Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The iron bar. Episodes in the modern history of prison physical culture, body typing and the ban on weight… Felkar, Victoria 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2015_february_felkar_victoria.pdf [ 1MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0135657.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0135657-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0135657-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0135657-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0135657-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0135657-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0135657-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0135657-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0135657.ris

Full Text

THE IRON BAR. EPISODES IN THE MODERN HISTORY OF PRISON  PHYSICAL CULTURE, BODY TYPING & THE BAN ON WEIGHT  LIFTING IN AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS.   by   Victoria Felkar   BKIN, The University of British Columbia, 2012      A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   MASTER OF ARTS   in   THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES   (Kinesiology)      THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Vancouver)    December 2014  ©Victoria Felkar, 2014     ii  Abstract  The aim of this study is to explore the modern history of prison physical culture in order to better understand how perceptions of the muscular criminal male body have influenced the construction of prison physical culture and opportunities for physical activity in American correctional institutions. My focus on the recent weight lifting ban in the United States is designed to appraise how criminological knowledge of the muscular criminal male body has influenced penal policy over time. Through a selection of specific historical episodes in prison physical culture from the late 18th century to current correctional practice I evaluate the complicated interplay between penology, criminology, somatotyping, politics, prison physical culture and the enactment of the legal ban on prison weight lifting in 1994.  Working from a critical socio-historical perspective this study intends to add to the limited knowledge of prison physical culture, research on physical activity in correctional facilities and attitudes toward the corporeal experience of those confined to prison. My study has been guided by the following research questions: 1) how have historical perceptions of the muscular criminal body developed, and in turn, influenced penal policy over time? In particular, what have been the influences of body profiling and somatotyping on the role of inmate’s weight lifting in prisons?; 2) in light of this, how can we better understand the reasoning behind the enactment of the 1994 weight lifting ban placed on prison physical culture within the United States?; 3) what have been the effects of the weight lifting ban on contemporary prison physical culture?   This study is an interdisciplinary project which utilizes qualitative methodologies in the collection and analysis of documents and resources from kinesiology, criminology, anthropometry, and penology. Critical discourse analysis framed by Gee (1999, 2006) and     iii  Foucauldian perspectives on discipline, punishment and power provide the framework for my analysis of prison physical culture over time and place.        iv  Preface This dissertation is an original intellectual property of the author, V. Felkar. Elements of chapter 1 and chapter 3 are accepted for publication in Stadion. International Journal of the History of Sport. Felkar, V. “The Iron Bar. The Modern History of Prison Physical Culture and the Ban on Prison Weight Lifting,” International Journal of the History of Sport, (forthcoming 2015).       v  Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii  Preface............................................................................................................................................ iv  Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................v  Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... vii  Dedication  ................................................................................................................................... viii  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1  Why Study American Prison Physical Culture? ..........................................................................2  Criminological Knowledge of the Muscular Inmate Body ..........................................................5  Power, Punishment and the Prison Setting...................................................................................8  Organization of Thesis ...............................................................................................................12   CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................16   CHAPTER 3: EPISODES IN THE MODERN HISTORY OF PRISON  PHYSICAL CULTURE.................................................................................................................22  Episode 1: Modern Penal Reform, Hard Physical Labor and the Emergence  of the Tread-Wheel.....................................................................................................................22  Episode 2: The Birth Place of Prison Physical Culture: Elmira Reformatory ...........................33  Episode 3: Muscularity Christianity, Prison Sport and the Radical Reformers  of Sing Sing Penitentiary............................................................................................................40  Episode 4: Bob Hoffman, Bill Clark and the Rise of Iron Sport................................................48  Episode 5: Pumping Iron in the Pen ...........................................................................................59  Episode 6: Big, Strong Inmates and The Ban on Prison Weight Lifting ...................................68   CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION: PRISON PHYSICAL CULTURE BEYOND  THE BAN ......................................................................................................................................80  Prison Physical Culture in the 21st Century ...............................................................................80     vi   The Current Stronghold of Somatotyping ..................................................................................88   CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS..............................90   Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................93       vii  Acknowledgements  I would like to express my gratitude to those who have guided me, assisted me, and supported me throughout my academic pursuits.   First and foremost I would like to express my sincerest appreciation and thanks to my supervisor Dr. Patricia Vertinsky, you have been a tremendous mentor for me. I would like to thank you for encouraging my research and for allowing me to grow as a researcher, instructor and student. Throughout my degree you provided me with endless encouragement, sound advice and guidance, without which the writing of this thesis would not have been possible.   I would also like to thank Dr. Mona Gleason and Dr. Wendy Frisby for serving as my committee members. Thank you for letting my defense be such an enjoyable experience, and for your brilliant comments and suggestions.   I would also like to thank my friends, colleagues and all those who supported my research pursuits. In particular, I would like to thank Janna Taylor, Bieke Gils and Erica Bennett for your help, emotional support, comradery, and care.   And finally, a very special thank you to my family. No matter the goal, aspiration or self-proclaimed mission you have always been by my side. Thank you to my sisters for paving the way and setting the bar high. Words cannot express how grateful I am to my parents - none of this would be possible without your unconditional love, endless patience and never ending knowledge.     Victoria Felkar The University of British Columbia December 2014      viii  Dedication  This thesis is dedicated to  Carley Rosaline Kennedy (January 13, 1987 – February 10, 2014)    Carry Me  Raven, carry me to the sun, let me ride under your wing. Let us fly towards daylight. Bring me with you - to stars, to light, to spirit. Spirits surround us shining light on the layers below,    green fronds, shiny stones - sparkle in shimmering waves. Waves tumble and spin, calling me home. Let me tumble and spin and fall through the sky, towards foaming, dark waves of blindness. Let me reach for your wing again. Carry me with you once more.    Tell me the story of your birth, tell me the story of your dance with sun and stars.    Join me in laughter and tears. Join me in gratitude. Let the sun blind my eyes with joy.    Spirits surround us. Let me fall to the earth again, transformed by your shining, dark beauty.  - Jeane T'Áawxíaa Breinig       1  CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION From representations of prison physical culture in movies and televisions shows, mainstream workout regimes, exercise programs - even exercise names such as the “prisoner squat,”1 muscles and strength building exercises have become associated with the male prisoner’s body in various, and often negative ways. Rarely mentioned in the media or policy statements are discussions about appropriate or health promoting sport and daily recreation programs for prisoners or inmate involvement in prison organized and self-guided bodyweight exercise programs and calisthenics routines. Popular culture tends to show images of prisoner’s bodybuilding with heavy barbells and dumbbells though in fact there has been a federal weight lifting ban on such activities in the United States since the early 1990’s.  The aim of this study is to explore the modern history of prison physical culture in order to better understand how popular perceptions of the muscular criminal male body have influenced the construction of prison physical culture and opportunities for physical activity in American correctional institutions. My focus on the recent weight lifting ban in the United States is designed to appraise how criminological knowledge of the muscular criminal male body has influenced penal policy over time. This project is a selection of specific historical episodes in prison physical culture from the late 18th century to current correctional practice and evaluates the complicated interplay between penology, criminology, “somatotyping,”2 politics, prison physical culture and the enactment of the ban on prison weight lifting.                                                               1 Defined by Men’s Health Magazine, similar to performing an traditional squat, a prisoner squat is an   an exercise to target the muscles of the lower body by bending the knees to a crouch or sitting motion, however within a prisoner squat you “place your fingers on the back of your head (as if you had just been arrested)”. Men’s Health Magazine. “Workout Center the Prisoner Squat.” http://www.menshealth.com/workout-center/e/prisoner-squat/25668  2 Somtaotyping is the theory developed by William Sheldon in the 1940’s that, in part, suggested a correlation between physique and temperament. Sheldon, The Varieties of Human Physique.       2  Overall very little scholarly information is available concerning attitudes toward prison physical culture and opportunities for physical activity in correctional facilities. Working from a critical socio-historical perspective this study intends to add to the limited knowledge of prison physical culture, research on physical activity in correctional facilities and the corporeal experience of those confined to prison. My study has been guided by the following research questions: 1) How have historical perceptions of the muscular criminal male body developed and in turn, influenced penal policy over time? In particular, what have been the influences of body profiling and somatotyping on the role of inmate’s weight lifting in prisons?  2) In light of this, how can we better understand the reasoning behind the enactment of the 1994 weight lifting ban placed on prison physical culture within the United States?  3) What have been the effects of the weight lifting ban on contemporary prison physical culture?  Why Study American Prison Physical Culture? While previous research has discussed the significance of physical activity for prisoners and provided evidence for the use of exercise in correctional programming there is much to be gained from further exploring prison physical culture and the restrictions placed upon opportunities for physical activity in corrections.3 These restrictions have increased as prisons and penal systems within western democracies are faced with a growing and complex prison population that is coupled with significant budget cuts, a rise in privatization and high rates of                                                              3 This research includes: John Amtmann, “Strength Training in Prisons,” 44-46; P. Konstantinakos, et al., “Validity and Reliability Evidence of the Attitudes Towards Physical Activity of Greek Prisoners,” 39-48; D. Martos-Garcia, et al., “Sport and Physical Activity in a High Security Spanish Prison,” 77-96; Katherine Ozano, “The Role of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise in a Female Prison”; F. Perez-Moreno, et al., “Benefits of Exercise Training in Spanish Prison Inmates,” 1-7.      3  recidivism.4 In order to better understand prison physical culture and the identification of important influencing ideologies, a broader study of context regarding the socio-historical and institutional conditions that have governed particular forms of physical activity in correctional facilities is required. Race has become an ever more important and central signifier of the US prison population, which deserves a study beyond the scope of this thesis.   Although early biological theories of crime, such as body typing and somatotyping, have undergone extensive scientific scrutiny and subsequent critique, scholars note the resilience of these theories in many fields, including criminology and physical education.5 Yet little research has explored the influence of body profiling and somatotyping on prison physical culture and opportunities for various types of physical activity. Nicole Rafter argues that in order to “understand the origins, acceptance and maintenance of criminological [theories]”6 an analytical framework that includes social histories is fundamental. As a result, the proposed research will add a historical perspective of physical practices in prisons to enhance our limited knowledge of prison physical culture and highlight those factors which have had an impact on opportunities for physical activity up to and including the weight lifting ban within the United States. Michel Foucault’s interpretation of historical events around the constitution of the modern subject, beginning in the mid-18th century is particularly relevant for the proposed study.7 He identified                                                              4 Discussed within the work by: R.H. Aday, Aging Prisoners; Miranda Monster & Anthony Micucci, “Meeting Rehabilitative Needs at a Canadian Women's Correctional Centre,” 168-185; and by: Bruce Western, Punishment and Inequality in America.  5 Scholars who have noted the resilience of  biological theories of crime include: Nicole Rafter, “Somatotyping, Antimodernism, and the Production of Criminological Knowledge,” 805-833; Patricia Vertinsky, “Physique as Destiny”, 291-316; Kevin Walby and Nicholas Carrier, “The Rise of Biocriminology”, 261-285; R.A. Wright and J.M. Miller, “Taboo Until Today?” 1-19.  6 Rafter, Production of Criminological Knowledge, 825.  7 See: M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.      4  how and why prisons evolved, and analyzed punishment in its social context to identify how power relations affect forms of punishment. Foucault’s discussions of discipline, punishment and power have been applied in the critical exploration of many areas relevant to this study, including the organizational setting of prisons, constitutional theory and somatotyping, and physical activity and fitness with specific attention to the muscular body and bodybuilding.8 The focus of my study - the ban on prison weight lifting that took place during the 1990s within federal American corrections - deserves particular attention for a number of reasons. To date, very few researchers have discussed prison weight lifting, or addressed those influences which lead to the weight lifting ban. It is regarded by some scholars as a result of a societal “moral panic” and a product of harsh punitive penal reform; while other researchers speculate that the ban can be attributed to the popular media’s construction and representation of weight lifting and prison life.9 Tepperman asserts that central to the ban was an “ethos of panic”10 regarding weight lifting’s perceived ability to construct physically larger, more powerful and aggressive inmates.11 The impact of this language and the encompassing ideologies regarding the                                                              8 Foucault’s work has been applied to work on the organizational setting of prisons by Darla Fortune and C. Whyte, “Re-imagining Institutional Spaces,” 19-35; Patricia Vertinsky, “Embodying Normalcy” explores constitutional theory and somatotyping; P. Markula and R. Pringle, Foucault, Sport and Exercise and Vertinsky’s The Eternally Wounded Woman both explore physical activity and fitness; and specific attention to the muscular body and bodybuilding in A. Aycock, “The Confession of the Flesh”, C. Obel, “Collapsing Gender in Competitive Bodybuilding” and Y. Wiegers, “Male Bodybuilding.”  9 K. Pawelko and T. Anderson, “Correctional Recreation, Weightlifting, and Rehabilitation: A Comparison of Attitudes.” This article includes general opinions on prison weight lifting.  10 Alex Tepperman, “We Will NOT Pump You Up,” 7. The author discusses various examples of blockbuster movies that suggest a ubiquity of sports in prison and have created the image of a “buff, sports-inclined” prisoner – one that he suggests is largely a “mythology.”   11 Inmate aggression is discussed in: M. Wagner, R. McBridge and S. Crouse, “The Effects of Weight-Training Exercise on Aggression Variables in Adult Male Inmates,” 72–89.      5  “super breed” of muscular criminals can thus be seen to be an important component of the prison weight lifting ban.12  Furthermore, although there have been significant changes in penal ideology throughout the 19th and 20th centuries in North America, we still know relatively little about the history, development and present day prison physical culture. Additionally, despite the fact that prisoners have been central to the development of prisons, indeed the raison d’être, there remains a limited understanding of the embodied experiences of incarceration (at least among those who have not been incarcerated). A review of the literature on physical activity in prisons reveals a notable gap in the exploration of important influencing factors including criminological research and body typing theories, such as somatotyping, and the impact of these on penology, prison body culture and the inmate experience.  Criminological Knowledge and the Muscular Inmate Body Ideas regarding the muscular inmate male body are not simply a creation of the mid-1990s correctional movement to ban prison weight lifting – they can be found deeply embedded within the field of criminology, and in many respects, these perceptions echo longstanding ideas around body typing and biocriminality.13 Since the 18th century there have been inquiries into the relationships between body type and criminality, specifically addressing the notion that criminals tend to embody a mesomorphic or muscular physique.14 Scholars note the importance of                                                              12 The “super breed” of criminals is discussed by: D. Foster, “Prison Weightlifting.”  13 A popular early 20th century field of criminology that linked causes of crime to human biology, and includes phrenology, criminal anthropology, evolutionary theories of crime, body typing, eugenic criminology, neurochemistry and neurophysiology and genetic explanations for criminal behavior.  14 A term from Sheldon’s proposed theory of somatotyping, which associates human temperaments types with three fundamental body types or “somatotypes”. Mesomorphic bodies are associated with medium bones, solid torso, low fat levels, wide shoulders with a narrow waist, and usually referred to as “muscular”. The other two somatotypes are ectomorphic or “slim” and endomorphic or “fat.”       6  examining the historical origins of the various viewpoints within constitutional theory and body typing “to understand the origins, acceptance, and maintenance of such criminological ideas.”15 A dearth of research exists, however, to investigate the influence of criminological ideas on penal policy, prison physical culture and inmates’ opportunities for physical activity. Although not the first to introduce the link between physique and delinquency, the work of William Sheldon (1898-1977) has had an important influence on the field of criminology with a lasting impact on contemporary culture. Reviving the work of criminal anthropologist and father of constitutional theory, Earnest Hooton, Sheldon articulated and promoted somatotyping of criminal populations.16 As a method used to classify bodies across non-racial dimensions, Sheldon used this theory to identify three basic male physiques which he later associated with three basic human temperaments.17 Proposed within his numerous publications was the existence of a correlation between criminal behaviour and a person’s physical form. Specifically he promoted the concept that men with muscular “mesomorphic” bodies were more prone to criminal activity, violence and aggressive acts.18 Furthermore, his insistence that physique was destiny and associated behavior unchangeable meant that penal rehabilitation was unlikely.  Regardless of scientific scrutiny and subsequent critiques of his work, scholars note the resilience of Sheldon’s research in many academic fields, including criminology.19 Since the late                                                              15 Rafter, “Production of Criminological Knowledge,” 805.  16 Also known as “constitutional psychology” or “constitutional anthropology” and describes a theory, especially that of William Sheldon, postulating that body type or “somatotype” is associated with human temperament.  17 Sheldon’s three basic male physiques are discussed with his books: The Varieties of Human Physique (1940); The Varieties of Temperament (1942); Varieties of delinquent youth (1949); Atlas of Men (1954).  18 Rafter, The Criminal Brain, 161-163.  19 The resilience of Sheldon’s work is discussed by: Rafter, “Production of Criminological Knowledge;” Vertinsky, “Physique as Destiny;” Walby and Carrier, “The Rise of Biocriminology.”      7  1980s there has been a marked resurgence in these theories as evident from the reshaping of biological theoretical ideas, new research on body typing and the reappearance of biocriminality in criminology textbooks.20 Many additional publications continue to discuss mesomorphy (strong muscular bodies) as a correlate of crime.21 Raine, for example, reminds us that, “body build may be linked to delinquency because having a larger, more muscular body build allows bullying to become an effective strategy in winning social conflicts …”22 By continuing to report and reflect the ideas of the early constitutionalists without serious critique, this literature demonstrates the stronghold that figures like Sheldon have maintained on some aspects of the field of criminology. For example, Vertinsky has shown how William Sheldon’s body somatotyping has leached beyond criminology into physical education and the health professions.23  While Rafter points out that there are many issues inherent to constitutional theory that should make it an “etiological dead end” she also reminds us that “body types are fluid and change over time, and thus are difficult to study.”24 In addition it is important to note that many of the studies that have explored the mesomorphy correlation follow and/or were based on ideologies reflected within Sheldon’s original research. Rather than providing a critical approach to the methods of somatotyping, studies often have re-created his findings or developed support                                                              20 R.A. Wright and J.M. Miller in “Taboo Until Today?” 1-19; and by Rafter in “Production of Criminological Knowledge.” The authors discuss the reappearance of biocriminality in criminology textbooks.   21 These publications include: L. Ellis, “Biological Correlates of Criminality,” 287-315; Ellis and A. Wash, Criminology; S. Guarino-Ghezzi and A.J. Treviño, Understanding Crime; Adrian Raine, The Psychopathology of Crime; Raine, et al., Biosocial Bases of Violence.  22 Adrian Raine, The Psychopathology of Crime, 203.  23 For more information see: Vertinsky “Physique as Destiny,” 96.  24 Rafter discusses the issues inherent to Sheldon’s work within her book The Criminal Brain, 174.      8  for them. Consequently, within contemporary criminology, “Sheldon’s work can sometimes be seen as a ‘skeleton in the criminological closet,’ one that specialists in the causes of crime seem not ready to bury though hesitate to put on open display.”25 Furthermore, there is a current criminological ambivalence apparent - despite the scientific discrediting of Sheldon’s work decades ago.  Through the constant recognition and acceptance of somatotyping and the mesomorphic-delinquency correlation, criminology has continued in some ways to construct, promote and re-produce knowledge of what a ‘delinquent’ body looks like. To better understand prison physical culture, we need to first acknowledge the potential influencing factors that govern perceptions of the criminal body type and related opportunities for correctional physical activity. Popular perceptions, such as the criminological knowledge of the muscular prisoner body must be taken into account when discussing specific penal policies, and hence, specific opportunities for prison physical practice.  Discipline, Power and the Prison Setting The word "prison" immediately evokes stark images: forbidding walls spiked with watchtowers; inmates confined to cramped cells for hours on end; the suspicious eyes of armed guards. They seem to be the inevitable and permanent marks of confinement, as though prisons were a timeless institution stretching from medieval stone dungeons to the current era of steel boxes.26  The nature of the Western penal system changed greatly during the mid-1700s, when the "theatre of horror"27 that was once utilized to deter criminal acts was gradually replaced by various forms                                                              25 Rafter, “Production of Criminological Knowledge,” 806.  26 Quoted from the publisher’s description of The Oxford History of the Prison. The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, ed. Norval Morris and David Rothman. Retrieved from: https://www.questia.com/library/7871794/ the-oxford-history-of-the-prison-the-practice-of.  27 The “Theatre of Horror” can be defined through various public displays of corporal punishment including mutilation, whipping and branding, and other non-physical public punishments such as shaming and dishonouring,     9  of incarceration. During this period of Enlightenment, new ideas were proposed and explored in almost every sphere of the intellectual enterprise and resulted in a new “secular and open” culture – directly influencing crime and corrections.28 This paradigmatic shift resulted in changes to criminal policy and practice, and by the end of the 18th century a new element in criminal justice - imprisonment - was introduced to replace older cruel methods of corporal punishment.  