Race and Power

Introduction

Race and prisons are deeply intertwined in England and Wales and other countries. Prisons are not socially neutral, self-evident organizations, but instead reflect, maintain, and entrench issues of power and inequality (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). However, democratic therapeutic community prisons such as HMP Grendon in the United Kingdom offer a radical alternative to mainstream imprisonment. Grendon was opened in 1962 and was created as “a penal institution of a special kind” (East & Hubert, 1939, para 172), which has subsequently provided “an exceptionally safe and humane prison, which also happens to be highly effective in the rehabilitation of serious offenders” (Bennett, 2010).

This article is an expanded version of an introduction to a seminar held at Grendon in July 2012 entitled “Increasing cultural sensitivity and improving the sense of identity and experience of BME men at HMP Grendon.” This followed up a seminar held in 2008 exploring the issue, “Why do so few BME men come to HMP Grendon?” These seminars form part of an ongoing commitment among managers, residents (as prisoners are referred to), and staff at Grendon to explore the issues of race and ethnicity in therapeutic community settings. The primary aim of this article is to consider the potential and limitations of prison-based therapeutic communities in responding to individual needs as well as to the wider structural constraints that shape issues of race and ethnicity in contemporary society. The article will set out the context in which these communities operate, in particular the ways in which both prisons and clinical practice are part of the structures that constrain and enable the flow of racialized power. The article will then go on to discuss the particular features of therapeutic communities that can challenge, confront, disentangle, and reorder aspects of power, inequality, and identity in ways that provide an alternative approach and contrast with mainstream imprisonment.

Before entering into these more detailed issues, it is worth, as a preliminary, briefly describing the work at Grendon as a series of democratic therapeutic communities. The prison is comprised of five therapeutic communities with around 40 residents in each and a 25-place induction and assessment unit where potential residents spend the initial 3 months. The prison largely holds men with indeterminate sentences who have committed serious violent or sexual offenses. The men have often been the victims of serious abuse themselves and their behaviors have included serious offending, substance misuse, self-harm, and disruption in prisons (Newberry, 2009).

Each community within the prison has a dedicated staff group including prison officers, a therapy manager who has psychotherapeutic training, a psychologist, and facilitators with a range of professional and clinical backgrounds. On a Monday and Friday morning, the whole community will meet to discuss the issues of shared concern and to make collective decisions including voting on who will take which jobs, whether residents should take up trusted posts and whether individuals are ready to progress through recategorization or ending therapy. The community can also vote about removing residents, challenging their commitment to the process and imposing sanctions for breaches of rules. This meeting is chaired by a prisoner who is elected into the role for a period of time. On Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday mornings, there will be a series of small therapy groups held within each community. These small groups are comprised of around eight residents who are allocated with the intention that they will work together therapeutically over a prolonged period. These groups are facilitated by at least one member of staff but rely upon the active involvement of the group members. It is in these groups that issues are explored in-depth, including examining the past and how this shapes individuals thinking and behavior.

Once the residents have been engaged in therapy for around a year, they can also access art therapy or psychodrama which further develop and expand the intervention. Residents also take on positions of responsibility within the community and have paid jobs or undertake education. The men also socialize together in association periods and have the opportunity to take meals communally. The nature of therapeutic communities is that it “is based on the totality of what happens within the prison … therapy … does not occur in isolation from what is happening in the rest of the prison, rather every aspect of prison life is an integral component of the therapeutic community environment” (Brookes, 2010, pp. 102–103).

The notion of a democratic therapeutic community located within a prison is atypical, and may even seem countercultural, going against the grain of mainstream imprisonment. The conventional view of the prison is as an institution that is homogenizing, identity suppressing, and coercive, while therapeutic communities offer an alternative that encourages agency, self-development, expression, and identity. It is all the more remarkable that at Grendon the therapeutic approach is offered to men who have committed serious sexual and violent offenses and have been characterized as “damaged, disturbed and dangerous” (Shine & Newton, 2000, p. 23). Having introduced the work of Grendon, it is now necessary to turn to the context in which it is situated, in relation to race and ethnicity, and in particular the problematic issues of power that exist within prisons and clinical practice.

