Presentation of Self and the Perils of False Signalling

The existing body of criminological research shows that prisoners pay close attention to how emotions are displayed in a penal environment (Laws and Crewe 2015; Warr 2015). Although some of this relates to how individuals project their character to others, ‘signals’ are also often emitted to display one’s gang status, offence type, or wider connections within the social network of the prison. Individuals who participated in my research were also acutely aware of their role and status within the wider prison, reflecting Goffman’s argument that ‘presentation of self’ in daily life is a theatrical performance, and face-to-face interactions are used to control the impressions one receives of others (Smith 2006). In The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, Goffman (1956:51) writes that “as members of an audience it is natural for us to feel that the impression the performer seeks to give may be true or false, genuine or spurious, valid or ‘phony’. So common is this doubt that, as suggested, we often give special attention to features of the performance that cannot be readily manipulated”. In this chapter, I have already referred to these ‘hard to fake signals’ (Densely 2013), which were used to demonstrate that an individual was a bona fide gang member. Indeed, at their most basic level, signals could simply

157

be an individual verbally stating his gang affiliation or the offence for which he was convicted. However, there was the continuous risk that individuals would falsely portray their identity to others. Most common were individuals who would hide their offence types or falsely claim to be gang-affiliated. Sex offenders were particularly at risk of victimization, whether they pro- actively revealed their offence, or if they were ‘found out’ by other prisoners. Some sex- offenders took the risk of masking their crimes, reflecting the high degree of stigma faced by such offenders more generally in prison (Ievans and Crewe 2016). However, other prisoners had strategies in place to verify individuals’ identities:

Our gang were rioting in a prison and took over the wing, officers ran off the wing, we found a guy who we suspected of being a sex offender, read through his file and we threw him off the landing. I don’t like ’em [sex offenders] I can’t stand ’em. They have to be padded up with other sex offenders. Cos if one were padded up with me I’d kill him. I don’t care, I’d leather him. I’d punch him everywhere. And how would you find out? Like I said, you could look through their file, a screw might tell you, a screw might keep their office door open, so you can look through their file. The screws don’t like them either.

Dan, Former Gang Member, HMP Manchester

Even on here [VPU], a lot of sex-offenders get terrorized and bullied. You see ten or twenty prisoners steam into them and leather them. And it’s worse in the main jail. Normally, in the main jail, when you come in, you show your pad mate your deps, so they can see what you’re convicted of, or if you’re dirty. So, someone’s offences can be verified? Exactly. Cos a lot of the time you’ll have sex-offenders lie about what they’re in for. But with seeing the deps they can’t lie. Luke, Non-Gang Member, HMP Forest Bank

Reading a prisoner’s files, viewing his charge sheets, or being informed of his offence by officers were all means through which one could verify whether an individual was telling the truth about the offence for which he had been convicted. Indeed, there was a presumption that sex-offenders would emit false signals, attempting to deceive other prisoners as to the offence for which they had been convicted. However, Goffman’s theories around false impressions and misrepresentations were also present in relation to gang members. The tight, dense networks which characterize many gangs meant that there was often an established process to discern whether an individual was who he said he was: gang affiliation could easily be verified, and depending on one’s true identity, the repercussions could be severe:

158

You get people who’re claiming and repping falsely, and I tell them that’s dumb, cos you then you go to jail and get seriously hurt. I mean, even me, I ended up in a jail years ago, in 2002. I landed there, got told, “Go in there”. I’m the only Mancunian in here. And guys immediately started making phone calls to check out that I was Gooch. And one of them said, “You’re lucky you’re not Doddington or Cheetam Hill cos then there’d be 400 men in here wanting to kill you, simply because”. And that’s why I tell people, be very careful what you say. James, Former Gang Member, HMP Forest Bank

First, James’ response showed that social networks were not restricted to one region of the country. Indeed, gang rivalries and allegiances spread across England’s prisons, something which was described by several participants. Again, the high levels of gang ‘importation’ into prisons meant that gang associations which had developed on the streets would permeate prison walls. Second, James alluded to the fact that gang identities were sometimes disingenuous, with prisoners falsely ‘repping’ a gang dependent upon the situation they were in. This led to James’ warning of advising people to “be very careful what you say”. Moreover, alliances and conflicts existed between gangs in various parts of England. Accordingly, James’ account of being in a prison outside of Greater Manchester showed that his ‘gang status’ still affected his interactions with other prisoners. Like James’ account, many participants agreed that one of the most dangerous courses of action to take in prison was pretending to be something one was not: systems were in place to allow individuals’ identities to be verified, and the large numbers of street gang members in prison allowed for violent retaliation to be exacted for misrepresentations. However, this statement required substantial clarification. To present oneself as being tougher, more violent, and more resilient than in reality was not viewed unfavourably; indeed, ‘fronting’ in this manner was often to be expected in prison (see also Laws 2016). However, to hide the nature of one’s offence, or to pretend to be affiliated to a gang were transgressions viewed in a wholly different light. It was accepted that “when an individual appears before others, he will have many motives for trying to control the impression they receive of the situation” (Goffman, 1956:13), but this performance had to be a nuanced one. Indeed, as Goffman further identifies, there is a difference between the ‘frontstage’ and ‘backstage’ identities of individuals. Central to this argument is the premise that people behave differently in their public interactions – such as at work or at school – compared to their private interactions, at home or with close members of their family.

