en pl
en pl

Decyzje

Show issue
Year 6/2021 
Issue 35

W te gry więźniowie nie grają. Instytucje rzeczywistej subkultury więziennej łagodzące konflikt i przemoc w kontraście do eksperymentu Zimbardo .

Marek Kamiński
University of California

6/2021 (35) Decyzje

DOI 10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.153

Article contents

Abstract

In the prison subculture, informal institutions have spontaneously evolved to mitigate levels of violence and potential confrontations between inmates. First, rookies (new prisoners) are subjected to initiation tests, which try to measure their rigidity (bravery) and cunning (intelligence) and assign to the appropriate subcultural group. Membership in a group of grypsmen signals the rigidity of prisoners and discourages fighting between the grypsmen or the resistance from members of lower groups. Experienced prisoners perfect eristics within the framework of prison argot, which allows them to turn real confl icts into verbal duels, use informal arbitration and learn to pretend aggression towards freshmen. All prisoners are trying to join the defensive coalitions. Inmates also perform spectacular self-injuries in accordance with secret procedures, faking desperation, but in fact minimizing damage to health and trying to get some benefi ts from the prosecutor or prison authorities. The collected empirical
material comes from the prisons in Warsaw (Rakowiecka) and Białołęka, where the author spent fi ve months in 1985 as a political prisoner.

