Women in Solitary Confinement: Relationships, Pseudofamilies, and the Limits of Control
| Author | Vivian Aranda-Hughes,Jillian J. Turanovic,Daniel P. Mears,George B. Pesta |
| Published date | 01 January 2021 |
| Date | 01 January 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1557085120961441 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2020
Article
Feminist Criminology
2021, Vol. 16(1) 47 –72
Women in Solitary
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Confinement: Relationships,
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085120961441
DOI: 10.1177/1557085120961441
journals.sagepub.com/home/fcx
Pseudofamilies, and the
Limits of Control
Vivian Aranda-Hughes1 , Jillian J. Turanovic1,
Daniel P. Mears1, and George B. Pesta1
Abstract
Drawing on qualitative data from focus groups with correctional personnel in one
of the nation’s largest women’s prisons, this study examines staff perceptions of
how incarcerated women cope with long-term solitary confinement. We find that
women’s strong ties to other women and their prison pseudofamilies may influence
the behaviors that explain their placement and stays in solitary confinement. We
find, too, that women are perceived to go to extreme lengths to build and maintain
relationships with other women. The findings showcase unintended consequences
of solitary confinement, raise questions about its effectiveness, and highlight the
limits of institutional control.
Keywords
solitary confinement, women, pseudofamilies, prison management, correctional staff
During the get-tough era, correctional systems moved away from reform and rehabili-
tation and turned to punitive, control-oriented efforts to manage prison populations
(King, 1999; Mears, 2016; Pratt, 2019; Ward & Werlich, 2003). A marked example of
this shift has been the greater reliance on solitary confinement for establishing prison
order and control (Frost & Monteiro, 2016; Kreager & Kruttschnitt, 2018). Solitary
confinement was developed as a mechanism to manage the “worst of the worst”—vio-
lent individuals thought to pose significant threats to institutional safety and security
1Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
Corresponding Author:
Vivian Aranda-Hughes, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 112 South
Copeland Street, Eppes Hall, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1273, USA.
Email: vhughes@fsu.edu
48
Feminist Criminology 16(1)
(Briggs et al., 2003; Mears & Castro, 2006; Riveland, 1999). Yet, it is not always the
“worst” people who ultimately end up in solitary housing. Incarcerated persons can
instead be segregated for a variety of reasons, including for administrative, disciplin-
ary, or protection purposes. Their medical or mental health conditions may contribute
to placements, as can the need for protecting certain at-risk individuals, and, not least,
their levels of defiance or violence (Kurki & Morris, 2001; Labrecque & Mears, 2019;
Lovell et al., 2000).
Due in no small part to the growth in its use, solitary confinement has become a
topic of contentious debate. Although opponents criticize it for being too harsh, isolat-
ing, and harmful to the mental health of those placed into the housing (Reiter, 2016;
Rhodes, 2004; Shalev, 2014), others have noted that correctional officials find it useful
and necessary from a managerial standpoint, and that its harms have been overstated
(see, generally, Garcia, 2016; Morgan et al., 2016; Walters, 2018). Scholars have
drawn attention to the diverse effects that isolation may have, as well as the limited
empirical evidence to support certain critiques of such confinement (Frost & Monteiro,
2016; Mears et al., 2019). Empirical studies in fact provide a mixed portrait—some
studies find evidence of adverse impacts on mental health, prison misconduct, and
post-release recidivism (e.g., Cloyes et al., 2006; Labrecque et al., 2020; Mears &
Bales, 2009), while others do not find statistically or substantively significant differ-
ences (Chadick et al., 2018; Clark, 2018; Labrecque, 2019; Lucas & Jones, 2019;
Morris, 2016; O’Keefe et al., 2013; see, generally, Labrecque & Smith, 2019; Morgan
et al., 2016). Adding to this confusion is a key limitation associated with this body of
work: research has been largely conducted on samples exclusively or primarily com-
prised of men. Women too are subjected to solitary confinement, but their experiences
have been almost uniformly overlooked. This oversight is striking given the wealth of
research that shows that men and women differ in how they respond to conditions of
confinement (Kruttschnitt et al., 2000; Wright et al., 2012).
