Abstract
Critical prison studies have demonstrated how states use imprisonment and detention not only to punish individuals, but also to quell dissent and disrupt opposition movements. In protracted conflicts, however, the use of mass incarceration and unlawful detention often backfires on states as politically motivated prisoners exert their relevance by making imprisonment itself a central issue in the wider conflicts. Rather than retreating to the margins, prisoners have taken back prison spaces as loci of resistance, forcing both state authorities and their own external parties to engage with them seriously as political actors. This subversion of the prison space is not automatic, however; as this article demonstrates, prisoners have exerted the most influence on both authorities and their own factions when they have combined pragmatism and radicalism through multilevel strategies such as establishing praxes for self-education and organizing; using everyday non-compliance to challenge prison administrators; and occasionally, engaging in hunger strikes that exert boomerang pressure from external factions and solidarity networks on state authorities. Drawing from the case studies of Israel–Palestine, Northern Ireland and South Africa, this research shows how these radically pragmatic tactics create a ‘trialectic’ interaction between prisoners, state authorities and external networks, forcing direct and indirect negotiations regarding prisoners’ rights, and, at times, influencing broader conflict dynamics.
Highlights
Prisons often function as epicentres of protracted conflicts, with the state using imprisonment and detention as means of control, and detainees seeking to use the prison space for resistance, both internally and via solidarity with external networks
What does prison resistance look like in practice? What tactics do prisoners use to pressure authorities and influence external parties? In turn, what measures do states use to control or prevent collective actions in prison? Which tactics convince one or both sides to compromise or negotiate? In this article, I explore these questions drawing from three protracted conflict case studies in postcolonial contexts in which imprisonment, detention and prison-based resistance have been significant in conflict dynamics: Israel–Palestine, Northern Ireland and South Africa
While Berger writes in the context of the decarceration movement, I extend his integrative approach to discuss how prisoners in conflict contexts use a multilevel strategy of radical pragmatism to navigate the trialectic dynamic between themselves, authorities and external networks
Summary
Prisons often function as epicentres of protracted conflicts, with the state using imprisonment and detention as means of control, and detainees seeking to use the prison space for resistance, both internally and via solidarity with external networks. These actions, manifest in the establishment of ‘counter-order’ praxes and institutions, everyday acts of non-compliance and hunger strikes, respectively, forced direct and indirect negotiations that over time influenced prisoners’ rights and broader conflict dynamics.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
