Remote control: Horizontal surveillance and the gendering of carceral punishment
| Author | Michael Gibson-Light |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13624806221082094 |
| Published date | 01 May 2023 |
| Date | 01 May 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Remote control: Horizontal
surveillance and the gendering
of carceral punishment
Michael Gibson-Light
University of Denver, USA
Abstract
Research traditionally suggests that men incarcerated in the USA regard horizontal
surveillance—that is, monitoring the behaviors of other prisoners—as antithetical
to notions of masculinity behind bars. Yet, following an 18-month ethnography in a
US prison for men, this article reveals that the imprisoned may in fact embrace prisoner-
on-prisoner monitoring tied to labor. It details how participants in this institution sought
out peer surveillants who had the power to grant referrals to more desirable jobs.
Within prison worksites, individuals further policed peers’production and service
quality. Labor-based horizontal surveillance was integral to performances of masculinity
related to employment status and work ethic. Drawing on labor scholarship as well
as studies of sur veillance in othe r penal settings, t his article reveal s how supervis ion
maps onto gendered beliefs about work, offending, and contemporary American cor-
rections in ways that contribute to carceral agendas and broader systems of control.
Keywords
ethnography, labor, masculinity, prison, surveillance
Introduction
Empirical studies of life in penal facilities for men document a pattern of animosity
toward horizontal surveillance, or prisoner-on-prisoner supervision. Those who act or,
in some cases, are merely suspected of acting as informants for the institution or
Corresponding author:
Michael Gibson-Light, University of Denver, 2000 E Asbury Ave, Sturm Hall, room 446, Denver, CO, 80208,
USA.
Email: Michael.Gibson-Light@DU.edu
Article
Theoretical Criminology
2023, Vol. 27(2) 245–264
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13624806221082094
journals.sagepub.com/home/tcr
state may be met with distrust, ostracism, and violence (Åkerström, 1986; Ugelvik,
2016). Classical prison ethnographies re veal that this disd ain for peer surveillants—
disparagingly called “snitches”,“rats”,“ear hustlers”, or other invectives—is long-
standing in American carceral institutions (Jacobs, 1977; Sykes, 1958). Indeed, reporting
the behavior of fellow captives violates central tenets of the so-called “inmate code”
(Sykes and Messinger, 1960). The prohibition on this behavior is often linked to ideals
of manhood and honor, as peer monitoring of any form is framed as antithetical to
being “a real man”who “does his own time”(Garland and Wilson, 2013; Ugelvik,
2016). Gender norms behind bars, in other words, have historically prized features of
hegemonic masculinity and viewed the practice of informing on others as characteristic
of subordinated masculinity (Sabo et al., 2001).
However, while conducting an 18-month ethnographic study of penal labor practices
within a US men’s prison called Sunbelt State Penitentiary
1
(SSP), I encountered a
curious finding: participants seemed to accept and, in many instances, actively pursue
particular forms of horizontal surveillance. Specifically, in the quest to secure more desir-
able prison jobs, the captive laborers of SSP often sought the gaze of other prisoners in
positions to grant them referrals for their jobs of choice. These incarcerated “recruiters”
were men who already occupied desirable jobs in the penal labor hierarchy. From their
positions of relative status, they kept tabs on the behaviors, capabilities, and apparent out-
looks of others on the prison yard. They reported these assessments to institutional staf-
fers overseeing their work sites, who drew on them in hiring decisions. Furthermore,
I observed forms of horizontal surveillance within labor programs. Workers continually
policed one another’s performance and often sought to demonstrate skills and value to
onlooking coworkers. When discussing these patterns of supervision, surveillants and
surveilled alike often drew on notions of masculinity tied to employment status, work
ethic, and earnings to warrant such behavior.
Given the disdain for other forms of horizontal surveillance behind bars, why did the
incarcerated men of SSP accept and in fact welcome these forms of work-based peer
supervision? What might this reveal about punishment and work in today’s carceral facil-
ities? And what might this uncover about how gendered norms and perceptions shape
systems of control behind bars?
To address these questions, I first turn to studies of work and organizations, in which
the structure, processes, and implications of horizontal surveillance have been explored.
Today’s American prison is truly a workplace in which the majority perform labor as a
facet of punishment (Stephan, 2008). As such, research on labor processes in the outside
world provides a valuable lens through which to view ground-level dynamics behind
bars. Labor scholarship suggests that male workers may employ horizontal surveillance
in masculinity performances at the workplace. Applying this to the carceral context,
I contend that despite traditional prohibitions against peer monitoring, forms of surveil-
lance tied to labor offer a means to perform masculinity in settings in which identity
expression is often constrained. I situate these findings in scholarship on the gendering
of US punishment. Whereas facilities designed to hold men frequently emphasize
labor as a path to correction, penal institutions for women commonly prioritize thera-
peutic treatment (Franklin, 2008; Henriksen, 2018; Trammell et al., 2018). In the latter
context, qualitative researchers document forms of peer monitoring tied to therapy
246 Theoretical Criminology 27(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial