1. THE ENCYCLOPEDIA
OF CRIMINOLOGY & CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Editor-in-Chief
Jay S. Albanese
Encyclopedia Entry Title: Inmate Subcultures
Elizabeth Higgs
Assistant Professor, Anthropology
Georgia Gwinnett College
ehiggs@ggc.edu
Abstract
Inmate subcultures feature their own unifying systems of values, codes of behavior (the “inmate
code”), social hierarchies, family structures, political systems, means of enculturation through
initiation rituals, unique languages and worldviews (“prison argot”), and underground economies.
The issues explored in criminal justice literature concern the how, what, where, and why of their
creation. Similarities in inmate subcultures have been explained primarily using three theoretical
models—the deprivation model (which describes the “prisonization” process in the “total
institution”), the importation model, and the situational model. Criminal justice research has
tended to concentrate on similarities between inmate subcultures rather than on differences
between them. There are significant gender differences in the inmate codes created in women’s
prisons compared to men’s prisons. Future research could explore these gender differences and
also could expand the use of gender theory and the study of masculinities to study different types
of inmate subcultures.
“Jails, like other places, have their ancient traditions, known only to the inhabitants, and handed
down from one set of melancholy lodgers to the next who occupy their cells,” wrote Sir Walter
Scott, in 1818, in The Heart of Mid-Lothian. Prison cultures have become known in criminal
justice research as inmate subcultures. Inmate subcultures include all of the components
1

2. anthropologists look for in a culture. Culture is typically defined as “the socially learned ways of
living found in human societies” and “it embraces all aspects of social life, including both thought
and behavior.” (Harris, 1999:19) Culture has the following components: a superstructure (the key
values and beliefs); a social structure (rules for behavior, institutions for education, families,
politics); and an infrastructure (basic technology to provide material resources). (Harris, 1999)
Inmate subcultures feature their own unifying systems of values, codes of behavior (the “inmate
code”), social structures, means of enculturation, unique languages (“prison argot”), and
underground economies.
The issues explored by scholars concern the how, what, where, and why of their creation.
Studies have focused on the deprivations imposed by prison life that give rise to inmate
subcultures, the nature of social organization, prison socialization, and external factors that affect
inmates’ adaptations. The origin of the concept of inmate subcultures may be traced to
Clemmer’s classic work, The Prison Community (1940), in which he demonstrated how inmates
are socialized into a prison culture, the process of “prisonization.” In a second phase of the
study of prisons, Sykes (1958) went on to explain why the prison subculture was there in the first
place. Sykes’ study of New Jersey State Prison in 1958, The Society of Captives, continues to be
a cornerstone of prison sociology. Sykes (1958) proposed that inmates block internalization of
social rejection by “rejecting the rejecter.” Sykes and Messinger (1960) define the prisoner
community or “inmate social system” as a set of social relationships, and related values and
roles, with underlying norms, attitudes, and beliefs. Using, the deprivation model, Sykes and
Messinger (1960) analyzed inmate subcultures as reactions to the prison’s system of power, a
social environment created by the custodians.
Inmate subcultures are surprisingly similar whether they are in Ohio (Foster, 1982),
Massachusetts (Benequisto and Freed, 1996), Pennsylvania (Hassine, 2009), New Jersey (Sykes
and Messinger, 1960), California (Trammell, 2009), Nigeria (Onojeharho and Bloom, 1986), Israel
(Einat and Einat, 2000; Shoham, 2010), India (Bandyopadhya, 2006), or Poland (Kaminski,
2003). These similarities have been explained primarily using three theoretical models—the
deprivation model, the importation model and the situational model. The first model suggested
that inmate subcultures arise from the deprivations that result from “prisonization,” from life in a
“total institution.”(Clemmer 1940; Hayner and Ash 1940; Sykes and Messinger, 1960; Goffman,
1961)
Goffman (1961) contributed to the early theoretical discussions of the origins of inmate
subcultures by describing “prisonization” as a reaction to the “total institution.” Prisons are
isolated institutions and a set of unique norms and rules have developed in response to the
2

3. extreme control and deprivations associated with this “total institution.” (Clemmer 1940; Hayner
and Ash 1940) A total institution is defined as “a place of residence and work where a large
number of like-situated individuals, cut off from the wider society for an appreciable period of
time, together lead an enforced, formally administered round of life.” (Haralambos and Holborn,
1995: 305) The prison system curtails freedom of movement through the use of a strict system of
passes, using military formations to move prisoners around within the prison, and confining
inmates to their cells until they were given permission. In response to this loss of autonomy,
inmate subcultures stress norms and values that reflect opposition to institutional rules and prison
authorities (Garofalo and Clark, 1985).
Inmate subcultures provide members with the means to gain status, to mitigate social rejection,
and to compensate for their loss of autonomy (Einat and Einat, 2000: 309). Acceptance of this
new lifestyle and values in inmate subcultures is to be “prisonized.” Reacting to feelings of
powerlessness that result from prisonization, inmates form their own social hierarchies. Bronson
(2006) defines the “inmate code” as one which “represents an organization of criminal values in
clear defiance of the values of conventional society, and to prison officials as representatives of
that society.” As “total institutions,” prisons are designed to achieve the subordination of inmates,
imposing strict rules and restrictions (Goffman, 1961). In “prison argot,” terms referring to police
staff express inmates’ antagonism toward them. The inmates’ nicknames for officers are as
humiliating as possible. For example, in Israeli prisons, police officers are called a term which in
Arabic literally means “contaminated” or they are referred to by a Arabic slang term for
prostitutes. (Einat and Einat 2000: 323) Prisoners who observe the code are not only loyal to
other inmates, but they also stay “cool,” never show weakness, and help others. It is very
important to show indifference or opposition to prison staff. (Einat and Einat, 2000)
The importation model suggests that elements of street life associated with gangs and criminal
drug activity are brought into prisons (Delisi, Berg, and Hochstettler, 2004: Hassine, 2009).
According to importation theories, the values placed on domination and group loyalty within
criminal subcultures associated with gangs or drug distribution are imported into the prison
system. The situational model is an extension of the deprivation model and argues that the
inmate code and its norms are adjusted to the environment and social conditions of each prison
(Camp, Gaes, Langan, and Saylor, 2003).
Some criminal justice research combines the two models that have been proposed to explain the
origins of prison culture (Irwin and Cressey, 1962; Akers, Hayner, and Gruninger, 1977; Pollock
1997; Einat and Einat, 2000; Winfree, Newbold, and Tubb, 2002; Trammell 2009). These
scholars claim that some components of the behavior and language patterns in inmate
3

4. subcultures are constructed in response to the deprivations of prison life and other components
are criminal codes imported into prison life from the street. Especially with regard to drug use
and distribution, there are direct links between street culture and prison culture (Schrag 1954;
Irwin and Cressey, 1962; Irwin 1970).
The core of the value system underlying the inmate code is the sense of loyalty to inmates, an “us
against them” mentality. (Cloward 1960; Irwin and Cressey 1962; Jacobs 1977; Ohlin 1956;
Sykes and Messinger 1960; Terry 1997) As one gang member in a California prison explained,
“You don’t snitch, you don’t owe anyone money and you act like a man.” “You want structure and
you want someone to organize the businesses so the gangs have their rules. You don’t run up a
drug debt, you don’t start a fight in the yard . . .” “ we keep to ourselves and mind our own
business.” (Trammell 2009: 754). In summary, the rules in the inmate code include the following:
do not inform on your fellow inmates; do not trust staff; help other residents; show your loyalty to
other inmates; share what you have; don’t exploit other inmates (keep your word, don’t steal,
don’t sell favors, pay your debts); don’t weaken (no whining, don’t retreat from a fight); stay tough;
don’t be a sucker by “kowtowing” to guards; don’t trust the staff.
Bandyopadhyay (2006: 186) calls attention to the fact that the prison is an “overwhelmingly male
space”--one in which male inmates feel “less than men” because they are no longer “independent
agents of their own destinies,” “protectors of the family,” breadwinners, or strong and influential
men in their communities. Inmates struggle to reclaim a sense of autonomy and self-respect,
creating a “pecking order” with aggressive, violent men at the top and soft “feminized” men at the
bottom. (Bandyopadhyay, 2006: 189).
Inmate subcultures define a dominance hierarchy which is sometimes revealed in daily rules for a
code of behavior that establishes who goes first in line for meals, who gets the TV first, who uses
the shower first, and who sits with whom. Prison roles for men especially promote dominance.
Terry (1997) discussed the inmate code as a social system in male prisons that revolves around
the need to project invulnerability. In Israeli prison society, the prison population is divided into
two groups. Those who dominate have such titles as “king of the castle,” “real man,” and
“cowboy.” Those who are submissive are labeled “shoes,” rabbits” or “invalids.” (Einat and Einat
2000: 316)
In gang hierarchies “imported” into inmate subcultures, the top leaders are called “shot-callers,” a
name originally used by members of the Mexican Mafia prison gangs in juvenile detention
facilities in California in the 1950s. Currently these leaders are sometimes called “key holders.”
They control illegal businesses such as the drug trade. Shot-callers are those who have risen
through the ranks and proven loyalty; men call this “putting in your time.” (Trammell 2009) Next
4