Although there have been many additional and radical shifts in penal ideology and practices of imprisonment over the past 200 years, this main goal of punishment by way of imprisonment has not changed. Contemporary prisons have become a fundamental element of the Western criminal justice system so much so that some question “how society could ever do without them.”29 The current ‘get tough on crime’ perspective is a result of the overwhelming belief that an increased severity of punishment will lead to less crime - even though little research has demonstrated a positive link between higher rates of imprisonment and crime reduction.  Morris asserts that "the less effective the prisons are in reducing crime, the higher the demand for more imprisonment."30 Although the history of the prison demonstrates a naive belief in the powers of the prison, the aim of this thesis is not to question the validity or aim of the correctional system nor its ability to ‘correct’ inmates. Rather, this project grapples with the                                                              see: P. Spierenburg, “The Body and the State: Early Modern Europee,” 60-61. Defined within The Oxford History of the Prison. The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, the Western criminal justice system includes countries who penal systems are strongly influenced by and developed through European influence, and include Canada, the United States of American, Australia and Europe.    28 The Enlightenment period lasted from around the 17th through the 18th century in England, Europe, and America, where the culture was said to be“more secular” which meant an increased focus on humans on earth, rather than in the afterlife. During this time, the arts, sciences, and philosophy flourished. From: Mary K. Stohr and Anthony Walsh, Corrections: The Essentials, 23.  29 Quoted from Nikolaus Wachsmann’s review of Oxford History of the Prison: the Practice of Punishment in Western Society.  30 Norval Morris, “The Contemporary Prison: 1965 – Present,” 257      10  complicated relationships among ideas of criminal anthropology and the eugenics movement, the impact of historical thinking around “the criminal type,” the constant influx of and shifting goals of the prison, cultural expectations and social biases about offenders’ gender and body type, the role of recreation and physical activity in correctional institutions, and the alliance between legislative policies for penal programming and popular perceptions of the muscular criminal male body within the American criminal justice system. While issues around race have become increasingly dominate around discussions of incarceration and punishment, they merit study beyond the boundaries of this thesis.  The contemporary prison is haunted by the diverse ways in which it has been interpreted over time.31 Although many scholars have utilized the institution of a prison to explore various sociological concepts, Michel Foucault’s historical exploration of the modern penal system and analysis of punishment in its social context has helped to frame the theoretical and methodological basis for this project.32 As a result, this project will engage with the issues of power, knowledge, and self-governance with which Foucault was concerned.  Power and Prison Physical Culture  Regimes of prison physical culture has been used in various ways over time as a way to discipline and assert power over the inmate body. Foucault’s perspective on power, discipline and punishment described the 19th century prison as “a force for the creation of modern forms of subjectivity.”33 He argued that the modern prison emerged to control and discipline the                                                              31 Lorna Rhodes discusses that contemporary prisons are haunted as they reflect “a moment when history offers itself to us as a presence rather than a collection of facts.” Rhodes, Madness and Reason in the Maximum Security Prison, 15.  32 Discussed by Jack A. Goldston and Bert Useem, “Prison Riots as Microrevolutions,” 985.    33 Rhodes, Madness and Reason, 15.      11  prisoner’s body through constant supervision and forced punishment or “corrective training”. In Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison the prison is viewed as a comprehensive disciplinary apparatus that controls individual behavior through constant supervision and surveillance.34 Foucault believed that through these techniques the prison could create a ‘docile body’ which could be easily controlled by those in power. For Foucault, this goal was the reason for the genesis of the modern prison – which still remains the prevalent focus of today’s correctional institutions.  Correctional institutions function through micro-practices that work to deny and restrict inmate belief, action and reasoning. Foucault believed that the prison attempts to normalize those incarcerated through the construction of ‘regimes of power’. Once incarcerated, the body of an inmate becomes the platform upon which institutional power and control are performed. For example, the prison “institutionally disciplines”35 the inmate body through restricting all elements of individuality. This includes physical activity and exercise – which are governed by institutional forces. These include institutional-specific rules and regulations, unwritten rules of the prison subculture, and the introduction of specific legislated policies, such as the 1994 ban on prison weight lifting. The institutional prescription of exercise exemplifies one way that the prison has attempted to obtain absolute control over the inmate body. Prisons are able to restrict activity time through strict limitations on the type and duration of physical activities, and dictate the spatial distribution of these opportunities (inside or outside). The coordination of multiple                                                              34 Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison is a 1975 book by the French philosopher Michel Foucault.  35 In addition to Foucault’s Discipline and Punish, the work by Mark Bevir, “Foucault, Power, and Institutions,” 345–359 and E. Sadan, “Theories of Power,” 53-71 helped to guide understanding and application of Foucauldian perspective.      12  systems, such as restricting the time, location and types of exercise, maximizes the disciplinary process which Foucault called the “composition of forces.”36   As a disciplinary technology, working to control and correct each individual inmate body, the weight lifting ban can thus be seen as problematic. Foucault was firm in his belief that social forces influence and determine subjective experiences of the world, but as noted by Bevir “we still must allow that the subject possesses the capacity to select particular beliefs and actions …”37 The weight lifting ban may attempt to restrict and limit the opportunity for inmate exercise and physical activity, but as noted by Polson it cannot control all individual exercise regimes. Inmates have some agency in that they are still able to perform bodyweight exercise, calisthenics or use non-traditional equipment within the confines of their cell.38 From a Foucauldian perspective this represents some resistance to power, in which inmates are able to regain personal, albeit, limited power over their body.  One useful way to better understand how physical activity and exercise function  in prison physical culture is to question who and what is controlling individual access and opportunities for it, and how this process occurs. Foucault’s notion of biopower helps to clarify these relationships. Biopower, he believed, was a way in which a state or institution, such as the prison, can exert total control over its constituents. Foucault identified the body as a site of power in which resistance to biopower can occur. In relation to prison physical culture, when an inmate finds a way to exercise outside of the institutionally prescribed physical activities they are able to resist the power and disciplinary techniques of the prison.                                                               36 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, 167.  37 Mark Bevir, “Foucault, Power, and Institutions,” 358.  38 For more information see: Gary Polson, “Weightlifting in Prisons”, from Strength Tech Inc.      13  Organization of Thesis Following the introduction and review of critical literature related to my research questions I provide an overview of the methodology utilized to undertake this project. There is such a dearth of literature on physical culture in prisons and so many diverse and potentially useful arenas to explore in relation to the construction of the muscular prisoner male body that I have selectively embedded further relevant research literature in each of the six episodes in the history of prison physical culture. A wide variety of document types, including policy, historical and popular media texts, were collected and analyzed through critical discourse analysis and guided by Foucault’s perspective on power, discipline and punishment. I provide a rationale for the use of historical episodes and discuss some of the methodological limitations before setting off on my exploration of prison physical culture.  The first episode, “Modern Penal Reform, Hard Physical Labor and the Emergence of the Tread-Wheel” provides an overview of the modern penal movement at the turn of the 19th century in England – which provided the foundations for the development of penology in America. During this period, hard physical labor practices provided a way for the institution to assert disciplinary power in order to restrict and control all aspects of the inmate body. The notion of a “criminal type” that was created by criminal anthropology worked to construct knowledge of the criminality and societal expectations of the criminal body.  In the second episode, “The Birth Place of Prison Physical Culture: Elmira Reformatory” an overview of the first shift in American penal practice is provided to introduce a new era of correctional ideology: the reformatory ideal. This shift resulted in the creation of Elmira Reformatory in New York during the mid-1800s, where physical culture practices were introduced into the American prison system as a way to “treat” criminality. The reformatory’s     14  physical training methods were credited with increasing scientific knowledge of biological criminals, and together with the introduction of anthropometrics, they forever changed penology and knowledge of the criminal body. In episode three, “Muscularity Christianity, Prison Sport & the Radical Reformers of Sing Sing Prison Penitentiary”, the emergence of prison sport is discussed as a result of the turn of the century American sporting culture and rising popularity of muscular Christianity. Ultimately prison sport resulted in significant changes in correctional philosophy throughout the United States, such as the radical self-government experiments of Thomas Mott Osborne at Sing Sing Correctional Institution. Osborne’s introduction of sport teams as a way to provide “moral rehabilitation” had a lasting impact on this specific institution’s highly organized and popular physical activity programs. During this time, a renewed interest in criminal anthropology provided the foundation for an exploration of criminal body types and provided the groundwork for criminological interest for decades to come.  The fourth episode, “Bob Hoffman, Bill Clark & the Rise of Iron Sport” examines the widely accepted model within American corrections from the late 1930s through to the early 1970s. At the onset of this period, the disciplinary goal of the prison shifted to a new focus aimed at correcting individual inmate behavior through providing rehabilitative practices. The examples of two iconic weight lifters in American physical culture, Bob Hoffman and Bill Clark, demonstrate how this change in penal philosophy helped to develop and popularize prison iron sports. Although the work of William Sheldon in the 1950s was not the first to claim the relationship between human physique and criminality, his research has had a lasting impact on the field of criminology, and was among the first to suggest a link between muscularity and propensity for criminal behavior.     15  Episode five, “Pumping Iron in the Pen”, illustrates how weight lifting continued to thrive in prison physical culture throughout the 1970s and 1980s even in the presence of a new punitive crime-control model of American corrections. An eruption of prison weight lifting practices emerged within popular media during the mid-1970s. At the same time, and almost simultaneously to the introduction of bodybuilding into Californian prisons by Arnold Schwarzenegger, was a discernible shift in perceptions of masculinity and muscularity within American culture. Following this new admiration for muscularity was a resurgence in somatotyping theory, which once again brought scrutiny upon the muscular criminal body. In “Big, Strong Inmates & the Ban on Prison Weight Lifting” episode six identifies the 1990s culture of American corrections that ultimately led to a ban on prison weight lifting. In unison with popular mass media illustrations of the “bulked-up inmate” that helped to intensify public opinion in support for the ban on prison weight lifting ban, was a movement in criminology that placed the inmate body back at the core of criminal behaviour.  Finally in “Discussion: Prison Physical Culture Beyond the Ban” I highlight the impact of historical perceptions of the muscular criminal body on the role of inmates’ weight lifting in prisons today. A broad overview of 21st century prison physical culture demonstrates some of the effects of the weight lifting ban on contemporary prison physical culture. New applications of somatotyping research and modern day muscular profiling reveal the influence of body typing and the mesomorphic-delinquency correlation on the role of weight lifting in prison and prison physical culture more broadly. These examples help to reveal the profound impact of body typologies on the constitution of knowledge about the muscular criminal male body that I hope to further explore in future research.       16  CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY  This study is an interdisciplinary project which utilizes qualitative methodologies in the collection and analysis of documents and resources from kinesiology, criminology, anthropometry, and penology. Critical discourse analysis as framed by Gee and Foucauldian perspectives on discipline, punishment and power provides the theoretical framework for my discussion of prison physical culture overtime.39 Below, I describe and provide a rationale for my research methods, and conclude with a discussion of the limitations of this study.  Historical Episodes The selection of a series of historical ‘episodes’ provides the foundation for tracing the development of prison physical culture over time and space. Each episode explores the constitution and diffusion of criminological knowledge within prison physical culture with the aim of highlighting important social and cultural elements that have rarely been addressed. To better understand how current events are shaped by the past, Foucault encouraged an orientation of the “history of the present.”40 He believed that “what matters” today is rooted in the past; therefore exploring contemporary events may produce the opportunity to think critically about history. Thus in order to better understand the ban on prison weight lifting in today’s federal correctional facilities an exploration of the history of prison physical culture is a necessary first step.                                                                39 James Paul Gee outlines these techniques within his book Introduction to Discourse Analysis; and his web article Discourse Analysis. See also: Foucault, Discipline and Punish.  40 Foucault endeavored to write what he called a "history of the present." Quoted from an interviews with Michel Foucault titled “What Our Present Is?” reprinted in Foucault Live: Collected Interviews, 415.      17  Document Analysis A wide variety of document types were collected concerning specific prisons’ histories, the development of penology and criminology, anthropometry and somatotyping in addition to the available, albeit limited literature on prisoner physical activity. My sample consists of a variety of document sources including primary and secondary texts obtained from digital and print archives, open-sourced websites and print mediums.41 Three different document types were included: documents produced by private organizations for internal purposes (ie. specific prison regulations created for internal use); public documents produced for public consumptions (e.g. mass media accounts of specific prison regimes); and traditional texts, images and film (e.g. historical criminology textbooks).42 Utilizing texts as a source of data in qualitative research has helped to provide me with an effective way to obtain a comprehensive historical perspective on the evolution of prison physical culture. This has been extremely important given my lack of access to the prison itself. Conducting research in prisons can be very challenging, as researchers note that getting access can be difficult.43 Furthermore, the prison population is regarded as a vulnerable population for research study purposes. Some scholars note that due to the environment of ‘total control’ inmates are unable to provide proper consent to participate in a study.44                                                              41 Alan Bryman discusses how documents as a source of data within his text Social Research Methods, 515-533.  42 Ibid. See also a discussion of document types in: G. Payne and J. Payne, Key Concepts in Social Research.  43 Philip Bulman, Marie Garcia and Jolene Hernon, “Study Raises Questions About Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement.”   44 Ibid. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regulations on human subjects protect specific groups of individuals, such as inmates, children and pregnant women. Some experts believe that prisoners can never give informed consent because they live in an environment in which they have little or no freedom to make an informed decision.      18  After compiling initial documents I purposively selected a series of episodes to further explore, based on the principles of “binding the case” as set forth by Baxter and Jack.45 They discuss the importance of placing boundaries on qualitative study, such as binding by (a) time and place; (b) time and activity; and (c) definition and context. These principles were useful to apply to each episode in order to establish the scope of materials collected, and to provide breadth and depth of analysis. I was then able to conduct additional and more specific research on each episode to identify key context-specific factors, such as the space of the institution, the geopolitical and correctional ideologies, and organization-specific policies on prison physical activity and recreational programming.   The analysis of the various document types was assisted by critical discourse analysis (CDA). Within CDA, language is viewed as a form of social practice, and is influenced by specific historical contexts and existing social relations. This process “seeks to understand how discourse is implicated in relations of power.”46 To complete my analysis I utilized the analytical techniques proposed by Gee, which help the researcher to identify important patterns of meaning and socially constructed ‘realities’ within texts.47 Often these patterns are hidden to the casual reader, however they are infiltrated with “situated meanings” and “social practices.” Signifying the “critical” study of discourse, Gee’s analytical technique discusses social practices as more than social relationships – rather, within CDA social relationships are also studied for their “implications.” As a result, CDA argues that                                                               45 Pamela Baxter and Susan Jack discuss how there is a tendency for qualitative research to attempt to answer broad questions. The principles of “binding the case” help to create a focus. From: Pamela Baxter and Susan Jack, “Qualitative Case Study Methodology,” 546.  46 Quote obtained from: H. Janks, “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool,” 329.  47 James Paul Gee outlines these techniques within his book Introduction to Discourse Analysis; and his web article Discourse Analysis.      19  Language-in-use is always part and parcel of, and partially constitutive of, specific social practices and that social practices always have implications for inherently political things like status, solidarity, the distribution of social goods, and power.48  As noted by Jette, the technique of CDA complements a Foucauldian analysis.49 Both a “grounded” and “broader” approach provide the “close analysis of ‘real’ texts in context.”50 Thus, a Foucauldian perspective enabled me to also ask questions about underlying issues within correctional practice and philosophy, such as how perceptions of the inmate body have influenced prison physical culture and opportunities for physical activity in correctional facilities over time. This approach was essential in considering the larger social impacts of criminological knowledge of the muscular criminal body and prison physical culture. Limitations To complete this project I utilized a vast variety of document types – including the substantive use of historical material in order to formulate, develop, verify and articulate a trajectory of prison physical culture overtime. To effectively use historical materials requires an understanding of their values and potential limitations, and as a result I had to remain aware of these throughout the research process. For example, historical material can be inaccurate or incomplete – personal documents may be biased and institutional records are usually focused on the interests of the organization. Thus, the historical research process must “take into account the full range of persons, organizations, and institutions [within] a selected society”51 or culture, and                                                              48 Quoted from Gee, Discourse Analysis, 24.  49 See Shannon Jette, “Fit for Two.” Jette’s critical discourse analysis of pregnancy discourse in fitness magazines provided useful information about the use of Foucauldian perspective and CDA.  50 S. Mills, Discourse, as cited by Jette, “Fit for Two,” 339.   51 Quotes from Lydia Lucas’ discussion of the limitations when using primary sources in historical research; Lucas, “The Historian in the Archives,” 227.      20  recognize the various attitudes, experiences and accumulation of factors elements which make up a narrative or position. In addition, this project of modern history of prison physical culture is based on my personal access to and understanding of materials and concepts throughout the research process. The availability of materials used to complete this project was restricted to those materials available through the internet or the library (or interlibrary loan). Although the use of online databases such as Project Guttenberg and the Library of Congress provided invaluable access to critical archival material, I had to remain mindful that my sample only constitutes a small section of potential sources available on each topic.  I also had to remain aware of the representativeness of my sample. The collection and analysis of materials mainly focused on men imprisoned within the American correctional system (with the exception of the first episode).52 This was in part due to limitations on information available and the nature of the prison environment. An American penal context was selected over an exploration of the Canadian context for two primary reasons. Although there is a need for a better understanding of the Correctional Service of Canada, there are insufficient primary and secondary sources to provide a platform to conduct research on prison physical culture. By expanding the research scope to explore prisons in the United States, additional information and sources were obtained, as well as a better understanding about the history and development of prison physical culture. In addition, a focus on male inmates was selected due to the socio-historical context of prisons; there are more texts and literature available pertaining to men’s institutions due to the novelty and stigma attached to female corrections. As well, previous                                                              52 The collection is predominately American in geographical location, with the exception of episode one, which is focused around the birth of the modern prison system in Victoria England. This location was chosen for its relevance to the history of the United States’ correctional system. See: Stohr and Walsh, Corrections: The Essentials, 23.      21  research has revealed disparities in the physical activities and exercise programs offered in women’s correctional facilities. There is a documented “gender bias” with regards to weightlifting in female facilities.53 This may provide an important future line of study, as well as the need to include age, race and class, more specifically, as they relate to prison physical culture.                                                                 53 Women's correctional facilities offer a different range of recreational programs, including the use of aerobics, yoga, cooking contests, sewing, crochet, hair dressing opportunities, theatre, arts, and music to stress the development of cognitive skills – whereas men's programs tend to be more therapeutic in nature. See Geoffrey Truss and Wanda T. Hunter, "Recreation Programs," 828.     22  CHAPTER 3: EPISODES IN THE MODERN HISTORY OF  PRISON PHYSICAL CULTURE  Modern Penal Reform, Hard Physical Labor and the Emergence of the Tread-Wheel  Although it is not known exactly when the practice of weight lifting was allowed in American corrections, other forms of physical practice can be traced to the beginning of the modern penal movement at the turn of the 19th century.54 During this early period of penal reform - prison systems in both the United States and Britain evolved from utilizing traditional methods of corporal punishment to a new era of “so-called” rehabilitation, characterized by the introduction of solitary confinement, hard physical labor and indeterminate sentence lengths.  55 This rehabilitative shift developed from John Howard’s 1777 proposal for the provision of a healthier prison environment with an emphasis on punitive physical labor. Howard’s recommendations were closely followed by the introduction of Jeremy Bentham’s penal philosophies concerning inmate isolation and the implementation of the panopticon design as the new model for prison architecture in 1797.56  Embodying complex contradictions, religious education became coupled with these new ideas of punitive imprisonment. Correctional administrators believed that following incarceration an inmate could “carry the torch of moral truth and Christian spirituality back from the prison to his own people.”57 Therefore, in order to address the spirit of a criminal, imprisoned men would                                                              54 Pieter Spierenburg suggests that the modern penal movement developed during the 18th and 19th centuries as a part of a movement to replace acts of public torture and death with various forms of incarceration to deter criminal acts. Spierenburg, “The Body and the State: Early Modern Europe,” 60-61.   55 Rehabilitation at this time is discussed by Rupert Cross in Punishment, Prison and the Public. See also, Robert Alan Cooper, “Jeremy Bentham, Elizabeth Fry, and English Prison Reform,” 675.  