159

Although Goffman does not specifically write about the presentation of one’s identity in relation to prisons, carceral environments are one of the principal arenas within which individuals are prone to change the way they present themselves. In my research, this importance of ‘front’ – maintaining ‘face’ through the display of aggression and bravado – was something which was often referred to by participants and could also be observed when fieldwork was conducted. It was especially pertinent for gang members, for who maintaining reputation was central to their identities and helped to sustain the criminal enterprise. However, such concerns were by no means restricted to gang members and could be said to apply to prisoners more generally. Applying Goffman’s analysis to the sample sites, ‘front stage’ could be said to involve most areas of the prison which excluded individual cells; spaces such as the exercise yard, prison gym and other public spaces. This could be contrasted to the ‘backstage’ areas of the prison, such as cells, as well as other arenas which were private spaces, most notably areas of the Chaplaincy, where private interactions occurred with the Prison Chaplain. There was an acknowledgement by several participants that interactions which occurred in these spaces allowed for prisoners to show their emotions and true characters, something that they were unable to do in the wider space of the prison:

When they come to see us, they’re prepared to cry, and the armour comes off. They feel safe. With a Listener, he’d only go so far. I’ve seen a lot of prisoners cry and they say they’re ashamed. I say, “You’re not the only one”. When they come to main street – back to the prison – the armour comes back on. I have so many who say to me, “Are my eyes alright now? Do they look dry?” Prison Chaplain, HMP Forest Bank

Private interactions with prison chaplains, then, were one example of where the exterior ‘armour’ which prisoners metaphorically ‘wore’ could be taken off: under the carapace of self- confidence existed vulnerabilities, and the Chaplaincy was one forum where such emotions could be revealed. Indeed, for gang members, these external presentations of self were most apparent. Goffman (1956) describes gangs as being one group situation where individuals’ presentations of self are particularly well modulated because such group interactions place a heavy emphasis on how individuals are viewed by one another.

In relation to this difference between ‘front’ and ‘back’ stage identities, Goffman (ibid:51) goes on to argue that “when we think of those who present a false front...we think of a discrepancy between fostered appearances and reality. We also think of the precarious position in which

160

these performers place themselves, for at any moment in their performance an event may occur to catch them out and badly contradict what they openly avowed”. This was as true at the sample sites, as it was when Goffman was writing over fifty years ago:

And then you get the lads who stand around with the gang wanting to be in it. A lot of them aren’t even really gang members. And then they come to prison, and the only way they’ll know the dangers of falsely claiming is going onto a wing, and they’ve been claiming Gooch and it’s a room full of Doddington. They have to be in a cell with ten Doddington, their face mangled crying, “I wish I’d never pretended to be Gooch. And that’s when it clicks.

Owen, Gang Outreach Worker, Manchester

False presentations of identity – or as Goffman terms them, ‘misrepresentations’ – were costly both in terms of one’s personal safety and in terms of the fall-out from being discovered to have deceived. As Goffman goes on to articulate, “when an individual appears before others, he will have many motives for trying to control the impression they receive of the situation (ibid:13). In relation to prison, it was difficult to successfully deceive other prisoners: both sample sites for my research were local prisons, with high turnovers of prisoners, and close degrees of interaction between the carceral environment and street culture. This combined with the proliferation of mobile phones in prison, as well as the cohesive social networks which characterise many gangs (see, e.g. Whyte 1958; Venkatesh 2008), meant that verifying an individual’s true status was usually not a difficult task. As Owen stated, “falsely claiming” gang affiliation could lead to an individual getting his “face mangled. Yet there were instances where individuals genuinely believed themselves to be gang members but were seen as ‘faking it’ by other, longer-standing gang members. The proliferation of gang ‘off-shoots’, as well as the presence of more gangs generally, meant that in the search for authenticity, individuals had to be more willing to ‘prove’ themselves: a key component of this was the use of violence. In the following section of this chapter, I present how violence was utilized and deployed by gang members to secure status, bolster reputation, and protect oneself in the often-unpredictable world of the prison.