Race, Ethnicity, and Prisons

Minority ethnic communities are overrepresented throughout the criminal justice system in England and Wales (e.g., see Cavadino & Dignan, 2007; Spalek, 2008). In prisons, the deepest end of the system, the situation is stark. One in every four prisoners is from Black and minority ethnic communities, whereas those groups account for only 1 in 10 of the general population (Berman, 2012) ¹ .

It has been argued that this overrepresentation is the outcome of both the deeper social exclusion and the marginalization experienced by Black and minority ethnic people across society as well as bias throughout the criminal justice system (e.g., see Cavadino & Dignan, 2007; Spalek, 2008). The relationship between racialized power and inequality was vividly illuminated by Loic Wacquant (2001) who, in writing about the United States, tried to place this in a historical context. He argued that the expansion of imprisonment and its disproportionate use against minority groups, particularly Black men, could be characterized as the fourth manifestation of America’s “peculiar institution.” The first was slavery, which was followed after abolition by the Apartheid-like segregation policies of the Jim Crow system. The third manifestation was the ghettoization of urban populations in economically deprived and socially precarious, self-contained communities. The fourth manifestation he argues is the development of mass imprisonment that has created a situation where for poor Black men imprisonment is “woven into the fabric and lifecourse … across generations” (Wacquant, 2002, p. 388). Although Wacquant does not address the United Kingdom but rather draws out the specific local, historical context of the United States, his work nevertheless provides a vivid illustration of the links between prisons, race, and power, which are relevant across nations.

The roots of racialized power and its integration within systems of social control were explored across three countries in a comparative work by Mary Bosworth (2004). By considering race and imprisonment in England and Wales, France, and the United States, Bosworth highlights how the construction of difference and the specific groups targeted varies across countries according to the historical, social, and ideological circumstances. However, a consistent feature, she argues, is that minority populations are stigmatized, subjected to social control and then overrepresented in the prison system. She highlights not only how slavery in the United States but also how colonialism and migration in other countries such as England and Wales have shaped and been reflected in the patterning of penal practice. She raises profound questions about whether racial difference is sustained by the use of social control or social control including the use of imprisonment is legitimized by its focus on minority groups. She proposes that “it may be that notions of race have simply been written into the entire notion of punishment itself” (Bosworth, 2004, p. 237). This work is particularly important as it draws out the ways that race and power are closely and deeply intertwined in institutions such as the prison.

It is important that such discussions of macro-level issues do not obscure or disconnect with the experience of individuals. In their work on class, Richard Sennett and Jonathon Cobb (1972) explored the impact on working-class communities in Boston of a series of social changes including the displacement of traditional inner city and ethnic communities through the process of “urban renewal.” They describe how the challenges experienced were not simply material, for example, being concerned about entry into the burgeoning consumerist society, indeed, many had made progress and had achieved a level of affluence that made them materially middle class. However, rather than simply “melting” into the mass, these people experienced “hidden injuries” in as much as many were left searching for a sense of place and identity. Many described that they had entered a world in which they did not feel at home and felt isolated, with a diminished sense of dignity and self-esteem. The way that the authors explore the relationship between class, social change, and individual identity has been described as a pioneering attempt to “grasp the consequences of structural positioning biographically” (Crawley & Sparks, 2005, p. 346 italics in original). This work is particularly valuable in highlighting the ways in which power and inequality are not detached, quantitative phenomena but instead are lived experiences, which have an impact upon individuals’ sense of identity and well-being.

That is not to say that people from minority groups have a homogenized experience, inevitably people react in different ways. Some resist by, for example, game playing, subverting, or confronting, sometimes violently, those who are in power (Wilson, 2003). There are also acts of appropriation, particularly in how street and prison culture have been introduced to mainstream culture in the United States and beyond through music, clothing, and forms of expression (Cummings, 2012).