5. in line in the hierarchy, the second –in-command is called a “lieutenant.” A “lieutenant” works
with “soldiers” who work for the gang smuggling drugs. “Associates” are not members of the
gangs, but they show support by fighting with them in a race riot. Someone who does low level
grunt work to become a member of the gang is called a “prospect.” (Trammell 2009: 759)
In the system of stratification created in inmate subcultures, status is established with reference
to the nature of the crime committed, access to money or “political connections,” and the length of
the prison sentence. In the prison in India studied by Bandyopadhyay (2006), there are “lifers,”
“visitors” awaiting trails or with small sentences, and “hang” prisoners. At the top of the hierarchy
were those convicts most feared who had committed murder or armed robbery. Thieves were
categorized according to the weapon used; there were “wagon breakers” who had used knives;
and there were thieves who had used handmade bombs. There was respect for those who had
committed crimes in an intelligent way. Petty thieves were not respected. Also there was a class-
based division between political and non-political prisoners (the latter not being considered
criminals). Rapists were hated because their crimes were considered immoral. Short-term
convicts had to do menial work such as cleaning for the convicts. (Bandyopadhyah, 2006)
In contrast to the dominance hierarchies which male inmates establish, female inmates develop
fictive families. (Foster, 1982; Watterson, 1996; Jones and Schmid, 2003) Some estimates
suggest that from 1/3 to ½ of adult female prisoners create these kinship structures. (Ksofsky and
Ellis 1958; Heffernan 1964; Giallombardo 1966; Jones and Schmid, 2003: 168) Women inmates
enact roles such as father, mother, sister, and cousin to provide affection, security, belonging,
advice, and friendship. Women’s fictive families include an experienced inmate (a “mom”) and a
group of other inmates (“kids”). The “mom” role is like that of a counselor or adviser. Usually
each housing unit in a women’s prison has two mothers. While male inmates’ social organization
includes gangs divided according to ethnicity, women’s prison families cross ethnic lines. In one
fictive family described by Watterson (1996: 295), for example, an Italian American woman in
prison had a mother who was black, a grandmother who was also black. One of her children was
white, and one was Chicana. These inmate-created families provide women with bases of
informal power and unity. The kinship labels also function to create incest taboos.
Certain terms in women’s “prison argot” testify to fluidity in the gender roles that female inmates
enact. Phrases such as “drop her belt” or “curled up her hair” are used to describe a woman who
changes relationships, going from playing a masculine role to a feminine role. (Watterson, 1996)
Some women enact an exaggerated masculine role in which they have multiple “wives,” behave
in a “macho” domineering way, and demand that other women clean for them, do their laundry,
and wait on them. (Watterson 1996: 292)
5

6. Although male inmates do not typically create fictive families, they do develop mentoring
relationships. For men, to learn the social organization of the prison, the ethnic divisions,
distinctions between experienced “convicts” and central ideas within the “inmate code,” it is
important for them to participate in a prison “partnership.” (Jones and Schmid, 2003: 167). This
partnership is typically a friendship between two first-time inmates which functions to help both
inmates “make sense” out of prison life. These partners share information, food and canteen
items, and exchange news from home and personal thoughts.
Besides fictive families, women inmates described two other types of relationships--the “couple,”
and the “rap partner.” Although popular stereotypes emphasize homosexuality in women’s
prisons, the percentage of women engaging in homosexual relationships in prison seems to be
roughly similar to the percentage in the general population. Although it is difficult to obtain
accurate data on the number of physical and romantic “couple” relationships in prison, Jones and
Schmid (2003) report that prison insiders estimate that 5 to 15 percent of women are involved in
these relationships. Women inmates who are “rap partners” do not describe themselves as in
romantic couple relationships, but as good friends. Both of these kinds of relationships address
the same needs for companionship. “Rap partners” appear to have the same kind of relationship
as partnerships as men do. (Jones and Schmid, 2003)
Nigerian inmates have described their prison world as a republic with a constitution, official roles,
and a structured social system with laws and a legal code. (Onojeharho and Bloom 1986: 424).
In the living dormitory, the inmates created a constitution with regulations in four categories: rules
about relationships between inmates; rules regarding relationships with staff; rules about the
inmate power hierarchy; and day to day rules of living (Onojeharho and Bloom 1986: 425). Roles
and titles for officers among the prisoners are defined by the constitution and there are “shadow
courts” to impose penalties. Inmate positions defined by the constitution include a head officer
called the “provost,” a “commissioner of police” and senior police officers. (Onojeharho and
Bloom 1986: 425)
A defining trait for any culture is that its customs or rules for behavior are learned, shared, and
passed down from one generation to the next. As one inmate described the inmate code, “you
have to teach the new guys how to be a con and follow the rules.” (Trammell 2009: 755) Inmate
initiation rituals are part of the enculturation process in prisons. Inmates in Poland have a stage
of initiation into prison culture which they call “prison university.” (Kaminski, 2003) Between 50
and 100 hours of lectures and exams are administered covering secret argot, behavior codes,
and language games.
6

