Notes

Introduction

1. When conducting commissioned research or as an assistant of a Student Penitentiary Group in 1976–83, I visited 13 penal institutions including those in Iława, Czarne, Fordon, Lodz (Sikawa), Goleniow, Nowogard, Uherce, Lupkow, and Moszczaniec (these three in the Bieszczady region), Lubliniec, Sieradz, Mielecin, and Słuzewiec (Warsaw), and three reformatories in Warsaw, Białystok, and Malbork.

1. A Reserved Terrain

1. See E. Goffman, Asylums (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976), and M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage, 1979).

2. See P. Moczydłowski and A. Rzeplinski, “Group Protests in Penal Institutions: The Polish Case,” Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 24, no. 1, pp. 10–19.

3. “The functionary is obliged to keep secret all issues with which he became acquainted indirectly or directly in connection with the performance of official duties, if those issues have been recognized as secret or if their secrecy is demanded by public welfare or official reasons. . . . The obligation to keep the secret is maintained both during work and after discharge. . . . The Minister of Justice or a superior authorized by him can release the functionary from the duty of keeping the secret in certain instances.” From article 24 of the law concerning prison staffs issued Dec. 10, 1959; see Dziennik Ustaw PRL (hereafter Dz. U.) [Government Regulations and Law Gazette of the Polish People’s Republic], Warsaw, May 31, 1984, no. 2.

4. Concerning the size of the prison population in Poland, for instance, the prison functionaries were aware of it and protested against this state of affairs in 1981; see Moczydłowski and Rzeplinski, “Protesty zbiorowe w zakładach karnych” [Group protests in penal institutions] typescript, 1982, library of the Institute of Social Prevention and Resocialization, Warsaw University (hereafter IPSiR, UW).

5. The political functions of prisons are discussed by D. Daffe in Correctional Policy and Prison Organization (New York: The Free Press, 1975), and D. Katz and R. L. Kahn, Społeczna psychologia organizacji [The social psychology of organization] (Warsaw: PWN, 1979).

6. Foucault also treats the prison as an instrument in governing: “the prison transformed the punitive procedure into a penitentiary technique; the careful archipelago transported this technique from the penal institution to the entire social body” (Discipline and Punish, p. 298).

7. See Katz and Kahn, Spoleczna psychologia, p. 178.

8. T. Szymanowski, “Udziai społeczenstwa w wykonaniu kary pozbawienia wolnosci w Polsce po II wojnie swiatowej” [The participation of society in the execution of a sentence of imprisonment in Poland after World War II] in Spory wokoł reformy wieziennictwa [Debates concerning the reform of the penal system], S. Walczak, ed. (Warsaw: IPSiR UW, 1985), pp. 127–52.

9. R. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1949), p. 303.

10. Ibid.

11. In Poland the Central Administration of Penal Institutions in the Department of Justice initiated numerous closed symposia and conferences on the prison system, with the participation of authorities and academic scholars. For example, a symposium on “Negative Symptoms of Prison Subculture—Measures and Methods of Counteraction” was organized by the Central Administration and held in Popowo in December 1974. Material from the symposium was published under the same title by the Central Administration in April 1975. An ideological conference of high-level personnel took place Feb. 24–26, 1983, also in Popowo. Material from this conference, issued by the Central Administration, also contained an analysis of the situation in the prison system.

12. The Institute of Research into Court Law, for example, is part of the Department of Justice. In ruling no. 73 of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers [Zarzadzenie Prezesa Rady Ministrow], Sept. 28, 1973, concerning the establishment of the institute, which was formed as a result of a transformation of the Center of Research into Criminality, we read: “§3. Control over the institute is kept by the minister of justice. . . . §5. The detailed range of the activity of the institute and the range and method of activity of its organs are delineated by a statute given by the minister of justice. . . . §6. The organizational structure is defined by the minister of justice.” In a ruling of the Minister of Justice of Oct. 31, 1973, concerning the statute and organizational structure of the institute, we read: “§16.2. Suitable posts in the institute can be filled by employees of other organizational units of the department with the retention of the heretofore mentioned rights.” In practice this meant that employees of the prison system were employed as scientific workers of the institute. Moreover, the Central Administration employed all the workers of certain departments of the institute, who retained all privileges: ranks in prison staff, wages, etc. Paragraph 4 of the ruling states: “Personnel questions of the institute are managed by the personnel department of the Ministry of Justice. ...”

13. Ruling no. 73 of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers says: “§4. The purpose of the institute is to organize and conduct scientific research regarding the efficacy of measures applied by the courts and the regularities of their execution.” Students and workers of the Institute of Social Prevention and Resocialization of Warsaw University were turned down by the Central Administration in connection with research they wanted to carry out in penal institutions.

14. That the prison system is an organization with monopolistic ambitions is emphasized by Katz and Kahn, Spoleczna psychologia. See also P. Moczydłowski and A. Rzeplinski, “Warunki i problemy resocjalizacji wiezniow pracujacych jako robotnicy w zakładach karnych w Polsce w latach 70-tych” [Conditions and problems of the resocialization of inmates employed as workers in penal institutions in Poland during the 1970s] in Problemy patologii i przestepczosci [Problems of pathology and criminality], ed. A. Wojcik (Warsaw: ANS, 1985), pp. 456–523.

15. A list of such prohibitions was formulated by the prison system in reply to a request by an academic investigator concerning permission to undertake research in penal institutions.

16. See K. R. Popper, Open Society and Its Enemies, vol. 2 (London: Compton Printing, 1974), pp. 212–23.

17. Merton writes: “In the totalitarian society, the centralization of institutional control is a source of opposition to science; in other structures, the extension of scientific research is of greater importance. Dictatorship organizes, centralizes and hence intensifies sources of resistance against science which in a liberal structure remain unorganized, diffuse and often latent” (Social Theory, p. 303).

