HIST 3960

Final Paper
Docile Bodies, Surveillance, and Prison Masculinities

“Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this resistance is
never in a position of exteriority in relation to power” - Michel Foucault1

Although we can identify the male prison as “ultramasculine” (Sabo et al., 2001: 3) space the
prison space and the norms of masculinity and masculine embodiment do not exist in total
isolation from the outside world. Prison masculinities simultaneously are informed by and
inform gender hierarchies outside the prison walls (ibid, 5-7). Prison masculinities should be
seen as a product of the complex social relations inside and outside prison walls, reenacted
through performance of hypermasculinity. The performative aspect of prison masculinity then
becomes “real” and allows for the recognition of the prisoner’s body and its status inside and
outside of the prison. Butler (1988) argues that “one is not simply a body, but, in some very key
sense, one does one’s body.”2 In this paper I will attempt to provide a brief history of Lithuanian
prisons, situate it within the wider ongoing debates about prisons and prison masculinities and
try to complicate Foucault’s notion of Panopticon and production of docile bodies within the
prison walls. In this paper I will argue that Foucault’s ideas about discipline and surveillance are
most useful in analyzing masculinities within and outside prison walls.

***

Following Valier (2004) I would like to argue against “contemporary narratives that frame
western penal change in terms of civilized sensibilities, increasing humanity and penal leniency”
(125).3 Not only are these narratives being proved wrong in most contemporary societies they are
even more difficult to apply in the region that was formerly know as the Soviet Block, and in this
case, Lithuania.

Lithuania’s prison history is intimately tied to historical and geopolitical configurations. As part
of the Lithuanian-Polish Commonwealth various law acts were implemented as part of power
centralizing processes. In the late 18th century Lithuania was annexed to Russian Empire.
Although in the 18th and 19th centuries Russia participated in various international networks of
penal reform, the main characteristic of punishment remained corporeal and death penalty or
deportation to far regions of Russia (largely Siberia). Public death penalty however was recalled
in the 1840s, likely inspired by the Western European shifts, described in detail by Foucault in
Discipline and Punish. However it remained in tact up until 1994 when it was removed in part
because of the pressure from international human rights organizations.4 The 19th century’s rush to
build prisons was stimulated by various peasant rebellions and abolition of serfdom. Local
practices of punishment were getting increasingly centralized at the state level. Prisons were also
utilized in the early 20th century for political dissidents and revolutionaries by the Tsar, as well as
by the independent Lithuanian government of 1918-1940, which besides prisons established
concentration and labor camps for political opposition. The Soviet period also saw a proliferation
in imprisonment. The prison culture with its codes and norms became more or less unified
throughout the Soviet Union, since prisoners often were dispersed across the region.5 Russian
prison rules became the dominant norm which with some modifications remains in tact up until
now. What has changed though was the ideological explanation for crime and punishment.
According to Piacentini (2004), “While Soviet penology constructed an image of the criminal as
a wrecker of the cultural capital of Marxism/Leninism, nowadays…the prisoner was viewed as a
person possessing a psychological malaise and innate propensity to crime.”6 Soviet prisons were
intimately tied to labor – either as labor force in production or as a site to acquire skills to
participate in the economy after the prison.7 Significant decrease after the Soviet Union collapse
and then sharp increase in prison populations can be explained by the independent government’s
willingness to dissociate with the Soviet system and prisons as symbolic representations of the
past. Lithuania moved from the “extremely high” to “very high” level of incarceration and
remains one of the leaders in incarceration rates in Europe to this day.8

In what ways Foucault’s notion of dispersed power, surveillance and production of docile bodies
are useful in analyzing prison and post-Soviet societies in general?9 Eastern and Western Europe
took significantly different paths. Foucault’s analysis apparently is much more applicable when
it comes to Western Europe and its developments of liberal democracies and discourses of
humanism. Eastern European populations during Soviet times, for the most part, were aware of
the punishing power of the paternalistic state. While some have internalized Soviet values,
overall populations were leading distinct private and public lives. In Butler’s sense of
performativity, it could be argued, that while ideally performance gets internalized to the point of
feeling natural, the Soviet citizens were wearing drag and being aware of it. The Soviet state,
while constantly trying to “socially engineer” the population and produce docile bodies,
remained much closer to a pre-Panopticon model of monarch power in Foucault’s analysis.
When it comes to prison, production of bodies becomes evident, although the extent and effects
of these processes are not easily determined. It could be argued that instead of producing docile
self-disciplining bodies prison creates abject bodies that are rejected by the mainstream society.10
It is possible to apply Foucault’s analysis of prisoner who disciplines himself, even when
practicing what might look like an oppositional tactics or illegal behaviors to confront prison’s
rules. Prison codes and established hierarchies might become useful for the prison’s
administration to maintain order and manipulate the fragmented population.11 The prison code is
an example of resistance that is not in a “position of exteriority to power.” However, clearly, the
relationship between docility and resistance is a complex one. Nevertheless, it is a widely agreed
fact that prison does not “rehabilitate” or “re-socialize” inmates into law-abiding citizens and
workers.

