Prisoner futures: Sensing the signs of generativity
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865810393100 |
| Published date | 01 April 2011 |
| Author | Mark Halsey,Vandra Harris |
| Date | 01 April 2011 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology
44(1) 74–93
!The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0004865810393100
anj.sagepub.com
Article
Prisoner futures: Sensing
the signs of generativity
Mark Halsey
Flinders University, Australia
Vandra Harris
RMIT University, Australia
Abstract
In recent years, a small but critically informed literature has emerged which points to the link
between opportunities to engage in generative acts and desistance from crime. This paper
outlines the nature and limits of generative moments (conceived as the philosophy or practice
of caring in non-violent and durable ways for self, other and future) with regard to the
incarceration of a group of young males interviewed since 2003. Specifically, it poses the
question of who or what it has been possible for these young men to care about within and
beyond custody and highlights some of the factors which undermine generative concerns and
actions. In concluding, the paper offers several ideas for enhancing generative opportunities
within custodial environments.
Keywords
generativity, prison, young men
Introduction
In 1950, Erik H Erikson published a framework of human development outlining eight
stages from infancy to late adulthood.
1
Each stage constitutes a period of crisis between
competing paths or preoccupations – for example between intimacy/solidarity and iso-
lation (young adulthood). Generativity is the seventh stage (middle adulthood) and
involves the struggle against stagnation/self-absorbtion. The ‘virtue’ at the heart of
this contest is care, or ‘a widening commitment to take care of the persons, the products,
and the ideas one has learned to care for’ (Erikson, 1982: 67). Accordingly, we conceive
of generativity as the commitment toward or practice of caring for self, other and future.
For Erikson (1968: 138), failure to develop a caring stance toward future generations or
Corresponding author:
Mark Halsey, Associate Professor, Law School, Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide, South Australia,
Australia 5001
Email: mark.halsey@flinders.edu.au
a concern to become a productive and/or creative member of the community, can lead to
‘a pervading sense of stagnation, boredom and self-impoverishment’.
Since Erikson’s original formulation and ongoing development of the concept, a large
literature has arisen concerning the theory and practice of generativity in various con-
texts encompassing the Holocaust, homosexuality, education, religion, politics and war
(De St Aubin et al., 2004; McAdams and De St Aubin, 1998). In criminological and
penological spheres, generativity has only very recently emerged as a key analytical tool.
Indeed, to quote from one recent source, the relationship between ‘generativity and
crime has never been directly explored in criminology’ (Maruna et al., 2004: 134, empha-
sis added).
Work that examines the relationship between generativity and desistance from crime
includes Barry (2006), McNeill and Maruna (2007), LeBel (2007), Healy and O’Donnell
(2008), Walker (2010), and in greater depth, Maruna (2001, especially Chapter 6).
Without invoking generativity per se, Liebling (2005) brilliantly analyses conditions
favourable to the emergence of respected and humane selves within and following release
from prison. We find, however, only one published paper specifically on generativity
within custodial environments (Maruna et al., 2004). This work calls its readers to
consider what prisons could become were they designed and operated in ways capable
of giving real force to generative acts and dispositions. As Maruna et al. (2004: 133)
write:
We contend that if the world of corrections were to become more of a generative society –
that is, an environment in which generative commitments were modelled and nurtured, and
opportunities for generative activities were promoted and rewarded – it would simply be
more effective at reducing repeat offending.
This challenge strikes at the heart of the correctional enterprise. As institutions
located at the difficult ‘deep end’ of criminal justice, prisons (particularly maximum
security settings) radically reduce opportunities to care in non-violent and durable
ways for self, other and future (but these are, ironically, the kinds of capacities most
of us want in people released into our communities). In the main, and acknowledging
that one prison can never be precisely like another, such environments tend – either by
bureaucratic or sub-cultural design – to be places where displays of genuine concern and
respect for others (especially the kind which bridges the staff/prisoner divide), or indi-
cations of the desire to shape one’s future in ways disconnected from crime, can very
quickly result in ostracism and/or ongoing physical or psychological violence for the
duration of one’s sentence.
In this article, therefore, we explore how young male prisoners
2
cope with the con-
ditions of their incarceration and how this impacts on the process of personal legacy-
making. To the best of our knowledge, young men serving time in prison have rarely if
ever been asked to narrate the possible and actual generative dimensions of their lives,
and to speak to the kinds of constraints and ‘enabling niches’ (Taylor, 1997) which
impact the nature and intensity of generative desires and actions within and following
repeat periods of incarceration. Accordingly, we focus on a range of interview excerpts
that speak to the broad project of caring for self, other and future in custodial contexts.
3
Typically, statements to do with such things are made in a fairly cursory manner – as
Halsey and Harris 75
To continue reading
Request your trial