2. Prison Paranoia

1. See the law on prison staffs issued Dec. 10, 1959, articles 2 and 10. The legal foundations of the organization of this service are provided above all by that law; by ruling no. 52/82, Oct. 10, 1982, of the Central Administration of Penal Institutions of the Department of Justice [Ustawa o Słuzbie Wieziennej CZZK Ministra Sprawiedliwosci] concerning the organizational structure and tasks of the regional administration of penal institutions and detention centers; and by the ruling of Nov. 4, 1982, of the director of the Central Administration on establishing the detailed range of activities for organizational units and posts in the regional administration of penal institutions and organizational units in detention and penal institutions. The 1982 documents were never published and unfortunately remain mostly secret; legal publications contain only small excerpts. In preparing this chapter I based my statements both on published sources and on information I collected myself.

2. See excerpts of ruling no. 52/82 in Wybor tekstow zrodłowych do nauki prawa karnego i wykonawczego [Select source material for the study of executive penal law], ed. S. Lelental (Lodz: UL, 1984), pp. 87–92.

3. See excerpts of ruling no. 6/82 in Wybor tekstow zrodłowych, pp. 93–99.

4. See excerpts of ruling no. 52/82 in Wybor tekstow zrodłowych, pp. 87–92.

5. M. Porowski, “Funkcje administracji penitencjarnej” [Functions of the penitentiary administration], in Problemy wspołczesnej penitencjarystyki w Polsce[Problems of contemporary penitentiaries in Poland] (Warsaw: Wydaw. Praw., 1984), pp. 138–51.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. See Moczydłowski and Rzeplinski, “Warunki i problemy”; Porowski, “Funkcje”; and Praca skazanych odbywajacych kare pozbawienia wolnosci [The work of convicts in confinement], ed. T. Bojarski, Z. Hołda, and J. Baranowski (Lublin: UMCS, 1985).

9. See excerpts of ruling no. 6/82 in Wybor tekstow zrodłowych, pp. 87–92, and Porowski, “Funkcje.”

10. Porowski, “Funkcje,” p. 150.

11. See Moczydłowski and Rzeplinski, “Warunki i problemy,” and Porowski, “Funkcje.”

12. Cf. M. Porowski, “Administracja penitencjarna: Zasady organizacji i kierowania” [Penitentiary administration: Principles of organization and management], in Studia Kryminologiczne, Kryminalistyczne i Penitencjarne [Criminological, criminalistic and penitentiary studies], vol. 9 (Warsaw, 1979), pp. 339–61. See also Ruling of the Minister of Justice [Zarzadzanie Ministra Sprawiedliwosci], 12 May 1981, concerning the performance and course of service and certain rights and duties of the functionaries of the prison staff in Dziennik Urzedowy Ministra Sprawiedliwosci (hereafter Dz. U. M. S.) [Regulations gazette of the ministry of justice], 13 July 1981, no. 3, item 14, and the ruling of the Minister of Justice, 28 Sept. 1981, concerning the establishment of the rights of superiors in certain issues of the functionaries of the prison staff, in Dz. U. M. S., Warsaw, 30 Nov. 1981, no. 5, item 30; and the cited ruling no. 52/82 of the Minister of Justice and ruling no. 6/82 of the Director of the Central Administration of the Penal Institutions. This problem is discussed more extensively in chapter 3.

13. Cf. S. Walczak, Prawo penitencjarne. Zarys systemu [Penitentiary law: An outline of a system] (Warsaw: PWN, 1972), p. 222.

14. J. Zieleniewski understands the duty to mean such an activity on the part of a member of an institution “so that certain things at certain moments would find themselves in a state defined by a moral, legal, customary, or conventional norm or in a state indicated by the director of an ensemble authorized to issue such directives,” cf. J. Zieleniewski, Organizacja i zarzadzanie [Organization and management] (Warsaw: PWN, 1979), p. 402.

15. Cf. M. Porowski, “Administracja penitencjarna,” p. 358.

16. Kodeks Karny Wykonawczy (henceforth KKW) [Executive penal code, article 38, para. 2].

17. M. Porowski, “Administracja penitencjarna,” pp. 358–59.

18. This excerpt is from the work by Z. Karl, “Krotki zarys struktury organizacjinej polskiego systemu wieziennego w latach 1944–56” [A brief outline of the organizational structure of the Polish penal system in the years 1944–1956], Przeglad Wieziennictwa, no. 2/17 (Warsaw, 1962), pp. 3, 4, 5. It concerns the establishment of the duties of a governor of a penal institution according to an instruction concerning the prison regulations, issued on 11 June 1945. See Karl, “Krotki zarys,” p. 42. Considering the difficult access to various regulations, which are sometimes secret or intended for internal use only, the range of the duties is illustrated by available material. Eventual divergencies with the present-day state are not significant enough to distort the ideas contained in my study.

19. For the range of duties belonging to various directors, see Karl, “Krotki zarys,” pp. 42–44; the unpublished regulation issued by the Minister of Justice on 1 Oct. 1982; and regulation no. 6/82 of the Director of the Central Administration of the Penal Institutions, of 4 Nov. 1982.

20. Karl, “Krotki zarys,” pp. 44–51.

21. See the regulations concerning the range and organization of penitentiary work in penal institutions and detention centers issued by the Ministry of Justice, Central Administration of Penal Institutions, Warsaw, 1977, pp. 53–57.