It is quite obvious that prisons reproduce class inequalities, reinforce homophobic and
misogynistic ideas and practices, and produce particular kinds of masculinities. It is important to
stress plurality of prison masculinities, since although everyone might strive to achieve
hegemonic powerful masculinity that would guarantee certain status and privileges, not everyone
is able to do so. The hierarchy of roles exists that often have gendered connotations. Sabo et al.
(2001) state that “behind the hardened exterior of prison hegemonic masculinity, various hidden
forms of masculinity come in place” (59). In Lithuanian prison, prisoner hierarchy is typically
referred to as a caste system. The groupings occur based on the region inmates are coming
from.12 On the top of the hierarchy rests bachurai (tough guys). Duchai (ghosts) serve the role of
the “housewife” (except sexually) for bachurai. Ožiai (goats) are prison administration
informers. On the lowest rank are gaidžiai (roosters) who are servicing upper caste members
sexually and who are typically raped and cannot move out of their status. They are considered
untouchables and one can possibly get “contaminated” by having inappropriate contact with
gaidys.13 The code is widely perceived as a just system to keep order in the prison. However, it is
not static. Some changes have occurred since the Fall of the Soviet Union. Social and economic
changes that created inequalities and wealth differentials unseen in the Soviet era has been
reflected in the prison, for example, by the ability to buy oneself into the hierarchy. Another area
is in terms of rapist’s status, which can be attributed to proliferation of sex crime and general
discourse that was suppressed during the Soviet times. These new developments are disapproved
by the older prisoners who favor strict hierarchy in which one’s place gets determined by the
individual character and abilities.

***

So while Foucault discusses a shift from punishment to surveillance and ultimate surveillance of
the soul as opposed to the body, prison has concrete material ramifications to the body. Some of
them come from the poor prison infrastructure, such as overcrowding, lack of appropriate health
care and nutrition, but many others come from the prisoner interactions or self-imposed body
modifications. One of the prevalent activities in the prison is body building and exercising. It
cannot be explained by mere boredom or rationale of good health (likely the opposite is the case)
but rather as a practice to modify the body in order to gain respect and legitimacy in the prison’s
hierarchy and interactions.14 The tough posture and mean looks are more effective if the body
can speak for itself as extra muscular and ready to defend itself or assault others.15 The other
significant body modifications include tattoos, which often communicate the prisoner’s status.
Once outside the prison, the permanent markers of the body communicate an individual’s status
not only in the circles of respectability, such as younger criminals, but also to the rest of society.
This might work against “assimilation” and contributes to the prisoner’s perpetual return to
crime as the only option for survival. More harmful practices include the use of illegal drugs,
excessive smoking and consumption of homemade alcohol, and čefyras (a slightly intoxicating
drink made out of tea), as well as recent proliferation of HIV.16

Sabo et al. (2001) argue that prison masculinities represent “not a unique aberration but an
exaggeration of many culturally accepted forms of masculinity” (13). Since it is evident that
prisons do not achieve any corrective goals, they go on to ask “who benefits from failures of
imprisonment”? (15). What is gender specific about the institution of prison and what it
symbolically communicates to the larger society? While there are a variety of Panopticon-like
mechanisms in society, prison, apparently, serves an important role and cannot be reduced to the
level of any disciplining institution. If the prison does not reform the “soul”, if it doesn’t produce
docile bodies, if prison is still understood as largely a punishment of the body, as well as a
challenging testing ground for one’s character, that at times even becomes a desirable destination
for certain people, what do we make of Foucault’s theses on the history of prison? Can it be that
Foucault overlooked issues of class17 and gender (as argued by S.L. Bartky, 1988) in his analysis
of power?

Messeschmidt (2001), for example, argues that crime is a highly gendered social practice. It
occurs “when other masculine resources are unavailable, specific types of crime can provide an
alternative resource for accomplishing gender.”18 Prison itself becomes another site to reinforce
masculinity, although “doing masculinity necessitates extra effort” (ibid). Although there are
various techniques of control and surveillance from the guards and administration, the most
important surveillance crucial for survival is self-surveillance. More importantly it is surveillance
of one’s masculinity. Letting oneself off guard and failing to perform hypermasculinity tend to
result in punishment from other inmates. In prison, although various masculinities get produced,
they can be divided to hegemonic and subordinate.

