Playing the Part: Pseudo-Families, Wives, and the Politics of Relationships in Women’s Prisons in California
| Date | 01 December 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0032885518811809 |
| Author | Ted Palys,Abigail Kolb |
| Published date | 01 December 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2018
Article
The Prison Journal
2018, Vol. 98(6) 678 –699
Playing the Part: Pseudo-
© 2018 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
Families, Wives, and the
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885518811809
DOI: 10.1177/0032885518811809
journals.sagepub.com/home/tpj
Politics of Relationships
in Women’s Prisons in
California
Abigail Kolb1 and Ted Palys2
Abstract
At present, little is known regarding the experience and activities of gang-
affiliated women in prison. This article is based on interviews with 15 formerly
incarcerated women who offered insights into their experiences. Rather
than continue the territorially based street divisions they defended, the
women tended, instead, to create interpersonal units in the form of families
and/or sexual dyads, reconstructing hetero-normative relational patterns
during the course of their incarceration. The article offers an alternative lens
through which to understand human agency among incarcerated women.
Keywords
prison pseudo-families, gang-affiliated women offenders, agency
Introduction
Researchers have long noted that women have unique pathways to offending
and that their patterns of offenses tend to differ from those of their male counter-
parts (e.g., see Covington, 2007; Salisbury & Van Voorhis, 2009). Accordingly,
1Clayton State University, Morrow, GA, USA
2Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada
Corresponding Author:
Abigail Kolb, Department of Social Sciences, Clayton State University, 2000 Clayton State
Blvd., Morrow, GA 30260, USA.
Email: abigailkolb@clayton.edu
Kolb and Palys
679
academics and practitioners alike have begun to show increased interest in the
experiences of this population, seeking to understand their unique social statuses
and attempting to make sense of how these positions impact their relationships
during incarceration.
Research studies have shown consistently that men and women differ in
their responses to incarceration (Bosworth, 1999; Giallombardo, 1966; Greer,
2000; Maeve, 1999; Severance, 2005a, 2005b; Sykes, 1958; Ward &
Kassebaum, 1965); women tend to be more relational than their male coun-
terparts (DeBell, 2001; Harner, 2004). But do these relationships simply mir-
ror those in the broader society? Diaz-Cotto (1996) argues that the research
has certainly left that impression, adding, further, that the literature presented
incarcerated women as apolitical and lacking agency and that “the politiciz-
ing capability of such groups has generally been denied or ignored by social
scientists” (p. 302). Linker, Bergeron, and Lempert (2005) reaffirm this view,
arguing that authoritarian power dynamics within the carceral setting make it
difficult for incarcerated women to confront prison authority, with racial and
ethnic minorities having even greater challenges due to their marginalized
positions within both society and the carceral setting (see also Diaz-Cotto,
2006; Kruttschnitt, 1983).
However, it would be fallacious to assume that these women’s identities
are entirely constrained by their incarceration. Another strand of literature
argues the incarcerative experience is not quite so monolithic. In a compari-
son of incarcerated individuals across five countries, Skarbek (2016) devel-
ops a self-governance theory of prison social order. He explains the
importance of extralegal self-governance within the carceral setting and how
decentralized, homogeneous groups of inmates are responsible for informal
social control when the institution’s formal social control mechanisms do not
meet inmates’ needs. Importantly, he notes that inmates form self-governing
groups to meet three specific needs—protection, allocation of necessary
resources, and “prison commerce”—to import and sell desired but prohibited
goods within the prison. He explains how “inmates can develop. . .solutions
to the problem of order, and these solutions take diverse forms depending on
official’s choices and the demographics of the community” (Skarbek, 2016,
p. 48). Self-governance, then, can be seen as a form of agency within the
carceral setting, as it allows for inmates’ needs and wants to be met.