22. I am unable to give sources for these regulations. The effect of their impact is shown, however, by Moczydłowski and Rzeplinski, “Warunki i problemy”: “In the light of the statements of the higher officers of the prison staff one should also negatively estimate the work of the functionaries. In the 1975–1978 period, 22.9 percent of the newly employed junior officers were fired. Of this number, 11 percent were dismissed for disciplinary reasons, while 28 percent left of their own will. In the same period, 31.2 percent of the newly admitted functionaries were punished for misconduct. Abuse of alcohol during work was an easily discernible phenomenon . . . together with the mutual corruption of the functionaries and the inmates and the exploitation of the convicts for the personal purposes of the officers. In 1979, cases of serious disciplinary misdeeds committed by the functionaries were considered by the administration of the prison as rather numerous, although less so than a year earlier” (p. 472).

23. Karl, “Krotki zarys,” pp. 30–31.

24. Goffman, Asylums, pp. 15–21.

25. Among the postulates of the prisoners protesting in 1981, “a large group of the postulates of the prisoners directly concerned the functionaries of the prison staff. The inmates demanded: the calling to account of the functionaries of the prison staff who (a) are guilty of beating the prisoners, of hanging them by their limbs on barred windows and of applying various forms of pressure, (b) force the inmates to make false statements by the application of various forms of pressure, (c) employ prisoners on their own private property and animal farms for construction work, (d) are guilty of wastefulness and the theft of prisoners’ possessions or state property, (e) are guilty of active assault toward passive prisoners . . . ,” Moczydłowski and Rzeplinski, “Warunki i problemy,” pp. 518–19.

26. D. Kalinich, The Inmate Economy (Toronto: D.C. Heath, 1980), p. 7, draws attention to a similar state in prisons in Canada and calls it prison paranoia: “No one totally trusts anyone else and a total stranger is not trusted at all.”

27. See G. H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934), pp. 212–26 (Polish edition).

28. E. H. Sutherland describes one technique of theft committed by professional burglars in which they involve the victim in illegal deals and then steal from him. The participation of the victim in the illicit deals protects the perpetrators from the victim’s notifying the police. See Sutherland, “Behavior System in Crimes,” in Subcultures, ed. David O. Arnold (Berkeley, Calif.: Glendessary Press, 1973), pp. 9–20.

29. See E. Mokrzycki, Zalozenia socjologii humanistycznej [Premises of humanistic sociology] (Warsaw: PWN, 1971), p. 33, and J. Habermas, Teoria i praktyka [Theory and practice] (Warsaw: PWN, 1983).

30. See G. Simmel, Sociology [Polish edition] (Warsaw: PWN, 1975), p. 387.

31. See E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life [copyright 1959, E. Goffman, Polish edition] (Warsaw: PIW, 1981), pp. 54, 59, and 101.

32. See M. A. Simon et al.. Centralization, Decentralization in Organizing the Controllers Department (New York: Controllership Foundation, 1954), p. 85.

33. See J. Zieleniewski, Organizacja zespołow ludzkich [Organization of human ensembles] (Warsaw: PWN, 1978), p. 164.

34. This situation involved workers and students from the Department of Law at the University of Salzburg who visited penal institution L in September 1983.

3. Learning from the Failure of Previous Studies

1. Institution B was closest to this model among those institutions studied. But the essential elements of the particular stages of research occurred in all the institutions which I visited. As a rule, experiences of the prison communities with research and investigators are infrequent or nonexistent.

2. This took place in penal institution A in 1975. The research was conducted by a psychologist from Warsaw University. I was told the story by the functionaries who claimed that they intentionally selected a noisy group of inmates “because he was being very clever about work in a prison and thought that he could deal with the crooks like a counselor.”

3. This took place in institution A in January 1976.

4. A worker at Warsaw University who conducted research in institution A in January 1976.

4. To Do the Study in Any Way Possible

1. Mokrzycki, Zalozenia, pp. 90–91.

2. Cf. W. J. Thomas, F. Znaniecki, Chłop polski w Europie i Ameryce [The Polish peasant in Europe and America], vol. 1 (Warsaw: LSW, 1976), pp. 43–44.

3. This practice is by no means rare among anthropologists who undertake field work. Robert A. Levine writes: “The scientific investigator unacquainted with anthropology may ask, ‘Why not formulate a single hypothesis or a set of hypotheses as precisely as possible before field work?’ The usual answer is that the anthropologist planning a field trip is faced with the prospect of making an enormous investment of personal resources in a research setting of which he is likely to be appallingly ignorant beforehand” (“Research in Anthropological Field Work,” in A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthropology, ed. R. Narrol and R. Cohen [New York: Columbia University Press, 1973], p. 184).

4. This problem is accentuated by ethnomethodologists; for example, the research conducted by Herold Garfinkel on the passing of sentences by jury in Studies in Ethnomethodology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1967), pp. 104–15.

5. Cf. Simmel, Sociology, pp. 387–88.

6. Cf. Goffman, The Presentation, p. 111.

7. J. Szczepanski, Elementarne pojecia socjologii [Elementary conceptions of sociology] (Warsaw: PWN, 1967), p. 124.

8. K. Braun, a psychologist in the prison in Tarnow, describes the circumstances of obtaining information:

The most valuable materials are those which are provided by observing the life of the inmates and by analyzing secret notes and messages. One should add that complete utilization of that material was possible thanks to a cooperation of the Department of Security and the Penitentiary Department. ... A large number of these messages were supplied by the Security Department. . . . Among the juvenile convicts I obtained most information about the code from the persecuted and victimized inmates, the so-called non-people, who, embittered by the wrongs suffered at the hands of the code-users, provided me with extremely interesting material. This is why former code users, and current non-people, expelled from the code and freed from the compulsion to retain the secret, offered exhaustive data concerning “hidden life” . . . One could also make use of facts supplied by the code users who, caught while committing some offenses in connection with the code, made explanations.

