The interplay between personal agency and societal structures has been much debated within desistance literature. Farrall and Bowling (1999) argued that ‘the process of desistance is one that is produced through an interplay between individual choices, and a range of wider social forces, institutional and societal practices which are beyond the control of the individual’ (1999, p 261) Anthony Gidden’s (1984) structuration theory argued that an individual has choices even if these are within the most constrained and desperate circumstances. This correlates with research that has provided examples of successful desistance in the most restricted of outlooks (Farrall et al., 2010). This theory can provide would be desisters with the motivation that the severe restrictions placed upon them by both the prison regime and the societal restrictions post-release can be overcome.
Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of practice (1977, 1990) explained the interplay between an individual’s habits or dispositions (habitus) and the structuring influences of their social world. He argued insight could be gained into the relationship between individual and group behaviours and wider societal structures. For example, a number of the participants identified as being part of a gang during teenage years. While they describe gaining some security and support from these groups, societally they are often viewed as troublesome and not law-abiding. A Bourdieusian reading of these histories might suggest that this anti-social view of these groups, once internalised by members, reinforced their dispositions and further secured their marginalised social positions. In this model, structure is integrated into agency; an individual’s actions and behaviours are influenced and restricted within the social frameworks that are imposed upon them (Farrall et al., 2010). Again, using the example of pre-employment criminal conviction checks, for many individuals released from prison, these further restrict access to employment. This reimposes the structure of social marginalisation and punishment that custody imposes upon individuals. In effect, the sentence continues outside the prison walls, restricting a person’s ability to resettle and desist. Thus, both agency and choice are restricted by the societal structures that work against those who have been in prison (Bauman, 2004).
With regard to the CA, a person’s capability set reflects their (real) opportunities and freedom in life (Alkire, 2008) meaning that if these are restricted then their options and agency (functioning) are also hampered. Due to the type of social restrictions mentioned, potential desisters do not always possess the capability to function in a manner that they value or that supports the process of social inclusion (Crocker and Robeyns, 2010). As the narratives in this thesis will reflect, the valued functionings (and alternative identities) that participants value all connect with social inclusion – secure relationship, family connections, being a good parent, a house, employment, normality (see also Farrall et al., 2010). However, social structures that restrict access to certain jobs, types of housing (such as private rentals and mortgaged properties) and a variety of health and wellbeing support services all contribute to diminished agency and capability functioning within the desistance process.
Desistance is an active process and one in which agency (that is, the ability to exercise choice and manage one’s own life) is ‘discovered’. There is also a clear interplay between internal change and the wider structural opportunities that nurture this change (Szifris, 2018). The extent to which individuals can achieve this long-term change is also dependent on more legitimate roles and identities being available to them which is so often not the case (Farrall, 2016). Opportunities should be widened by an increase in capabilities, again indicating the role it has to play in the desistance process. One of the most powerful tools in capability development is education and the interplay between this and desistance shall now be discussed.
3.6 Education and Desistance
People with histories of repeat offending have frequently left school with no qualifications and been excluded at least once (Farrall et al., 2010). Houchin (2005) explains that social exclusion is an identity and the behaviours demonstrated in this identity are what exclude the holders from the norms that are embodied in the law. These characteristics form and bond social groups and identities that more often result in offending behaviour. Part of this social exclusion may include disengagement with educational facilities. School failure in childhood and adolescence is widely accepted by researchers as one of the most consistent
precursors of later adult criminality (Loeber, 1991). Figures released by the SPS in 2012 placed approximately 80 per cent of prisoners screened as lacking functional literacy and 71 per cent as lacking functional numeracy. The manner in which participants are screened and how many agree to involvement can affect the statistical outcome. However, what these figures indicate are overall low levels of literacy and numeracy within the prisoner population. A lack of learning and qualifications can negatively affect support structures to desistance, such as gaining employment and improved social skills. The age-crime curve should not be dismissed as a numerical focus with little connection to education. Maturation could encourage individuals to be less risk-averse and instead return to facilities such as education and gain a more positive and inclusive experience than earlier in their lives. This in turn could translate into some of the skills needed to move towards desistance.