It has been consistently highlighted that prisoners from minority ethnic groups report a poorer experience of prison life than White prisoners (HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2005; National Offender Management Service, 2008). There are a range of arguments that have been presented for why such differences exist, however, one particularly prominent and important explanation is that criminal justice organizations are “institutionally racist.” This concept has been defined as:

The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people. (Macpherson, 1999, p. 28)

Although public organizations including prisons have taken significant action to ameliorate the effects of discrimination and promote equality (National Offender Management Service, 2008, 2011), the nature of power and inequality is that it is pervasive and slow to alter. The prison continues to be an institution suffused with racialized power, and the experiences of minority ethnic prisoners need to be understood in that context.

Race, Ethnicity, and Clinical Power

As a therapeutic community, Grendon brings into focus the problem not only of penal power, but also of clinical power. The prison largely deals with men who have personality disorders (Birtchnell & Shine, 2000), deploying a mode of practice recognized and audited by the Royal College of Psychiatrists (Haigh, 2010). It is therefore located in the nexus of clinical–penal practice, although it is worth noting that the nature of this interrelationship is subject to changes over time and according to the political climate (Genders & Player, 2010)

In his classic account, Michel Foucault (2003) argues that modern clinical practice emerged not simply as an objective mode of practice but involved a process of organizing knowledge and promoting expert power, which particularly manifested itself in the relationship between the clinician and the subject. Foucault argues that the rise of medical power and the birth of the modern clinic were an expression of emerging ways of ordering society and therefore manifestations of social control and power. It is worth briefly considering ways in which clinical practice relevant to therapeutic communities, including Grendon, continue to be enmeshed within wider power relations.

Historically, Grendon was created as a psychiatric-led facility with distinct medical management, but over time this has been eroded and transformed as the establishment has become integrated within mainstream prison management (Genders & Player, 1995). More recently, there has been a move toward a more psychologically led clinical team, working with serious sexual and violent offenders largely with personality disorders. This move toward a more psychological approach brings with it a shift in professional emphasis and expertise. Forensic psychology in prisons with its focus on “risk” and the use of actuarial assessments has been implicated in the expansion of a particular kind of power (Crewe, 2009). This power has been referred to as new penology (Feeley & Simon, 1992) which describes the use of managerial methods not only as a mode of organizational management but also in social policy, with services such as criminal justice being directed through the use of actuarial methods toward socially problematic groups. One particular problem regarding actuarial methods for predicting future offending is that they are based on the current prison population and therefore reflect overrepresentation arising from social disadvantage (Bennett, 2008). For example, the method commonly used by prison and probation services in England and Wales, OASys, identifies risk factors including unemployment, lack of stable housing, and poor education (Bennett, 2008). These methods provide legitimacy to socially excluded groups being problematized. This is particularly relevant to minority ethnic groups, some of whom experience greater levels of social exclusion.

Research on personality disorder services has highlighted the enduring problem of inequality. Various studies (Ascoli et al., 2011; Department of Health and Ministry of Justice, 2011) have uncovered that Black and minority ethnic people are less likely to be identified as suffering from personality disorder and more likely to be diagnosed with a mental illness and more likely to receive coercive interventions such as imprisonment or mental health detention. When they are identified as having personality disorder, they receive a narrower range of interventions (Bender et al., 2007). A number of reasons have been suggested for these differential outcomes (Ndegwa, 2003), including that there is a lower level of prevalence; that the prevalence is the same but alternative care is accessed; or that prevalence is the same but access is not gained as they are denied access or do not see it as meeting their needs. However, these studies and research papers are not conclusive and generally end with a call for further research and training.