See “Drugie zycie wsrod skazanych młodocianych” [Hidden life among juvenile offenders] in Negatywne przejawy podkultury: Srodki i sposby przeciwdzialania[Negative symptoms of prison subculture: Measures and methods of counteraction] (Warsaw: CZZK, 1975), pp. 39–40.

9. Braun also indicates the garrulity of the prisoners. “In conversations with the code users one can utilize their loquacity and readiness to show off. They often involuntarily say more than they would want to say, and the most intelligent among the prisoners can be provoked to talk about the code and during the discussion, by defending their attitude, they unintentionally also provide some facts” (ibid., p. 40).

10. This partly involved eliciting frustration used by the ethnomethodologists in their experiments by undermining the feeling of joint reality, created in the interactions. See Garfinkel, Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 77–103. I did the same albeit much more delicately, in order not to shatter the interaction with the persons under examination, and only to produce the need to supply me with additional information, to convince me or correct mistaken convictions.

11. Most probably this tendency is produced by the very situation of isolation. The specificity of experiences, the feeling of injustice, the lack of a possibility of their articulation all create a strong state of tension and the need to share one’s experiences, for which it is difficult to find a form of expression—the inmates lose their train of thought and say whatever is on their minds at the moment.

12. See M. Ziołkowski, “O czterech mozliwosciach socjologicznego podejscia do zjawisk jezykowych” [On four possibilities of a sociological approach to linguistic phenomena] in Zagadnienia socjo- i psycholingwistyki [The problems of socio- and psycholinguistics] (Warsaw: Ossolineum, 1980), p. 153.

13. See J. Gumperz, “The Speech Community,” in Language and Social Context, ed. P. P. Giglioli (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), p. 225.

14. D. Hymes, “Socjolingwistyka i etnografia mowienia” [Sociolinguistics and the ethnography of speech] in Jezyk i społ’eczenstwo [Language and society] (Warsaw: Czytelnik, 1980), pp. 41–82.

15. B. Gieremek, “O jezykach tajemnych” [On secret languages] in Teksty 2/50, 1980, p. 20.

16. See also H. Michalski and J. Morawski, Słownik gwary wieziennej [Dictionary of prison argot] (Warsaw: MSW, 1971).

17. Gieremek, “O jezykach tajemnych,” p. 26.

18. Cf. 1. Kurcz, Psycholingwistyka [Psycholinguistics] (Warsaw: PWN, 1976), p. 22.

19. Ibid., pp. 22–23.

20. Ibid., p. 23.

21. J. Kurczewski, “Bluzg, grypserka, ‘drugie zycie’: interpretacje podkultury” [Curse, code, ‘hidden life’: Interpretations of a subculture] in Git ludzie w szkole [Git people in school], ed. M. Kosewski (Warsaw: UW, 1981), p. 97.

22. For more on this subject, see A. V. Cicourel, “Cognitive-Linguistic Aspects of Social Research,” Sozialwissenschaftliche Annalen, Band 1 (Vienna: Physica Verlag, 1977), pp. 1–21.

23. The incident took place in institution A.

24. For more on this subject, see Cicourel, “Cognitive-Linguistic Aspects of Social Research”; and Cicourel, Cognitive Sociology: Language and Meaning in Social Interaction (New York: The Free Press, 1974), pp. 99–140.

25. Cf. Ziołkowski, Znaczenie, interakcja, rozumienie [Significance, interaction, understanding] (Warsaw: PWN, 1981), p. 256.

26. Cicourel, Cognitive Sociology, pp. 99–140.

27. Ziołkowski, Znaczenie, p. 266. Cf. also Mokrzycki’s criticism of the concept of understanding as interpreted by S. Nowak in Mokrzycki, Załozenie, and S. Nowak, Metodologia badan społecznych [Methodology of social research] (Warsaw: PWN, 1985).

5. Prisons Selected for the Study

1. S. Małkowski, “Drugie zycie w zakładzie wychowawczym” [Hidden life in a reformatory] Etyka, no. 8 (1971), pp. 135–47; Małkowski, “Cele i wartosci ‘Ludzi’ ” [Goals and values of the “People”] in Git Ludzie w Szkole, ed. Kosewski, pp. 27–50; A. Pilinow and J. Wasilewski, “Nieformalna stratyfikacja wychowankow zakładu poprawczego” [Informal stratification of inmates of a correctional institution] Etyka, no. 8 (1971), pp. 149–64; S. Jedlewski, Nieletni w zakiadzie poprawczym [Juveniles in a correctional institution] (Warsaw: Wydaw. Praw., 1972); B. Malak, “Własnosci osobowosci a rodzaj uczestnictwa w podkulturze zakładu poprawczego” [Personality properties and the type of participation in the subculture of a correctional institution] in Z zagadnien psychologii agresji[Select problems of the psychology of aggression], ed. A. Fraczek (Warsaw: PIPS, 1975), pp. 201–31; R. L. Drwal, Osobowosc wychowankow zakładu poprawczego[The personality of the inmates of reformatories] (Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1981).

2. M. Rydz, “Drugie zycie wiezniow młodocianych w zakładzie karnosledczym w X” [Hidden life of juvenile convicts in the penal detention center in X] Etyka, no. 8 (1971), pp. 161–75; B. Jarzebowska-Baziak, Praca wychowawcza w zakładzie karnym dla młodocianych [Educational work in a penal institution for juvenile offenders] (Warsaw: Wydaw. Praw., 1972); Braun, Drugie zycie.