Prisons help to reproduce masculinity and heterosexuality outside of its walls. However, it is not
a unidirectional process, but rather a mutually constitutive one. The premise rests on the
assumption that forceful homosocial space is a punishment for “normal” men who must
implicitly and explicitly be heterosexual. The confinement in the same-sex space punishes by
insulting the manhood, in which access to women is one of the defining characteristics. The
figure of a woman, however, is always present - embodied through language, symbols, and
subordinate men, whose failures in hegemonic masculinity result in effeminization.19 Gender
hierarchy gets articulated and reproduced by placing women and less masculine men lower in the
hierarchy. Sex between prisoners occurs but it always communicates power hierarchy amongst
individuals, and not in terms of openly expressed desire. According to the prison code in
Lithuania, inmates are not allowed to have sex for six months after entering prison. This
mechanism is designed to demonstrate restrain which is perceived as one of the highly valued
masculine values.20 The notions of masculinity inside and outside of prison prevents men from
complaining about sexual assault, since the expectation exists that it is a natural phenomenon and
part of the punishment. Men tend to take their pain from various abuses in silence, which is also
a social construct but important element of masculinity.21
 ***

This analysis shows that it is possible to demonstrate that the most important and effective
surveillance is in relation to hegemonic masculinity. Prisoners control themselves and others,
ideas about masculinity are not static but travel from and to prison in various ways – through
contact, images, and media. Neither masculinities nor prisons are completely sealed off from the
outside world. Once released inmates carry various messages to men outside the prison, one of
those messages is to be prepared and start working on their own ultramasculinity. In that sense
prisons communicate symbolic power -- the power of the hypermasculine man, patriarchy, and
homophobia -- which finds its ways beyond the prison and permeates culture as a whole,
although it affects individuals to various degrees depending on their socio-economic location. In
this sense Foucault’s idea about decentralized power is applicable – there is no monarch telling
men to behave this way. Masculinity should be seen as embodiment stemming from social
practices, connected to socio-historical context, and reproduced through individual and collective
actions.22 The question remains, though, who ultimately benefits from it… 23

1 Quoted in Ben Crewe “The Sociology of Imprisonment” in Yvonne Jewkes (ed.) Handbook on
Prisons, Willan Publishing: Portland, 2007, pg. 141.

2 Judith Butler. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.”
Theatre Journal, 1988, 40 (4), pg. 521.

3 Claire Valier. Crime and Punishment in contemporary Culture. Routledge: 2004.

4 Romualdas Drakšas. “Mirties Bausmes Raida Lietuvoje” (The Development of Death Penalty
In Lithuania). Undated. Retrieved May 4th, 2008 from www.draksas.lt/admin/files/get.php?id=21

According to Valier (2004) one of areas overlooked by Foucault, which were central to Russian
penal system, is dispersal and transportation. Many prisons were turned in into labor camps, and
important part of prisoner experience was transportation, which could have taken weeks and
multiple stopping points. While this could be seen as attempts for “discrete and visible”
workings of power, everyone in the Soviet society were aware of them. It could be argued that
besides economic rationale for Siberian prisons, painful and exhausting journey was part of the
punitive body spectacle.

6
 Quoted in Louise Shelley. Book review of Surviving Russian Prisons: Punishment, Economy
and Politics in Transition by Laura Piacentini, 2004 in Slavic Review, 65(1), 2006, pg. 202.

The decree signed on 1944 at the establishment of Pravieniškes correctional labor colony provides following
rationale: “seeking proper use of prisoner contingent and instill them with work skills” Retrieved on May 3rd, 2008
from http://www.pravien2pn-ak.lt/page_1158835127703.html

According to World Prison Population List of 2007 (auth. Roy Walmsley) Lithuania has 240
inmates per 100,000 of national population. Retrieved on May 3rd from
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads.php?
searchtitle=world+prison+population+list&type=0&month=0&year=0&lang=0&author=&searc
h=Search

9 Jolanta Piliponytė. “Laisvės atėmimas: atlygis už nusikaltimą ar siekis pataisyti?”

(Imprisonment: Punishment for Crime or Chance for Correction?). Undated. Retrieved on May
3rd, 2008 from http://www.sociumas.lt/Lit/nr13/bausme.asp. Piliponyte argues that the prisoner
return rate in Lithuania is up to 80%. Although there are several “work rehabilitation” prisons in
Lithuania only 10 to 30% of prisoners work. This can be explained with low pay, no opportunity
to acquire new skills to be used outside, and low status and prestige.

10

10The abject criminal as a symbolic monster figure becomes visible and recognizable, but it also
circulates through various media and political discourses. Valier argues that “aesthetics of
punishment in contemporary culture is an aesthetics of abjection” (pg.123).

11

Don Sabo, Terry A. Kuppers, and Willie London. “Gender and the Politics of Punishment.” In
Prison Masculinites, Temple University Press, 2001, pg. 12.

12

It is rather different from American prison in which race plays prominent role in dividing prison
populations. I was not able to find information about ethnic differences within the prison, but
apparently important divisions are along major cities. Russian or Polish Lithuanians group
together with other inmates from their respective cities.