In a particularly insightful discussion paper, David Ndegwa (2003) poses some challenging questions for practitioners in personality disorder services. Some of these are technical in nature, including whether assessment tools are developed on a sufficiently diverse population. Some are broader and call into question the fundamental assumptions that underpin mental health practice, such as whether norms and notions of personality are sufficiently heterogeneous to capture cultural differences. There are also questions for practitioners and clinical practice, including whether there is an adequate language and theoretical framework for exploring the impact of social adversity, including racism, in shaping individuals. This final question starts to raise the issue of how inequality can become situated biographically, in other words uncovering the “hidden injuries.”

As with penal institutions and practices, clinical practice can also be viewed, critically, through the lens of racialized power. Social institutions, the organization of knowledge, and the expertise all carry out a sometimes unseen role in the power structures of wider society. As a social institution that crosses both clinical practice and criminal justice, the therapeutic communities at Grendon are located within this web of power and inequality, but the question to be explored is how they respond to this.

The Potential and Limitations of Prison-Based Therapeutic Communities

It is from a somewhat unpromising premise that prison-based therapeutic communities such as Grendon attempt to carry out their role. Their ambition is to address residents’ relationship with themselves, others, and with the wider society (Stevens, 2013). The therapeutic community model recognizes the entangled nature of society and the individual, acknowledging that the personal self cannot be detached from the social self.

Clearly, there are issues of power and inequality, including hidden injuries and institutional thoughtlessness, imported into and created within HMP Grendon. Minority ethnic residents at Grendon have reported feelings of isolation and lack of cultural sensitivity (Brookes, Glynn, & Wilson, 2012; Newberry, 2010). Some report feeling that their cultural material and expression is not understood, that staff generally do not share the same ethnic background or experiences, and that both staff and other residents do not have a rich understanding of the values, outlook, rituals, social structures, and ways of interacting adopted by people from different ethnic backgrounds (Newberry, 2010). Instead, the behavior of members of minority ethnic groups, particularly Black men, is considered through a dominant cultural lens, for example, by problematizing forms of expression and interacting as aggressive or a reflection of criminal values (Newberry, 2010). Some felt that they were encouraged to let go of their cultural background (Newberry, 2010) and as a result there was little space to maintain cultural authenticity (Brookes et al., 2012). While overt prejudice was visible and challenged, more subtle forms of racism were less perceptible, expressed in body language, tone, and attitude, and these were felt by members of minority communities attuned through experiences to such “vibes” (Newberry, 2010). Staff, including therapists, could also feel uncomfortable exploring issues of race and ethnic identity and sometimes called for improved skills and training in order to better understand the experiences and cultures of a range of people (Newberry, 2010).

While therapeutic communities including Grendon import dynamics of power and identity, they nevertheless have a number of features that challenge and respond progressively to these issues. In his seminal work on therapeutic communities, Robert Rapoport set out four underpinning principles: democratization; communalism; permissiveness; and reality confronting (Rapoport, 1960). Democratization refers to the flattening of hierarchies, including enhanced communication and accountability encompassing both who live and those who work in the community, and the use of voting for a range of issues such as the allocation of jobs, community activities, support for parole applications and security category reviews, and decisions about suitability to end therapy. Communalism refers to members of the community taking an active role. This includes taking on tasks and living harmoniously according to shared rules. Permissiveness refers to the tolerance that there is for residents’ behavior that may normally be thought of as unacceptable but is typical of that individual. The intention is that this behavior then becomes transparent and observable, allowing staff and residents to understand and monitor progress. Reality confrontation is related to permissiveness in as much as problematic behavior does not go unnoticed or without criticism. Residents are confronted with their behavior and its consequences for themselves and others. This feedback is a crucial part of the learning experience. The process of observation, feedback, reflection, and exploration aims to uncover hidden motives and deeper meaning and has been characterized as a “culture of enquiry” (Main, 1946). Therapeutic communities have been described as a living–learning experience (Jones, 1968), where part of the experience is reflecting on how the minutiae of everyday interactions and behavior reflects deeply held attitudes and values. The particular features described above are deployed to explore a range of issues including offending behavior, self-harm but can also be deployed to explore issues of racial identity and inequality.