7. Kaminski (2003) describes how inmates are enculturated through “little games” used to collect
information about the toughness and cleverness of “rookies.” Prison games such as “baptism”
determine the inmate’s status in the prison hierarchy. These initiation rituals involve deception
more than actual pain. Deception is needed to decrease violent interactions in a cell and to avoid
the risk of possible punishment by prison personnel (Kaminski, 2003: 212). In Poland, prison
rookies, called “Americans” (Kaminski, 2003:196) are tested in large cells or “stables.” In
baptisms at night, rookies undergoing this test are surrounded by groups of inmates who threaten
to severely beat them with wet towels. These are actually empty threats and the only blows that
will come are light. If the initiate is an experienced prisoner, he knows this and passes this test.
Or if the rookie is actually tough, he passes this test. If he fails this test or game, he will be
labeled a “sucker.” (Kaminski, 2003: 199).
Games such as “Prisoner Fiat” are used to test the inmate’s wits. In “Prisoner Fiat,” the rookie is
thrown under the bed and two prisoners press him to the wall with stools as the leader calls out,
“Get him in first gear . . . second . . . and pressure increases. The inmate must react by shouting
“put it in neutral” to end the punishment. In this game, the rookie must decipher a magical
formula that can be discovered from the context. (Kaminski, 2003: 204) In pop culture, in such
movies as “The Shawshank Redemption,” this cleverness motif is depicted.
The deprivations experienced in prison life are not only material; they also include involuntary
celibacy. With such a vital component of their male status called into question, male inmates’
subcultural response is a “hypermasculinity” sometimes expressed in sexual domination of
younger, weaker males. (Sykes and Messinger 1960: 289) Those who yield to other inmates
without a fight are called “transvestites.” (Einat and Einat 2000: 316) Many terms used to express
contempt for inmates are sexual. In Israeli prisons, inmates who cooperate with prison authorities
in investigations are called “whores.” Seymour (2003: 42) describes an ethos of masculinity
within prisons which is “overwhelmingly heterosexual, misogynistic and violent,” yet not a form of
masculinity that is unique to inmates. Legitimated by the wider culture of masculinity, male
violence is a way to demonstrate contempt for femininity and to assert a dominant, shared
masculinity. The term “hypermasculinity” describes both the stance of officers and prisoners in
an environment which emphasizes discipline, control and hierarchy. (Seymour, 2003: 45)
In his ethnography, Fishman (1934) identified a sexual hierarchy in which male inmates known
as “top men,” “daddies,” or “wolves” preyed upon effeminate homosexuals by sexually assaulting
them. The men who were the sexual aggressors emphasized their hypermasculinity, thus
avoiding being victims. At the bottom of this hierarchy were “punks” who were not homosexual,
7

8. but were dominated by “wolves” because they were weak. For 40 years, research stressed this
emphasis on male inmates’ sexual behavior (Sykes, 1958; Kirkham, 1971; Sagarin, 1976;
Donaldson, 1993). More recent research has looked at this behavior as an expression of
dominance and masculine identity (Seymour, 2003; Bandyopadhyay, 2006). These aggressive
sexual interactions have more to do with status and power than sex (Einat and Einat, 2000: 312).
Aggressive “wolves” do not identify themselves as homosexual (Hensley, Wright, Tewksbury, and
Castle, 2003: 296). According to Sykes (1958), most events within men’s prisons revolve around
a continuous struggle for power. Since inmates have been victims of the power of an
authoritarian judicial system, they regard the possession of power as supreme. Their possession
of power gives them prestige among other inmates and regenerates feelings of self worth.
Sometimes cultures are defined as ways of thinking. “Prison argot,” or language, defines the
framework through which a prison inmate lives, thinks and functions. The term “argot” comes
from French, initially referring to a beggars’ guild, and originally defined as the slang or jargon of
thieves (McArthur 1992). The word “con” came into use around 1888 (Wittenberg, 1996). Just as
workers who were members of early European guilds had their own argot, the coded
communication of prison argot allows inmates to define their status and rights. Inmates use the
argot to keep their “business off the streets.” (Cardozo-Freeman, 1984)
Mastery of prison argot indicates the criminal’s status in prison and his commitment to the
“convict” identity. In U.S. prisons, those inmates who follow the code and never betray other
inmates are called “right guys” or “good guys.” (Irwin, 1970) Key words depict one’s identity as
convicts, outlaws, or outcasts from society. In prison argot, “convicts” are those who follow the
prisoner code. Those who do not are labeled “inmates.” (Trammell 2009) “Inmates” is a term
used by prison officials, but one which is disliked by prisoners because it denotes to them people
who are institutionalized in insane asylums. Gang members referred to their fellow members in
California “prison argot” as “cars.” (Trammell 2009: 754).
In one of the most extensive linguistic studies of prison argot, Einat and Einat (2000) identified
these main categories of argot terms: those concerned with prisoner status (informers, inmate
rank); those describing drugs; terms used to describe sexual relations in prison; terms describing
types of violence; and nicknames for prison staff. One major theme reflected the importance of
loyalty to inmates. Note the following terms (Einat and Einat, 2000: 321):
Verbatim Translation Meaning
 Intelligence airplane Informer
 Antenna Stool pigeon
 Musician Not to be relied on
 Invalid Collaborator
8