3. B. Zielinska, “Strategiaresocjalizacyjnarecydywistow” [The resocialization strategy for recidivists] (MA thesis cited by A. Podgorecki, Zarys socjologii prawa[An outline of the sociology of law] [Warsaw: PWN, 1971]); M. Gordon, “Drugie zycie wsrod skazanych dorosłych pierwszy raz karanych i recidywistow” [Hidden life among the adult first offenders and recidivists] in Negatywne przejawy.

4. A. Podgorecki, “Drugie zycie: Proba hipotezy wyjasniajacej” [Hidden life: An attempted explanatory hypothesis] Etyka, no. 8 (1971), pp. 177–83; J. Kwasniewski, “Koncepcja podkultur dewiacynych” [The conception of deviatory subcultures] in Zagadnienia patologii społecznej [Problems of social pathology], ed. A. Podgorecki (Warsaw: PWN, 1976), pp. 203–41; Kosewski, Agrsywni przestepcy [Aggressive criminals] (Warsaw: Wydaw. Praw., 1977); Kurczewski, “Bluzg, grypserka, drugie zycie”; Cz. Czapow, “Style oddziaływania wychowawczego” [Styles of educational influence] in Socjotechnika: Style działania[Sociotechnology: Styles of activity], ed. A. Podgorecki (Warsaw: KiW, 1972), pp. 169–212; S. Jedlewski, Analiza pedagogiczna systemu dyscyplinarno-izolacyjnego w resocjalizacji nieletnich [A pedagogical analysis of the disciplinary-isolation system in the resocialization of juveniles] (Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1981).

5. See KKW [Executive penal code], chapter 9, art. 39, paragraph 1.

6. Cf. S. Walczak, Prawo penitencjarne w zarysie [Penitentiary law in an outline] (Warsaw: PWN, 1972), pp. 211–15.

7. Ibid., pp. 215–22.

6. Among “Crooks”

1. Cf. A. Podgorecki, Zarys socjologii prawa [An outline of the sociology of law] (Warsaw: PWN, 1971); J. Kwasniewski, “Koncepcja podkultur dewiacyjnych” [The conception of deviatory subcultures] in Zagadnienia patologii społecznej [Problems of social pathology], ed. A. Podgorecki (Warsaw: PWN, 1970), pp. 203–41; M. Los, “Peer Subcultures in Correctional Institutions: Comparative Approach” (typescript in IPSiR, UW); R. L. Drwal, Osobowosc wychowankow zakładow poprawczych [The personality of the inmates of reformatories] (Wroclaw: Ossolineum, 1981), and works cited in note 4 of chapter 5 of this book.

2. This attitude appears to be shared by Maria Los and Palmer Anderson, who describe “hidden life” in Polish correctional institutions: “The most important part of social life in the correctional institutions for boys is ‘grypserka’—the ‘secret code’[my emphasis] which consists of special language and values pertaining to social interaction among ‘people’ on the one hand, and ‘slaves’ on the other. Rules concern mainly the ‘cursed,’ the ‘rituals,’ the ‘oaths’ and the ‘spying’ (denouncing or informing). The rules are particularly important in determining and perpetuating the social division: ‘people’ and ‘slaves’ and are very much adhered to in determining the status of a new boy coming to the institution”; see M. Los and P. Anderson, “The Second Life: A Cross-cultural View of Peer Subcultures in Correctional Institutions” (typescript in IPSiR, UW).

3. M. Los writes: “According to Polish data, we have the following picture: a very sharp division exists of inmates into the clearly dichotomized, basic categories which in juvenile argot are called ‘people’ as the dominant caste, and ‘slaves’ (non-people) referring to the subordinate caste”; see Los and Anderson, “The Second Life,” p. 3.

4. Los and Anderson write: “The secret life in correctional and treatment institutions in Poland and the United States have much in common. This finding is not surprising as the structural and functional characteristics of these institutions are, to an extent, similar in both countries” (ibid., p. 25); R. L. Drwal, Osobowosc wychowankow, pp. 13–14.

5. Despite the fact that the “fests” and the “git people” treat the other prisoners as “victims” they distinguish three separate categories: the “Swiss,” the typical victims and the “fags.” Membership in these groups depends on the way in which an inmate was “victimized.”

6. The message does not contain any data which would make it possible to identify the addressee by the administration. The writing and sending of such messages is forbidden.

7. The prison staff does not allow inmates “to be deprived of the code by force” in its presence. It does, however, favor the “victimization” of the “git people”; sometimes, the staff abandon their posts by leaving the “fests” with the “git people” so the former can “decode” the latter.

8. Faience—an illegally produced article, or a constituent part.

9. Cf. G. M. Sykes, The Society of Captives (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1958); G. M. Sykes, “The Pains of Imprisonment,” in The Sociology of Punishment and Correction, N. B. Johnston et al., eds. (New York: Wiley, 1962), pp. 131–37; Ch. Tittle, “Inmate Organization: Sex Differentiation and the Influence of Criminal Subculture,” in American Sociological Review 34 (1969), pp. 492–505; A. Etzioni, A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organizations (New York: The Free Press, 1975); Podgorecki, “Drugie zycie”; Kurczewski, “Bluzg, grypserka, drugie zycie”; Małkowski, “Drugie zycie”; B. Waligora, Funkcjonowanie człowieka w warunkach izolacji wieziennej [The functioning of man in conditions of penal isolation] (Poznan: UAM, 1974); and others.

