Sexual Victimization and Inmate Social Interaction

• Author: Mary Ellen Batiuk,Norman E. Smith
• Date: 01 October 1989
• DOI: 10.1177/003288558906900206
• Published date: 01 October 1989
• Subject Matter: Articles

Sexual Victimization and Inmate
Social Interaction
Norman E. Smith and Mary Ellen Batiuk *
"In here if you don’t be the man you’re supposed to be
you’ll be the woman you don’t want to be." —Prison inmate
In his 1980 study of victimization in prison, Lee Bowker commented that &dquo;like
heterosexual rape on the streets, prison homosexual rape has effects that go beyond its
immediate victims.&dquo; &dquo;We must realize,&dquo; he continued &dquo;that homosexual rape impacts all
prisoners and fundamentally alters the social climate of correctional institutions&dquo;
(Bowker,1980:1). Most researchers of prison sexual violence would agree with Bowker’s
contention. Yet, in practice, most research on prison sexual violence has not addressed its
impact on the &dquo;social climate&dquo; of the institution, but has instead focused on trying to
ascertain its incidence on the one hand and, on the other, the actual victim and victimizer.
However, studies which have addressed the incidence of sexual violence in the
prison have been inconsistent and inconclusive. Early studies of the prison (Clemmer,
1940; Sykes, 1958; Davis 1968) suggested a high rate of the incidence of homosexual rape
in men’s prisons. But more recent studies (Bartollas, Miller, and Dinitz, 1976; Bowker,
1980: Lockwood, 1980; Bondeson, 1989) have suggested that the actual incidence of
homosexual rape is far less than had been earlier reported. These later studies, however,
do report that although the actual incidence of homosexual rape may be lower than past
researchers had assumed, there does exist a widespread fear of sexual victimization
among inmates.
Other studies have focused on those inmates who are actually involved in sexual
violence. One common approach has been to identify clear and visable roles which relate
to sexual violence within the overall inmate social system. Numerous studies have
identified such roles (e.g., Sykes, 1958; Bartollas, Miller, and Dinitz, 1976; Fleisher,
1989), variously referred to as &dquo;fags,&dquo; &dquo;punks,&dquo; &dquo;dragqueens,&dquo; &dquo;wolves,&dquo; and &dquo;booty
bandits.&dquo; But most of these studies have not really moved beyond Sykes’ original
observations of these roles as emerging due to the deprivations inherent in incarceration
(Sykes, 1958).
A more recent approach along these lines has been to conceptualize inmate
behavior as involving various methods of coping. From this perspective (e.g., Toch, 1977,
1989; Johnson and Toch, 1982; Parisi, 1982; Johnson, 1987; Zamble and Porporino, 1988),
inmate behavior is often viewed as an &dquo;immature&dquo; or &dquo;unhealthy&dquo; method of coping with
the stresses associated with incarceration. Here, the focus is almost exclusively on the
victims or victimizers and on their individual adaptations, or maladaptations, to the
prison environment. Although this approach has generated an impressive number of
typologies relating different categories of coping with incarceration, it has done little to
assess the impact of sexual violence on inmate social interaction and the social climate of
correctional institutions in general.
In this paper, we would like to reaffirm Bowker’s assertion that the impact of
sexual violence in the prison goes beyond the actual victims and develop a theoretical
perspective from which the relationship between sexual violence and inmate social
interaction can be more fully understood.
*Norman E. Smith and Mary Ellen Batiuk are both assistant professors of sociology at
Wilmington College of Ohio.
29

---

Theory and Methods
Our understanding of the prison emerges out of our experiences in developing
programming for inmates over the past twelve years in what was once a reformatory and
is now a close-security state correctional institution for men. During the creation and
administration of various educational programs for both inmates and correctional staff,
we have had countless opportunities to informally observe and discuss the prison
environment with inmates, correctional officers, and staff as they interacted within the
prison. From our observations over the years, we have come to appreciate the importance
of looking at the prison environment as a whole, rather than studying segments of it in
isolation. Indeed, we feel that it is just this sort of approach which will actually yield the
kind of perspective suggested by Bowker. By looking at the prison setting wholistically,
we hope to show that the threat of sexual violence actually dominates the prison
environment and structures much of the everyday interaction that goes on among
inmates. In fact, the threat of sexual victimization becomes the dominant metaphor in
terms of which almost every other aspect of &dquo;prison reality&dquo; is interpreted.
The dramaturgical sociology of Erving Goffman has proven to be a very
enlightening model for us in attempting to piece together the nature of inmate
interaction within the prison. This is because for Goffman the individual is seen as
possessing a &dquo;social self&dquo; which emerges, adapts, and changes in the process of
interaction with individuals and the social setting as opposed to possessing a &dquo;person-
ality&dquo; which responds to any given social setting in more of less typical and rather
predictable ways. For Goffman, interaction is characterized as a theatrical &dquo;perfor-
mance&dquo; in which the individual &dquo;actor&dquo; and the &dquo;audience&dquo; (those who take an active part
in the social setting) work together to create and confirm a &dquo;definition of the situation&dquo;
that allows for problems to be solved and business to go on &dquo;as usual&dquo; (Goffman, 1959).
For example, in the typical classroom, both the instructor and the students actually work
together to create an air of credibility and productivity since both agree that the
definition of this particular situation requires these characteristics.
As a part of this process, the individual actor employs various strategies in order to
manage
the impressions given to the audience and so give a believable performance. One
strategy is to carefully orchestrate the use of various &dquo;props&dquo; (clothing, titles, lecture
notes) that give a certain legitimacy to the performance being staged. Another strategy
is to &dquo;segregate&dquo; different audiences so that the actor has the advantage of performing
before a group that is both able and willing to &dquo;buy into&dquo; the presentation being made.
Part of this process of segregating audiences is to ensure that any &dquo;backstage&dquo; regions
where the actor is free from having to continually stay in character, and where the
performance may be privately rehearsed, criticized, or even ridiculed, are carefully kept
from the public view of the audience. After all, exposure of the audience to this
&dquo;backstage&dquo; region could compromise the legitimacy of the entire performance. Finally,
if the individual actor is a part of a &dquo;team&dquo; performance, it is very important for members
of the team to trust one another and work together so that the entire performance is
perceived by the audience as &dquo;genuine.&dquo;
For its part, the audience acts to confirm the definition of the situation as it has
been staged by overlooking any inconsistencies or contradictions in the performance
which might jeopordize its believability. As Goffman points out, unless audiences remain
&dquo;polite,&dquo; the social interaction will almost inevitably be disrupted, and &dquo;business as
usual&dquo; will cease. Ultimately, the possibility of any ongoing interaction rests both on
the ability of the actor to strategically manage impressions and on the trust established
between actors and their audiences. This is important because continual suspicion on the
part of audiences with regard to the integrity of performances would put enormous
strains on the ability of individuals to interact at all (Goffman, 1959,1963). In...