IN recent years, sociologists have focused a good deal of attention on what Goffman (1961) has called the "total institution," and especially on correctional institutions. As these studies have accumulated, our knowledge of the complexity of such institutions and their related sub-systems has increased. Earlier studies, such as those of Clemmer (1958), McCorkle and Korn (1958) and Sykes (1958), described what came to be known as the "solidary opposition" model of inmate culture, with inmates aligned almost as one body against the formal organization and its goals. Newcomers to the inmate world were soon socialized into this inmate culture, and the process of "prisonization" was thought to increase with length of incarceration. Wheeler's (1961) study, however, indicated that inmate values tended to follow a U-shaped pattern, being most conventional at the beginning and end of one's sentence. He suggested that those nearing the end of their sentence were experiencing anticipatory socialization which would prepare them for life in the outside world. Garabedian (1963) noted a similar pattern in his study, but also noted that not all prisoners' values changed in the same manner. The type of role one adopted during his incarceration determined in part the extent and point of greatest impact of the prison culture on his initial values. The relatively simple "solidary opposition" model of inmate culture has now been replaced by a more complex model which finds inmate organization dependent in large part upon the location of the institution's primary goals along a custodial-trainingtreatment continuum. This development owes much to the work of Vinter and Janowitz (1959), Grusky (1959), Street (1965) and Berk (1966), and has culminated in a volume by Street, Vinter and Perrow (1967) which reports the results of these and related studies which examine the effect of organizational goals not only on inmate culture, but also on staff-inmate relations, staff-staff relations, staff-parent organization relations, and institution-local community relations. All of the aforementioned studies have dealt with institutions serving males. Until recent years, comparatively few sociological studies have been made of institutions for females. The work of Heffernan (1964), Ward and Kassebaum (1965) and Giallombardo (1966), however, serves to close this gap. Studying three different institutions serving adult females, they all find pseudofamily and homosexual ties to be an important aspect of inmate social organization, although Heffernan especially notes two other major adaptations to prison life, relating prison roles to criminal career prior to incarceration. Kosofsky and Ellis (1958) and Konopka (1966), among others, note similar patterns in institutions serving adolescent females. The particular appeal of the correctional institution for the sociologist, of course, is not only that it is a society-in-miniature, whose structure and functioning he may describe, but also that it is what Vinter (1963) has called a "people-changing organization." Such organizations, he points out, "are usually concerned with effecting new and diffuse modes of behavior, new self-images or personalities" in the people who come to it. This they attempt to do by deliberately structuring staff-client relations in a manner * The authors wish to express their thanks to the Department of Sociology, Purdue University for providing travel funds and other expenses incidental to this research.
Read full abstract