10. Cf. I Irwin and D. Cressey, “Thieves, Convicts, and the Inmate Culture,” Social Problems, no. 10 (1970); H. Clines, “The Determinants of Normative Patterns in Correctional Institutions,” in Scandinavian Studies in Criminology II, ed. N. Christie (Oslo: Oslo University Press, 1968), pp. 173–84; C. Wellford, “Factors Associated with Adoption of the Inmate Code: A Study of Normative Assimilation,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 58 (June 1967), pp. 197–203; D. Clemmer, The Prison Community (Boston: 1940); B. Schwartz, “Pre-institutional vs. Situational Influence in a Correctional Community,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 63 (1971), pp. 532–42; Ch. W. Thomas, “Theoretical Perspectives on Prisonization: A Comparison of the Importation and Deprivation Modes,” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 68, no. 1 (1977), pp. 135–45; Cz. Czapow, “Style oddziaływania”; Zielinska, “Strategia resocjalizacyjna”; and others.

7. Between the “Screws” and the “Crooks”

1. Cf. works by Sykes, Podgorecki, Małkowski, and others.

2. Cf. E. E. Flyn, “Pattern and Sources of Prison Violence: Implications for a Theory and Control,” Seminaire international sur les Lomgues points d’emprisonement (Montreal, 1978), p. 304; P. Wheatley, “Riots and Serious Mass Disorder,” Prison Service Journal 44 (October 1981), pp. 1–4; P. Moczydłowski and A. Rzeplinski, “Group Protests in Penal Institutions in Poland in 1981” (a research report), Warsaw University, 1982.

3. See also Podgorecki, “Drugie zycie.”

4. Sykes, The Society of Captives.

5. See B. J. McCarthy, “Keeping an Eye on the Keeper: Prison Corruption and Its Control,” The Prison Journal 2 (Fall-Winter 1984), pp. 113–25; Kalinich, The Inmate Economy.

6. Cf. cited works by Thomas, Czapow, Irwin and Cressey, and Clemmer and other supporters of the importation theory.

7. It appears that certain observed phenomena concerning the attitude of the functionaries to the informal structures (“hidden life”) in Polish penal institutions were almost universal. This fact is supported by material from a symposium organized by the Central Administration of Penal Institutions and held in Popowo near Warsaw on December 16–17, 1974. This symposium was devoted to the collection of information on experiences regarding methods of overcoming “hidden life” and the preparation of new methods which would serve a more effective prevention and elimination of its symptoms. These materials were subsequently published in April 1975 (Warsaw) under the title “Negatywne przejawy podkultury wieziennej: Srodki i sposoby przeciwdziatania” [Negative symptoms of prison subculture: Measures and methods of counteraction]. In this chapter I cite opinions voiced during discussions at the conference and contained in the materials published by the Central Administration of Penal Institutions.

8. Cf. J. Korecki, director of the penitentiary department of the Central Administration of Penal Institutions; S. Wrona, deputy director of the penitentiary department of the Central Administration of Penal Institutions; J. Gorski, psychologist, employee of the Central Administration of Penal Institutions, in “Negative Symptoms of Prison Subculture,” pp. 12–38 (paper).

9. J. Korecki, S. Wrona, J. Gorski (Central Administration of Penal Institutions), “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 16 (report).

10. W. Szeler, director of the penitentiary department of the detention center in Warsaw-Białołeka, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 191.

11. B. Zajac, psychologist, senior counselor of the Voivodship Administration of Penal Institutions in Cracow, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 124.

12. Plutowski, director of a correctional institution in Malbork, in discussion, in “Negatywne przejawy,” pp. 112–17. The difficult situation in correctional institutions and hostels for juveniles is indicated by the use of the prison staff. Cf. Dz. U. M.S., Warsaw, 20 June 1983, no. 3, n. 12, and ruling of the Minister of Justice of 1 June 1983 concerning the discontinuation of active service by functionaries of the prison staff in certain reformatories and hostels for juveniles. This pertained to the institutions in Malbork, Swiec, Cracow-Witkowice, and Białystok.

13. Zajac, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 124.

14. P. Rymarski, director of the Voivodship Administration of Penal Institutions in Wroclaw, in the discussion, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 148.

15. K. Parciak, warden of the Detention Center in Warsaw-Białołeka, in the discussion, in “Negatywne przejawy,” pp. 185–86.

16. J. Swieconek, director of the penitentiary department of the penal institution in Iława, a voice in the discussion, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 192.

17. T. Szewczyk, deputy director of the security department in Strzelce Opolskie, a voice in the discussion, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 160; ibid., other participants in the discussion.

18. J. Korecki, S. Wrona, and J. Gorski (Central Administration of Penal Institutions), paper in “Negatywne przejawy,” as well as other voices in the discussion.

19. Ibid., pp. 27 and 32.

20. K. Strzepek, judge, head of department in the Department of Criminal Cases of the Ministry of Justice, in the discussion, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 157.

21. Korecki, Wrona, and Gorski, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 26.

22. Strzepek, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 159.

23. W. Kupiec, judge of a Voivodship Court, the penitentiary department in Wroclaw, in the discussion, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 138.

24. K. Braun, psychologist in the penal institution in Tarnow, in the discussion, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 145.

25. Moczydłowski and Rzeplinski, “Zatrudnienie wieziniow w polskim systemie penitencjarnym” [The employment of prisoners in the Polish penitentiary system] in Praca skazanych odbywajacych kare pozbawienia wolnosci, T. Bojarski et al., p. 25.

26. T. Judycki, director of the Voivodship Administration of Penal Institutions in Szczecin, in the discussion, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 128.