References

  1. Anderson, T.L., McChesney, F.S. (1994). Raid or Trade? An Economic Model of Indian-White Relations. The Journal of Law and Economics, 37(1), 39–74. [Google Scholar]
  2. Banyard, P. (2007). Tyranny and the Tyrant. Zimbardo’s “The Lucifer Effect” Reviewed. The Psychologist, 20(8), 494–495. [Google Scholar]
  3. D’Amico, D.J. (2015). Spontaneous Order. W: Boettke, P.J., Coyn, C. (red.), The Oxford Handbook of Austrian Economics (s. 115–142). New York, NJ: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  4. Gambetta, D. (2011). Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate. Princeton: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Gambetta, D., Székely, Á. (2014). Signs and (Counter) Signals of Trustworthiness. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 106 (October), 281–297. [Google Scholar]
  6. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Toronto-New York, NY: Anchor Books. [Google Scholar]
  7. Hall, J.C., Martin, A.G. (2011). Austrian Economics: Methodology, Concepts, and Implications for Economic Education. Journal of Economics and Finance Education, 10(2). [Google Scholar]
  8. Hamill, H. (2018). The Hoods: Crime and Punishment in Belfast. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  9. Haney, C., Banks, C., Zimbardo, P. (1972). Interpersonal Dynamics in a Simulated Prison. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Department of Psychology. [Google Scholar]
  10. Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S., Bavel, J.J.V. (2018). Rethinking the Nature of Cruelty: The Role of Identity Leadership in the Stanford Prison Experiment. Dostęp: https://psyarxiv.com/b7crx/ [Google Scholar]
  11. Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D. (2012). Contesting the “Nature” of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s Studies Really Show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001426. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hayek, F.A. ([1988] 1994). The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism (wydanie 1994). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kamiński, M.M., Gibbons, D.C. (1994). Prison Subculture in Poland. Crime and Delinquency, 40(1), 105–119. [Google Scholar]
  14. Kaminski, M.M. (2003). Games Prisoners Play: Allocation of Social Roles in a Total Institution. Rationality and Society, 15(2), 188–217. [Google Scholar]
  15. Kaminski, M.M. (2004a). Gry więźniów: Podział ról społecznych w instytucji totalnej. Studia Socjologiczne, 174(3), 93–122. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kaminski, M.M. (2004b). Games Prisoners Play. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kamiński, M.M. (2006). Gry więzienne: Tragikomiczny świat polskiego więzienia. Warszawa: Oficyna Naukowa. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kaminski, M.M. (2021). Games prisoners do not play: against the Hobbes-Zimbardo approach of unmitigated prison violence. Journal of Institutional Economics (w druku), 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  19. Kaye, T. (reż.) (1998), American History X, New Line Cinema. Dostęp: 24 sierpnia 2020. http://www. imdb.com/title/tt0120586 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kekoshvili, V., Slade, G. (2020). Prisoner games children play: Youth socialization and criminal subcultures in the Republic of Georgia. Problems of Post-Communism, 67(3), 277–287. [Google Scholar]
  21. Loach, K. (reż.) (2002). Sweet Sixteen. Lions Gate Films. Dostęp 24 sierpnia 2020. https://www. imdb.com/title/tt0313670/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2. [Google Scholar]
  22. Martin, N., Storr, V.H. (2008). On Perverse Emergent Orders. Studies in Emergent Order, 1(1), 73–91. [Google Scholar]
  23. Miszewski, K. (2007). Uniwersytet więzienny. Studia Socjologiczne, 184(1), 163–171. [Google Scholar]
  24. Miszewski, K. (2015). Zabójcy w więzieniu. Warszawa: Ofi cyna Naukowa. [Google Scholar]
  25. Niesiołowski, S. (1989). Wysoki brzeg. Poznań: W Drodze. [Google Scholar]
  26. Niewolski, K. (reż.) (2003). Symetria. Dostęp: 24 sierpnia 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Symmetry_(fi lm)&oldid=889546102 [Google Scholar]
  27. Pontecorvo, G. (reż.) (1966). La battaglia di Algeri. Dostęp: 24 sierpnia 2020. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/ [Google Scholar]
  28. Reicher, S., Haslam, S.A. (2006). Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny: The BBC Prison Study’. British Journal of Social Psychology, 45(1), 1–40. [Google Scholar]
  29. Rider, R. (1993). War, Pillage, and Markets. Public Choice, 75(2), 149–156. [Google Scholar]
  30. Searle, J.R. (2005). What is an institution?. Journal of institutional economics, 1(1), 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  31. Skaperdas, S. (1992). Cooperation, Confl ict, and Power in the Absence of Property Rights. The American Economic Review, 82(4), 720–739. [Google Scholar]
  32. Skarbek, D. (2020). The Puzzle of Prison Order: Why Life Behind Bars Varies Around the World: Why Life Behind Bars Varies Around the World. Oxford-New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  33. Skarbek, D. (2014). The Social Order of the Underworld: How Prison Gangs Govern the American Penal System. Oxford-New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Skarbek, D. (2016). Covenants without the Sword? Comparing Prison Self-Governance Globally. American Political Science Review, 110(4), 845–862. [Google Scholar]
  35. Smith, J.M., Price, G.R. (1973). The Logic of Animal Confl ict. Nature, 246(5427), 15. [Google Scholar]
  36. Spicer, R.S., Miller, T.R. (2000). Suicide Acts in 8 States: Incidence and Case Fatality Rates by Demographics and Method. American Journal of Public Health, 90(12): 1885. [Google Scholar]
  37. Symkovych, A. (2018). The “Inmate Code” in Flux: A Normative System and Extralegal Governance in a Ukrainian Prison. Current Sociology, 66(7): 1087–1105. [Google Scholar]
  38. Székely, A., Gambetta, D. (2019). Fighting and Information: From Prison to the Lab, SocArXiv. Tintinalli, J. (2015). Tintinallis Emergency Medicine: A Comprehensive Study Guide. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. [Google Scholar]
  39. Varese, F. (1998). The Society of the vory-v-zakone, 1930s–1950s. Cahiers Du Monde Russe, 39(4): 515–538. [Google Scholar]
  40. Voigt, S. (2018). How to measure informal institutions. Journal of Institutional Economics, 14(1), 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  41. Wojciechowski, R. (1981). Rok 1952. Krytyka, 12, 124–140. [Google Scholar]
  42. Zimbardo, P.G. (2011). ‘Lucifer Effect’. The Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology. Dostęp: 8 kwietnia 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470672532.wbepp149 [Google Scholar]

Full metadata record

Cite this record

APA style

Kamiński, Marek M. (2021). W te gry więźniowie nie grają. Instytucje rzeczywistej subkultury więziennej łagodzące konflikt i przemoc w kontraście do eksperymentu Zimbardo .. (2021). W te gry więźniowie nie grają. Instytucje rzeczywistej subkultury więziennej łagodzące konflikt i przemoc w kontraście do eksperymentu Zimbardo .. Decyzje, (35), 45-74. https://doi.org/10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.153 (Original work published 6/2021AD)

MLA style

Kamiński, Marek M.. “W Te Gry Więźniowie Nie Grają. Instytucje Rzeczywistej Subkultury Więziennej Łagodzące Konflikt I Przemoc W Kontraście Do Eksperymentu Zimbardo .”. 6/2021AD. Decyzje, no. 35, 2021, pp. 45-74.

Chicago style

Kamiński, Marek M.. “W Te Gry Więźniowie Nie Grają. Instytucje Rzeczywistej Subkultury Więziennej Łagodzące Konflikt I Przemoc W Kontraście Do Eksperymentu Zimbardo .”. Decyzje, Decyzje, no. 35 (2021): 45-74. doi:10.7206/DEC.1733-0092.153.

Copyright info

copyright info

CC-BY

People also read: