seems to vary by circumstances individuals face
and privilege held, including that of identity proscribed from the outside due to racism, sexism, and homophobia. In this project, I saw that the notion of privilege was markedly distinct for respondents; in the logic expressed basic rights were transformed into earned or deeply missed privileges. The main thing this project showed however was that privilege has an ambiguous meaning in correctional settings.
In some cases, participants noted that missed privilege eventually was what motivated them to effectively get out and stay out; Oliver indicated that this factored heavily in what eventually changed for him, replying to an inquiry on such that, “The taking away of freedoms, liberties that I had access to outside of being incarcerated. That I was unable to have access to them that I had to realize, to uh, to be able to maintain the lifestyle without being incarcerated more.” This internalized notion of behavior as a response to increased threat on personal freedom is explored more in the Action and Identity section of this thesis. Even when this dynamic did not seem to be present, all participants missed something that had once been essential to their lives but was now a luxury. Whether this was basic contact with family (Most respondents and participants who brought the subject up), freedom and privacy (Caroline), to the taste of a latte from a coffee shop [Carl], these longings characterized participant descriptions of their incarceration experiences with particular emotion. Other times privilege is notable are during the direct access to certain resources that some incarcerated persons have but others do not; as mentioned throughout this thesis, this includes the privilege those with supportive families have in having strong social support networks, the privilege of being able to afford extra food, hygiene items and occasionally media such as music from the commissary, and the privilege of both social support and money that allows some individuals a greater selection of books while incarcerated.
In other cases this notion is relevant as basic rights are transformed in the minds of those who have been incarcerated into something which constitutes not right, but privilege. This can be seen in narratives by respondents which discuss, often with tones of fear or despair, topics such as administrative segregation [isolation pods] and comparisons of maximum and minimum security prisons. In these narratives, the loss of quotidian parts of life outside are not spoken as if these were incidents of outrage, but as events where they lost privilege which sometimes but not always is correlated with shame. These privileges are often basic things like being granted a more than once-a-week shower (Susan), both electronic and physically present communication with other people (IV), the low-paid jobs available or benefits which came from them such as blood-tests for disease or a limited offering of commuted sentence. Even though I have singled out responses here on upper-security facilities and isolation cells, this echoes broader illustrations of reason about being incarcerated in general and all that is missed by the individual inside. Caroline also directly brought up the concept of privilege—in stating that she had lost some outside friendships because they no longer had as much in common, since she saw them as having not able to relate to experienced hardships.
An unexpected commonality amongst some participants seemed to indicate a difference in perspective concerning one’s initial arrest and general belief that good behavior is rewarded—a notion which retributive based correctional systems are centrally based upon, in theory. In these retellings, I heard a common theme of privilege of faith in the system—and what it was like when that trust was lost. Part of this faith was displayed in an initial expectation by certain participants that consequences would be less or nonexistent for various reasons. An example of this is the feeling that being honest with the officer or going out of the way to be respectful would be rewarded with some type of leniency towards the actions they were being stopped for. Susan mused
on the matter, “Be honest. Don't lie. The police will help you. All those things you're hardwired from a child to think, and a lot of that's still there.” She goes on, “Yes I did something wrong. Personal responsibility—I take responsibility for that.” Elaborating through mimic of the arrest interaction, she continued, “[Deep voice imitation:] ‘Well stand up, I'm putting these cuffs on.’ — [normal voice, distressed:] But I was honest!” This was similar to Ramon’s loss of trust in the Army after his arrest—his feelings that having been a good soldier would mean that they would take care of him to an extent rather than sail him up the river. This also echoes Caroline’s surprise that she would have such consequence due to being, implied, an upstanding citizen—defined by previously not having been in trouble as well as elite educational and social backgrounds—also echoes this notion. The feeling of surprise that one is arrested, and that honesty didn’t help them indicates a level of privilege that individuals arrested in communities where police interrogation is commonplace [such as practices of stop and frisk in certain boroughs of New York] do not have.
Privilege indicates the holding of a luxury or right denied to Others. Notable variation amongst respondent narratives do indicate perspective differences which correlate with rankings of privilege within incarcerated populations. Differences are partially formed due to factors such as placement in a lower security level of correctional facility, preset social status associated with race, gender and class, and initial emotional fortitude those who have grown up with family and/or community stability seem more likely to have. Nonetheless, the idea of the imprisoned criminal Other is of someone stripped of all levels of privilege, and it largely lives up to that image—and then some. Examination of loss of privilege [of both rights and/or luxury] as a phenomena practiced in correctional settings could lead to breakthroughs in discovery about the value of removing privileges from an individual as a method of justice-based consequence. This is a vital question which asks research to find specifics of what methods serve as motivation to individual
reform or restoration and for whom specifically these methods work. This is essential as it also provokes the question, once again, of what crosses the line in prisoner-treatment and thus counts as abuse. Ultimately, as it now stands under correctional systems based upon retributive justice, the question of who most represents the criminal Other in prisons is akin to asking who is not worth human concern. Hopefully in the future everyone will be seen as deserving the chance to seek redemption through humane justice-based paths to restoration.