9.  Stolen Fool
 Dogs Inmates who obey the boss
 King of the castle Prison leader
 Soldiers Inmates who obey the boss
 Shoes Submissive inmate
 Sausage An inmate who does not act by the inmate code
 Rabbit Coward
 Bell Noisemaker
The many prison argot terms for drugs testifies to their importance in the underground economy.
Prisoners even suggested that they are valued more than the loyalty code. Drugs are important
commodities in prison not only due to the material benefits that distributors achieve, but also
there are valued as a means of psychological escape (Einat and Einat, 2000: 315). The
following list includes some of the terms identified by Einat and Einat, 2000: 322):
Verbatim Translation Meaning
 Blocks Ground grains of heroin
 The “White sport”/
 Name of an Israeli tennis player Heroin
 Cherry Opium
 To knock To inject drug
 Wheels Ball-shaped portions of hashish
 Horny Wants to use drugs
 Telephone A tool to smoke hashish
 Suitcase An inmate who delivers
drugs in his rectum
 Persian pencils Persian cocaine
 Shell (artillery) Cigar filled with tobacco and
hashish
 Roosters Drug portions wrapped for
insertion in rectum
 Chocolate Hashish
 The hungry ones Dogs trained to discover hashish
 Paths Drug arranged in rows
 Tractor A tool to smoke hashish
 Narcissus Drug addict
 Pistol Injector
The symbolic language of tattoos has been treated as another dimension of prison argot.
Prison intake procedures literally strip the inmate of signs of individuality expressed through
jewelry and clothing and replace these with a standard uniform. Prison tattoos allow inmates to
defy this imposed anonymity. Outside of prison, gangs have long used tattoos to signify
membership. Tattoos publicly declare a set of values, attitudes, a lifestyle, and identity. Symbols
that defy social norms—death, skulls, Satan—are preferred (Hall and Jefferson, 1976; Miller,
1995). Tattoos can be “signs of honor” or “signs of shame” and are used to construct a status
9

10. hierarchy. Imported from outside the prison (street gangs and drug rings), inmates use tattoos to
proclaim unique identities in the inmate social hierarchy (Demello, 2000).
Shoham (2010) studied the meanings of tattoos among Russian inmates in Israeli prisons. As in
American prisons, Israeli inmates divide themselves into gangs or cliques according to ethnic
origin (Miller, 1995; Shoham, 2010). Following interpretations by Foucault (1980), Shoham (2010:
986) treats tattoos as language and “culture inscribed in flesh.” Tattoos declare the nature of the
offense, the prisoners “worldview,” and his position. They have become a secret language in
images and pictures whose meanings are known only to the Russian “world of thieves.” (Gurov,
1990)
The main themes reflected in Russian prisoner tattoos are those of a subculture with a class
hierarchy, machismo, the positive value placed on domination, defiance of law, rebellion, and
antagonism toward the Establishment. It is important that tattoos are painful and “macho.”
Tattoos not only declare class rank, but also protect the prisoner against violence. The prisoner
without tattoos is seen as weak and unmanly (Applebaum, 2006). Tattoos advertise power and
status and serve as symbols of solidarity (Shoham 2010: 988).
Russian prisoners’ tattoos were of great size and beauty, revealing the great thought and labor
that went into their creation. One type covers the entire body and incorporates rich religious and
political motifs such as domes, crucifixes, swastikas, and political figures. These tattoos
symbolize rank, mark the type of crime committed, and declare the criminals’ business character.
(Shoham, 2010: 993) Leaders among Russian prisoners show their rank by displaying a tattoo
with a skull impaled on a winged knife with a crowned snake climbing the knife. A skull inside a
star is the “Papa” who runs the cellblock or the entire prison. A knife with a crowned snake
stands for a gang leader. (Shoham, 2010) Tattoos emphasize inmate respect for certain kinds of
violent criminals. Two batting lions with the sun behind them or an elephant with a bell on its
trunk indicate that the prisoner has injured a security officer. A tattoo on the back of the inmates’
hand showing a rose pierced by a sword indicates he has injured a judge. To show that he has
killed a policeman, a prisoner may wear a tattoo of a bull’s eye on the chest near the heart or a
policeman’s hat on the neck. (Shoham, 2010)
Tattoos depict the length of sentences served. One such tattoo has rings depicting ankle chains,
each ring representing one year in prison. Another serial tattoo shows a Russian style building
with another dome added for each year served. A Madonna with a child in her arms tattooed on
the inmates’ chest suggests that his criminal life began almost from infancy (Shoham 2010: 998).
10

