Abstract
In this work, Bernstein approaches the topic of writing and arts activities in American prisons in the 1970s from the broad perspective of cultural studies. The title suggests what is arguably the author’s central theme, namely, that American society oppresses racial minorities, as reflected through the use of the prison, but that inmates’ opportunities in the 1970s to express themselves through literature and the arts served to shape political discourse about the nature of social and criminal justice. Accordingly, the text explores culturally constructed meanings of imprisonment and how various forms of expression interpreted them, challenged them, or reified them in the public mind. Much of the narrative reflects a Marxist interpretation, with references to state power and repression, colonialism, and revolution.
The argument progresses from the roots of 1970s writing and arts programs to their decline during the get-tough era. The Introduction and Chapter 1 provide context by exploring the origins of rehabilitative programming and the emergence of get-tough politics following Richard Nixon’s election in 1968. The 1970s represented the pinnacle of the rehabilitative ideal on the one hand, and the roots of the get-tough movement that would soon belie that ideal, on the other. In Chapter 1, Bernstein locates the roots of get-tough within Johnson’s Great Society, suggesting that “what had been called ‘social improvement’ under the Johnson administration was merely renamed ‘law enforcement’ under the Nixon administration” (p. 49). For instance, Bernstein identifies the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs, the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, and the Law Enforcement Assistant Administration as tools by which the cultural reframing that resulted in getting-tough was accomplished. The chapter highlights factors influencing the cultural shift, including an analysis of Nixon’s campaign advertisements and the work of public intellectuals.
The remaining chapters highlight a variety of forms of inmate literary and artistic expression and how they led to public discourse and to transformation of the inmates, themselves. Chapter 2 focuses on George Jackson, inmate and author of Soledad Brother. Jackson was the product of, and a contributor to, the “covert education” (p. 55) sessions in which inmates participated, when educational programming was unavailable or perceived as illegitimate. Jackson’s ideas (grounded in part on notions of repression and colonialism) made an impact on both popular and inmate culture. Bernstein suggests that Jackson’s “ideas permeated the culture of the American left” (p. 52), and explores how Jackson influenced inmates at Attica.
Chapter 3 highlights the Martinson Report, noting that reductions in recidivism are viewed as the sine qua non of correctional success. As a result, values such as inmate transformation, cultural contributions, and cultural critiques were deemphasized. Bernstein compares two programs—Scared Straight and the Sesame Street Prison Project, in which children visiting an incarcerated parent watch a Sesame Street video followed by inmate-led discussion and activities. The former was focused on deterrence, the latter on positive growth for inmates and their families. Implicit within the comparison is the truism that one program is familiar to popular culture, while the other is not.
Chapter 4 returns to themes of oppression and liberation, with a focus on use of the written word to expose and challenge the greater social context in which prisons exist. Bernstein contextualizes within the Black Arts and Black Power movements the written work of inmate authors. Bernstein also explores themes including the nature of violence, views of prostitutes and pimps, and the idea that “prisons could be the sites of [cultural or individual] transformation and that convicts would be key participants in the revolution that followed the shift in consciousness” (p. 128).
Chapter 5 focuses on theater programs, observing that they may be constructed to meet goals including entertainment, advocacy for social change, and career training. Bernstein profiles two plays in some depth—Miguel Piñero’s Short Eyes and John Herbert’s Fortune and Men’s Eyes. In addition, Bernstein explores several prison theatre programs and their differing goals and approaches. These programs provided a means for theater to contribute to culture within and beyond prisons, while also advocating for penal reform and social justice.
Chapter 6 and the conclusion track the decline of the writing and arts activities that were popular during the 1970s. Bernstein focuses upon Jack Henry Abbott’s In the Belly of the Beast as the marker of a turning tide. Abbott’s now-classic book was based in part on correspondence with Norman Mailer, who subsequently advocated for Abbott’s early parole (as others did, as well). While on parole, Abbott was reincarcerated for manslaughter. This emerged into a critique of liberal elite patronage of inmate arts, prominent enough to be parodied on Saturday Night Live. Inmate arts programs are now largely based on volunteer and faith-based efforts. However, Bernstein reports that cultural critiques of criminal justice continue, even if more limited than in the past, with a current focus on wrongful executions.
Part literary criticism, part political philosophy, part historical narrative, Bernstein’s work shines a light into the window of the 1970s, with the beam focused upon a series of programs and inmate-authored works that shaped narratives and dialogues about American corrections. It is important to recall this key, and transitional, time in correctional history, and the impact made by prison writing and arts—especially in an era where popular conceptions of corrections are often based on movies and television programs to the exclusion of other sources. Bernstein is clearly well versed in the literary and artistic works of inmate authors, and the text has an impressive depth of citation, drawing together disparate ideas in interesting ways. The text does demand of its reader an acceptance of critical (often Marxist) theory, which sometimes yields ideologically grounded interpretations that may be debated by those working outside of that theoretical perspective. In some areas, readers may also wonder if the analysis attributes too far-reaching a result or impact to the programs described. However, the book does contribute to the correctional literature by recalling an era that is too easily forgotten, and its unique cultural history.