56 See: John Pratt, “'This is Not a Prison': Foucault, The Panopticon and Pentonville,” 379-380.  57 Inmates were required to attend daily chapel and participate in various types of religious education. From: W.J. Forthsythe, The Reform of Prisoners, 47-62.     23  have to attend daily religious services and memorize the gospels. Inmates were also required to engage in daily regimes of exercise – which were thought to combat the conditions of incarceration such as “deterioration of the body.”58  Critics of the rising influence of the church within the Victorian penal system argued that inmates were ‘coddled’ and fed too well, and that the current punitive methods were overall ineffective.59 Mounting anxieties about the effectiveness of British prisons and growing public fear of violent crimes were exacerbated by the media’s promotion of a “criminal class.”60 The popular discourse called for “hard labor, hard fare, and a hard bed”, and together these resulted in a parliamentary campaign to reform punitive techniques.61 As McGowen notes: “The reformers had created the belief that the prison was the right way to deal with criminals, and they had produced a regime for gaining control over the individual, a regime that lent itself to both the reformist and retributivist interpretations.”62 Prison Physical Activity at Pentonville  Inspired by Bentham’s writings and declared a great triumph of English penal reform, Pentonville Prison’s “Silent System” gained international exposure for its revolutionary engineering and carefully designed architecture.63 In stark contrast to the “pandemonium”                                                              58 Ibid., 65.  59 Randall McGowen discusses one prison reformer who declared the prison of becoming a place of “sorrow and wailing”, not one “contemplated with horror.” From: McGowen, “The Well-Ordered Prison,” 98.  60 A newly created public fear of violent crimes was popularized through the widespread circulation of newspapers and magazines which promoted the existence of a criminal class. In addition, prison effectiveness was linked to rising crime rates. See Sean McConville, “The Victorian Prison,” 144-145.  61 McGowen, “The Well-Ordered Prison,” 102. Reformers argued for the regulation of space, time, and diet in order to meet the prison goals of severity and deterrence.  62 Ibid.   63 This system was designed by Colonel Jebb. In addition to his prison design, he also helped to construct other institutions such as hospitals and asylums in England during the mid-1800s.     24  previously associated with England’s prisons, Pentonville’s doors opened in 1842 to reveal a well-constructed prison design that commanded absolute silence – its walls hindered communication between inmates, the guards wore padded shoes to muffle the noise of their patrols, and each of the 520 inmates were individually housed in separate cells to create a regime of “resistless power.”64  As a result, during confinement Pentonville’s disciplinary power would operate to restrict and control all aspects of the inmate body. Every element of Pentonville designed to create the “silent system” was punishment to erase any trace of individuality and produce a reformed and autonomous individual .This deprivation of individual liberties Foucault believed was the ultimate punishment.65 An American religious publication describes that behind the walls of Pentonville “there [was] contiguity, but no neighbourhood; and the very names of the prisoners are lost in the mechanisms which assign numbers to their stead.”66 Thus one can see through Foucault’s classic historical interpretation of the modern penal system how the modern prison became a “comprehensive disciplinary apparatus,” designed to control all aspects of a prisoner’s life and persuade him to relinquish deviant behavior.67 To ensure an environment of complete isolation Pentonville’s inmates were forced to wear a hood anytime they left their cell, which included during a one hour outdoor exercise time in the                                                              64 As discussed by McGowen in “The Well-Ordered Prison,” 106-108. See also “Pentonville Prison” by Friends' Weekly Intelligencer, 14.   65 See: Simon Henley, “The 21st Century Model Prison” and Pratt, “‘This is Not a Prison’: Foucault, The Panopticon and Pentonville,” 379.  66 A report by Friends’ Weekly Intelligencer a Quaker publication, titled, “Pentonville Prison,” 14. Quaker groups were members of a religious movement that publicized the dire state of prisons during this period.  67 Discussed by Pratt, “The Panopticon and Pentonville,” 381.      25  prison’s “airing grounds.”68 The exercise regime at Pentonville consisted of rope walking, where 130 men spaced 15 feet apart and cloaked in their hoods would simultaneously march briskly in a circular motion while holding onto a rope – all under the watchful guise of prison officers to ensure military like precision and also prevent communication. Other prisons throughout England had similar methods of exercise: Holloway’s House of Corrections also had a rope yard, and along with solitary walking, at Millbank Prison inmates were required to exercise at “turn pumps” for fifteen minutes daily.69 Providing inmates with such ‘exercise opportunities’ was believed to enhance prisoner health and reduce psychological and physiological illnesses that might arise under conditions of confinement such as depression, dyspepsia, constipation and digestion issues.70  Punitive Labor and Hard Physical Practices By the 1860s a new era in penal reform emerged. Supported by medical and scientific knowledge of the time, imprisonment with hard physical labor became the new standard of punishment in most prisons throughout England.71 Such practices were believed to promote obedience, docility and deter criminality through completing countless hours of grueling acts of physical labor in complete isolation. Social reformer Henry Mayhew discusses punitive labor as being created along the same barbarous principles as methods of corporal torture; however with                                                              68 These were also called the “rope yards.” See Henry Mayhew and John Binny, The Criminal of London and Scenes of Prison Life, 301.   69 Some of the airing yards of Millbank Prison in London had “turn pumps.” These were large circular pumps with long horizontal handles that inmate would be forced to turn for 15 minutes a day.   70 See: McConville, “The Victoria Prison,” 143-145.   71 Forthsythe, The Reform of Prisoners 1830 – 1900, 160. Colonel Edmund Du Cane, the government’s chief penal advisor, used committees of scientists and medical practitioners to help refine and legitimized hard physical labor as a means of penal discipline. Also see: McConville, “The Victoria Prison,” 144-146.      26  the passing of the Prison Act in 1865 penal labor quickly became a mandatory and central form of correctional discipline.72 It was believed that forced physical practices under constant supervision through Bentham’s panopticon design would help reform criminal behaviour. In an attempt to uniform the Victorian prison experience the “quantification” of punishment was introduced. Prison administrators consulted with medical and scientific committees who advised on the quantity of labor that could be “safely” demanded.73 As the authority on physical labor, these committees provided “objective scientific judgment” which not only created public acceptance for the hard physical methods, but simultaneously concealed the reality of these torturous acts. Ultimately, the main goal of harsh physical labor was not the production of a commodity – rather, as Foucault has pointed out in his work on institutions, it was to isolate, silence and provide moral guidance to the prisoner. Such types of physical practice were guided by Bentham’s classical utilitarianism in which hard labor, constant surveillance and monitoring, and solitary confinement for purposes of reflection and repentance were all central to the reform and rehabilitation of inmates.74 If labor were naturally pleasant, men would pay wages to be allowed to work, instead of giving money to others to work for them. There are many instances, however, where physical exertion is agreeable, and then we do not hesitate to part with a considerable sum of money to be permitted to indulge in it, as in dancing, rowing, cricket, and other muscular exercises, which, because they are pleasing to mankind in general, have been called “amusements” and “sports.”75                                                               72 This system of correctional labor was described as being used at all prisons in England, only with the exception of Westminster House of Corrections. From: H. Mayhew and J. Binny, The Criminal of London and Scenes of Prison Life, 301.  73 Replacing the previously used justifications for prison punitive methods of “how painful?”, “how degrading?” and “how encouraging?” From: McConville, “The Victoria Prison,” 174.  74 From: Robert Cross, Punishment, Prison and the Public. Act of penal labor are discussed in: Mayhew and Binny, The Criminal of London, 300-301.   75 Mayhew and Binny, The Criminal of London, 301.     27  Prison officials believed that hours of useless and profitless hard physical labor would provide men who had committed the most heinous offences with the most sinister form of punishment: “idleness with all the physical fatigue of industry, without any of industry’s rewards.”76 Acts of labor included the “shot-drill,” where men would transfer canon-balls from one place to another with no objective other than to cause fatigue in the most unpleasant manner possible, and a “capstan” force-water pump.77 Another popular method of punishment, ‘crank work,’ consisted of turning a wheel that would scoop up sand and pitch it down again, sometimes for durations of over 10,000 revolutions during an eight hour period. Described as “disagreeable, distressing and severe”, crank-labor could be made more difficult by the prison guards at watch, who could adjust a dial and add more tension to each crank turned.78  The most crude and absurd practice of this era was the tread-wheel, developed by Sir William Cubitt in 1818 to rehabilitate inmates through hard physical labor and solitary confinement.79 It was believed that the “monotonous steadiness” of the tread-wheel made it the perfect tool to reform stubborn and idle convicts.80 Inmates would step on the spokes of a large paddle wheel in a climbing motion for grueling eight-hour shifts, manually turning the gears of the tread-wheel to pump water with a non-productive purpose. This punitive method was made increasingly more difficult due to the conditions of the tread-wheel. Often these men were                                                              76 Ibid., 300. The authors also discuss the offences that would be sentenced to acts of hard physical labor, these included (but are not limited to): abduction, embezzlement, felonies, frauds, riots, trespassing, fortune telling, and indecent exposure.  77 Ibid., 308.   78 Ibid., 515. At Wandsworth’s House of Corrections, crank work was carried out on a “hard labour machine” – a wooden and iron hand cranking apparatus. Each device would be individually regulated by adding seven, ten, or twelve pound weights that was prescribed by the prison’s medical officer.   79 See: David Shayt, “Stairway to Redemption,” 908-938.   80 Described by James Hardie in his 1823 book “The Tread-Mill” in: R. Solnit, Wanderlust, 260.        28  malnourished and dehydrated. Water would be intentionally restricted to discourage inmates from overdrinking in order to make themselves sick enough to escape the severity of this punitive labor method.81 The tempo of the tread-wheel was set by a large central regulator or fan in order to demand intense physical effort, and even without adequate tread, inmates were forced to keep pace since a simple slip could result in injury or death. Once the tread-wheel was running there was no way to stop the turning machine.82 Inmates would “work” in small individual compartments to provided conditions of total confinement. These cubicles concealed inmates from seeing or communicating with each other; however they also inhibited adequate air flow and often by the end of the session the air would become so hot it could be difficult to breathe. Failure to participate in this grueling labor task often generated a whipping.  If this was not punitive enough, McConville reminds us that the “bonus” of the tread-wheel was the element of mental torment created by the “galling and demoralizing knowledge”  of wasted effort with no product ever being produced.83 The tread-wheel was used throughout America and Britain until the mid-19th century, when it was abandoned as “too cruel a punishment”84 – that was until the punitive treadmill of the past was reincarnated in the form of a popular exercise machine in 1968 after a publication on the benefits of aerobic exercise provided a medical argument supporting the commercial development of the home treadmill!85                                                              81 The “progressive” dietary methods used in English prisons in the latter half of the 19th century of providing inmates with only a minimal amount of food daily were described by one reformer as “scientific starvation” and “no bodily punishment more cruel than hunger.” See: McConville, 148-149. Other methods of self-injury included ingesting soap to cause diarrhoea, creating artificial sores or purposively lacerating the skin and applying calcium hydroxide or “lime white” to their tongue to force momentary sickness Mayhew and Binny, 305.  82 Mayhew and Binny, 304-307.  83 Ibid., 147.  84 Shayt, “Stairway to Redemption,” 908-938.  85 Although Dr. Kenneth Cooper’s article helped to popularize aerobics throughout the United States, the first consumer home treadmill was developed by medical engineer William Staub in order to provide an affordable home     29  The Birth of Criminal Anthropology At the same time that the tread-wheel and other punitive hard labor methods were being used in the English prison system, new ideas regarding the nature of criminal behaviour emerged. Before this time the dominant belief in Victorian penology was that criminality was simply a product of the environment in which the individual lived.86 Many thought that imprisonment in a ‘Christian’ prison could reduce entry into the “criminal class” by providing criminals with religious education, sanitary measures and moral education. However, with the introduction of Social Darwinist approaches to human behaviour in the second half of the 19th century, growing interest in scientific approaches to the criminal behaviour had developed.87 By 1865 the tensions between “biblical revelation” and “scientific discovery” within prison discipline resulted in the dissolution of chapel services and reduction of religious literature in corrections. These were replaced by an increase in inmate isolation, reductions in anything that could be considered a “luxury” (such as gratuities and diet), and an overall increase in the severity of physical labor. Not long after Charles Darwin’s Origins of Species was published in 1859, criminologists started to explore criminal behaviour in evolutionist terms – not only in natural evolution, but also in social or moral evolution.88 Darwin believed that moral capacities such as “self-command” and “conscience” could be inherited, and thus “the moral sense is fundamentally                                                              treadmill. Staub sent his prototype to Cooper who began marketing it to fitness equipment manufactures. From: S. Brown, “William Staub of Clifton.”  86 Forthsythe, The Reform of Prisoners, 167-168.  87 Forthsythe, discusses how this view directly contradicted to the previous popular evangelical approaches to morality and human behaviour, in The Reform of Prisoners, 171-174.     88 Rafter, The Criminal Brain, 13.       30  identical with the social instincts.”89 These ideas of social evolution influenced criminological theories in many ways, including the development of Social Darwinism by English philosopher Herbert Spencer. Spencer’s notion that society evolved in the same way that an organism does reinforced the medical understanding of criminality – a criminal is sick and capable of infecting society, and therefore to strengthen society criminals must be eliminated.90 In addition, Social Darwinism suggested that governments should not interfere with the evolutionary process by helping the unfit. This notion directly influenced late-Victorian crime control and prison policies: do nothing to help the criminal class and society will improve by their demise.91 Cousin of Darwin and friend to Spencer, Francis Galton helped to shift criminology from utilizing evolutionary theories to explain criminal behaviour according to genetic or “born” explanations in the late 1870s.92 Galton, a statistician and inventor of eugenics, began a series of scientific photographic experiments which he called “composite portraiture.”93 These studies and the accompanying statistical formula he developed to interpret the images played a central role in both his anthropometric research, and later the development of his eugenic theories. His composite pictures mixed portraits of individuals indiscriminately together to produce an                                                              89 Ibid., 94.  90 Ibid., 95.  91 Ibid.  92 Ibid., p.113.  Galton was a pioneer in the eugenics movement – even coining the term itself. In his book Hereditary Genius, he discusses that “The best form of civilization in respect to the improvement of the race, would be one in which society was not costly; where incomes were chiefly derived from professional sources, and not much through inheritance; where every lad had a chance of showing his abilities, and, if highly gifted, was enabled to achieve a first-class education and entrance into professional life, by the liberal help of the exhibitions and scholarships which he had gained in his early youth; where marriage was held in as high honour as in ancient Jewish times; where the pride of race was encouraged…” 362.  93 Composite portraits were produced by layering the individual portraits of a given number of people onto a single photographic plate, through a process of partial exposure of each image.      31  “imaginary figure” - which as described by Sekula, was a “photographic impression of an abstract, statistically defined, and empirically non-existent criminal face.”94 His studies ultimately purported to produce the standard “image of the criminal man”95 and had many links to the prison setting. Not surprisingly, the first series of photographs were those of English prisoners.96  Although Galton explained that his use of photographs of prisoners was largely a matter of “contingency,”97 it was not entirely coincidental. Elizabeth Stephens explains that “large institutions with a vested interest in recording the identities of their inmates were also amongst the early adopters of photography as a new technology, and Galton’s interest in criminal anthropometrics was already well known.”98 One of the key uses of the composite pictures to create a “type” or reveal the image of “a strong hereditary tendency” to commit crime through revealing facial “villainous irregularities”99 was later discredited by emerging criminologist and Eugenicist, Havelock Ellis.100 Although both Ellis and Galton both openly acknowledged and simultaneously ignored the flaws and failures of the composite portrait, Galton’s research had a                                                              94 Sekula, Alan, “The Body and the Archive,” 19.  95 Rafter, The Criminal Brain, p.115.  96 Galton had been given a large collection of photographs of prisoners by the Director-General of prisons, Edmund Du Cane, which were suitably similar in dimension and style. Galton, “Composite Portraits,” 98.  97 For this process to work, the original photographs needed to be homogeneous in size and composition – thus Galton turned to the prison population where he would be able to control his sample.   98 Elizabeth Stephens, “Francis Galton’s Composite Portraits,” 15.   99 Galton, “Composite Portraits,” 97-97.  100 Despite Ellis’s enthusiasm for Galton’s work, he was forced to admit that the composite portraits did not provided any useful information or any reliable correspondence between physiognomy and criminality. Ellis’s believed that Galton’s work “undermined the physiognomic assumptions on which criminal anthropology rests”. From: Stephens, “Francis Galton’s Composite Portraits,” 13.       32  discernible societal impact by creating the “culture of participatory anthropometrics”101 and encouraging the widespread popular practice of anthropometric projects.102  At the same time in Turin, Italy, physician and psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) was formulating his own biological explanations for criminal behaviour.103 Lombroso had a keen interest in bodily characteristics and he claimed that criminals were marked with physical asymmetries, thus allowing criminality to be “read off the body.”104 For example, tattoos on the body were thoughts to indicate criminality, as Lombroso believed that they were atypical to the signs of a healthy man - “habitual murderers have a cold, glassy stare and eyes that are sometimes bloodshot and filmy … nearly all criminals have jug ears, thick hair, thin beards, pronounced sinuses, protruding chins and broad cheek bones.”105  He provided recommendations for the punishment of criminals and called for the “scientific policing” of inmates to combat the pervasiveness of habitually reoffending criminals.106 In order to reduce the harmful influence these reoffenders might make on society and cure “the social body,” he called for the elimination of the ‘born criminal.’ Lombroso’s ideas concerning the criminal body, methods of punishment and the social body, provided the foundation for the study of criminal anthropology – which in a number of ways has had a lasting impact on prison physical culture.                                                                   101 Ibid., 21.   102 Ibid. Discussed by Stephens, Galton’s anthropometric projects encouraged the “uptake of new practices of self-assessment and an increasingly quantified view of self and society.”  103 See: Neil Davie, “The Impact of Criminal Anthropology in Britain (1880-1918).”   104 Quotes from: Walby and Carrier, “The Rise of Biocriminality,” 266.   105 From Cesar Lombroso, “Criminal Anthropology: Its Origins and Applications,” The Criminal Anthropoligcal Writings of Cesare Lombroso, 51-53.  106 Lombroso suggested that “punishment should be equal to the dangerous offender, advising incapacitation for born criminals and manual labour for criminals of less danger.” See: Walby and Carrier, 264.     33  Episode 2: Elmira Reformatory and the Rise of Prison Physical Culture  After declaration in 1776, prisons throughout the new nation of the United States of America originally adopted the English corporal punishment model to discipline criminals. Similar to the events that gave way to the developed of modern penology in England, during the late 18th century America also began to examine its own prison system.107 This resulted in the introduction of a new model of prisons that would follow similar punitive methods to the British ‘workhouse’ system of hard physical labor. Throughout the mid-19th century prison administrators continued to further refine America correctional practice. During this time, some prisons began to celebrate holidays with entertainment or provide inmates with reduced codes of strict conduct and increased leisure opportunities.108 In addition, recreational sports were added into many prison regimes throughout the United States. However, overall there was little continuity in both the punitive methods and penal ideology of the American prison system. Many institutions had become overcrowded and hailed as “state-run slavery”, and unsettling accounts of poor inmate health were common.  By the late 1860s the fragmentation of the American prison system had given way to a new set of principles introduced by the National Prison Congress in 1870. These principles stressed the idea of rewarding convicts for good behavior by granting new inmate privileges.109 Although it is not clear whether the creation of outdoor leisure time was an outcome of these new congressional policies, some prisons during the 1870s began to grant “freedom of the yard” to                                                              107 Harry Elmer Barnes, “Historial Origin of the Prison System in America.”  108 See: M. Meskell, “An American Resolution,” 851; and Blake McKelvey, American Prisons, 229.  109 From: Meskell, “An American Resolution,” 863.      34  provide the opportunity for prisoners to have access to recreation time, which quickly evolved into prisoner-lead spontaneously organized games.110   In general, the penal restructuring of 1870 had little impact on the vast majority of those imprisoned in American institutions – however, it did give rise to a new era in corrections, “the reformatory ideal,” and the creation of Elmira Reformatory. Hailed as “the most significant penal institution ever opened in the United States,”111 Elmira Reformatory attempted to mould what Foucault called “docile bodies” and “manage the souls of men”112 through instilling order, discipline and self-control to those imprisoned. This institution would serve to “teach and train the prisoner in such a manner that, on his discharge, he may be able to resist temptation and be more inclined to lead an upright, worthy life.”113 To accomplish this, America’s criminal justice system had to be restructured. Many institutions began to change their focus from punishment to rehabilitation. Penal reformers believed that this could be achieved through reductions in sentencing and less emphasis on profit-labor, as well as providing “industrial education, academic education, religion and post-release supervision.”114  At the same time that a reformatory system was being established new approaches to ‘treating’ criminals were developing across the country. A call for “individualized care based on ‘scientific treatment’ and the ‘medical model’”115 had enormous impact on how crime and                                                              110 Ibid.  111 Quoted from: Alexander Pisciotta, Benevolent Repression, 1.  112 See Sadan’s description of docile bodies in “Chapter 1: Theories of power,” 53-71.   113 From: Enoch Cobb Wines and Theodore William Dwight, Report on the Prisons and Reformatories of the United States and Canada, 52.   114 Alexander Pisciotta, Benevolent Repression, 11.   115 Ibid.       35  criminality were perceived and punished, and ultimately lead to the ideological foundations that Elmira was built upon.116  Opening in 1876, Elmira Reformatory in New York was one of the first adult reformatories for offenders. Operated under the watchful eye of superintendent Zebulon Reed Brockway, Elmira was designed for male offenders ranging in age from 16 to 30 years old who had been convicted of first felonies and given indeterminate sentences.117 At first, the role of the newly founded reformatory was to offer inmates some classroom education, accompanied by training and skills in labor jobs and trades. Unlike in Britain, where inmates would be punished with hours of hard physical labor that produced “profitless work,” the men at Elmira worked tirelessly in factory jobs such as furniture building and brush making.118 This form of profit-based reformatory labor only lasted until the passing of the Yates Law of 1888, which prohibited most forms of institutionally organized prison labor, declaring it ‘slavery’. Administrators had to now find alternative ways of occupying men in order to “to prevent [their] physical and moral deterioration,”119 and many prison officials believed that inmate idleness would result in violence, vandalism, and the need for more guards.120   If inmates could no longer produce industry products, Brockway thought that the Reformatory could at least provide them with training needed for industry work and to prepare them for employment after release. He believed that physical training would transfer an inmate                                                              116 Ibid., 5.  117 See: S. Smith, “Methods of Discipline in Reformatories,” 2561.  118 Pisciotta, Benevolent Repression, 15.   119 See the Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the State Reformatory at Elmira, 19.    120 From Beverly Smith, “Military Training at New York's Elmira Reformatory, 1888-1920,” 33.     36  from “worthlessness to worthfulness.”121 Brockway’s new vision of reform would “instill inmates with ‘Christian character’ and transform them into ‘Christian gentlemen,’”122 and correct the “weak mind” of the criminal which reflected “an underlying physical deterioration.”123 In general, Brockway thought offenders to be “untrained and un-informed,” both conditions that “evidenced physical degeneration”124 and required the implementation of physical training programs. As a result, several innovative physical practices were introduced to Elmira that were viewed as “progressive reforms” in the model of reformatory discipline.125 Described by the Journal of American Medical Association, these techniques “illustrated the physical and mental training of the inmates … [and] treated [inmates] by building up the physical and mental.”126  In line with the existence of a popular physical culture movement outside prison walls, practices of ‘physical culture’ were introduced in 1886 by Brockway and Elmira’s physician Dr. Hamilton Wey. Elmira became one of the first prisons to use recreational activity as a form of “treatment”127 which included “Swedish rehabilitative techniques consisting of Russian and Turkish baths, calisthenics, and muscle massage.”128 By 1890, Dr. Wey’s “Physical Culture                                                              121 Pisciotta, Benevolent Repression, 18.  122 Ibid. This notion mirrored the trending Muscular Christianity movement outside prison walls.   123 See: Rafter, Creating Born Criminals, 100.  124 Ibid. Brockway thought that weakness of the mind and will must reflect an underlying physical deterioration.   125 From Pisciotta, “Scientific Reform,” 613 - 630.  126 Quote obtained from an 1894 edition of a weekly publication produced by the Journal of American Medical Association. In this particular edition, after detailing a recent scandal at Elmira where the superintendent was guilty of spanking inmates, the Reformatory is hailed as providing “hope” for the field of medicine, criminology and penology. See “Elmira Reformatory,” Journal of American Medical Association, 593.  127 Ibid. Elmira became one of the first prisons to use recreational activity in 1880.  128 Ibid., 619.     37  Class” had grown to facilitate the building of a gymnasium, and manual training classes “to transform defective centers of the brain.”129  Sports such as track and field, basketball, football and baseball, were also integrated into Elmira’s methods of reform.130  Physical activity strengthened bodies, sharpened minds and taught the Elmira boys the benefit of cooperation, communication, and good coordination. A good team player would be an effective factory worker or farm hand; inmates who drank, smoked or in other ways abused their minds and bodies learned that they would not be at their best on the playing field or Elmira or the playing field of life.131 Built on the belief that sport could help inmates to develop “self-government” skills, institutions across America followed Elmira’s principles which declared that recreational programs could mould inmates’ “muscles and morals.” Shortly after Elmira’s sport programs began, Concord Reformatory in Massachusetts established organized baseball, wrestling and football leagues.132 In 1903, the “Moral Improvement Association” and The Improvement Journal proposed an innovative physical culture training program at Cook County Prison in Chicago, which included allowing inmates to “exercise their muscles” by doing  callisthenic exercises in their cells. An article from the New York Times commented: “while the idea of physical training classes may seem incongruous to outsiders, the inmates of the institution view it as a serious matter.”133 Cavallo points out that these programs were often used as a method of socialization and social control – if institutions could “control the muscles… you could control the mind and                                                              129 Pisciotta, Benevolent Repression, 24.  131 Ibid., 24-25. See also, Pisciotta, “Scientific Reform,” 613.  132 Ibid.   133 Discussed within a New York Times article published April 21 1903.        38  conscience.”134 In addition to the sports programs at Elmira, in 1889 a military training program was also added to methods of reformatory techniques.135 The training included inmates engaging in hard physical practices of military tactics and training for five to eight hours a day to “stimulate ambition for promotion and ... preserve a healthful disciplinary influence.”136 Physical Culture as a Cure for Criminal Behavior For years Elmira was also at the forefront of “biogenic research,” leading the American prison system in the application of modern theories of criminology.137 Both Brockway and prison physician Wey, were persuaded by Cesare Lombroso’s study of The Criminal Man.138 Wey suggested that many of the Elmira’s inmates “presented features indicative of criminal tendencies.”139 According to Rafter, “Wey’s interest in the gymnasium as ‘a favorable place for studies in criminal anthropology’ intensified with the increasing popularity of the Bertillon system, a method for detecting offenders through body measurements.”140 The Bertillon system, invented by French police officer and criminologist Alphonse Bertillon in 1879, was a technique for detecting offenders through specific bodily measurements and distinctive personal features.141 This system was used to identify criminals at the turn of the century before being                                                              134 See: Cavallo, Muscles and Morals, 5.   135 From the “Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the State Reformatory at Elmira,” 9.  136 In: Smith, “Military Training at New York's Elmira Reformatory, 1888-1920,” p.35.  137 Ibid., 32. Biogenic research is defined as anything necessary for the maintenance of life processes.   138 From Cesare Lombroso, The Criminal Man.   139 Pisciotta, Benevolent Repression, 24.  140  Rafter, Creating Born Criminals, 101.  141 Ibid.  Bertillon’s catalogue of physical measurements included recording of: standing height, sitting height (length of trunk and head), distance between fingertips with arms outstretched, and size of head, right ear, left foot, digits, and forearm, as well as noting distinctive personal features, such as eye colour, scars, and deformities. From: The Oxford Companion to the Body.      39  replaced by fingerprints. Although not based on a specific theory of criminal type, Bertillon’s method of anthropometrics, together with the “new science of criminal anthropology” inspired Wey’s own criminological study of Elmira’s inmates.  With the aim of trying to elucidate the causes of crime, Wey began measuring the bodies of men imprisoned at the Reformatory. His commitment to the notion that criminals shared specific biological characteristics resulted in the detailed collection of anthropometric measurements which he shared - along with citing important European and British  anthropologists, including Francis Galton, Havelock Ellis and Lombroso - with members of the National Prison Association in the late 1880s.142 Wey is credited with introducing Americans to criminal anthropology, as prior to his studies and talks with the Prison Association, “neither penologist or the general public perceived physical differences between criminals and law-abiding citizens.”143  His research was also widely cited by criminal anthropologists, including in Havelock Ellis’s 1890 book The Criminal where Wey is quoted describing the physical training programs at Elmira:  The results of this treatment were in every respect remarkable … The drill and discipline they were subjected to wrought an improvement in their physical condition. The baths and stimulation of the cutaneous system brought the skin to the highest degree of functional activity … The daily drill and dumb-bell exercises hardened and developed muscles that previously were soft and flabby, and the entire muscular system acquired firmness and power.144                                                               142 See Pisciotta, “Scientific Reform,” 616. And also, Rafter, “Somatotyping, Antimodernism, and the Production of Criminological Knowledge,” 531.  143 By the turn of the century Lombroso and criminal anthropology had an “almost fanatical following” in the United States. From: Rafter. Creating Born Criminals, 94. 144 From Havelock Ellis’ The Criminal, 267. This influential text detailed Cesare Lombroso’s theories of crime and causality and discussed Britain’s reaction to criminal anthropology. Ellis spoke to many criminal justice professional while researching in order to reveal the existence of a “criminal type”. See Davie, “The Impact of Criminal Anthropology.”     40  Described by Foucault as the “pathologification’ of crime,”145 Brockway and Wey’s “degenerate criminal,” along with Lombroso’s “born criminal,” manufactured knowledge of the criminal body. In many ways Wey, Brockway and Elmira’s reformatory programs forever changed penology and knowledge of the criminal body. The reformatory’s physical training methods were credited with increasing scientific knowledge of biological criminals, and together, Wey and Brockway, created a profile of the biological criminal.146 They believed that the ‘degenerate’ criminal showed signs of physical decay and was characterized as “more frail and less manipulative.”147 Similar to Lombroso’s born criminal body, “which is beyond reformation,”148 Brockway’s degenerate, although defective, could be cured through prison physical culture. Episode 3: Muscularity Christianity, Prison Sport and the Radical Reformers  of Sing Sing Penitentiary  At the turn of the 20th century American sporting culture was developing rapidly outside the prison walls, in part based underscored by the concepts of Muscular Christianity. This widespread movement which linked “moral and physical culture together [and turned] gymnastics, calisthenics, and ultimately sport into a distinctly American pastime”149 inspired many prison administrators to redesign their recreation programs and lead to the introduction of a                                                              145 Foucault writes of the ‘pathologification’ of crime in the early nineteenth century. He believed that: “it was not through the ill-defined zone of day-to-day disorders that psyhchiatry was able to penetrate penal justice in full force. Rather, it was by tackling the great criminal event of the most violent and rarest sort.” Foucault, “Dangerous Individual”, 181.   146 Rafter, Creating Born Criminals, 102.  147 Ibid., 103.  148 Ibid., 104.  149 Harvey Green, Fit For America, 182. Gaining popularity in post-Civil War America, the idea of muscular Christianity was a general occupation with manliness and health that was part of the critique of modernization and urbanization, and promoted the notion of strenuous religion for a strenuous life.       41  new model of prison recreation. Although Brockway’s work at Elmira promoted the use of physical culture and reformatory technique, many of the prisons in the United States still operated according to the Auburn System. Similar to the English silent system of hard prison labor in place at Pentonville, the Auburn System had been established during the 1820s. Under the principles of this system, American prisons had worked to remove all prisoners’ “sense of self,” rights and opportunities in order to create a compliance and obedience during incarceration.150 To achieve this, inmates were required to wear identical striped uniforms, march in unison lockstep and perform all daily duties in conditions of complete silence. However, the introduction of prison sport “presaged a new era in prison discipline” and worked in direct opposition to the ‘old’ punitive ways of the Auburn system.151  Although varied on the nature of the prison structure and those in charge, athletics and recreation became a central feature within adult penitentiaries across the United States.152 Organized sports became fully integrated into the Mid-West penal system in 1910 and had crossed the nation into all Western regions in 1915.153 Hailed as a triumph of the reformatory technique, athletics and sport were seen to open “a new horizon in correctional therapy,”154 and provide an opportunity to rehabilitated inmates - or what Congress at the time described as an                                                              150 This was done through requiring inmates to wear identical stripped uniforms, march in unison lockstep and perform all daily duties all in conditions of silence. Prisons worked to remove all prisoners’ rights and opportunities while incarcerated  151 From: McKelvey, American Prisons, 229. Some prisons introduced lectures, while others had musical or theatrical performances during the winter months in place of military training or opportunity for outdoor physical activity.  152 Ibid. California’s San Quentin prison was home to highly organized sports programs by as early as 1912, with baseball being at its core.  153 Ibid. See also: Tepperman, “Basebell at San Quentin,” 16.    154 McKelvey, American Prisons, 229      42  attempt to recreate a man in prison. By providing opportunities that focused on “the cult of the strenuous life, bodily vigor, action before reflection” prison officials believed they could turn men from criminals into good Christian gentlemen.155 As Green points out, creating the perfect body was essential to Christian morality, as “human action could determine individual and social salvation.”156 If morality was a function of a healthy and muscular body, then surely providing prison physical culture would be able to reform even the worst criminal.  By the onset of First World War, American prison discipline was once again in flux. The pedagogical principle of reforming inmates through physical activity began to shift to a new era in prison physical culture. Sport and athletes were now viewed as providing only entertainment value for imprisoned men.157 To mark this transition, grandstands were built for viewing prison league games throughout the United States penitentiary system. It quickly became clear to prison wardens that they needed to occupy inmates’ time and energy by creating a positive physical activity based recreation system in order to restore the ability to control men in mass.158 In direct opposition to the once intolerable system of American corrections, this more relaxed prison sporting experience was nowhere more clearly demonstrated then in the radical self-government experiments of Thomas Mott Osborne at Sing Sing Penitentiary.159                                                                155 See: C. Putney, Muscular Christianity; and K.P. Murphy, Political Manhood.   156 Quoted from: Green, Fit for American, 182.  157 Prison also used sport as a way to “keep men content.” See: McKelvey, American Prisons, 230.   158 Ibid., 229.  159 Ibid., 230.      43  Sport Reform at Sing Sing Penitentiary   Outraged by the horrible conditions of early 20th century American prisons, Osborne started to work toward prison reform during the early years of the 20th century. In 1913 he began his term as chairman of the New York State Prison Reform Commission by completing a six day voluntary prison sentence at Auburn Prison. Using the alias of “Tom Brown” - chosen as a homage to English fictional literary hero said to have fostered the Muscular Christianity movement - Osborne lived with the incarcerated men did in order to better understand prison living conditions.160 Following this experiment, Osborne introduced American corrections to a "new penology" of culture and education when he founded the “Mutual Welfare League at New York’s Auburn Prison in 1914. This was quickly followed by his system of convict self-government at Sing Sing Penitentiary.161  In 1915 Osborne was appointed the warden of Sing Sing Penitentiary. Although many of Osborne’s ideas on prison administration echoed those of Brockway at Elmira, prison administrators hailed his "new" system of “inmate self-government as something profoundly radical and untried in institutional management.”162 Osborne’s system of prison administration assumed “a rehabilitative potential” of all prisoners and sought to create “convict democracy expressed through self-governing representative bodies and inmate-imposed rules of                                                              160 From K.P. Murphy, Political Manhood, 153. The phrase muscular Christianity first appeared in a review of the British parson and writer Charles Kingsley’s (1819‐1875) novel Two Years Ago in 1857. Charles Kingsley first coined the term Muscular Christainity in 1857. His friend, Thomas Hughes, later used the term to describe the novel Tom Brown’s Schooldays (1856), which was a genre of adventure novels about “manly Christian heroes” who combined high moral principles with recognition – and promotion – of the physical body.   161 The "new penology" of culture and education that was thought to prepare of criminals for citizenship after release.  162 See: H.M. Helfman, “Antecedents of Thomas Mott Osborne,” 597. An important element of muscularity Christianity was that a true Christian man should not only be his own master, but the master of society that he could change for the better. From: C. Putney, Muscular Christianity: Manhood and sports in Protestant America.      44  discipline.”163 His methods of penal reform were often regarded as a ‘utopian’ prison environment and reflected a “sympathetic and romantic view of the male convict population.”164  Although his time as warden was short-lived, only lasting two years, he significantly improved the conditions for prisoners. The implementation of the Mutual Welfare League helped to provide prisoners with entertainment including sports and leisure activities and even included swimming. Following his resignation in 1916, Sing Sing had five different prison administrators over the course of three years until, another notable warden, Lewis Lawes was hired his term in 1919. Continuing Osborne’s ideals of reformation and recreation, Lawes’ prison governance provided inmates with numerous recreational activities, such as popular football and baseball leagues that drew visiting public spectators to watch the inmates play.  During the heyday of baseball’s 1920, intermural games became popular among inmates, and grew to include a team of correctional officers called “The Keepers” that would play against other prison guards from neighboring prisons. A 1924 scorecard illustrates the sophistication of Sing Sing’s prison sport league, which included a schedule of doubleheaders and games that were played on every Saturday and Sunday from April to September.165 Eventually baseball became so popular at Sing Sing that the Mutual Welfare League sponsored an all-star team to play against teams outside the prison walls. Cheli notes that the level of talent of the all-star team mirrored any good league team, and after serving out their prison sentence several players went on to play for the minor leagues.166                                                               163 Helfman, “Antecedents of Thomas Mott Osborne,” 597.  164 Murphy, Political Manhood, 156.  165 From: Guy Cheli, Sing Sing Prison, 83.  166 Ibid., 85.      45  During the interwar years, the Mutual Welfare League also sponsored an annual athletic field day. Supported by the community outside the prison, public businesses donated prizes that were awarded to each event winner.167 Defined on a1924 poster for this event, the motive for the yearly athletic field day was to provide: “… clean [and] strenuous sports [which are] most conducive agents to bodily well-being… vitality and genuine moral rehabilitation.”168  Sports continued to grow at Sing Sing well into the 1930s. The Black Sheep, the prion’s football team, could draw crowds of over 2,000 prisoners to watch each game. Even with the large numbers of men in attendance, security and orderly conduct were never an issue for prison staff, as it was well-known to inmates that attendance at these and other sporting events was an earned privilege. The widespread enthusiasm for sports and Sing Sing’s well-mannered inmate population during Lawes’ time as warden is regarded as a reflection of his tremendous effort to provide every inmate with human treatment and reform opportunities. The Criminal Body Type At the same time, a new school of criminologists were working to solve “the problem” of the individual criminal.169 New theories of inmate classification and segmentation emerged and were aimed at making justice and criminology a ‘science’ based practice that would focus on an offender’s biology. Criminal anthropologists once again questioned the ability of the prison to reform the criminal body.170 Many of these professionals advocated for penal punishment to be tailored to fit the offender ‘type’. This school of thought ultimately gave rise to the promotion of                                                              167 Ibid., 84.  168 Ibid.  169 McKelvey, American Prisons, 232.  170 Rafter, “Criminal Anthropology in the United States,” 539.      46  eugenics criminology within the United States.171 The diffusion of this new branch of criminal anthropology resulted in many prison administrators exchanging old empirical approaches to penology (that were popularized by the Reformatory), with punitive methods based on analytical science.  The radical penal methods first introduced by Osborne at Sing Sing directly refuted these emerging and dominate trends within criminology. During the time he worked in prisons, Osborne fought against the notion of a “criminal class.”172 He believed that treating inmates as a separate class would only result in a failed prison setting – one that could only be re-established by breaking down the distinctions between the prison environment and social environment, allowing prisoners to govern themselves and for society to no longer “brand a man as criminal.”173  A dangerous and desperate criminal is often only the hero gone wrong. The very qualities which made … the most dangerous of criminals – his skill, ingenuity, boldness, bravery, intellectual power and loyalty [also represent] assets to the highest value of society.174 Osborne was not alone in his refutations of Lombroso’s theories and notion of eugenic criminology. English criminologist Charles Goring also saw the shortcomings of the criminal class. At the turn of the century he began a 12 year comparative study to examine the bodies of 3,000 inmates to a sample of non-offenders.175 Goring was unable to find any statistical                                                              171 Ibid., 540. Rafter notes that US criminologists did not use the term eugenics at the start of the 20th century.  172 Obsorne adamantly fought against the notion of the criminal class following his time spent as an inmate. See: Thomas Mott Osborne, Society and Prisons, 27.   173 Murphy, Political Manhood, 154.  174 Quoted from Osborne, in Society and Prisons, 230.  175 Charles Goring’s study is explained by L. Winfree and H. Abadinsky in Understanding Crime: Essentials of Criminological Theory, 70-71.      47  correlations between physical and mental abnormalities or traits specific to a ‘born’ criminal. He concluded that the “results nowhere confirm the evidence [of the born criminal], nor justify the allegations of criminal anthropologist … Our inevitable conclusion must be that there is no such thing as a physical criminal type.”176  In response to this critique, American criminologist, Earnest Albert Hooton argued that criminals were “organically inferior and that the inferiority was genetically inheritable.”177 To prove this, Hooton and his colleagues collected body measurements from a total of 17,000 individuals, including 14,000 inmates. Within his conclusion, Hooton stated that there was a significant difference between criminals and “civilians” on more than half of the anthropometric measures taken.178 Criminals, he claimed, had “low foreheads, high pinched nasal roots, crooked noses, compressed faces, narrow jaws, small ears, long necks and stooped shoulders.”179  In addition, Hooton matched inmates’ body types to crime and criminal behaviour. Inspired by the work of a pioneer in body typing theories, Ernst Kretschmer (a German psychiatrist who related body type to mental illness), Hooton attempted to correlate prisoners’ body build with their offense type, background and marital status.180 His findings reported physical differences among criminals by offender type. For example, Hooton discussed that men charged with first degree murder were older, taller and heavier than other criminals. Related to imprisonment, he                                                              176 Charles Goring, The English Convict: A Statistical Study, 173.   177 Albert Hooton, The American Criminal, 4.    178 See: Winfree and Abadinsky, Understanding Crime, 70.  179 Quoted from Kelly Frailing and Dee Wood Harper, Fundamentals of Criminology: New Dimensions.   180 Although Kretschmer did not support the Nazi regime, his work influenced their glorification of the “the heroic body of the Nordic superman” and field of “Aryan Criminology.” Rafter, The Criminal Brain, 155.      48  believed that habitual criminals “should be permanently incarcerated and, on no account, be allowed to breed.”181  Full of questionable methodologies and conclusion, racial and sexist undertones and conducted with a eugenic goal, Hooton’s work on body typing is highly criticized.182 Edwin H. Sutherland, a prominent American criminologist of the first half of the 20th century, questioned how Hooton “reach[ed] the conclusion that eyes of one color are superior to eyes of another color, or that one stature is superior to another,”183 and that much of his evidence “… proved nothing at all for the latter's claim that criminals are physically different from lawful persons.”184 Despite such criticisms, Hooton’s research helped revitalize public interest in criminal anthropology, and his research influenced body typing research for years to follow.185 Episode 4: Bob Hoffman, Bill Clark and the Rise of Iron Sport.  Prior to the onset of World War II, prisons throughout the United States had become less uniform in how they were managed. From punishment to programming, how the prison was run depended on the ‘expertise’ of the prison warden rather than federal provisions.186 Overall prisons provided inmates with more opportunities to communicate with each other through the provisions of outdoor recreation or yard time. Often the monotonous daily routines of                                                              181 Ibid., 156.  182 Discussed by Frank E. Hartung in “A Critique of the Sociological Approach to Crime and Correction,” 707-708. Rafter calls Hooton’s criminal projects an “ostensibly an exercise in criminal anthropology” and “boiled down to a massive search for something – anything – abnormal in the physiques of criminals.” See also: Rafter, The Criminal Brain, 153.  183 Edwin H. Sutherland quoted by Frank E. Hartung in “A Critique Crime and Correction,” 707-708  184 From: Edwin H. Sutherland, “Book Review of Hooton,” 29.   