11. Symbols of disobedience to the law, tattooed on the upper thigh or the forearm, include the
following: an image of card shuffling symbolizes anarchy, creating a “game with new rules;”
stars on the knees showing that a man does not bow to the rule of law; and dots on the back of
the neck showing defiance against laws and authority. Criminals tattoo themselves with images
of a man’s face with a knife in his mouth and initials spell out a sentence “I will execute
collaborators with a knife.” (Shoham 2010: 995)
Russian tattoos also include “signs of dishonor” forced on homosexual prisoners. One such
tattoo is a bee inscribed on the genitals to indicate that the individual plays the active/dominant
role. On the buttocks of the passive homosexual was a tattoo of a beehive. The implication is
one stings and the other absorbs the sting. Such tattoos assert the value ascribed to dominating
masculine identities. Russian tattoos also feature another hypermasculine theme--the negation
of the feminine. One such example would be tattoos of vultures dangling women in their talons to
signify habitual sexual offenders. (Shoham 2010: 994).
In inmate subcultures, prisoners create underground economies to produce and distribute
contraband. Gangs in prison control the distribution of drugs, prostitution, pornography and the
cigarette trade. Prisoners fabricate weapons to sell for profit and make tools for potential
escapes. Examples observed by Foster (1982: 121) in the U.S. Midwest even included the
making of driver’s licenses, social security cards, and birth certificates.
Ohio inmates describe the process of producing contraband items from the materials available in
prisons as “mushfaking.” (Foster, 1982) A “mushfake” is a prison made copy of something that is
available on the streets, but which is forbidden in prison. An example are “prison dice” made of
sugar cubes marked with a felt-tipped pen. “Stingers” are heating elements made to warm water
for coffee or tea, made of two spoons separated by an insulating material and taped to an electric
cord. This term in prison argot may coincide with the expression “making swag” in institutions in
the Eastern U.S. (Foster 1982: 117) In Ohio, the original phrase could have been “mash-faking”
referring to the production of alcoholic beverages. Irwin (1970) uses the term “improvisation” to
describe the brewing of “pruno” or “raisin Jack.” Some prisoners referred to prison homosexuality
as “mushfaked sex” and to effeminate inmates as “mushfaked women.” (Foster, 1982: 120)
“Mushfaking” furnishes demanded, but forbidden, goods, services, and interpersonal relationships
and can also serve a transcendent function, permitting inmates to escape the boredom of prison
life.
Some contraband created by female inmates differs from that created by male inmates--hangers
for their clothes out of rolled up newspaper, dressers for their clothes out of boxes. Women
11