Operating within the constraints of incarceration, women learn to adapt to
an environment and conditions to which they otherwise might not have been
exposed (e.g., being in close confines with women of different cultural back-
grounds; having to abide by rules that regulate how they can conduct them-
selves; being told when to eat, sleep, and work; etc.). Consistent with this
view, more recent research has focused on the ways in which incarcerated
680
The Prison Journal 98(6)
women can and do engage in agentic behavior through their relationships
(Bosworth, 1999; DeBell, 2001; Diaz-Cotto, 1996, 2006; Greer, 2000;
Maeve, 1999; Severance, 2005a, 2005b). These studies conclude that involve-
ment in pseudo-families is actually a means for coping with the stress of
incarceration and separation from families (Harner, 2004; Kruttschnitt,
Gartner, & Miller, 2000; Propper, 1982; Severance, 2004). In addition, many
incarcerated women engage in sexual relationships for love and emotional
support (Giallombardo, 1966; Harner, 2004; Jones, 1993; Severance, 2005a),
social support (Severance, 2005b), and economic benefit (Greer, 2000).
While some investigations propose that incarcerated women engage in these
relationships because they are deprived of heterosexual relationships in
prison (see Gagnon & Simon, 1968; Watterson, 1996), Jones (1993) argues
that sex and expression of sexuality are less important than the love and sup-
port functions these relationships offer. In combination, these studies suggest
that women adapt and adjust to their new environment to create a livable
experience in which to form relationships and negotiate power.
The potential downside of these relationships is noted by Huggins,
Capeheart, and Newman (2006), who report that while pseudo-families may
have a positive impact on female inmates as they provide emotional support,
affection, and love, membership also “increases the likelihood that one will
be involved in an adverse event” (p. 125). Similarly, Trammell, Wulf-Ludden,
and Mowder (2015) discuss the role of prison fights as a social event. They
argue that because many incarcerated women already suffer from histories of
dysfunctional relationships, their interpersonal (familial and sexual) relation-
ships in prison tend to mirror those on the outside.
Feminist literature has sought to identify when gendered behavior is per-
formed out of habit and when it is performed consciously (see, for example,
Butler, 1990; Risman, 2009). Risman (2009) questions whether individuals
can refuse to “do gender” according to traditional expectations or whether
“rebellion is simply doing gender differently, forging alternative masculini-
ties and femininities” (p. 433). In other words, does performing gendered or
sexualized behavior that reaches beyond traditional or identifiable practices
constitute a complete subversion of the gendered and sexualized structures
that constrain us?
Queer theorists further this line of questioning and cite the importance of
temporality and spatiality in the (re)construction of identity. Halberstam
(1998), for example, discusses how androgynous women perform their gen-
der one way in public but must embrace a different, more feminine identity
when they cross the threshold of a women’s bathroom to avoid ridicule for
being in the wrong bathroom. While actively engaging in this identity shift
when crossing spatial boundaries may act as a protective factor, it suggests
Kolb and Palys
681
that individuals are capable of performing, and indeed often do perform, gen-
der to adapt to their surroundings. Yet, they remain constrained by gendered
expectations placed upon them by the larger social environment. Incarcerated
women perform their gendered and sexual roles within the confines of what
is socially understood as being possible: masculinity and femininity; how-
ever, they also engage in unique practices within these confines.
In sum, researchers examining women’s carceral relationships have
focused on pseudo-families and sexual dyads as reconstructions of tradi-
tional gender roles (Giallombardo, 1966), a means for adaptation and coping
(Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Propper, 1982; Severance, 2004), and as challeng-
ing traditional gendered and sexual roles (Diaz-Cotto, 2006). We sought to
contribute to this developing literature by drawing upon feminist and queer
literature on gender construction and performativity to guide our interviews
with 15 formerly incarcerated, formerly gang-affiliated women residing in
Los Angeles. This study also allowed us to address Diaz-Cotto’s (1996)
observation on the dearth of research focusing on the experiences of incar-
cerated Latinas. Our primary focus was on how these women understand
their gendered and sexualized positions upon entry to prison and how their
relationships with other inmates were implicated in their identity (re)con-
struction during incarceration. In addition, we examined how these women
engage in agentic practices through micro-level politics—“politicking”—
that take place within prison and are subsequently responsible for co-con-
structing prison identities.
Method
The current study arose as part of a larger qualitative study involving in-depth
interviews with 24...
To continue reading
Request your trial