Perhaps the most salient gendered difference is that women have been found to be
more “relational” than their male counterparts—that is, relationships tend to be more
central to or hold greater primacy for women (Kolb & Palys, 2018, p. 679). In prisons,
that has been found to translate into an emphasis on forming strong interpersonal rela-
tionships, or pseudofamilies, with fellow incarcerated women (Giallombardo, 1966;
Harner, 2004; Maeve, 1999). Pseudofamilial relationships can be platonic or sexual.
They provide support and a sense of belonging to help women adjust to the depriva-
tions of life behind bars (DeBell, 2001; Diaz-Cotto, 2006; Severance, 2005; Ward &
Kassebaum, 1965). Involvement in pseudofamilies is thereby a means by which
women cope with the stresses of incarceration and the painful separation from loved
ones on the outside (Greer, 2000; Propper, 1982; Severance, 2004).
Because relationships play such a key role in the lives of incarcerated women, it is
unclear how women experience and adapt to solitary confinement—a form of segrega-
tion that is, by design, intended to isolate individuals and to disrupt or “knife off” their
ties to others. Solitary confinement may therefore be acutely painful for and disruptive
to women, for whom relationships can be of primary importance. Although recent
estimates suggest that over 20% of incarcerated women in the U.S. spend some time
Aranda-Hughes et al.
49
in segregated housing over the course of a given year (relative to 18% of men) (Beck,
2015), we know little about how solitary confinement is used within women’s prison
systems, why women are placed into it, how isolation impacts women’s well-being
(during their time in prison, as well as post-release), or how women adjust to being cut
off from pseudofamilies and other close relationships while spending time in this type
of correctional housing. Not least, we know little about what women’s behavior in
solitary confinement may reveal about institutional control in prisons from the per-
spectives of those who work most closely with them—correctional personnel.
Correctional personnel spend the vast majority of their workdays observing and inter-
acting with women in solitary confinement, and thus hold a unique vantage point in
which they can provide insights into why women are placed into the housing and how
they behave during their time in it.
Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to shed light on the ways in which incar-
cerated women are perceived by correctional personnel to cope with and adapt to soli-
tary confinement. We use qualitative data from prison personnel in one of the largest
women’s prisons in the United States. We focus exclusively on long-term solitary
confinement, which is reserved for individuals deemed to be too difficult to manage
within the broader general population. Long-term solitary confinement is distinct from
short-term disciplinary segregation or confinement in protective custody in that it is
used for management purposes, and individuals housed there typically stay for a mini-
mum of 6 months.
The study reveals two important findings. First, women’s strong ties to other incar-
cerated women and pseudofamilies are perceived by personnel to drive many of the
behaviors that explain their placement into (and continued stay in) solitary confine-
ment. Second, because isolation can be acutely painful, the staff observe that women
rely on diverse strategies to build or maintain relationships with other women, and in
so doing, subvert institutional control over their behaviors while in solitary confine-
ment. By bringing incarcerated women to the forefront, this study provides a deeper
understanding of the potential impacts of solitary confinement on an overlooked popu-
lation, and it raises questions about the ability of such confinement to impose order
and control within women’s prisons.
The Punitive Turn and the Rise of Solitary Confinement
The punitive era began in the mid-1970s and continues today. It has given rise to an
ideological shift in criminal justice and correctional policies. This shift, ignited from
political discourse and a growing embrace of retributive and incapacitation-focused
responses to offending, introduced tough-on-crime policies, such as three strike laws
and determinant sentencing, to reduce crime in communities (Cullen et al., 2000;
Pratt, 2019). The result was dramatic growth in the prison population (Kaeble &
Cowhig, 2018), with much of the rise disproportionately affecting people of color
(Carson, 2018). Overlooked has been the fact that women, too, were influenced
greatly by the punitive turn—their rate of incarceration rose by 744% between 1980
and 2016 (Carson, 2018; Kruttschnitt, 2010; Sered & Norton-Hawk, 2019). To deal
50
Feminist Criminology 16(1)
with the larger population—both male and female—prisons increasingly moved
from a rehabilitative ideal to a more managerial one that emphasized the efficient
warehousing, order, and control of individuals (Cullen & Gendreau, 1989; Feeley &
Simon, 1992; Mears, 2013). The expanded use of...
To continue reading
Request your trial