12. decorate paper bags and use them for wastepaper baskets, and make their own tampons out of
strips of Kotex, and they alter prison uniforms to fit. (Watterson, 1996: 287)
Einat and Einat (2000: 315) suggest that participation in the underground economy serves not
only a material function in providing desired commodities but also serves an important
psychological function. It creates a sense of control and gives the satisfaction that one is
outwitting the prison supervisors.
There are two trends in research which could be pursued in future research. One would be to
add to the still sparse research on women’s prisons. Limited aspects of women’s prisons have
been explored in journal articles. To be fair, this preference is rooted in the prevalence of men in
prison populations. Men make up over 90 percent of most prison populations (Earle, 2011: 129).
There are significant gender differences in the inmate codes and social hierarchies created in
women’s prisons compared to men’s prisons. In the study by Trammell (2009:752) in California
men’s and women’s prisons, women rarely joined gangs and physical violence was rare. In
contrast, almost half of the men interviewed by Trammell (2009) in California prisons reported
that they belonged to a prison gang. In prison, women seek to avoid “the mix” (prison argot for
involvement in trouble, conflicts, and drugs (Owen 1998: 167) because most of them have
children waiting for them on the outside. The impact of such differences in women’s prison
subcultures have not been fully explored.
Secondly, future research could expand the use of gender theory and the study of masculinities
to study inmate subcultures. The loss of autonomy that is central in “prisonization” threatens
masculine identity among male inmates--their master status. In contrast, women’s more acute
feelings of loss in prison are centered on the loss of their family networks of support. As noted
above, men’s social hierarchies emphasize dominance (through the threat of sexual aggression)
while women’s social hierarchies in inmate subcultures emphasize family relationships. Within
the growing field of masculinity studies, men’s prisons are rarely studied. Considerations of
gender are usually absent in prison studies, unless the subjects are women. The impact of
gender on prison life has been explored by Seymour (2003). The predominance of males (staff
and inmates), and the paramilitary orientation of prisons produces a more extreme expression of
masculinity. Relations of dominance are expressed through confrontational communication,
physicality, and victimization of men by men. Compared to women’s prisons, power is displayed
more overtly in men’s prisons. Men who have less wealth and institutional power resort to
“hypermasculine” displays of aggression and violence to establish a respected male identity
(Seymour, 2003: 38)
12

13. (SEE ALSO: Cross references at end -- see list online)
References
Akers, Ronald L., Norman S. Hayner, and Werner Gruninger. 1977. “Prisonization in Five
Countries: Type of Prison and Inmate Characteristics.” Criminology 14 (4): 527-554.
Bandyopadhyay, Mahuya. 2006. “Competing Masculinities in a Prison.” Men and Masculinities
9 (2): 186-203.
Benequisto, Lucia and Peter J. Freed. 1996. “The Myth of Inmate Lawlessness: The Perceived
Contradiction between Self and Other Inmates Support for Criminal Justice Sanctioning Norms. “
Law and Society Review 30 (3).
Bronson, Eric. 2006. “Medium Security Prisons and Inmate Subcultures: The ‘Normal Prison.’”
The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice 3 (2): 61-66.
Camp, S.D., G.G. Gaes, N.P. Langan, and W.G. Saylor. 2003. “The Influence of Prisons on
Inmate Misconduct: A Multilevel Investigation.” Justice Quarterly 20: 501-533.
Cardozo-Freeman, I. 1984. The Joint: Language and Culture in a Maximum Security Prison.
Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Clemmer, Donald. 1940. The Prison Community. Boston: Christopher Publishing.
Cloward, Richard A. 1960. “Social Control in Prison.” Pp. 20-48 in R.A. Cloward, D.R. Cressey,
G.H. Glosser, R. McCleery, L.E. Ohlin, G.M. Sykes, and S. Messinger. New York: Social Science
Research Council.
Delisi, M., M. T. Berg, and A. Hochstetler. 2004. Gang Members, Career Criminals, and Prison
Violence: Future Specification of the Importation Model of Inmate Behavior.” Criminal Justice
Studies 17: 369-383.
Demello, M. 2000. Bodies of Inscription. Durham: Duke University Press.
Donaldson, S. 1993. A Million Jockers, Punks, and Queens: Sex among Male Prisoners and Its
Implications for Concepts of Sexual Orientation. Available from www.igc.apc.org/spr/docs/prison-
sex-lecture.html
Einat, Tomer and Haim Einat. 2000. “Inmate Argot as an Expression of Prison Subculture: The
Israeli Case.” The Prison Journal 80 (3): 309-325.
Earle, Rod. 2011. “Boys’ Zone Stories: Perspectives from a Young Men’s Prison.” Criminology
and Criminal Justice 11 (2): 129-143.
Fishman, J. 1934. Sex in Prison: Revealing Sex Conditions in American Prisons. New York:
National Library Press.
Foster, Thomas W. 1982. “’Mushfaking: ‘ A Compensatory Behavior of Prisoners.” Journal of
Social Psychology 117 (1): 115-125.
Foucault, M. 1980. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. New York: Vintage.
Garofalo, James S. and Richard D. Clark. 1985. “The Inmate Subculture in Jails.” Criminal
Justice and Behavior 12 (4): 415-434.
13