185 Before Hooton, Eugenic criminology had “fallen from favor” and kept “off the criminological research agenda” From: Rafter, The Criminal Brain, 147-153.  186 Discussed by R. Johnson, A. Dobrzanska and S. Palla, The American Prison in Historical Perspective, 34.      49  incarceration were mitigated through organized sport programs. The decades following the war saw the emergence of the correctional institution which marked an important turning point in the American penitentiary system. Developed on the penological principle that prisons should offer a treatment-orientated approach, the newly formed correctional institution would provide inmates with various opportunities for “rehabilitation.” With this new focus, American prison administrators had to create an effective classification system for disciplining the individual inmate during their prison sentence. To accomplish this, prison administrators turned to the medical model of rehabilitation.187  Prison administrators defined inmates’ criminal behaviour by utilizing knowledge from the “scientific” disciplines of psychiatry, psychology, and criminology. The “medical model” was believed to provide a “technical orientation to the therapeutic model of rehabilitation” and proposed that crime and deviance resulted from a psychological defect.188 However, a criminal was not perceived to be ‘clinically ill’; rather an offender was believed to display specific personality characteristics that were deemed as ‘prominent’ to all criminals, such as aggressive behaviour or emotional instability. Criminal behaviour was seen to be an uncontrollable product of socioeconomic or psychological forces and as a ‘sickness’ – one that prison administrators and criminologists agreed could be cured by imprisonment within a correctional institution.189                                                               187 Each prisoner had a “case history” completed by a team of psychologists, caseworkers, sociologists, vocational counselors and psychiatrists, and special committees were created to evaluate this information in order to assign an inmate to an appropriate prison and plan future rehabilitation and review. As a result, clinical psychiatrists became a mainstay in prisons by the 1950, and psychological profiling helped to change how corrections response to crime and punishment. From: E. Rotman, “The Failure of Reform,” 190. See also: Jonathan Simon, “The Return of the Medical Model,” 217.  188 Rotman, “The Failure of Reform,” 189.  189 K.Campbell, “Rehabilitation Theory,” 831.      50  The medical model was widely accepted within American corrections from the late 1930s to the early 1970s, and shifted the goal of the prison away from providing discipline to a new focus aimed at correcting individual inmates. As a result, prison administrators increased daily regimes of yard time and recreational privileges, improved amenities and created more opportunities for educational, vocational, and therapeutic programming.190 Throughout the United States many prison sport programs emerged, such as Sing Sing’s infamous football league, Huntsville’s Texas State Penitentiary prison rodeo or the Baseball Congress Umpire School that resided in 21 prisons across the United States.191 Establishing Strength Training in Prisons  Accompanying this shift in American correctional philosophy was a new interest in iron sports.192 Early accounts of prison weight lifting mostly refer to California’s State Penitentiary System - in part due to the influence of weightlifting icon Bob Hoffman. During the interwar years, a new era of physical culture developed outside prison walls and helped to spark a rise in competitive weightlifting.193 The period after WWI was an active period for sport, fitness and physical education professions. However, as a result of the Great Depression and economic collapse of 1929 many popular strength and fitness companies including Milo Barbell Company and Strength magazine went bankrupt. In 1931 popular strongman George Jowett declared that                                                              190 See: Rick D. Hanser, “Recreational Programs,” 417-424.  191 Descriptions of these programs can be found in: R. Boyle, “Fight on, Old Sing Sing U.”  192 Iron sports include any sport that uses “iron” weight lifting tools, such as barbells and dumbbells to execute feats of strength, power, and or musculature. These include but are not limited to, powerlifting, Olympic weightlifting, bodybuilding, and strongman.    193 Weightlifting (one word) is short for “Olympic weightlifting” where an athlete attempts to lift a maximum-weight through performing two lifts: the snatch and the clean and jerk. This is the only iron sport that is also an Olympic sport.      51  the “iron game was ‘ruined beyond measure’”194 – that was until a young World War I hero and strength enthusiast from York Town, Pennsylvania named Bob Hoffman revitalized America’s interest in strength sports.195 Hoffman used his successful automotive oil burning company to being to produce and manufacture weight lifting equipment, and by 1935 he purchased several physical culture companies that went bankrupt during the Depression.196 Although regarded as a mediocre coach and weightlifter, Hoffman’s enthusiasm and business influenced and guided weightlifting and bodybuilding for half a century. His company York Barbell Company mass produced equipment and promoted a “physical training for the masses” through strength training.197 In earlier decades of prison physical culture, muscular Christianity had emphasized muscularity and strength as a reflection of morality and devotion to the Christian faith; however Hoffman’s philosophies preached rigorous muscle building and strength as a way of gaining success and acceptance in post-war America.198 He believed that hard work and discipline were the “true sources of American power” and argued that physical fitness was the key component of America’s superiority.”199 With this notion in hand in 1939 Hoffman, and his weightlifting team dubbed the York Barbell Gang, visited California’s San Quentin prison to take part in the                                                              194 John D. Fair, Mr. America: The Tragic History of a Bodybuilding Icon.  196. John D Fair. Muscletown USA, 1-7.  197. Ibid.  198 Explained in American Masculinities, ed. Bret Carroll, 59.   199 Fair, “Bob Hoffman,” 169 discusses some of Hoffman’s philosophies on weight training, such as his belief that America “was saved, on the football fields, baseball fields, and in the gymnasiums, back-yards and homes of those who trained with weights,” he wrote.       52  prison’s strength sports, and to donate a York Barbell weight training set to help the inmates develop iron skills during incarceration.200  Originally published in the 1940 classic text Secrets of Strength and Development, Hoffman mentions San Quentin’s iron sports, recalling that:  I often hear from men who are incarcerated in prisons throughout the nation. For instance, San Quentin, the famous Western prison, is believed to be the most sport-minded place in the world. A weekly sports paper is published out there. They have some splendid athletes – men who could win places in national lifting contests … hand balancers and weight lifters – particularly weight lifters. Men out there could find a place on the stage or in a circus with the tumbling, balancing and lifting feats they perform. The San Quentinities are the most rabid strength fans in the nation.201  The popularity of prison weight lifting continued at San Quentin throughout mid-century. A 1943 inmate letter notes the presence of “a weightlifting team,”202 and San Quentin’s iron sport athletes were captured in a photographic essay published in 1947 by Life Magazine.203 Of particular interest is an image of six male inmates, some wearing nothing more than bathing trunks, lifting free weights in the prison yard during recreation time.  The sport of powerlifting grew at San Quentin during the 1950s.204 Although details are scarce, in 1954 Californian-based bodybuilding coach Ed Yarick – the owner of the West coast                                                              200 See: Fair, Muscletown USA, 264. Fair discusses a letter that Hoffman received from a San Quentin from inmate Tony Allan that reminded him of the barbell set he donated to the prison. The letter was written in the late 1960’s describes the weight set that inmate called “The Old Master” as “in perfect condition and [they] had out worn at least two other sets.”  201 Bob Hoffman, Secrets of Strength, 8.  202 This letter is posted on the University of California’s digital library achieve Calisphere. It was sent on July 11, 1943 to Alice Greenfield in Los Angeles California from inmate correspondent Ysmael “Smiles” Parra. Retried from: http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb100006pk/  203 C.E. Steinheimer, “Photographic Essay: San Quentin Prison”, Life Magazine, October 27, 1947.   204 Powerlifting evolved from a sport known as "odd lifts” (similar to strongman competitions) during the 1950s and 1960s, and is defined by the performance of three lifts: the squat, bench press and deadlift. Similar to the sport of Olympic lifting, during competition an athlete has three attempts to execute each type of lift for maximal strength.      53  gathering spot for several Mr. Americas and Olympian strength athletes - began to visit the prison for friendly weight lifting competitions with the inmates.205 Outside of San Quentin, the infamous prison yard of Alcatraz was also home to various sporting activities, including weight lifting which was introduced before the prison closed in 1963.206 Prison Recreation and the Prisoners Right Movement  The medical model that was once proposed as a more humane penal policy was not without flaw. Invasive and even illegal methods of “reformation” were taking place in many prisons across America. Campbell notes that these “extraordinarily” harmful procedures included the use of “psychosurgery, electroconvulsive therapy, and surgical and chemical castration, all in the name of rehabilitation.”207 Other forms of treatment such as “talk therapy” made it hard for prison officials to determine if inmates had been ‘rehabilitated.’ Critics of the medical model argued that the Nation’s rising crime rates were a result of soft and ineffective punishment. These criticisms, coupled with many institution’s harmful methods provided the foundation for a “prisoner’s rights movement” during the 1950s and 1960s in order to improve treatment standards within U.S. correctional institutions.208 In an attempt to rethink the approach to policing and corrections in America, in 1969 the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice declared that:                                                                205 See posting by “Perini”, Ed Yarick's gym in Oakland, California, May 26, 2013.  206 Photographer Leigh Wiener (1963) captured an image of various free weights in Alcatraz’s prison yard on the closing day, in: L. Wiener, “Alcatraz Recreation Yard 1963,” Alcatraz: The Last Day, San Francisco. Also see: NPR, Living memories from the last days of Alcatraz.  207 See: Campbell, “Rehabilitation Theory,” 832.  208 Ibid. The prisoner’s right movement encompassed a power struggle between prison officials and activist prisoners (and their advocates outside prison walls). Prison officials saw inmates’ fight for humane treatment and basic civil rights as undermining prison administration and as inferring in the ability to maintain basic order and discipline. From: J. James, “The Prisoners' Rights Movement,” 429-470.       54  Crime and delinquency are symptoms of failures and disorganization of the community…The task of corrections, therefore, includes building or rebuilding social ties, obtaining employment and education, securing in larger senses a place for the offender in the routine functioning of society.209 This community approach placed a new focus on inmate rehabilitation, and allowed for the re-conceptualization of physical activity as a recreation program, rather than a tool to reform inmates by building up their bodies.210 As a result, physical activity was perceived as providing inmates with an ‘opportunity’ to engage in potentially healthy and constructive activities. This view gained popularity throughout correctional institutions following the Attica Prison Riot in 1971. The riot placed American prisons at the center of public debate, and gathered support for better care standards and the provision of pro-social and healthy activities for inmates.211 This period of change in correctional dogma created a number of new opportunities for inmates to participate in institutionally organized physical activities. Quoted in Sports Illustrated Magazine, New York State correction commissioner Paul McGinnis declared that: Any prison that doesn’t have a good recreational program is missing one of the most important areas in rehabilitation … sports give the prisoner an opportunity to burn up a lot of energy, and if he burns it up in sports, it solves a lot of problems for him, emotionally and otherwise, about confinement in an institution.212 The new community approach to corrections also facilitated the very important involvement of one particular iron sport icon, Bill Clark.                                                              209 T.R. Clear and G.F. Cole, American Corrections, 58.  210 See discussion about the community approach in: Hanser, “Recreational Programs”, Introduction to Correction, 417-424.  211 On September 9, 1971, over one thousand inmates imprisoned in New York’s Attica Correctional Facility began a violent rebellion against the institution’s poor conditions, prisoner violence and violence from the staff, inadequate programming, educational opportunities and inadequate health care. Over the course of five days 43 people died, including inmates, correctional officers and staff. Explained by: G. Benjamin and S.P. Rappaport, “Attica and Prison Reform,” 200-213.  212 Ibid.      55  Prison Weight Lifting Competitions and the NRCA  Around this time, Bill Clark, a pioneer in competitive weight lifting and powerlifting, was contracted to initiate a federal program for prison weight training.213 Clark had first experienced the prison setting when he visited Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary in Kanas, where the “cream of the criminal crop” resided.  I first went there in 1961, the guest of an old-timer in the U.S. prison system named Clyde Whitehead. He understood that recreation was vital in keeping the heat down in a prison and that weightlifting seemed to draw the toughest discipline problems to the weight room - and often changed lives for the better.214 Clark recalls that Leavenworth’s prison weight program was “like no other, inside or out.”215 In his biography, he describes the 1960s prison system as “a hotbed of odd lifting”216 - recounting how many prisoners had been making their equipment from cutting metal decking for weight plates, and fabricating weight bars. Leavenworth’s yard was no different,  The prison yard’s lifting area had 22 lifting platforms and 22 Olympic bars, all perfectly machined in the prison machine shop and built from a single bar from the outside. Remember, these guys were the best at what they did. They could duplicate anything. They counted in their ranks the nation’s best counterfeiter.217 Clark went on to organize the first prison weight lifting competition. The annual U.S. National Prison Postal Weightlifting Championships lasted for more than 20 years and produced some of the top lifters in the country. The first of these, a sanctioned prison weight lifting meet at Leavenworth in 1962, included powerlifting, odd lifting and Olympic weight lifting. Clark                                                              213 D. Austin and B. Mann, “Bill Clark”, 205.  214 Quote obtained from an article written by Bill Clark for the Tribune that discusses some of his experiences with prison weight lifting. Clark, “Big Top’s Walls Higher, Lifters Better than Outside.”    215 Ibid.  216 J. Garcia, “Bill Clark.”  217 Clark, “Big Top’s Walls Higher, Lifters Better than Outside.”        56  recalls that this particular meet had “…turned out numerous national lifting record holders within the friendly confines of those monstrous walls topped by gleaming razor wire.”218 The following year, inmate weight lifters from 26 institutions traveled to the Maryland Penitentiary to compete against each other in various iron sports. Meet organizers invited guest lifters including Bob Hoffman and members of the York Barbell Gang to participate alongside the inmate competitors. The championship was hailed as another huge success. Records were set by many lifters, but most notable were the extraordinary feats of Jenkins Hudson. During the Maryland meet, Hudson achieved a 1015 pound total – this total was not only the highest of the meet, but the second highest total ever made in his weight class by an American and beat the records of the current five time National champion, Bill March.219 Clark continued to run the Prison Postal Championship for the next 20 years, which grew to also include events in track and field.  As the Missouri Valley Amateur Athletic Union (AAU) president from 1965-1967, Clark rallied for the introduction of weight lifting programs into all federal institutions. In 1966 he established a new committee of correctional sports within the AAU, and shortly after inmates received full AAU membership privileges. As the National Chairman for the Sports in Federal Institutions that year Clark also established the National Correctional Recreation Association (NCRA).220 Later in an interview he stated that,                                                               218 Ibid.   219 Jenkins Hudson, hailed as “one the most amazing strength athletes in history” spent four years in Maryland Penitentiary in Baltimore. His talents were discovered by local gym owner Jack Lipsky who introduced weightlifting classes to some of the inmates. Granted special permission by the prion’s warden, Hudson used all of his recreation periods for his weight training and six months later he went on to break two meet records and win the New South Atlantic Weightlifing Championship with a 955 lb. total. From: John Wood, “Jenkins Hudson.”  220 J. Garcia, “Bill Clark”. Clark also discusses this first meeting in a 1667 newspaper interview: “The association held its first meeting in Kentucky [in 1966] and representatives from 22 states attended the meeting. We expect at least 40 states to be represented at our next meeting.” L. Engel, “A Man of Many Actions,” 13.     57  Getting involved in this prison work has been most rewarding. It is something a man can be proud of inwardly as well as outwardly. Those prisoners have to have some kind of recreation and weight-lifting seems to be just the thing for many of them. It is not an easy sport and it’s especially good for the high-strung individuals.221 The creation of the NCRA enabled sport and physical activity to be seen as a legitimate and central feature in prison operations, management and the rehabilitation process as a whole. Recreation leaders, who were custody officers that had an interest in sports, were assigned to the gym and yard areas to direct programs in weight lifting, baseball, and football.222  Sheldon’s Somatotypes At the same time that iron sport began to be promoted to develop physically fit inmate bodies, a new criminological theory emerged suggesting that criminals were often born with a muscular physique. Following Hooton’s work on physique and criminality, in the 1940s William Sheldon had developed the idea of somatotypes to explain different types of criminal behavior. He proposed that a somatotype of a person could be determined by different measurements taken from a human body, and was founded on the “assumption that it is possible to discriminate differences among human beings.”223  In The Varieties of Human Physique, Sheldon outlined the measurements of each of 3 basic somatotypes. To obtain these somatotypes, Sheldon had compiled data obtained from taking                                                              221 Engel, “A Man of Many Actions,” 13. Discusses the unquestionable contributions of Clark to the development of prison weight lifting. In addition to his work in prisons, he founded the National Master’s Program in lifting, a program that serves lifters 40 and older in some 50 countries today. In opposition of lifting leadership in the United States at the time, Clark held the first all-women’s sanctioned weightlifting competition in Columbia in 1975. His person lifting records as astonishing, he holds 200 age-group records and is a member of seven lifting halls of fame. For more of Clark’s accomplishments see: Bill Nowlin, “Bill Clark.” At the age of 81 and after 45 years and 10 total joint replacements, Clark continues to compete in weight lifting, writing in his daily editorial column for the Columbia Tribune. See: Clark, “Turns Out Age is More than a Number.”   222 Hanser, “Recreational Programs” 417-424.  223 Sheldon, The Varieties of Human Physique, 108.      58  measurements from naked photographs of subjects.224 He then defined each individual in his study as one of three body types: (1) mesomorph, who are athletically fit; (2) endomorph, who are overweight, or (3) ectomorph, who are characterized by fragility and thinness.225 Sheldon believed that a somatotype represented a person’s skeleton and bone structure, and as a result an individual’s somatotype is permanent across their life course. When he applied his method of somatotyping to the study of crime, Sheldon found that mesomorphy was highly represented. Furthermore, he believed that mesomorphic individuals were more prone to committing violent and aggressive acts. Although Sheldon was not the first to study the relationship between human physique and criminality, his research has had a lasting impact on the field of criminology. Over the past 60 years since his original crime-body build research, numerous studies have used Sheldon’s methods to restate the mesomorphy-delinquency correlation. The first to replicate these findings was Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck.226 Following the ideas of constitutional theory and also strongly influenced by Hooton, the Glueck’s radical study Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency case-matched a sample of 500 delinquent boys to 500 non-delinquent boys to focus on “bodily constitution.”227 Their findings revealed that delinquent male youths were “somewhat superior in physique,” “more masculine” and “well-muscled,” and they hypothesized that mesomorphs may have high rates of delinquency.228 Unlike Sheldon’s conclusions, the Glueck’s                                                              224 Subjects had been photographed naked from three different angles (front, side and back), and 17 measurements of the subject’s body were derived from the photographs, which included data from five bodily regions: facial breadth and neck thickness; front trunk breadth/thickness; upper and lower arm thickness; back trunk breath/thickness; and upper and lower leg thickness.  225 Ibid., 111.  226 Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck published two main books: Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency and Physique and Delinquency.   227 These results are discussed in: Rafter, The Criminal Brain, 169.  228 M. Zuckerman, “Personality and Psychopathy,” 27-50.      59  did not reduce criminality only to biological factors - emphasizing that a mesomorphic physique is one of many biosocial factors that contribute to and is correlated with delinquent behaviour.  By the 1960s biological explanations for crime became considered “passé, disreputable, and … taboo”229 by criminologists. Rafter attributes this drop in popularity as a post war reaction to Nazi eugenics.230 An exception to this was the work of British psychologist Hans Eysenck. In his 1964 Crime and Personality he introduced new theories of crime personality, which reinforced constitutional theory and blended together other biological theories of crime, such as Sheldon’s work on personality types. Described by Rafter as a “harbinger of the renewal of biocriminology that continues into the present,”231 Eysenck’s work was the catalyst to a revival of constitutional theory in the 1980s that would result in English and American criminologists returning to Sheldon’s delinquency-mesomorphy correlation.232  Episode 5: Pumping Iron in the Pen Beginning in the late 1960s and early 1970s public concern about the nation’s rising crime rates grew at the same time as critiques argued for the dissolution of the medical model of prison rehabilitation. A 1974 survey by Robert Martinson on the nation’s rehabilitative prison programs proved some said what everyone “already knew”: rehabilitation did not work.233 As a result, by the mid-1970s the focus of American corrections shifted once again – prions now looked to their                                                              229 Quote by Wright and Miller, “Taboo Until Today?” See also Rafter, The Criminal Brain, 172.  230 Rafter, The Criminal Brain, 172.  231 Ibid.   232 This return to Sheldon’s work is discussed in: Rafter, The Criminal Brain; Walby and Carrier, “The Rise of Biocriminology”; Wright & Miller, “Taboo Until Today?”    233 Robert Martinson, "What Works? - Questions and Answers About Prison Reform," 22-54.      60  ability to control crime.234 Unlike previous eras, prison administrators became less interested in criminology’s “effective interventions” for what could correct criminal offenders. Instead, the study of corrections became largely a study of social problems — one that included prison violence, race, crowding.235  The crime control model emerged with the assumption that criminal behaviour could be controlled through an increase in imprisonment, along with other forms of strict supervision.236 Prison officials, legislators and judges believed that the only way to curtail the ‘skyrocketing’ crime rates were to enforce punitive methods and rigid punishment. Many states reinstated indeterminate sentencing and abolished parole release. Critics deemed that most pre-existing correctional programs had ‘failed’ and they were either considered to be “ill-conceived” by not being based on reputable criminological theories or did not have any “therapeutic integrity” as they had not been implemented as designed.237  The Privilege of Weight Training   Although the new model of corrections was considered more conservative and overall more punitive, much of America’s prison system simultaneously underwent a dramatic restructuring to accommodate a new aim of “not cutting inmates off from society.”238 Prison began to introduce programs that would focus on “enhancing prisoner’s dignity, worth, and confidence.”239 To achieve this aim, officials supplied inmates with more recreational                                                              234 Todd Clear, Michael Reisig, and George Cole, American Corrections, 58.  235 John DiIulio, discusses these factors within 1987 book “Governing Prisons.”  236 Francis T. Cullen and Paul Gendreau, “Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation,” 23.   237 Ibid.   238 Newport et al., “Prison and Jail Administration,” 116.  