The Floating Signifier of “Radicalization”: Correctional Officers’ Perceptions of Prison Radicalization
| DOI | 10.1177/0093854820969749 |
| Author | Kevin D. Haggerty,William J. Schultz,Sandra M. Bucerius |
| Date | 01 June 2021 |
| Published date | 01 June 2021 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
The FloaTing SigniFier oF
“radicalizaTion”
correctional officers’ Perceptions of Prison
radicalization
WILLIAM J. SCHULTz
SANDRA M. BUCERIUS
KEVIN D. HAggERTy
University of Alberta
The number of people incarcerated for extremist actions has grown over the past decades. The resulting prospect of prison
radicalization has contributed to widespread risk responsibilitization among prison staff. Low-level correctional officers now
perceive themselves as being directly responsible for detecting radicalization on their units. Consequently, radicalization has
become a meaningful topic for prison staff, one which shapes their daily actions and perceptions. However, officers’ under-
standings of radicalization may not conform with accepted definitions. Through 131 semistructured interviews with Canadian
correctional officers, we demonstrate how radicalization functions as a floating signifier in prison, influencing officer thought
and behavior in meaningful ways while eluding easy definition. Officers redefine radicalization to fit interpretive frames
around religion and race, gang membership, and mental health, irrespective of whether stereotypical extremists exist in a
given prison. We demonstrate how radicalization, when operating as a floating signifier, can significantly influence officers’
perceptions and front-line prison operations.
Keywords: prison; correctional officers; risk; decision making; law enforcement
inTroducTion
Prisons hold a distinctive place in global efforts to thwart terrorism. On one hand, they
are the terminal point for captured terrorists, as the number of extremists held in western
prisons has climbed steadily in recent years (Skilicorn et al., 2015). yet at the same time,
prisons are understood as a generative space for terrorists, with documented instances of
auThorS’ noTe: Thanks to the men and women who volunteered their time to speak with us. Thanks also
to the editors of Criminal Justice and Behavior and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.
Finally, thanks to members of the University of Alberta Prison Project: Justin Tetreault, Luca Berardi, Tyler
Dunford, and Ashley Kohl. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to William J. Schultz,
Department of Sociology, University of Alberta, HM Tory 5-21, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2H4; e-mail:
wschultz@ualberta.ca.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 6, June 2021, 828 –845.
DOI: 10.1177/0093854820969749
ht
ps:/
doi.
rg
Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions
© 2020 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
828
Schultz et al. / THE FLOATINg SIgNIFIER OF “RADICALIzATION” 829
individuals being radicalized behind prison walls (Hamm, 2013; Khosrokhavar, 2013;
Mulcahy et al., 2013). Most countries have not reported widespread prison radicalization
(Jones, 2014). Nonetheless, many nations now view it as an acute security concern, even in
places with little history of terrorist activity or extremist messaging (United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime [UNODC], 2016). In an attempt to interrupt cycles of radicalization
and extremist recruitment, several countries have dedicated entire prisons exclusively to
terrorists and violent extremists (Patel, 2017). For instance, the United Kingdom, United
States, Australia, and the Netherlands have all created segregated, high-security custody
units intended to disrupt terrorist recruitment (Silke & Veldhuis, 2017). As a direct result of
these efforts, prison staff, including managers and correctional officers, are now considered
key players in both interrupting extremist recruitment and deradicalizing convicted terror-
ists (Silke & Veldhuis, 2017; UNODC, 2016).
Despite the prominent role that prison staff are expected to play in managing incarcer-
ated extremists, we know little about how correctional officers conceive of or react to
incarcerated persons espousing radical messages. Nor do we fully understand how officers
connect their understanding of radicalization with formal definitions (Liebling & Williams,
2018). Therefore, although prison staff frequently deal with a wide range of incarcerated
persons who may or may not fit official definitions of radicalization, we have little idea
about how officers define or understand “radical” on a day-to-day basis. We also do not
know if or how these understandings relate to the carefully specified operationalizations of
radicalization that are central to academic work in this area (Neumann, 2013; Sedgwick,
2010).
Although it is an open question as to whether prison radicalization is a significant issue
empirically or practically in North America (Bucerius et al., under review; Hamm, 2013;
Useem, 2012), correctional officer perceptions on the topic matter for two significant rea-
sons. First, if radicalization is indeed a pervasive threat in prison, it represents a significant
security concern, and we are well served to understand how prison staff identify and man-
age this risk. Second, even if prison radicalization is not a meaningful security concern in
any particular prison, the widespread framing of radicalization as a distinct social threat
(Roy, 2017) can shape the perceptions and actions of correctional officers, similar to how
extremism, radicalization, and terrorism inform societal and institutional perceptions of risk
more generally (Beck, 2006). As a result, examining how correctional officers relate to radi-
cal and radicalizing persons provides a key insight into officer culture, institutional practice,
and informal risk assessments.
We use Lévi-Strauss’s concept of a floating signifier to examine how perceived ideologi-
cal radicalization and extremism shape the behavior and outlooks of correctional officers.
The data we use are drawn from 131 interviews with correctional officers who work in four
prisons in Western Canada. These interviews make up part of a larger project investigating
radicalization and life experiences in prison (Schultz et al., 2020). We identified three pri-
mary research questions: (a) How do correctional officers conceive of and identify extrem-
ism and radicalization in prison? (b) Do officers redefine radicalization in specific ways to
fit their distinctive daily realities? and (c) What implications do those understandings have
for incarcerated people and the prison regime? Overall, our research identifies significant
and meaningful tension between different conceptualizations of radicalization operating in
prison, with distinct consequences for incarcerated persons, correctional officers, and prison
officials.
830 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR
conTexT
In recent years, there has been a notable increase in research conducted on correctional
officers (Arnold, 2016; Crawley, 2012; Ricciardelli, 2019). These works have fleshed out
the occupational dynamics and professional culture of correctional officers, and several
aspects of this occupation are now well documented. Most officers are male (Britton, 2003),
and many enjoy high-risk edgework (Stout et al., 2018). Unsurprisingly, this results in a
widespread culture of hypermasculinity (Ricciardelli, 2019), which manifests in specific
officer codes, or more generally as a workplace habitus (Arnold et al., 2012; Lerman &
Page, 2012). This shared code/belief system is often cited as a major influence shaping cor-
rectional officer behavior (Crawley, 2012; Tait, 2011). It is also well established that most
interactions between correctional officers and incarcerated people are based on discretion,
negotiation, and soft power (Crewe, 2009; Haggerty & Bucerius, 2021; Ibsen, 2013;
Liebling et al., 2011; Liebling & Williams, 2018). Despite this, officers also tend to be con-
trol focused, meaning they actively and vocally support almost any action which helps them
maintain order in prison (Crewe, 2009; Sparks et al., 1996). However, despite this body of
research, there are still gaps in our understanding of how prison staff do their job, and cor-
rectional officers remain some of the least understood actors in the criminal justice system
(Arnold, 2016).
This lack of understanding corresponds with a general decline in empirical research on
prison life in North America more generally (Simon, 2000; Wacquant, 2002). In Canada,
where we do our work, there is a notable lack of independent social science research con-
ducted inside of prisons (but see Bucerius & Haggerty, 2019; Pelvin, 2019; Tetrault et al.,
2020). A major reason for this is because, in many jurisdictions, it can be challenging to
secure research access to prisons (Britton, 2003). Overall, the decline in research conducted
inside prisons leaves major gaps in our understanding of how prison officials and staff deal
with new and emerging challenges of any sort (Bucerius & Haggerty, 2019).
Prisons, and by extension, prison staff, have been the subject of considerable public com-
mentary in the evolving debate over how to best prevent radicalization. To appreciate why
and to understand how this issue shapes officers’ perceptions, it is necessary to briefly con-
textualize the historical links between prison and radicalization (Hamm, 2013; Roy, 2017).
Prisons and extremist movements have a long, shared history. Observers in popular and
academic circles have drawn a causal relationship, conflating...
To continue reading
Request your trial