Without words to get in the way: Symbolic interaction in prison-based animal programs

Gennifer Furst

doi:10.18778/1733-8077.3.1.07

Authors

Gennifer Furst William Patterson University, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.3.1.07

Keywords:

Symbolic interaction, Animals in prison, Human-animal interaction

Abstract

George H. Mead ([1934] 1967) contended a person’s sense of self develops from language-based interactions with other humans in society. According to contemporary sociologists, a person’s sense of self is also influenced by non-verbal interactions with human and non-human animals. The present research extends Sanders (1993) work that examined how dog owners relate to their pets and come to develop a unique social identity for them. Through interviews with participants in prison-based animal programs (PAPs), this research explores whether inmates engaged in a similar process of assigning the animals with which they work a human-like identity. The implications of the relationships that develop in terms of desistance, which Maruna (2001) argued requires a redefinition of a person’s self-identity, are discussed.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Gennifer Furst, William Patterson University, USA

Gennifer Furst (PhD) received her doctorate in criminal justice from CUNY Graduate Center (NYC) and is an assistant professor in the sociology department of William Paterson University (NJ). She conducted the first national survey of prison-based animal programs. In addition to issues of punishment and corrections, her research interests include capital punishment, drugs and crime, and race and the administration of justice.

References

Alger, Janet and Steven Alger (1997) “Beyond Mead: Symbolic interaction between humans and felines.” Society and Animals 5(1):65-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853097X00222

Beck, Alan and Aaron Katcher (1996) Between Pets and People. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

Beck, Alan and Aaron Katcher (2003) “Future directions in human-animal bond research.” The American Behavioral Scientist 47:79-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203255214

Blumer, Herbert ([1969]1998) Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bogdan, Robert and Steven Taylor (1989) “Relationships with severely disabled people: The social construction of humanness.” Social Problems 36:135-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/800804

Furst, Gennifer (2006) “Prison-based animal programs: A national survey.” The Prison Journal 86:407-430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885506293242

Irvine, Leslie (2004) “A model of animal selfhood: Expanding interactionist possibilities.” Symbolic Interaction 27:3-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2004.27.1.3

Jerolmack, Colin (2005) “Our animals, our selves? Chipping away at the humananimal divide.” Sociological Forum 20:651-660. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11206-005-9063-2

Konecki, Krzysztof T. (2005) “The Problem of Symbolic Interaction and of Constructing Self.” Qualitative Sociology Review 1(1). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18778/1733-8077.1.1.05

Marino, Lori (2006) “The ape in the mirror.” Best Friends Magazine 15 (6):24-25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2469/cfm.v17.n4.4199

Maruna, Shadd (2001) Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10430-000

Maruna, Shadd and Thomas LeBel (2003) “Welcome back? Examining the ‘re-entry court’ concept from a strengths-based perspective.” Western Criminology Review 4:91-107.

Maruna, Shadd, Thomas LeBel and Charles Lanier (2004) “Generativity behind bars: Some ‘redemptive truth’ about prison society.” Pp. 131-151 in The Generative society: Caring for future generations, edited by E. de St. Aubin, D. McAdams, and T. Kim. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10622-009

Maruna, Shadd, Thomas LeBel, Nick Mitchell and Michelle Naples (2004) “Pygmalion in the reintegration process: Desistance from crime through the looking glass.” Psychology, Crime & Law 10:271-281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10683160410001662762

Mead, George H. ([1934] 1967) Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Myers, Olin (2003) “No longer the lonely species: A Post-Mead perspective on animals and sociology.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23:46- 68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/01443330310790255

Sampson, Robert and John Laub (1990) “Crime and deviance over the life course: the salience of adult social bonds.” American Sociological Review 55:609-627. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2095859

Sanders, Clinton (1990) “Excusing tactics: Social responses to the public misbehavior of companion animals.” Anthrozoos 4:82-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2752/089279391787057288

Sanders, Clinton (1993) “Understanding dogs: Caregivers’ attributions of mindedness in caninehuman relationships.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 22:205-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/089124193022002003

Sanders, Clinton (2003) “Actions speak louder than words: Close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals.” Symbolic Interaction 26:405-426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/si.2003.26.3.405

Toch, Hans (2000) “Altruistic activity as correctional treatment.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 44:270-278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X00443002

Turner, Debbye (2006) “Odd Couples Among Animals.” Web page, April 19. Retrieved March 18, 2007 http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/19/earlyshow/contributors/debbyeturner/main1512591_page2.shtml