239 Ibid.     61  opportunities, which included various sports and physical activities. However, access to these programs was granted on a ‘reward’ basis - recreation was a privilege which prison administrators would grant for good inmate behaviour.240  The implementations of these new principles in prison recreation in conjunction with the recently established National Correctional Recreation Association (NCRA) allowed prison sport and recreation to flourish. This environment also enabled weight training and iron sports to thrive throughout the 1970s and 1980s. One correctional officer noted, Weight training is a universal event all races can relate to and do participate. Weight training is not seasonal, softball players participate in weight training during winter months, basketball players participate during the summer months… weightlifting programs provide a catalyst for [correctional] intramural programs.241 Recreational and competitive prison weightlifting and powerlifting teams remained strong within American correctional facilities. For example, the “Iron Men” powerlifting team at San Quentin regularly held in-facility meets where inmates had the opportunity to “fight tough battles” in order to set new personal records.242 Favored by the NCRA and correctional recreation leaders, The sport of powerlifting has always been respected and admired by a large percentage of the population. People enjoy pushing themselves to their limit: powerlifting enables you to push yourself to your physical and mental limit safely. In order to excel in the sport, you must work hard; gains come slowly. It takes much discipline and dedication in order to be a champion. Many times the lifter becomes obsessed with this sport. Thus, when barriers are broken, goals are met, and competition builds to a head, powerlifting becomes a pure and enjoyable experience.243                                                               240 Erik Olin Wright, “San Quentin Prison,” 63-64. Conversely, access to recreation could be denied for misbehaviour.  241 From NCRA board member, Ricky McIntosh, in “Why Weight Training," 17.  242 James Shuman “‘Iron Men’ Do Their Thing,” 4. This was an article that appeared in The San Quentin News, a newspaper created by the inmates at the prison.   243 "Powerlifting. The sport that is quickly becoming the favorite among Correctional Recreators," Grapevine, 5.     62  Powerlifting was believed to provide inmates with many opportunities to aid in the rehabilitation process, such as helping men to “stay in shape,” promoting self-discipline and giving lifters an opportunity for stress relief – “something that isn't all that easy to do in prison.”244 The sport of powerlifting became so popular behind bars that in 1987 that the NCRA hosted four nation-wide powerlifting meets that drew inmates from across the country. Supported by the Department of Corrections, prison powerlifting competitions opened the “doors of the prison.” People from the community were able to volunteer and participate in the meets, and inmates themselves were sometimes allowed to travel outside the prison to compete at other institutions.245 One inmate participant noted that "being able to go to the outside meets is a very satisfying thing for me, too. We have the chance to change the public's image of the inmate as someone who shouldn't be allowed around others, something less than human."246 Bodybuilding Behind Bars and the American Pursuit of Muscularity  Thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger and the iconic film Pumping Iron, bodybuilding gained popularity in mainstream America and behind prison walls.247 With the support and recommendations from guards and prison staff, during the 1970s Schwarzenegger traveled around Californian prisons to give free exhibitions and seminars about weight training and the bodybuilding lifestyle. One scene in Pumping Iron shows Schwarzenegger at California’s Terminal Island federal prison performing bodybuilding poses for inmates. In his autobiography                                                              244 Ibid.   245 "Power Connection Club: Kilby Correctional Facility," Grapevine, 6-7.  246 Ibid.  247 Arnold Schwarzenegger, Total Recall, 142-143.      63  he discusses how he “taught” bodybuilding to prisoners - showing them the merits of weight training and educating them on the “hard work and self-discipline” of bodybuilding.248  By the late-1970s, bodybuilding had gained a sense of “cultural notoriety” and mainstream popularity that other strength sports lacked.249 The muscular body ‘built’ through bodybuilding quickly became compatible with society’s masculinity ideals. Before this time, feats of strength were valued by American culture, but the pursuit of muscularity achieved through weight lifting had remained a “marginalized” subculture.250 The arrival of Prussian strongman and bodybuilder Eugen Sandow to the United States at the turn of the century had first sparked the public’s intrigue of muscular bodies. Introducing the American public to bodybuilding through his vaudeville acts, Sandow had promoted the links between health and exercise. His pursuits were closely followed by the launch of Bernarr MacFadden Physical Culture magazine in 1899.251 Headed by MacFadden’s motto of “Weakness is a crime; don't be a criminal!”252 the magazine revealed to men the fitness and diet strategies needed to develop and muscular physique.253 During the 1930s to 1950s, heightened levels of muscularity associated with bodybuilding were still not well accepted. Competitive bodybuilders were viewed as “strange anomalies …                                                              248 Pumping Iron is an iconic 1977 dramatized documentary that ultimately helped to popularize the niche sub-culture of bodybuilding. Directed and produced by Robert Fiore, George Butler, and Jerome Gary the film focused on the 1975 IFBB Mr. Universe and Mr. Olympia competitions, in particular showcasing a growing rivalry between two soon-to-be Hollywood movie stars: Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lou Ferringo.    249 Bret Carrol, American Masculinities, 59.  250 Quote from A. Klein, “Size Matters: Connecting Subculture to Culture in Bodybuilding,” 69. See also: L. Luciano, “Muscularity and Masculinity in the United States: A Historical Overview,” 43.  251 Carrol, American Masculinities, 59.  252 Robert Ernst, Weakness Is a Crime: The Life of Bernarr Macfadden.  253 L. Luciano, “Muscularity and Masculinity,” 45.      64  grotesquely masculine with their bulging muscles”254 until the climate of the 1970’s changed societal views about excessive muscularity.  The release of Pumping Iron and the emergence of scores of new health clubs were part of a fitness revolution spreading throughout America that shifted cultural perceptions of muscularity and gender norms.255 With the “cultivation of muscularity” moving outside the subculture of competitive bodybuilding, lifting weights to achieve a muscular physique became a national pastime and engaged “millions of ordinary men in a newly legitimized quest for muscular perfection.”256 Muscularity became embedded as a sociocultural norm in American culture, and reinforced the suggestion that muscularity was equated with masculinity which Sheldon and others had already drawn.257  Size now mattered when it came to muscle, and it was nowhere more apparent than in the mainstream media. Beginning in the late 1970’s, images of muscular male bodies appeared in television commercials, advertisements and music videos.258 Now a successful actor, Schwarzenegger’s heightened musculature created the emergence of other “equally buff leading men.”259 By the early 1980s a hard-bodied action star dominated the silver screen and legitimated the “spectacle of the muscularity” within American popular culture.260                                                               254 Ibid., 46.  255 Klein notes that the subculture of bodybuilding “fueled by a cultural dialogue between men and muscles.” Klein, “Size Matters,” 69.  256 Klein, “Size Matters,” 46.    257 Vickie S. Helgeson, “Prototypes and Dimensions of Masculinity and Femininity,” 661.  258 Klein, “Size Matters,” 69.  259 Ibid.   260 Barry Langford, Film Genre: Hollywood and Beyond, 246.      65  Prison Weight Lifting in the Media  A number of films depicting prison weight lifting occurred almost simultaneously with the creation of Hollywood’s buff action stars. Prior to the 1970’s prison weight lifting was virtually hidden from public discourse; that was until two Hollywood films released in 1972 depicted inmates “pumping iron.”261 Tepperman argues that this provided the start of “noticeable culture turn with weight lifting becoming common to popular depictions of prison life.”262 Over the next two decades a total of 19 films were released showing prisoners lifting weights.263 An increase in newspaper reports discussing weight lifting in prison also occurred during the 1970s and 1980s.264 From 1914 – 1994 there had been a general consistency in the reporting of general prison sports – however the marked-increase of prison weight lifting articles during the late-century is “suggestive of a greater increase in general concern with the issue”265 of inmate’s lifting weights. Tepperman’s “culturally constructed” image of “super prisoners” was reflected in a 1988 article published in Sports Illustrated. Stop for a moment and think about this: Killers lifting weights, getting stronger, outgrowing their clothes … men of violence developing the means to commit further violence. Terrifying, eh? ... Yet athletics may be the most beneficial                                                              261 The first films to depict prison weight lifting were released in 1972: The Getaway by Sam Peckinpah, and The Glass House, a television movie.   262 Alex Tepperman, “Prison Weights for No Man,” 7.   263 This sample is from the work conducted by Tepperman, “Prison Weights for No Man.” A total of 130 prison films were viewed from 1929 – 1994, of these 20 films featured prison weight lifting and 15 were produced in the last 15 years of the sample. It is important to also note that within some of the films that depicted prison weight lifting or sports, the male lead were men who were synonymous with cultural constructions of masculinity (ie. Burt Reynold in Longest Yard and Robert Redford in Brudbaker), and muscularity (ie. Sylvester Stallone in Lock Up and Ted Prior Hardcase and Fist).  264 Alex Tepperman, “Prison Weights for No Man,” 8.  265 Ibid.       66  aspect of prison lift. And so much of it starts with lifting. Getting stronger. First physically, then mentally. What could be more primitive or therapeutic than hoisting something heavy?266 This article debates prison athletics at length, discussing their role in the correctional system, the institutional cost, and the opinions of the public, correctional workers and inmates. Telander, the author of the article, poignantly concludes by questioning whether prison athletics might provide a “solution” to the problematic American correctional climate of the late 1980s.267 His study foreshadowed many changes that were about to take place in American correction that would alter the iron game forever.    Muscular Delinquents  On the heels of America’s new admiration for muscularity and the surge of prison weight lifting in popular media, was a resurgence in somatotyping research. In the late 1980s criminologists once again focused on criminal behaviour and the muscular body. Marking somatotyping’s re-emergence and accompanying a surge of scientific interest in genetics was the reshaping of biological theories of crime, new research on body typing and the reappearance of biocriminality in criminology textbooks.268  Following Eysenck’s work, in 1982, Hartl, Monnelli and Eldeken completed a follow-up study to Sheldon’s Varieties of Delinquent Youth and also reported mesomorphy as a predictor for adult crime. That same year in a comparative analysis of athletes and juvenile delinquents, Donnelly considered body-type (specifically mesomorphy) as a significant variable to                                                              266 Rick Telander, “Sports Behind the Walls.” Specific to weight lifting, the authors discuss one particular inmate, Georgy Lowe who is incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution in Grateford Pennsylvania, and describes his powerlifting triumphs.  267 Ibid.  268 This resurgence is discussed by Rafter, The Criminal Brain; Walby and Carrier, “The Rise of Biocriminology”; Wright & Miller, “Taboo Until Today?”        67  empirically establish the relationship between sport and delinquent behaviour.269 Revisiting the Glueck’s research on physique and male youth, several works by Sampson and Laub concluded that mesomorphs were overrepresented in delinquents and identified additional social factors to accompany the biological explanations of body type.270  Noted by scholars as influential in the revival of somatotyping, Crime and Human Nature published in 1985 by Wilson and Herrnstein reintroduced mesomorphy as an important constitutional factor for criminal behaviour.271 Their research together with studies by Eysenck and Gudjonsson (1989), Montemayor (1985) reported similar evidence based conclusions about delinquency and body build.272 Outlined by Raine in the The Psychopathology of Crime: Criminal Behavior as a Clinical Disorder, this literature provided ‘evidence’ to suggest that adult criminals and juvenile delinquents are more muscular or muscular fat (mesomorphic and mesomorphic-endomorphic).273 Conversely, Rafter critiques Wilson and Herrnstein’s extensive discussion of body typing as ‘socially and scientifically irresponsible’ and lacking in any critical review of the methods used by Sheldon to find his mesomorphy-delinquency correlation.274                                                                269 Peter Donnelly, “Athletes and Juvenile Delinquents,” 415-432.  270 R.J. Sampson and J.H. Laub discuss this in their publication “Unraveling Families and Delinquency,” 355-380; as well as their book chapter, “Unraveling the Social Context of Physique and Delinquency.”   271 Noted by Wright & Miller in “Taboo Until Today?” See James Wilson and Richard Herrnstein, Crime and Human Nature, 814.   272 See the work by Eysenck, Hans Jürgen, and G.H. Gudjonsson, The Causes and Cures of Criminality and Raymond Montemayor, “Men and their Bodies.”  273 Adrain Raine The Psychopathology of Crime, 202.  274 Rafter, The Criminal Brain, 173.      68  Although the somatotyping revivalists of the 1980s have been criticised for overstating the validity of constitutional studies and body typing theories, their work helped to embed the notion of “muscular-delinquency” in criminology for decades to come.  Episode 6: Bigger, Stronger Inmates and the Ban on Prison Weight Lifting  During the mid-1970s penal policies began to reflect a punitive system of penology, though it was not until the late-1980s that the effects of this new model were reflected in American prisons. More attention was now placed on punishment, denouncement and incapacitation and a new “culture of control” was implemented within the crime-control model of American prisons.275 This “new punitiveness” of the U.S. correctional system was aided by the overwhelming political discourse and public demands to “get tough on crime,”276 which was the result of a dramatic increase in the inmate population and high rates of recidivism during the late-1980s.  By the early-1990’s, many penal methods that were considered ‘draconian’, such as ‘degrading’ work and punitive programming  had been reintroduced in prisons throughout the nation. Some prisons began to implement inmate chain-gangs, while others undertook a massive “take away movement” to limit inmate privileges and amenities. Many state legislatures and governors pushed for the dissolution of rehabilitative programs and inmate privileges. Mackenzie notes that several of these changes were accompanied by “dramatic changes in the rationales for prison sentences and crime policies generally.”277                                                               275 Central to this period of penal change was the overall decline of the rehabilitation ideal.   276  K. Beckett and T. Sasson, “The Origins of the Current Conservative Discourse on Law and Order.” The “get tough on crime” or “tough on crime” movement refers to a set of policies that emphasize punishment as a primary (and often sole) response to crime. Although this shift in punitive ideology started to gain popularity during the 1960’s, it was not until the early 1990’s that this rhetoric of “extreme” punitiveness began to influence penal policy. See also: Tepperman, “We Will NOT Pump You Up,” 1.  277 Doris Layton Mackenzie, “Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century,” 4.      69  New changes in legislation now provided the ability for elected officials to “micro-manage” corrections by establishing penal policies and allocating funds to only those programs they deemed appropriate or useful.278 As a result, prison officials and penologists were no longer consulted in the creation of programs, and now more than ever the public’s perception of crime and criminals would help to determine disciplinary regimes within the prison. Wittenberg notes that popular concern at this time was concentrated on increasing punishment and incarcerating those who committed violent crimes.279 Many believed that the criminal justice system and the court system did not “deal harshly” enough with criminals and that prisons should provide enhanced disciplinary measures. In an attempt to gather supporters, politicians responded to the public call for prison program funding to be cut and reductions in inmate amenities.  By 1994, the “takeaway” movement had reached its apex when Congressman Richard Zimmer introduced the No Frills Prison Act.280 This legislation was created with the explicit aim of re-establishing punishment as the focus of all federal correctional institutions. Legislative measures were created based on the penal “deterrent effect”: if prisons would provide longer sentences in a more punitive prison environment then inmates would suffer more and as a result be less inclined to reoffend.281 Although Zimmer called for other programs and amenities such as in-cell televisions, musical instruments and personal electronics to be put on the “legislative chopping block,” prison weight lifting was the major issue of concern in political circles.282                                                                278 Peter Wittenberg, “Power, Influence, and the Development of Correctional Policy,” 43.   279 Ibid.   280 P. Finn, “No-Frills Prions and Jails,” 35.  281 Mackenzie, “Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century.”  282 Wittenberg, “Power, Influence, and the Development of Correctional Policy,” 6. This brief article utilizes the example of the American ban on weight lifting in federal prisons to raise several questions about power and the     70  The strength the No Frills Prison Act and public distaste for prison weight lifting was too great for the iron game. Regardless of the weight training role as a time-tested program within prison physical culture, the movement to ban weight lifting quickly spread through the American correctional system. Shortly after the introduction of the Zimmer Amendment, legislators at lower levels of government followed suite. Many individual states passed legislation to ban not only weight training but other prison recreation programs as well.283 Following the ban of weight training in Georgia in 1995, their Department of Corrections removed over 150 tons of equipment from its federal prisons. In Washington, organized weightlifting teams were banned, and in Arizona, weight training was banned for inmates only at higher security levels.284 Californian Governor Pete Wilson launched a zealous movement to limit access to weight rooms and the types of equipment available. He ordered that only inmates who were waiting for employment opportunities or entrance into an educational program should be allowed to use weight equipment and under very restrictive conditions.285 Regardless of how each individual state approached the banning of weight training, they all acted on the belief that inmates who lifted weights were “a threat to the state’s finances and security.”286                                                                process of making correctional policy through highlighting key ideologies about institutionalization and the power over the inmate body.   283 Wisconsin, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Arizona, Georgia, Washington, Florida and California all acted quickly and began to drastically reduce, remove and abolish prison weight lifting.  284 Matt Winkeljohn, “When Weight Lifting Was Banned in Georgia's Prisons.” See also Tepperman’s discussion of the ban in “Prison Weights for No Man,” and “We Will NOT Pump You Up.”   285 Those that were eligible to weight train, faced additional restrictions on the weight and type of equipment that could be used, as well as on the set time and location of workout periods.  286 Tepperman, “Prison Weights for No Man,” 4.       71  Rehabilitation and Prison Weight Lifting  Although Congressman Zimmer and other politicians favoring the elimination of prison weight lifting argued the importance of deterrence, there was no apparent research to support such a claim. Conversely, prison administers had relied on amenities to provide a system of reward and punishment, and programs acted as a very important element in social control. Furthermore, as noted by Raynor and Robinson,  The rehabilitation of offenders can be defined and understood in a number of different ways. At different points in the history of modern penal systems different models of rehabilitation have been current, and each of them has different implications for policy, for sentencing and for direct practice with offenders.287 As a result, embedded within each correctional model are a set of arguments about why certain activities are worth implementing in institutional programming, or, as is the case with weight lifting, why certain activities should be restricted, removed or banned completely.288 Regardless whether there is consensus among politicians, the public and prison officials about what programs should be implemented in correctional institutions, many recreational opportunities (including weight lifting) have been introduced into the prison setting under the assumption of having “worth” to both the inmate population and prison environment.  As demonstrated by Wittenberg, the decision to ban weight lifting was ultimately made without any “penological reason.”289 Pawelko and Anderson revealed that U.S. legislators did not consult with the National Correctional Recreation Association (NRCA), correctional administrators or correctional research.290 Moreover, there existed a body of evidence to support                                                              287 P. Raynor and G. Robinson, “Why Help Offenders?” 4.  288 Wittenberg, “Power, Influence, and the Development of Correctional Policy,” 46.   289 Ibid.   290  Pawelko and Anderson, “Correctional Recreation, Weightlifting, and Rehabilitation,” 3.        72  the belief that inmates who lifted weights were less likely to commit violent acts while incarcerated, and that the use of weight training equipment “allows inmates to "blow off steam" where they otherwise may not have the opportunity.”291 Despite public scrutiny and legislative measures against weight lifting, the NCRA continued to recognize the numerous benefits that correctional recreation and weight lifting could provide to the prison setting. In 1996 they issued an official position statement declaring that “…weightlifting programs are an integral part of rehabilitation services within the spectrum of corrections.”292  If there was support for the maintenance of weight lifting behind bars, then why were legislatures so eager to reduce, remove and ban it from federal correctional institutions?  Media and the Weight Lifting Ban Wittenberg points out that the weight lifting ban highlights the broader debate over the function of the prison, though other areas of concern were listed as justification for the ban by prison weight lifting opponents.293 Many of their claims became highly publicized within the mainstream media and proved crucial to the ban against prison weight lifting. Tepperman notes that the mass media created a “descriptive portrait of prison weight lifting” that helped to “inflame” public opinion in support of the Zimmer Amendment. Several of the stories that appeared during the first years of the ban (1994 – 1996) exemplified an “ethos of panic” regarding weight lifting’s ability to construct physically larger, more powerful and aggressive inmates.294                                                               291 Wittenberg, “Power, Influence, and the Development of Correctional Policy,” 46.  292 Discussed with the National Correctional Recreation Association, “NCRA Position Statement on Weight Lifting Programs in Correctional Settings” March 1995.   293 Wittenberg, “Power, Influence, and the Development of Correctional Policy,” 46.  294 Tepperman discusses how the ban on prison weight lifting “did not reduce recidivism, improve prisoner health, ease the burden of prison costs, or satisfy any number of other objectives.” He asserts that the ban     73  Central to the media’s discussion of the weight lifting ban was a public concern about “building a better thug” while in prison, and stories of how “bulked up bodies” and weight equipment could be used for acts of violence.295 Other news stories discussed how American prisons had become “fitness clubs” and questioned whether inmates should have access to weight rooms when some members of the community cannot afford similar services.296 In an article discussing “the cult of prison body-building” in Milwaukee Corrections, Time journalist John Hull further asked Why are taxpayers in Milwaukee and elsewhere subsidizing what could be considered the largest health-club chain in the nation, allowing tens of thousands of otherwise scrawny murderers, muggers and rapists to transform themselves into muscle monsters?297 Hull quotes a sponsor of the ban as saying “allowing these guys to bulk up in prison is so stupid! Do we really want stronger criminals?” This narrative is further emphasized in a 20/20 special on prison lifting titled “Bigger and Badder? Banning Weight-Lifting in Prison.”298 Reporting on the growing movement to ban weight lifting, host John Stossel highlighted public opinion by asking “Why should taxpayers pay to help these guys get bigger and stronger? It’s just going to make                                                              highlighted the media fabricated “moral panic” that contemporary society has against prison weight lifting and the eagerness of politicians to appear tough on crime. Tepperman, “We Will NOT Pump You Up,” 25.  295 Within a CNN news story on the prison weight lifting ban, when asked about that fact that there no research to support weight lifting ability to construct criminals, the congressman being interviewed responded with discussing two occurrences in American prisons where lifting equipment was used in acts of violence. CNN Prison Weightlifting Show, “Provision to Eliminate Weights in Prison is Debated.” It is important to note that both the incidents - one at Lucasville Prison where barbells were used to break through concrete, and the riot at Rykers Island where an inmate hit two officers over the head with a 50lb weight - were isolated incidences. Furthermore there is no evidence to support that the inmates who committed these attacks on prison staff and property even engaged in weight lifting.   296 Wittenberg discusses these in “Power, Influence, and the Development of Correctional Policy,” 46.   297 John Hull, “Building a Better Thug?”  298 20/20 Prison Lifting Special, “Bigger and Badder?”       74  them scarier criminals when they get out,” Ohio Republican member of the United States House of Representatives Deborah Pryce answered that “we have unwittingly been mass producing a super breed of criminals.” Prior to the passing of the Zimmer Amendement, Pryce had unsuccessfully attempted to promote the first federal ban on prison weight lifting believing that prison weight lifting supplied “a means for many prisoners to significantly increase their strength and bulk, making future acts of violence more likely.”299  While some benefits of prison weight were discussed during this debate, much of the conversation was centered on the physical size and strength of inmate’s bodies.  