27. Korecki, Wrona, and Gorski, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 31.

28. Zajac, in “Negatywne przejawy,” pp. 1224–25.

29. Plutowski, “Negatywne przejawy,” pp. 118–19.

30. Szewczyk, “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 160.

31. Rymarski, “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 149.

32. “Wytyczne Dyrektora CZZK z dnia 2 kwietnia 1975 r. w sprawie przeciwdziaiania i zwalczania negatywnych przejawow podkultury wieziennej” [Guidelines of the director of the Central Administration of Penal Institutions of 2 April 1975 on the counteracting and overcoming the negative symptoms of prison subculture] in Przepisy w sprawie zakresu i organizacji pracy penitencjarnej w zakladach karnych i aresztach sledczych [Regulations concerning the range and organization of penitentiary work in penal institutions and detention centers], CZZK MS [Ministry of Justice], Warsaw, June 1977, pp. 132–42.

33. Ibid., p. 133.

34. The informers describe everything, and in particular those symptoms of “hidden life” which were described in the “Wytyczne Dyrektora CZZK z dnia 2 kwietnia 1975 r.”

35. Cf. Podgorecki, “Drugie zycie.”

36. Cf. also, Goffman, Asylums, pp. 15–22.

37. Cf. M. Zalewska, P. Moczydłowski, P. Sawicka, “Pojecie ‘ja’ u przestepcow: Wstepne sprawozdanie z badan” [The concept of 'I' among the offenders: An introductory report on research] in Wybrane zagadnienia problematyki przystosowania [Select problems of the problems of adaptation] (Warsaw: UW, 1979), pp. 85–100.

38. The data are taken from a Ph.D. thesis by T. Bulenda, entitled “Samouszkodzenia skazanych odbywajacych kare pozbawienia wolnosci w swietle przepisow prawa i ich stosowania” [Self-mutilation by convicts in confinement in light of legal regulations and their application], Department of Law, Warsaw University, 1982, p. 330. The sources of the data were reports of the penitentiary department of the Central Administration of Penal Institutions. Self-aggression in penal institutions and detention centers in Poland from 1965–1980: in 1965, 1,098; 1966, 1,147; 1976, 1,801; 1968, 2,690; 1969, 3,565; 1970, 4,867; 1971, 4,941; 1972, 2,635; 1973. 1,602; 1974, 1,212; 1975, 1,448; 1976, 1,435; 1977, 1,976; 1978, 1,876; 1979, 1,836; and 1980, 1,871.

39. Many of the phenomena examined in this section correspond with the postulates formulated during prisoners’ protests in 1981. Their list is contained in Moczydłowski and Rzeplinski’s “Warunki i problemy”; this is an incomplete list and the inmates demanded among other things the rights and duties resulting from the universally accepted regulations for the working prisoners (vacations, benefits, suitable work conditions, compensation, pensions); an increase payment received up to 50 percent, and for those paying alimony, up to 80 percent of the basic wage; the payment of 100 percent wages for 3 months prior to discharge, and this sum should not be subject to payment of court fees; equal wages for equal work for prisoners and civil workers; an improvement of the treatment of inmates who had committed self-inflicted injuries by: (a) an adequate number of beds in the cell for the number of prisoners; (b) shortening the period of waiting for an operation; (c) the recognition as sick bays those cells in which the inmates are isolated, only if they meet certain requirements; isolation of sick inmates from the other prisoners and the provision of suitable medical aid; an explanation of placing convicts and detainees who have financial obligations in cell blocks for the nonworking; reinstatement of preventative x-rays; raising the rates for food and improvement of the quality of the food; in the canteen, guaranteed amounts of tobacco products and food articles within limits foreseen by rations for all citizens, with the exception of articles whose consumption in prison is forbidden; granting white bread [preferable in Poland to dark bread); guarantee of a meal to the inmates working outside for more than 8 hours; permission for working inmates to rest in bed during the day; granting of two additional hours of sleep on days free from work; guarantee of adequate quantity of personal hygiene articles and facilities; abandoning the practice of marking prisoners’ clothes with the letters “ZK” [penal institution] and an improvement of the appearance of the clothes; permission to receive food and cigarettes during visiting hours; an exchange of aluminum dishes for enamel ones; issuing prisoners cutlery, razor blades, and shavers; guaranteed access to all types of mass media (the press, radio, and television) without treating them as forms of cultural or educational work; restoration of prison recreation halls converted for administrative and production purposes, and more access to these halls; permission to view films; permission for the prisoners to build a playing field for volleyball and basketball; subjection of the prison medical personnel to the supervision of the Ministry of Health and the employment of a suitable number of such personnel; an increase of the influence of the penitentiary departments on the life of the inmates; an increased number of counselors and psychologists; relieving the counselors of administrative work; introduction of a prohibition of applying group responsibility; abolishing solitary confinement cell blocks; a verification of the principle of classifying prisoners as dangerous offenders; prohibition of the use of physical force by the prison staff and prohibition of truncheons, tear gas, and other measures; abolishing the penalty of the triple strap; abolishing the disciplinary punishment of depriving the inmates of cultural or educational activities; abolishing the censorship of correspondence in the lighter regime prisons; freedom of correspondence with state institutions and the abolition of censorship; a guarantee that cells are to be searched only in the presence of the senior member of the given cell, while body searches are to be performed only by a person of the same sex; the right to the receipt of a single food package of up to five kilos, once a month; the equalization of the norms of space for each inmate with international norms; the guarantee of a bed for each inmate; the provision of facilities for study in secondary prison schools; non-confinement of invalids and mentally ill inmates; the destruction of articles appropriated during a search in the presence of their owner; an improvement of conditions of transporting the prisoners; the bringing to justice of functionaries guilty of: (a) beating the prisoners, hanging the prisoners by their limbs on the barred windows, and using other forms of repression; (b) forcing the prisoners to make false statements by using various forms of pressure; (c) employing the prisoners on their own private estates and animal farms for building purposes; (d) wastefulness and the theft of the prisoners’ property and state property; (e) assaulting passive convicts, participants of protests; (f) breaking the law in 1976; the dismissal from service of specific functionaries; the removal of specific functionaries from work with prisoners; an end to the employment in the same prison of related functionaries; the recalling of certain functionaries from their posts; a change of the attitude of certain foremen to the inmates in the place of work. Cf. also works of Moczydłowski and Rzeplinski, and Bojarski et al., Praca skazanych odbywajacych kare.