13

L. Piškinaitė–Kazlauskienė. “Lietuvos kalinių vyrų buitis ir bendravimo kultūra“ (Lithuanian

Men Prisoner Daily Life and Culture of Communication). Liaudies Kultūra, 2001, Nr.3, pg. 28-
35. Nobody shares a bathroom, eats together or even lives in the same cells with “roosters”
unless unable to reach compromise with administration. It is possible to slide down in hierarchy
for breaking the code or not being able to repay the debt. “Roosters” are typically effeminate
men, rapists, molesters, or simply weaker men that were not able to defend themselves through
the rites of initiation into prison community. However, in the post-Soviet era the change occurred
from the Soviet system prison code where any rapist automatically became a “rooster.”
Nowadays it is widely believed that men sentenced for rape can assert that they were falsely
accused. The is a also a category of džumbras which occupies also lowest ranks. They are
typically people who do not practice good hiegyne. One new category which got instituted only
in post-Soviet era is called barygos. They are merchants of the prison who were sentenced for
financial crimes and apply their skills of various forms of scheming. They cohabit with bachurai
but don‘t have decision making power.

1414 Although it is often stressed that the most important tool for survival is one’s character, not
physical ability.

15

Don Sabo, Terry A. Kuppers, and Willie London. “Gender and the Politics of Punishment.” In
Prison Masculinites, Temple University Press, 2001, pg. 11.

16

“The reported number of newly diagnosed cases peaked in 2002, when in total 397 new
infections were registered, of which 263 were prisoners at the Alytus prison. Before the tests at
the Alytus prison, Lithuania had reported just 300 cases of HIV in the whole country.” World
Health Organization. Lithuania - HIV/AIDS country profile. Retrieved May 5th, 2008 from
http://www.euro.who.int/aids/ctryinfo/overview/20060118_27

1717 What place do prisoners take in the class system? Lumpenproletariat in Marxist terms?
While correlation between poverty and imprisonment is typically strong the prisoner seemed to
be pushed out of any legible role in social hierarchy and becomes either invisible or abject.
Valier states – “Combining both violent denial and pleasurable fascination, the abject cannot be
admitted or assimilated by the subject, who is simultaneously drawn towards and repelled by it”
(pg. 122). Few examples from Lithuania. A highly controversial but extremely popular (first in
the world) prison beauty contest took place in Lithuania’s women prison in 2002. Now the trend
has spread to other parts of the world. This could be seen as a modern freak show, which
operates also on the idea of abject bodies. Following similar trend, Lithuania was the first one,
again, to perform plastic surgery on 3 inmate women as part of reality show in 2006.

Class politics and dynamics of romanticism and repulsion operate in various interviews with
politicians, businessmen, and other upper class public figures that were imprisoned throughout
the 1990s for various reasons. Most of them talk about their experiences as uplifting, even
spiritual; the prison code as just and imply their own enhanced masculinity. Even if treated by
the prisoners with special attention they stress self-restrain and character which allowed them to
carve space within prison walls.
On a different scale, Valier quotes Bauman stating that “post-correctional” prison could be seen
as a microcosm of “’globalized’ society”, where “estrangement is at the core of spatial
segregation, limiting dramatically the view of the other” (pg.83)

18

18James W. Messerschmidt. “Masculinities, Crime, and Prison.” In In Prison Masculinites,

Temple University Press, 2001, pg. 68.

1919 These arguments are advanced in Carl Bryan Holmberg. “The Culture of Transgression: Initiations into the
Homosociality of a Midwestern State Prison.” In Prison Masculinites, Temple University Press, 2001, pg. 87-92.

20 Piškinaitė–Kazlauskienė pg.4

Nancy Lewit. “Male Prisoners: Privacy, Suffering, and the Legal Construction of
21
Masculinity.” In Prison Masculinites, Temple University Press, 2001, pg. 87-92

20

21

2222 I understand that distinguishing individual and collective or structural causes a lot of
theoretical questions. The “agent-structure” problem (or its variations) appears to be one of the
endless debates in social sciences. However, I tend to think that there needs to be some space left
for individual agency and action, which should be perceived as neither completely autonomous
from structure(s) nor totally dependent on it.

23

23It also raises the question can we imagine the world without prisons or even have significant
and effectice critique? Ryan and Sim (2007) state that “At the present moment the prison has
achieved a hegemonic status that has made it virtually impregnable to sustained ideological and
material attack” (707). Angela Davis poses this question in relation to prison reforms: “As
important as some reforms may be – the elimination of sexual abuse and medical neglect in
women’s prisons, for example – frameworks that rely exclusively on reforms help to produce the
stultifying idea that nothing lies beyond the prison” (2003: 20). Quoted in Handbook on Prisons,
pp. 701.