Weight lifting goes hand in hand with gangs and physical bulk to intimidate other people. That's the purpose of it… [weightlifting] makes you a bigger criminal, so we put you in here small and you bulk up and we release you and now you're a much bigger threat… This is just going to make you a bigger, scarier criminal when you get out of here.300  This same narrative appears in other new stories of the period. Reporter David Foster’s article in the Associated Press provides a vivid descriptions of prison weight lifting: The image of a beefy ex-con, his muscles bulked up by daily workouts in a prison gym, cuts to the core of Americans’ fear of crime and frustration with the justice system… Too many criminals spend their time in prison becoming even more violent, criminal machines. We need more books in prison and less weight-lifting equipment.301 Foster discusses both sides of the “debate over barbells” in his interview with Ted Gogol of the Law Enforcement Alliance of America - the organization spearheading the weight lifting ban.                                                              299 Jon Marc Taylor, “The Great Dumbell Theft.”  300 A comment made by Roger Quindel, former supervisor for Milwaukee Corrections. From: 20/20 Prison Lifting Special, “Bigger and Badder?”   301 Quoted from Rep. Steve Chabot, a freshman Republican from Ohio, in David Foster, “Does Pumping Iron Make Inmates More Dangerous?”      75  However, readers are left with one overarching conclusion: society must choose between ex-cons with “normal” builds or ex-cons who look like “Arnold Schwarzenegger.”   These stories like many of those that discussed the weight lifting ban did not “challenge the vague, emotional sentiments levied by the Zimmer amendment [supporters].”302 Rather, the media coverage emphasized the unquestionable ability for prison weight lifting to build bigger, stronger and more aggressive criminal bodies. Furthermore, a “myth [of] the buff, sports-inclined prisoner”303 was embedded within popular culture and ultimately normalized popular attitudes toward prisoner weight lifting.304 It is difficult to fully determine the role of mass media in shaping public opinion towards prison physical culture and prison weight lifting. As demonstrated through various narratives from major news sources, the language and underpinning ideologies regarding a “super breed” of bulked-up criminals represent a very vivid – but speculative - relationship between prison weight lifting and perceptions of the “potentially dangerous” muscular male inmate body.  Back to Biocriminality   In the first years of the 1990s a number of existing biological theories of crime were revised and extended by criminologists. Although the fields of criminology and penology were not as connected as they once were, criminologists continued to devote much attention to the criminal justice system and strategies for better controlling crime.305 However, instead of                                                              302 Tepperman, “We Will NOT Pump,” 6.   303 D. Foster, “Prison Weightlifting Perks Weigh on Legislators’ Minds,” 3.   304 Tepperman believes that this was a result of a spike in prison physical culture movies during the 1970s and 1980s.   305 A new field of criminology emerged – life course criminology. This field focused on defining patterns of offending by looking at the life course of given criminals. From: Robert Agnew, “Criminology,” 4. Following the advent of this field, new punitive legislative measures for “habitual reoffenders” were introduced.       76  focusing on the crime committed or social factors, criminologists turned their focus back to biocriminality.  A 1994 study by Blackson and Tarter utilized anthropometry to measure the degree of muscularity in male youth.306 Interested in exploring delinquent youth, their research discussed the relationship of mesomorphy and delinquency in males 11-18 years old. The researchers concluded that physique was an important risk factor for the development of alcohol abuse, school failure, and antisocial behaviour. In particular, their research attempted to highlight a correlation between aggression and muscularity in promoting violent acts by male youth.   Following this research, in 1995 a new category of criminal offender emerged – what some called the juvenile “super predator.” Although the relationship to Blackson and Tarter’s research is unknown, the theory of the super predator was created by criminologist John Dilulio. He drew public attention to what he characterized as a “new breed” of offenders, “kids that have absolutely no respect for human life and no sense of the future. . . .These are stone-cold predators!”307 The predictions made by Dilulio and his supporters created a certain amount of panic and fueled a belief that heinous crimes were committed by juvenile offenders. This resulted in many states passing legislation between 1992 and 1999 that dramatically increased the harsh treatment of juvenile offenders and defined them as ‘adults’ when determining sentencing and punishment.  Regardless of the flimsiness of his prediction, Dilulio’s theory has been viewed by some as “the most damaging and erroneous myth propagated in the 100-year history of the juvenile                                                              306 T.C. Blackson and R.E. Tarter, “Individual, Family, and Peer Affiliation Factors,” 813-821.  307 James C. Howell, “Superpredators and Other Myths,” 23.       77  justice system in the United States.”308 Similar to the discourses and images of the ban on prison weight lifting, the media broadcast frightening images of “waves of violent adolescents coming at us over the next decade,” that would produce a national “bloodbath.”309  The impact of the super predator myth still lingers in contemporary juvenile justice and correctional institutions today. Dilulio’s flawed predictions created such a moral panic over juvenile delinquency that nearly 20 years its effects are still being felt on the criminal justice system. Early 1990s criminology also turned attention to a new question of gender, specifically exploring "why is crime predominately a male activity?"310 James Messerschmidt’s 1993 book Masculinities and Crime highlighted the relationship between gender and crime, specifically masculinities, were brought into criminological focus.311 Messerschmidt made the observation that “when it comes to men and masculinities, the discipline of criminology is, quite simply, inept.”312 In his review of criminological theory he argued that overall criminology is “gender blind” and suggested that masculinity is an important construct for understanding crime and violence. He further argued that men were more likely to use violence to “do” gender and as a result criminal behaviour became an “acceptable” and alternative way to project masculinity.313 Within the male inmate subculture, his research suggested that the expression of physical prowess is an important source of power and is paired with the masculine role.314 Thus, he                                                              308 Ibid. 16.    309 Ibid.   310 James Treadwell, Criminology, 95.    311 Don Sabo, Terry A. Kupers and Willie London, Prison Masculinities, 1.   312 Ibid., 2.   313 Messerschmidt explains that men “do” gender in response to socially structured circumstances in the world we live in and within different social milieu. James Messerschmidt, Masculinities and Crime, 6.   314 See: Messerschmidt, Nine Lives.      78  believed that masculinity reinforces the need to achieve physical prowess behind bars. “Doing” masculinity becomes even more important for the inmate within the prison setting – a place where all individual forms of power are restricted and inmates are deprived of liberties as a way for the institution to punish, reform and control deviance. Before Messerschmidt’s research this idea had not been discussed by criminologists.  Following this new gendered focus, hormonal indicators of criminal behaviour gained attention by criminologists. In 1996, Bhasin et al. introduced the concept of “ENA theory,” which added a third component to the relationship between the muscular body and criminal behaviour – the effects of testosterone.315 Evolutionary Neuroandrogenic Theory (ENA) pointed to intentional acts of criminal behaviour where direct harm was used to cause physical injury or deprive others of their property. The researchers noted a “well-established relationship” between testosterone’s effects on the brain and body build, and the ability for testosterone to enhance muscular tissue in the upper parts of the body in both perinatal and postpubertal males.316 With regard to body type, ENA theory concluded that mesomorphic males are more crime-prone because brain exposure to testosterone was positively correlated with muscle tissue exposure. Prior to the development of ENA theory, much of the research had discussed body type (and therefore body build) as genetically determined.   These studies are only some examples of the ‘advances’ in biocriminality that occured during the 1990s. Rafter argues that much of this research suffers from similar faults –                                                              315 Bhasin, et al. “The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone,” 1–7.   316 Twelve biological correlates of crime with special relevance to ENA theory are discussed below. These correlates are testosterone, mesomorphy, maternal smoking during pregnancy, hypoglycemia, epilepsy, heart rate, skin conductivity, cortisol, serotonin, monoamine oxidase, slow brainwave patterns, and P300 amplitude.      79  “reductionism and biological determinism.”317 Many of these contemporary theories attempt to explain the complex social phenomena of crime and criminal behaviour in terms of a simple biological cause. Hence Rafter warns that a reliance on the biological markers of criminal behaviour such as gender, hormones and body type has great potential for misuse within both politics and the media.318 What role did these new theories of biocriminality have for the political movement to ban prison weight lifting during the 1990s? Were they ‘misused’ by the media through news stories exposing research results without critical inquiry? If so, how did this influence popular opinion regarding weight lifting’s ability to construct physically larger, more powerful and aggressive inmates? Although the misuse of Dilulio’s “super predator” myth by the media and politicians has been much discussed, to date little research has explored what influence biocriminality had on the legislative measures to ban prison weight lifting or in the construction of media narratives regarding a “super breed” of bulked-up weight lifting inmates.319                                                                       317 Rafter, Criminal Brain, 243.  318 Ibid. 247. Rafter cautions that “political danger lies with mad scientists [who have] authority over the criminal justice system to experts offering easy, if drastic solutions” and that criminological ideas are captured by the media without critical inquiry.  319 James C. Howell, “Superpredators and Other Myths,” 23.     80  CHAPTER 4: DISCUSSION: PRISON PHYSICAL CULTURE  BEYOND THE BAN  Prison Physical Culture in the 21st Century American correctional institutions in the 21st century are now plagued with increasingly complex and problematic topics of debate. Prisons now house more and more diverse inmates than before. For example, the introduction of habitual offender laws during the 1990s has resulted in longer sentencing lengths and increased the number of elderly people serving time in American prisons. Mirroring deeper social problems, an over pronounced racial demographic profile of the prison population exists. There is an alarmingly disproportionate number of African American and Hispanic men currently incarcerated within Federal and State correctional systems. Prisons still rely heavily on various scientific and criminological methods in order to classify, supervise, treat, and manage prisoners. One of the many vestiges of previous punitive methods that still linger within the modern correctional facility is solitary confinement which is still heavily used as a way to punish inmates who do not comply with prison rules.  The overcrowding of State and Federal prisons and the rising cost of incarceration has resulted in a large and growing number of prisons becoming privatized. Under private management, prisons have become one of the fastest-growing industries in the United States. Among the prison population of up to 2 million inmates are working for various industries while serving prison time. Critics argue that the private prison is simply a new form of inhumane exploitation and that the private contracting of prisoners for work fosters incentives to lock people up.320 Furthermore, the privatization of the prison system makes it increasingly difficult to fully understand what goes on behind prison walls.                                                               320 Vicky Pelaez, “The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of Slavery?”       81  Contemporary corrections in America is hailed as “the most scientifically informed, safe, humane treatment and program orientation.”321 In reality, however, very little is known about contemporary prison physical culture. At the onset of the new millennium extensive budgetary problems forced many prisons to cut institutionally organized recreational programming completely.322 Many of the opportunities for physical activity have been reduced to programs funded by the inmate population, or are restricted to unstructured exercise that are of no-cost and require only marginal commitment from the prison system.323 Palmer provides support for this “re-structuring” of prison recreation programs.324 He describes how prisoners acquire most of their physical exercise during outdoor leisure time through playing sports that involve minimal equipment, by performing body weight exercises or through accessing yoga and meditation videos. Organized sport programs still exist in some prisons across the nation, such as San Quentin which has a popular baseball team or in tennis matches at Groveland Correctional Facility in New York, though overall very little information exists to identify the status of sport in prison recreation.325  As a result of the limited information about prison physical culture available it is extremely difficult to develop any coherent evidence to better understand the current role of weight lifting within correctional facilities. Immediately following the introduction of the Zimmer Amendment in 1994, stories of prison weight lifting were abundant in the news stories –                                                              321 Matt DeLisi and Peter John Conis, American Corrections, 61.   322 Ibid. See also: Hanser, “Recreational Programs,” 417-424.   323 Wittenberg, “Power, Influence, and the Development of Correctional Policy,” 43-48.  324 B. Palmer, “Do Prisoners Really Spend all their Time Lifting Weights?”  325 See: Claton Worfolk, “San Quentin Giants,” and Daniel Genis, “Chained Wimbledon.”      82  but beyond the ban, knowledge of weight lifting and physical culture is limited. The NCRA remained influential in correctional recreation and programming into the early 2000’s. Composed of practitioners at the federal, state and local level the association emphasized inmate health promotion and optimized the growth of correctional recreation programs. However, in 2003 the NCRA stopped holding annual conferences due to “current economic, personnel, budgetary and other uncertainties in the corrections industry.”326 Gary Polson, President of Strength Tech, notes that the even though the act of weight lifting was banned in 1994, the tangible act of removing, reducing and prohibiting weight lifting was and remains host to numerous variations and inconsistencies within various prison settings.327 Some states banned free weights but allowed machines, other facilities only limited the size of the weights available to the inmates or provided limitations on accessing upper body strength building equipment. In addition, some facilities only barred the maintenance of existing weight lifting equipment, facilitating the removal of all weight lifting equipment when it eventually becomes too broken to use. Also highlighted by Polson, the ban did not mention bodyweight exercises or make-shift equipment, such as books, other inmates or beds.328 He suggests that similar results to lifting weights can be obtained from these non-traditional tactics. Thus, in spite of the ban inmates are still able to perform various types of body building activities that promote the corporal development of strength, power and muscular growth. These individual                                                              326 Following this release there has been no information by the NCRA to support the opinions or status of the association. See G. Polson, “Weightlifting in Prisons.”  327 Strength Tech is a company devoted to the manufacturing of equipment for institutions (such as prisons, military bases and high schools), and was founded by Gary Polson in 1982. Strength Tech Inc. provides a comprehensive website (http://www.strengthtech.com /correct/issues/listing/listing.htm ) that shares information on prison weight lifting for correctional administrators and researchers.   328 Ibid.     83  acts of exercise outside the formally accepted opportunities have enabled prisoners to resist institutional power and continue physical practices.329  As a consequence of the ban, the once prevalent federal correctional powerlifting and bodybuilding competitions were forced into extinction.330 Obtained from two popular culture media sources is evidence that some state correctional facilities still provide inmates with the opportunity to lift weights and compete in weight lifting sports. In 2005, Muscle and Fitness Magazine reported on a longstanding bodybuilding competition that takes place in New York’s Eastern Correctional Facility. One of the only organized prison bodybuilding competitions left in the US, the “Mr. Nap” was begun in 1983 by a prison employee and had full support from prison officials as a way of providing inmate rehabilitation through the “the dieting, the discipline, the commitment” that is required in weight lifting and bodybuilding programs. In additional support for prison weight lifting, a 2007 documentary by National Geographic showcases a powerlifting competition occurring behind the walls of Indiana’s Wabash Correctional Facility. Weight room supervisor Mike Murphy states with pride that several inmate lifters perform at a professional level without the regular powerlifting apparel and equipment used by competitors in mainstream meets. Although only about twelve minutes in length, this segment of the documentary exposes viewers to this maximum security’s well-equipped fitness facility, displays of camaraderie between inmate competitors, judges and spectators, and shows lifters discussing the enjoyment, goal orientation and the mental aspects of powerlifting.                                                              329 The weight lifting ban can work to restrict and limit the opportunity for inmate exercise and physical activity, but as noted by Polson it cannot control all individual exercise regimes. Inmates are still able to perform bodyweight exercise, calisthenics or use non-traditional equipment within the confines of their cell. Acts such as this Foucault believed to represent a resistance to power, in which the inmate is able to regain personal albeit limited power over his or her own body.  330 J. Wuebben, “Hard Time,” 140. See also: National Geographic Channel, Inside Maximum Security.      84  Thus there is some evidence that while the act of weight lifting was banned in prisons nearly two decades ago, there remains some support for weight lifting and associated prison physical culture practices.331 There is also some support for physical exercise as both an individual practice and as an institutionally organized correctional program. Research has demonstrated that prison physical activity contributes to improved physical health, mental well-being and self-esteem, and can be used as a treatment for depression.332 It can also be utilized as an effective tool to maintain daily internal prison order, and to show that weight lifting is a cost effective program that can aid in the rehabilitation and community re-introduction process. Many of these studies simply provide evidence to support the use of physical activity as an intervention to improve health status within the inmate population through producing new or examining past physiological and psychological data sets. They fail, however, to discuss the potential barriers – such as the ban on prison weight lifting - to implementing programs within the prison context. Some of these studies recommend that prison administrators should continue to encourage healthy inmate behaviour - but most prison facilities have not provided evidence that physical activity and exercise is being implemented through recreational programming.  As a result of the limited study of prison physical culture available it is extremely difficult to develop any coherent evidence to better understand the nature of weight lifting practices in correctional facilities. Ultimately more research is needed to comprehend what the actual status                                                              331 For more evidence to support prison weight lifting see: J. Amtmann, “Strength Training in Prisons,” 44-46; Arnie Caplan, “The Role of Recreational Sports;” Tepperman, “We Will NOT Pump You Up;” Pawelko and Anderson, “Correctional Recreation, Weightlifting, and Rehabilitation,” and Wittenberg, “Power, Influence, and the Development of Correctional Policy.” Also see: Wagner, McBridge and Crouse, “The Effects of Weight-Training Exercise on Aggression,” 72–89; D. William, “An Experiment on the Inclusions of Strength Training.”  332 This research include: John Amtmann, “Strength Training in Prisons,” 44-46; P. Konstantinakos, et al., “Validity and Reliability Evidence of the Attitudes Towards Physical Activity of Greek Prisoners,” 39-48; D. Martos-Garcia, et al., “Sport and Physical Activity in a High Security Spanish Prison,” 77-96; Katherine Ozano, “The Role of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise in a Female Prison”; F. Perez-Moreno, et al., “Benefits of Exercise Training in Spanish Prison Inmates,” 1-7.     85  of weight lifting is within prison physical culture. In particular, there is a need for additional research to improve knowledge about prison physical activity within prison culture and the multiple factors that are fundamental to the corporeal experience of exercising in prison. Furthermore, although demographic information on Western inmates is readily available there remains a limited understanding of the embodied experiences of incarceration.333  The Stronghold of Somatotyping Vertinsky has shown how “the belief that one can read the character of another from their appearance is a historically pervasive phenomenon,” and one that has proven to be fateful.334 The ability to criminalize individuals through their corporeality continues to have devastating results within contemporary society. Criminological theories focusing on the individual body of an offender as a way to provide a pathological approach to crime have had innumerable influences on criminal justice policies and university based research, as well as shaped popular representations and misconceptions about crime and criminality in contemporary society. As Rimke notes, Psychological and biological theories of crime and criminality are contentious and problematic owing to classificatory ambiguity, lack of physical/organic evidence and the highly subjective nature of notions such as risk, threat and dangerousness.335 Efforts to establish links between biological or genetic factors and crime causation and the muscular criminal body continue to be found within the field of criminology. New body typing                                                              333 Western prison populations include prisons with Canada, the United States of American and Great Britain. For more details on specific prison population statistics see G. Berman, “Prison Population Statistics.” For statistics specific to Canada see: M. Dauvergne, “Adult Correctional Statistics in Canada.” Statistics for the US can be found at United States Department of Justice, “Quick facts about the Bureau of Prisons.”  334 Vertinsky, “Physique as Destiny,” 95.  335 Heidi Rimke, “The Pathological Approach to Crime,” 79.      86  research continues to appear even long after Sheldon’s theories of somatotyping have been refuted. A 2008 study titled “Does size really matter? A re-examination of Sheldon’s somatotypes and criminal behavior” explores new methods of somatotyping using the body mass index (BMI) on inmates housed in Arkansas’ correctional system.336 The researchers conclude that “a prisoner’s somatotype is associated with criminal patterns” and discuss how their results have “advanced the study on somatotyping.”337 The same group of researchers produced a second study in 2009 in an attempt to refute critiques. While they state that “an argument can be made that somatotype research is now antiquated in criminology,”338 and discuss some issues with Sheldon’s methods, they still insist that their “hybrid somatotyping procedure” overcomes the problems associated with previous research conducted.  While physique may be an intervening explanatory variable, until criminologists have determined what it is about mesomorphy that is linked to criminality, and how, criminologists in this area will continue the work of Sheldon on somatotypes. The BMI provides a practical alternative to somatotyping in which to conduct this type of research.339 Rafter concludes that these studies demonstrate that rather than providing a critical approach to the methods of somatotyping, Sheldon’s findings have been simply re-created and that support has been developed for them through equally problematic methods.340 By perpetuating body                                                              336 Sean Maddana, Jeffery T. Walker and Mitchell Miller, “Does Size Really Matter?” 330-344.   337 Sean Maddana, Jeffery T. Walker and Mitchell Miller, “The BMI as A Somtaotypic Measure,” 342.  338 Ibid., 401  339 Ibid.   340 The BMI is a very problematic measure used to suggest a normative weight to height ration. A person’s height and weight are divided, to provide a body mass index. This is number is then compared to prescriptive categories of underweight (<18.5 kg/m2), normal weight (18.5-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (25-29.9 kg/m2), or obese (>30 kg/m2). The formula fails to recognize any lifestyle factors, or health indicators. Furthermore it is only a measure of body weight and not body fat, and fails to account for individual factors such as age and muscle mass.      87  typing theories and the mesomorphic-delinquency correlations criminology has continued to construct, promote and re-produce knowledge of what a “delinquent” body looks like.  