In the educational context, establishing and developing an alternative identity as student, and a more positive social network with other learners may support the desistance process even within prison. One of the wider challenges to prison education is that much of the positive work done can be damaged by imprisonment itself and influences within the regime. Overcrowded conditions, mistreatment by staff and fellow inmates, isolation from society, community and loved ones and barriers to reintegration after release can damage what was developed in the classroom (Warner, 2000). The regime contains varying degrees of inherent hierarchies and power structures but education is one of the areas in which these structures are less prevalent. While security and rules still exist, its focus is one of support and care rather than control. Interactions are based on mutual communication, respect and personal development rather than surveillance and risk management. An individual can be more emotional and exploratory, developing a different identity to that of prisoner. This can support the production of pathways that go beyond the penal-centric and move towards desistance (Warr, 2016).
In the first instance an individual must be motivated to make this change, both in behaviour and identity. Reasons may be connected to family, employment or to enjoy a normal life. As already discussed, the process of desistance is challenging, multi-faceted and can be a stop- start process and strong motivation is needed to face these challenges. Coupled with personal motivation, individuals need a requisite set of skills to support this change, for example, qualifications to gain access to a college course post release, or training in an area that would
gain them steady employment. This increase in human capital coupled with social capital, or the resources that inhere within social networks and relationships (discussed above), is arguably the most comprehensive support system to encourage desistance (McNeill, 2009). But it is not just about the development of a new narrative for the individual, it is also about the acquisition and development of new skills. The aim of the educational services within prison is to develop elements of both types of capital and help give individuals broader options and the skills to have more control over the direction of their lives after release.
Education should not be viewed as a means of addressing offending behaviours in the same manner prison designed programmes do. This narrows its perspective and overlooks central purposes of prison learning (Warner, 2005). Yet, education can allow the student to ‘knife off’ their past and support the identity change that is central to desistance (LeBel et al., 2008; Bushway and Paternoster, 2014; Farrall and Maruna, 2004; Maruna, 2001). Learning Centre attendees are first and foremost viewed and treated as students and they undertake college enrolment forms in an attempt to replicate the campus-based process. Attendees can adopt this non-stigmatized role that supports a movement away from being categorized as a prisoner or by offence type (Runell, 2015). Moreover, if individuals continue with this role after release, this can often be done without revealing past offences unlike the various forms of employment that require criminal conviction checks. It also opens up more normative social networks that can support a movement away from former ones that may be negative or linked to offending behaviour (LeBel, 2008).
Prison learning does not aim to ‘fix’ individuals but instead seeks to engage with and develop students’ assets; to enable them to flourish. It supports exploration and encourages learners ‘to look at their lives through some new lenses’ (Porporino, 2010, p 78). It can help develop communication skills to promote emotional and reflective practice. These, in turn, can develop the building blocks of desistance such as renegotiating relationships, reconstructing personal narratives and building maturity (Warner, 2005). McNeill (2014) found that prisoners reported various benefits from educational engagement, including an increased sense of personal agency. The Learning Centre provides a unique space to develop this feeling in amongst an environment that focuses on control and disempowerment. The process of attendance and studying, particularly for prolonged periods or for qualifications can improve resilience by way of ‘sticking with it’ to achieve. McNeill (2014) also reported
that education attendees described improved thinking skills which supported the consideration of their own and others’ problems in a deeper manner. Ability to gain employment after release can be improved through skills-development and qualification attainment. Students also reported that the sociability and structure that education attendance provided improved their mental health and wellbeing, supporting them through some more challenging aspects of imprisonment. The overall improvement in these various skills reflect a development of capabilities and options that are central to desistance. It is a foundational structure that can support this process rather than being a person specific and isolat ed solution (Albertson, 2015). This shall be discussed further from chapter five onwards.
Through engagement with services such as education, individuals can interact with the foundations to desistance during incarceration. Imagined or projected desistance can also play a part in helping a person to pursue change and the underpinnings of this will be now be considered.