Grendon has historically housed very few Black and minority ethnic residents (Genders & Player, 1995). However, there have been attempts to address this (Bennett, 2007), and currently 27% of the population is from minority ethnic communities, more closely replicating the national prison population. ² There have also been attempts to discuss issues of race and ethnicity openly, including through two seminars and commissioned research, both internally (e.g., Newberry, 2010; Sullivan, Assante, Gyamfi, Joyce, & Pamphile, 2007) and externally (e.g., Brookes et al., 2012). These reports and recommendations have been used in order to inform developments in practice and policy. In its widest sense, these studies, along with the subsequent reflection and action, illustrate how Grendon supports a “culture of enquiry” with its strong history of research (Fisher, Ireland, & Sullivan, 2010), encouraging the organization and individuals to explore the deeper issues of power and inequality within both structures and individual practice.

The prison has also developed an active diversity team, comprising residents who act as mentors and are supported by staff. They have organized promotional events regarding ethnicity, religion, and cultural practices. Such events have included film, music, presentations, exhibitions, sports, and games. These mentors also act as peer supporters and advocates, taking a role in the establishment-wide equality action team. By encouraging these kinds of resident-led activities, Grendon has sought to harness communalism and democratization for wider change, both individual and organizational.

The therapeutic process demands deep learning and adaptation from both residents and staff. It is one in which self-identities and narratives are unpicked and reformed over a prolonged period. The therapeutic community is a collaborative enterprise where psychotherapy is used in order to build greater understanding of attitudes, experiences, and behaviors, which are often unconscious or taken for granted (Stevens, 2010). The principles of permissiveness and reality confrontation suggest that residents and staff will be encouraged to display their typical behavior. The views expressed by residents in the research described above suggest that this includes attitudes toward race, ethnicity, and culture. The values and beliefs that underpin this behavior may be unconscious. It is the role of the community and individuals within that community to provide feedback and a means for exploration and reflection. This openness and transparency about interpersonal interactions and deeply held beliefs is not typical of prisons and indeed is rare in society more widely.

The “living–learning” environment is one where individuals are encouraged to reflect upon themselves and their interconnectedness with others. This can include learning about different cultures, experiences, and identities. In the therapeutic context, this involves an openness to change. It has been argued that, “in situations where the therapeutic relationship has representatives from two different cultures, both sides must be prepared to give up something not so useful from their own culture and take up something more useful from the other” (Mandikate, 2007, p. 18). This give and take, shared openness, and responsiveness are part of the living–learning experience.

Conclusion

The criminal justice system in the United Kingdom is deeply implicated in the structures of power and inequality in society. At the deepest end of the system, prisons, such inequalities can be seen both in the gross overrepresentation of Black and minority ethnic people and in the poorer quality of experience reported by these individuals in qualitative evaluations. Medicine and clinical practice does not provide a bulwark against injustice but is often just as deeply entangled, with research identifying differences in access to services and the quality of the experience. These are the outcome of a range of factors including patterns of social, political, and economic marginalization and also deeply entrenched historical and cultural values.

In the face of this, therapeutic communities within the prison system face a daunting task. They inevitably import the problems of power and inequality including the profound injuries inflicted and privileges bestowed upon different groups and individuals. However, within these constraints, these communities can deploy their strengths including communalism, democratization, permissiveness, and reality confrontation to build knowledge, understanding, and skills that can be used in order to ameliorate and positively engage with these structural constraints. It is not realistic to expect therapeutic communities to change the world or society in which they operate, but they can create a more inclusive internal world and empower residents to better understand and use their agency for positive ends.

Therapeutic communities within the prison system such as Grendon have a challenging task. There remains much for them to learn as they strive to improve their service and develop their practice and people. However, there are principles and outcomes that indicate the therapeutic communities approach is one that can have a positive impact and may offer a model from which other organizations can learn.