14. Giallombardo, R. 1966. A Study of a Women’s Prison. New York: Wiley.
Goffman, E. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other
Inmates. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Gurov, A.I. 1990. Professional Crime Past and Present. Moscow: Luridicheskaia Literatura.
Hall, S. and T. Jefferson. 1976. Resistance Through Rituals: Youth Subcultures in Post-war
Britain. London: Hutchinson.
th
Hassine, Victor. 2009. Life Without Parole: Living in Prison Today. (4 edition) Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Harris, Marvin. 1999. Theories of Culture in Postmodern Times. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Press.
Hayner, Norman S. and Ellis Ash. 1940. “The Prison as a Community.” American Sociological
Review 5 (4): 577-583.
Heffernan, E. M. 1964. Inmate Social Systems and Subsystems: The Square, the Cool, and the
Life. Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University, Washington, D.C.
Hensley, Christopher, Jeremy Wright, Richard Tewkesbury, and Tammy Castle. 2003, “The
Evolving Nature of Prison Argot and Sexual Hierarchies.” The Prison Journal 83 (3): 289-300.
Irwin, John. 1970. The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Irwin, John and Donald R. Cressey. 1962. “Thieves, Convicts and the Inmate Culture.” Social
Problems 10 (2): 142-155.
Jacobs, James B. 1977. Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Jones, Richard S. and Thomas J. Schmid. 2003. “Parallels in the Prison Experiences of Women
and Men,” Pp. 155-181 in Barbara H. Zaitzow and Jim Thomas (eds.), Women in Prison:
Gender and Social Control. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Kaminski, Marek M. 2003. “Games Prisoners Play: Allocation of Social Roles in a Total
Institution.” Rationality and Society 15: 188.
Mathiesen, Thomas. 1966. “The Sociology of Prisons: Problems for Future Research.” Paper
presented to the Committee on Psychiatric Sociology at the Sixth World Congress of Sociology.
McArthur, T. 1992. The Oxford Companion to the English Language. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Miller, J.A. 1995. “Struggles Over Symbolic: Gang Style and the Meanings of Social Control.”
Pp. 213-234 in J. Ferrell and C.R. Sanders (eds.), Cultural Criminology. Boston: Northeastern
University Press.
Onojeharho, John E. and Leonard Bloom. 1986. “Inmate Subculture in a Nigerian Prison.”
Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied 120 (5): 421-432.
Ohlin, Lloyd E. 1956. Sociology and the Field of Corrections. New York: Social Science
Research Council.
14

15. Owen, Barbara. 1998. “In the Mix:” Struggle and Survival in a Women’s Prison. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Pollock, Joycelyn M. 1997. Prison: Today and Tomorrow. Gaithersburg: Aspen Press.
Sagarin, E. 1976. “Prison Homosexuality and Its Effect on Post-prison Behavior.” Psychiatry 39:
245-257.
Schrag, Clarence. 1954. “Leadership among Prison Inmates.” American Sociological Review 19
(1): 37-42.
Seymour, Kate. 2003. “Imprisoning Masculinity.” Sexuality and Culture, Special Issue: Sexuality
and the Corrections System 7 (4): 27-55.
Shoham, Efrat. 2010. “’Signs of Honor’ Among Russian Inmates in Israel’s Prisons.“
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 54 (6): 984-1003.
Sykes, Gresham M. 1958. The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security Prison.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Sykes, Gresham M. and Sheldon L. Messinger. 1960. “The Inmate Social System.” Pp. 5-19 in
R.A. Cloward, D. R. Cressey, G. H. Glossner, R. McCleery, L.E. Ohlin, G. M.
Sykes and S. Messinger (eds.), Theoretical Studies in Social Organization of the Prison. New
York: Social Science Research Council.
Terry, Charles. 1997. “The Function of Humor for Prison Inmates.” Journal of Contemporary
Criminal Justice 13 (1): 23-40.
Trammell, Rebecca. 2009. “Values, Rules, and Keeping the Peace: How Men Describe Order
and the Inmate Code in California Prisons.” Deviant Behavior 30: 746-771.
Watterson, Kathryn. 1996. Women in Prison: Inside the Concrete Womb. Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
Winfree, Tom, Greg Newbold, and Huston Tubb. 2002. “Prisoner Perspectives on Inmate
Culture in New Mexico and New Zealand.” The Prison Journal 82 (2): 213-233.
Wittenberg, Peter M. 1996. “Language and Communication in Prison.” Federal Probation
00149128. 60 (4).
Author Mini Biography
Elizabeth Higgs is currently Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Georgia Gwinnett College.
She received her Ph.D. from the University of Florida, based on research as a U.S. Fulbright
Doctoral Fellow in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Dr. Higgs has presented professional conference papers for
the annual meetings of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the American
Criminological Society. She has published a variety of articles in peer review journals and has a
forthcoming article in the Journal of Family History.
Key Terms
Prisonization
Inmate subcultures
Inmate code
Prison culture
15

16. Prison argot
Total institution
16