40. Also the regional authorities influence these decisions of the administration of the penal institutions; hence, the choice of the enterprises is limited.

41. One of the participants in the discussion, Judge K. Strzepek, the head of a department in the Department of Criminal Cases in the Ministry of Justice, thought that membership in the “code users” was a valid reason for denying discharge (since it might indicate an incomplete rehabilitation) and, therefore, that “code users” membership should be disclosed in motions for conditional release. “In the work of the Cracow court, membership in the ‘code,’ which was connected with negative attitudes of the convict, was accepted as the grounds for a negative prognosis of the future life of discharged inmates, and for this reason the court refused to grant conditional release. It appears to me that this sort of a practice cannot be questioned.” See Rymarski, “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 158.

42. The exploitation of the inmates for building private houses became so widespread that the Minister of Justice was compelled to issue a special order forbidding this practice. See Dz. U. M. S. document no. M-1 195/76 of 29 April 1976 concerning the prohibition of using the convicts for the construction of private houses and the use of transportation and machines (unpublished). These practices could be applied in those institutions where the inmates can serve sentences in a lighter regime and where employing them outside the prison bounds is permitted. On the rigors of confinement, see “Regulamin wykonania kary,” op. cit.

43. Korecki, Wrona, and Gorski, in “Negatywne przejawy,” pp. 18–20.

44. Swieconek, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 193.

45. Korecki, Wrona, and Gorski, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 15.

46. H. Machel, deputy director of the penal institution in Gdansk-Przerobka, in the discussion, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 106.

47. S. Wrona, deputy head of the penitentiary department of the Central Administration of Penal Institutions, an introduction to papers, in “Negatywne przejawy,” pp. 9–10.

48. K. Braun, in “Negatywne przejawy,” pp. 144–45.

49. “I would like to say that a discussion, and preparation of more profound, precise analyses and prevention measures is necessary. These studies and works have to be closed, however, for at least a certain period of time, to a group of experts, people who are to some measure bound by propriety or who understand that one cannot perceive the phenomena of subculture as an interesting topic for the press or to use them for other similar purposes.” See W. Taraszkiewicz, deputy prosecutor of the General Attorney’s Office, in “Negatywne przejawy,” p. 179.

8. Among the “Screws”

1. Not wishing to repeat myself, I omitted from this chapter information about relations within the community of the functionaries, which was discussed in chapters 2, 6, and 7.

2. In 1980 the prison staff “included about 17,000 functionaries (of which 4,000 were officers). . . . Within the particular departments (security, penitentiary, records and housing, financial, economic, and medical) the majority is composed of functionaries of the security department. In 1979 for every ten functionaries, six were employed in this department including 88 percent junior officers. The penitentiary departments were especially understaffed. The requirements here were for 2,000 persons (in October 1980, there were 1,242 employees, with about 10 percent working as psychologists).” See Moczydłowski and Rzeplinski, “Warunki i problemy,” p. 469.

3. A. Mazurkiewicz, “Raport badawczy z pilotazu do badan empirycznych nad statusem społecznym i prawnym funkcjonariuszy SW” [A research report from an introduction to empiric investigations on the social and legal status of the functionaries of the prison staff], Warsaw, April 1980, mimeographed text. The dissatisfaction of the functionaries was revealed distinctly in 1981 during protests of the prison staff in various penal institutions, including those in Włodawa and Nowy Wisnicz. The appeal of the functionaries of the penal institution in Włodawa proclaims, “Our work is dirty, and we deal with the social scum. In a certain sense this is non-humanitarian work, since it is directed against people, even if they are evil, and there is no social acceptance of the profession of a ‘screw’ since, as a result of excessive secrecy, the opinion about us is created by the inmates and their families who are automatically negatively inclined to the institution and its workers; actually, such an opinion should be produced by objective and thorough publications. People cannot tolerate more orders, and not in theory, but mostly in practice, with no compensation for the many additional duties during periods of intensified watchfulness, alert, alarms, and pursuit. Last year we had eighty days altogether of additional duty on Sundays and free Saturdays. It is not without reason that the majority of the young people maintain that they prefer 1000 zloty while at ease than 2000 for standing at attention.” See Moczydłowski and Rzeplinski, “Protesty zbiorowe w zakładach karnych, raport z badan w problemie miedzyresortowym” [Group protests in penal institutions in Poland in 1981], MR.III/18 Warsaw: IPSiR, UW, 1982.

9. Social Relations in “Hidden Life’’

1. Goffman, Asylums.

2. The essence of this variable is to express whether in a given enterprise technical possibilities exist for illegal production; it would be difficult to imagine this form of trafficking in an enterprise producing, for instance, fifteen-ton blocks of reinforced concrete.

3. Cf. F. H. Allport, “A Structuronomic Conception of Behavior: Individual and Collective,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 64 (1962), pp. 3–30; see also K. E. Weick, The Social Psychology of Organizing (London: Addison Wesley, 1979).

4. Cf. Allport, “A Structuronomic Conception of Behavior.”

5. Cf. Katz and Kahn, Społeczna psychologia organizacji, p. 39.