New reports of body typing and “muscular profiling” further suggest the influence that the longstanding correlations of criminality and mesomorphy have within contemporary culture.341 Clinical Psychologist, Jack Darkes questions whether muscularity supports evidence of a crime stating that,  Muscularity (mesomorphy) has a long –time alleged association with negative characteristics such as assertiveness or even criminality. The modern pursuit of muscle has also been demonized via allegations of association with undesirable behaviours; condemnations that seem destined to provide a more formal muscle profiling.342  Along with the longstanding association with criminality, the modern pursuit of muscle has thus become ‘demonized’ through allegations and the association with undesirable behaviors, including high levels of assertiveness and aggression, low levels of intelligence, illegal behaviors and mental illness.343  Casting the veneer of “science” over muscular profiling is the work of clinical psychiatrist Harrison Pope. His research has created what he considers to be “pathologies” related to inappropriate desire for muscle, dedication to working out, and steroid use. Pope and his colleagues have created a highly problematic “Fat Free Mass Index” (FFMI) - a mathematical formula for use in determining whether a person uses anabolic steroids through combining a                                                              341 Darkes, “Muscular Profiling.”   342 Ibid.    343 These studies include: A.J. Mussap, “Masculine Gender Role Stress,” 72-89; R. Olivardia, H.G. Pope, J.I. Hudson, “Muscle Dysmorphia in Male Weightlifters,” 1291-1296; Pope et al., “Muscle Dysmorphia,” 548-557; Pope et al. The Adonis Complex; T. Ryska, “Sport Involvement and Perceived Scholastic,” 155–171; J.A. Steinfeldt, “Muscularity Beliefs,” 543–554; S. Winiger and T. White, “Dumb Jock Stereotype,” 227-237; Lundholm, L., Frisell, T., Lichtenstein, P., & Langstrom, N. “Anabolic Androgenic Steroids and Violent Offending.”     88  series of computations involving the subject’s lean muscle mass (determined from height, weight and percentage of body fat).344 The computed number is then compared to a level of muscularity deemed by the researchers as “normative” (a body that can be attained without drug use) or non-normative (a body that is “too” muscular to be obtained without the use of anabolic steroids). Similar to Shelon’s somatotyping theories, Pope’s work has gained widespread attention with little critical inquiry.345  Furthermore, through normalizing what the “criminal body” looks like criminologists continue to shape the development of prison physical culture. Many of these theories draw attention to how the male criminal body looks and should be punished within the prison setting. Although Sheldon’s specific research was not directly related to the creation of penal policy, the impact of body typologies and mesomorphy-delinquency correlation has had a potential role in creating popular perception of the muscular criminal body. Demonstrated within media discourse during the mid-1990s, panic over prison weight lifting in the United States was characterised a historical unconsciousness of the relationship between criminality and muscularity and an insidious desire to discipline and control the criminal body. Caldwell and Caldwell discuss how “images in the media shape popular culture and permeate the collective conscious such that political opinions and decisions are silently yet profoundly impacted by these images.”346 Furthermore, they note how particular media images have helped to popularize and provide credibility for false and misleading issues relating to crime. The researchers state that these beliefs in turn have impacted voter’s decisions regarding                                                              344 R. Olivardia, H.G. Pope, J.I. Hudson, “Muscle Dysmorphia in Male Weightlifters,” 1291-1296; Pope et al., “Muscle Dysmorphia,” 548-557; Pope et al. The Adonis Complex.  345 Jan Todd, “Size Matters,” 20-22.   346 Caldwell and Caldwell, “Superpredators,” 61.      89  specific political initiatives regarding prison policy.347 Thus, public policy has become driven by “fear” rather than “facts.”348  Media representations of juvenile offenders during the early 1990s provided a key influence in the creation of a “flawed” justice policy that now sends juvenile offenders to serve sentences in the adult prison system. Similarly, Tepperman discusses how the media helped to “trigger” a greater sensitivity towards prison weight lifting.349 He discusses how the marked increase in movies that showed inmates lifting weights “invented” the role of weight lifting as a major component of prison physical culture. Media imagery has provided the “cultural groundwork” for the “ethos of panic” that ultimately lead to the ban on prison weight lifting. In addition, Tepperman shows how the popular media “triggers” public opinion to support a ban on prison weight lifting. The stories Tepperman discuss linked prisoner empowerment and violence to weight training.  Both of these examples demonstrate how knowledge of a ‘criminal type’ is created by criminologist and dispersed to the public through mass media portrayals with disastrous effects.                                                                       347 Ibid., 62.  348 Ibid., 63.  349 Tepperman, “Prison Weights for No Man.”     90  CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS To conclude, one can see that the rise and expansion of the prison, especially over the last quarter of the twentieth century has produced what cultural anthropologist Lorna Rhodes described as an “institutional complex of almost unimaginable size and complexity.”350 Historical changes in sentences and corrections’ policies and practices can be characterized by changes in the emphasized goal of the prison. From the 18th century’s hard labor practices of retribution, the reformatory’s ability to rehabilitative deviance, to the late-20th century and current crime-control model of deterrence and incapacitation – the practices and philosophy of the American prison system are constantly in flux. There is little consensus on what specifically has caused these changes in correctional ideology, their impact or the consequences of them for the prison population and society more broadly.  Demonstrated through the exploration of specific historical episodes in the history of prison physical culture, changes in the goals and organization of the prison system have had various influences for prison physical culture and opportunities for physical activity. At the onset of the modern penal movement, the idea of prison physical culture came to imply a way for the institution to assert disciplinary power in order to restrict and control all aspects of the inmate body. The notion of a “criminal type,” created by early criminal anthropologists during this period generated societal expectations of the inmate body that I have followed through the six episodes of prison physical culture explored within this project.  Contrary to the narratives that accompanied the weight lifting ban, a muscular physique has not always been linked to criminality, and prison recreation, including weight lifting, was                                                              350 Rhodes comments on the “less clear” ways that the growth of imprisonment in an “almost reflexive response to social problems affects our priorities for public life and is reflected in a pervasive media imagery of violence in the service of the law”. Rhodes, Madness and Reason in the Maximum Security Prison, xiii.      91  once strongly supported. From the practices of physical culture introduced at Elmira Reformatory as a way to “treat” criminality and mould inmates’ ‘muscles and morals’ in the mid-1800s to prison officials in the early 20th century believing prison recreation could turn men from criminals into good Christian gentlemen by participating in organized prison sport – prison physical culture was seen as a central and legitimate feature of the prison environment for decades. Physical culture and weight lifting thrived within the American prison system throughout the 20th century. The strength the No Frills Prison Act in 1994, however, along with growing public distaste for prison weight lifting, was too great for the iron game. Regardless of weight training as a time-tested program within prison physical culture, popular mass media illustrations of the “bulked-up and aggressive inmate” helped to intensify public opinion in support for the ban on prison weight lifting.  The work of William Sheldon in the 1950’s was not the first to show the relationship between human physique and criminality nor was his research designed with the creation of penal policy in mind. Yet the impact of body typologies and the mesomorphy-delinquency correlation have had an important role in creating popular perceptions of the muscular criminal body overtime. New applications of somatotyping research and modern day muscular profiling reveal the influence of body typing and the mesomorphic-delinquency correlation not only on the role of weight lifting in prison, but for physical culture more broadly. These examples help to demonstrate the profound impact of body typologies on the constitution of knowledge about the muscular body that I hope to further explore in future research.  This project has worked to demonstrate some of the ways criminology and body typology have constructed and reinforced knowledge about the muscular body as it relates to the prison setting. Future research might focus upon the impact of these beliefs in contemporary thought     92  and practice. For example I would like to expand my enquiry into the issue of “muscular profiling” and explore the tensions between the condemnation and pursuit of the muscular body within the domains of sport, judicial systems, science, medical settings, in order to provide guidance for correctional procedures, the judiciary and legal systems, as well as for policy makers in the world of sport and popular physical culture.           93  Bibliography  Aday, R.H. Aging Prisoners: Crisis in American Corrections. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.  Agnew, Robert. “Criminology: An Overview.” Life Support System Database. http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c04/e6-99-25.pdf  Amtmann, John. “Strength Training in Prisons.” National Strength & Conditioning Association 25 no.1 (2003): 44–46.   Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the State Reformatory at Elmira. Report of the Board of Managers 19 (1888). Retrieved from Google Books Complete database.  Annual Report of the Board of Managers of the State Reformatory at Elmira. Report of the Board of Managers 9 (1898). Retrieved from Google Books Complete database.  Austin, D., and B. Mann, eds. “Bill Clark.” In The Complete Guide to Technique, Training, and Competition in Powerlifting, 205. United States: Human Kinetics, 2012.  Aycock, A. “The Confession of the Flesh - Disciplinary Gaze in Casual Bodybuilding.” Play & Culture 5 no.4 (1992): 338-357.   Barnes, Harry Elmer. “Historial Origin of the Prison System in America.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 12 no.1 (1921): 35-60.  Baxter, Pamela, and Susan Jack. Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers.” The Qualitative Report 13 no.4 (2008): 544-559.  Baxter, Pamela, and L. Rideout. “Decision making of 2nd year Baccalaureate Nursing Students.” Journal of Nursing Education 45 no.4 (2006): 121-128.  Beckett Katherine and Theodore Sasson. “The Origins of the Current Conservative Discourse on Law and Order.” Political Research Associates (2005): 43-68.  Benjamin, G. and S.P. Rappaport. “Attica and Prison Reform.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 31 no. 3 (1974): 200-213.  Berman, G. “Prison Population Statistics.” Social and General Statics. Retrieved from the Library House of Commons, 2012. http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN04334  Bevir, Mark. “Foucault, Power, and Institutions.” Political Studies 47 (1999): 345–359.  Bhasin, S., T.W. Storer, N. Berman, C. Callegari, B. Clevenger, J. Phillips, R. Casaburi, et al. “The Effects of Supraphysiologic Doses of Testosterone on Muscle Size and Strength in Normal Men.” New England Journal of Medicine 335 (1996): 1–7.       94  Blackson, T.C., and R.E. Tarter. “Individual, Family, and Peer Affiliation Factors Predisposing to Early-Age Onset of Alcohol and Drug Use.” Alcoholism, Clinical and Experimental Research, 18 no.4 (1994): 813-821.  Blakemore, Colin, and S. Jennett, eds. The Oxford Companion to the Body. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.  “Bigger and Badder" Banning Weight-Lifting in Prison.” 20/20 Prison Lifting Special. Originally aired May 6, 1994. Retrieved from http://www.strengthtech.com/correct/issues/mediais/twenty1.htm  Boyle, R.H. “Fight On, Old Sing Sing U.” Sports Illustrated. Published originally January 23, 1967. Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/ MAG1079483/index.htm  Brown, Steven. “William Staub of Clifton, Developer of First Home Treadmill, Dies at 96." Last modified July 26, 2012, http://www.treadmillconsumers.com/william-staub-clifton-developer-first-home-treadmill-dies-96/  Bryman, Alan. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.  Bulman, Philip, Marie Garcia, and Jolene Hernon. “Study Raises Questions about Psychological Effects of Solitary Confinement.” NIJ Journal no.269 (March 2012).  Caplan, Arnie. “The Role of Recreational Sports in the Federal Prison System.” Unpublished Master’s thesis, Acadia University, Nova Scotia, Canada, 1996.  Caldwell, B., & Caldwell, E.C. “Superpredators" and "Animals" - Images and California's "Get Tough on Crime" Initiatives.” Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies 11 (2011): 61.  Campbell, Kelly. “Rehabilitation Theory.” In Encyclopedia of Prisons & Correctional Facilities, edited by M. Bosworth. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.   Carroll, Bret E., ed. American Masculinities a Historical Encyclopedia. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2003.  Cavallo, Dominick. Muscles and Morals: Organized Playgrounds and Urban Reform 1880-1920. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.   Cheli, Guy. Sing Sing Prison, Carolina: Arcadia Publishing 2003.  Clark, Bill. “Turns Out Age is More than a Number.” Columbia Tribune, Monday April 7, 2014. http://www.columbiatribune.com/arts_life/community/turns-out-age-is-more-than-a-number/article_4f81745e-be6d-11e3-b9b3-001a4bcf6878.html      95  Clark, Bill. “Big Top’s Walls Higher, Lifters Better than Outside.” Columbia Tribune, Friday, February 1, 2008. http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2008/Feb/20080201Feat001.asp  Clear, Todd, Michael Reisig, and George Cole. American Corrections. 10th edition. Ontario, CA: Cengage Learning, 2012.  Cooper, Robert Alan. “Jeremy Bentham, Elizabeth Fry, and English Prison Reform.” Journal of the History of Ideas 42, no.4 (1981): 675-690.  Cross, Rupert. Punishment, Prison and the Public: An Assessment of Penal Reform in Twentieth Century England by an Armchair Penologist. London: Stevens, 1971.  Cullen, Francis T. and Paul Gendreau, “Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects.” Criminal Justice 2000 – Policies, Process and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System 3 (2000): 109-175.  Davie, Neil. “The Impact of Criminal Anthropology in Britain (1880-1918).” Criminocorpus, November 4, 2010.   Dauvergne, M. “Adult Correctional Statistics in Canada, 2010-2011.” Statistics Canada, 2011. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001/article/11715-eng.htm  Darkes, Jack. “Muscular Profiling – Is Muscularity Evidence of a Crime?” Meso-Rx, 2009 http://thinksteroids.com/articles/muscle-profiling-steroids/  DeLisi, Matt and Peter John Conis. American Corrections: Theory, Research, Policy, and Practice. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2009.  DiIulio, John. J. Governing Prisons: A Comparative Study of Correctional Management. New York: New York Free Press, 1987.  Donnelly, Peter. “Athletes and Juvenile Delinquents: A Comparative Analysis Based on a Review of Literature.” Adolescence 16 no.62 (1982): 415-432.  Ellis, Havelock. The Criminal. New York: Scribner & Welford, 1890.  Ellis, Lee. “A Theory Explaining Biological Correlates of Criminality.” European Journal of Criminology 2 no.3 (2005): 287-315.   Ellis, Lee, and Anthony Walsh. Criminology: A Global Perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2000.  Ellis, Lee, and Anthony Walsh. “Crime, Delinquency, and Intelligence: A Review of the Worldwide Evidence.” In The Scientific Study of General Intelligence: Tribute to Arthur R. Jensen, edited by H. Nyborg. New York: Elsevier, 2003.      96  “Elmira Reformatory.” Journal of American Medical Association, April 21, 1894: 583-584.  Engel, Lou. “A Man of Many Actions – Sports Angels.” Lawrence Daily Journal-World, Lawrence Kanas, July 28, 1967.  Ernst, Robert. Weakness Is a Crime: The Life of Bernarr Macfadden. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1991.  Eysenck, Hans Jürgen. Crime and Personality. London: Methuen, 1964.  Eysenck, Hans Jürgen, and G.H. Gudjonsson. The Causes and Cures of Criminality. New York: Pelnum, 1989.  Fair, John D. “Bob Hoffman, the York Barbell Company, and the Golden Age of American Weightlifting, 1945-1960.” Journal of Sport History 14 no.2 (1987): 164-188.  Fair, John D. Muscletown USA: Bob Hoffman and the Manly Culture of York Barbell. Pennsylvania: Penn State University Press, 1997.  Fair, John D. The Tragic History of a Bodybuilding Icon. Austin, TX: University of Texas PR, 2014.  Fiore, Robert, and George Butler (producers). Pumping Iron, directed by G. Butler and J. Gary. United States: Cinegate, 1977.  Finn, P. “No-Frills Prions and Jails: A Movement in Flux.” Federal Probation 60(1996): 10-25.  Forsythe, William James. “Penal Discipline, Reformatory Projects and the English prison Commission 1895-1939.” PhD diss., University of Exeter, 1989.  Forthsythe, William James. The Reform of Prisoners 1830 – 1900. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1987.  Fortune, Darla, and C. Whyte. “Re-Imagining Institutional Spaces: The Communitizing Potential of Leisure.” Leisure/Loisir 35 no.1 (2011): 19-35.  Foster, David. “Does Pumping Iron Make Inmates More Dangerous?” Corrections Digest 26 no.12 (March 24, 1995): 1-4.   Foucault, Michel. “What Our Present Is?” In Foucault Live: Collected Interviews, 1961–1984, edited by Sylvere Lotringer, translated by Lysa Hochroth and John Johnston, 407-415. New York: Semiotext(e), 1996.   Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Pantheon, 1977.      97  Foucault, Michel. “About the Concept of the ‘Dangerous Individual’ in Nineteenth-century Legal Psychiatry.” In Power: Essential Works of Foucault, 1954-1984, volume 3, edited by James Faubion. New York, 2000.   Frailing, Kelly, and Dee Wood Harper. Fundamentals of Criminology: New Dimensions. Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 2013.   Galton, Francis. Hereditary Genius. London: Macmillan, 1869.   Galton, Francis. “Composite Portraits Made by Combining Those of Many Different Persons into a Single Figure.” Nature 18 (1878), 132-148.  Garcia, Joe. “Bill Clark.” United States All-Round Weightlifting Association, 2012, http://www.usawa.com/tag/bill-clark  Gee, John Paul. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.  Gee, John Paul. Discourse Analysis: What Makes it Critical? Published 2006. http://www.jam espaulgee.com/sites/default/files/pub/CriticalDiscourse.pdf  Genis, Daniel. “Chained Wimbledon: The Joys and Perils of Prison Tennis.” Fittish, May 20, 2014 http://fittish.deadspin.com/chained-wimbledon-the-joys-and-perils-of-priso n-tennis-1 576826012  Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor Glueck. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950.   Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor Glueck. Physique and Delinquency. New York: Harper, 1956.  Goldstone, Jack A., and Bert Useem. “Prison Riots as Microrevolutions: An Extension of State‐Centered Theories of Revolution.” American Journal of Sociology 104, no. 4 (1999): 985-1029.  Goring, Charles. The English Convict: a Statistical Study. London: HMSO, 1913.  Grapevine Contributor. "Powerlifting. The sport that is quickly becoming the favorite among Correctional Recreators." Grapevine 2 no.1 (Jan-July 1987): 5.  Grapevine Contributor. "Power Connection Club: Kilby Correctional Facility." Grapevine 2 no.1 (Jan-July 1987): 6-7.  Green, Harvey. Fit For America. New York: Pantheon, 1986.  Guarino-Ghezzi, S., and A.J. Treviño, A.J. Understanding Crime: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, 2005.     98   Hacker, Diana, and Barbara Fister. Research and Documentation in the Electronic Age, 5th ed. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2006.  Hanser, Rick. “Recreational Programs.” In Introduction to Corrections, 417-424. Portland: Sage Publications, 2012.  Hartl, E., E. Monnelli, E., and R. Eldeken. Physique and Delinquent Behaviour. New York: Academic Press, 1982.  Hartung, Frank E. “A Critique of the Sociological Approach to Crime and Correction.” Law and Contemporary Problems 23 (1958): 703-734.   Helfman, H.M. “Antecedents of Thomas Mott Osborne's Mutual Welfare League in Michigan.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 40, no.5 (1950): 597-602.  Helgeson, Vickie. S. “Prototypes and Dimensions of Masculinity and Femininity.” Sex Roles 31 (1994): 653-682.  Henley, Simon. “The 21st Century Model Prison.” Published 2002. http://www.spacesy ntax.net/symposia-archive/SSS4/fullpapers/03Henleypaper.pdf  Hoffman, Bob. Secrets of Strength and Development. York, PA: Strength and Health Publishing Company, 1940.  Hooton, Albert. The American Criminal: An Anthropological Study. Harvard University Press, 1939.  Howell, James C. “Chapter 1: Superpredators and Other Myths about Juvenile Delinquency.”  In Preventing and Reducing Juvenile Delinquency 3-16. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2009.  Hull, Jon D. “Building a Better Thug? Incensed over muscle-bound ex-cons, Milwaukee wants to ban pumping iron among its prisoners.” Time, April 11, 1994.   Janks, H. “Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool.” Discourse 18 no.3 (1997): 329-342.  James, J. “The Prisoners' Rights Movement and Its Impacts, 1960-80.” Crime and Justice 2 (1980): 429-470.  Jette, Shannon. “Fit for Two? A Critical Discourse Analysis of Oxygen Fitness Magazine.” Sociology of Sport Journal 23 no.4 (2006): 331-351.  Johnson, Robert, Ania Dobrzanska, and Seri Palla. “The American Prison in Historical Perspective: Race, Gender, and Adjustment.” In Prisons: Today and Tomorrow edited by J.M. Pollock, 26-51. Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers, Inc., l997.       99  Klein, Alan. “Size Matters: Connecting Subculture to Culture in Bodybuilding.” In The Muscular Ideal. Psychological, Social, and Medical Perspectives, edited by J.K. Thompson and Guy Cafri. American Psychological Association, 2007.  Konstantinakos, P., M. Skordilis, A. Tripolitsioti, and A. Papadopoulos, A. ”Validity and Reliability Evidence of the Attitudes Towards Physical Activity of Greek Prisoners.” Biology of Exercise 6 no.2 (2010): 39-48.   Langford, Barry. “Film Genre: Hollywood and Beyond.” Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005.  Lombroso, Cesare, and Mary Gibson. Criminal Man. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006.  Lombroso, Cesare. “Criminal Anthropology: Its Origins and Applications.” In The Criminal Anthropoligcal Writings of Cesare, edited by D. Horton and K. Rich, 51-53. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2006.  Luciano, Lynne. “Muscularity and Masculinity in the United States: A Historical Overview.” In The Muscular Ideal. Psychological, Social, and Medical Perspectives, edited by J.K. Thompson and Guy Cafri. American Psychological Association, 2007.  Lundholm, L., T. Frisell, P. Lichtenstein, and N. Langstrom. “Anabolic Androgenic Steroids and Violent Offending: Confounding by Polysubstance Abuse Among10, 365 General Population Men.” Addiction, accepted manuscript 2014. doi: 10.1111/add.12715   Mackenzie, Doris Layton. “Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the Future.” July 2001, 1-47. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/189106-2.pdf  Maddan, Sean, Jeffery T. Walker, and J. Mitchell Miller. “Does Size Really Matter? A Reexamination of Sheldon’s Somatotypes and Criminal Behavior.” The Social Science Journal 45 (2008): 330-344.  Maddan, Sean, Jeffery T. Walker, and J. Mitchell Miller. "The BMI as a Somatotypic Measure of Physique: A Rejoinder to Jeremy E.C. Genovese." The Social Science Journal 46 (2009): 394-401.  Markula, Pirkko, and Richard Pringle. Foucault, Sport and Exercise: Power, Knowledge and Transforming the Self. London: Routledge, 2006.  Martinson, R. "What Works? - Questions and Answers about Prison Reform.” The Public Interest (1974): 22-54.  Martos-Garcia, D., J. Devis-Devis, and A.C. Sparkes. “Sport and Physical Activity in a High Security Spanish Prison: an Ethnographic Study of Multiple Meanings.” Sport, Education & Society 14 no.1 (2009): 77-96.      100  Mayhew, Henry, and John Binny. The Criminal of London and Scenes of Prison Life. London: Griffin, Bohn, and Company, 1862.   McConville, Sean. “The Victoria Prison: England, 1865-1965.” In The Oxford History of the Prison. The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, edited by Norval Morris and David Rothman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.  McGowen, Randall. “The Well Ordered Prison: England, 1780-1865.” In The Oxford History of the Prison. The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, edited by Norval Morris and David Rothman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.  McIntosh, Ricky. "Why Weight Training." Grapevine 3 no.2 (May 1988): 17.  McKelvey, Blake. American Prisons: A Study in American Social History Prior to 1915. Montclair, N.J: Patterson Smith, 1968.  Men’s Health. “Workout Center the Prisoner Squat.” Men’s Health Magazine http://www.menshealth.com/workout-center/e/prisoner-squat/25668 (accessed September 2013)  Meskell, Matthew. “An American Resolution: The History of Prisons in the United States from 1777 to 1877.” Stanford Law Review 51 no.4 (1999): 851.   Messerschmidt, James W. Masculinities and Crime: Critique and Reconceptuatlization of Theory. Rowan & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1993.   Messerschmidt, James W. Nine Lives: Adolescent Masculinities, the Body and Violence. Colorado: Westview Press, 1999.  Miles, M.B., and A.M. Huberman. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.  Mills, Sara. Discourse. London: Routledge, 2004.  Mitchel, G. (director). “Inside Maximum Security (television series episode). In National Geographic America's hardest prisons lockdown. United States: National Geographic Channel, 2007.  Morris, Norval. “The Contemporary Prison: 1965 – Present.” In The Oxford History of the Prison. The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, edited Norval Morris and David Rothman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.  Monster, M., and A. Micucci. “Meeting Rehabilitative Needs at a Canadian Women's Correctional Centre.” The Prison Journal 85 no.2 (2005): 168-185.      101  Montemayor, Raymond. “Men and their Bodies: The Relationship between Body Types and Behaviour.” In Biology, Crime and Ethics, edited by F.A. Marsh and J. Katz. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co., 1985.   Murphy, Kevin P. Political Manhood: Red Bloods, Mollycoddles, and the Poltics of Progressive Era Reform. New York: Columbia University Press, 2008.  Mussap, A. J. “Masculine Gender Role Stress and the Pursuit of Muscularity.” International Journal of Men’s Health, 7 no.1 (2008): 72-89.  National Correctional Recreation Association. “NCRA Position Statement on Weight Lifting Programs in Correctional Settings.” Strength Tech, published March 1995.  http://www.strengthtech.com/correct/ncra/ncra.htm  New York Times, “Physical Culture in Jail.” Special to the New York Times, April 21 1903. www.query.nytimes.com  Newport Christopher, Peter M. Carlson, and Judith Simon Garrett. Prison and Jail Administration: Practice and Theory. Maryland: Aspen Publishers, 1999.  Nowlin, Bill. “Bill Clark.” Society for American Baseball Research. http://sabr.org/node/27241  NPR. “Living Memories from the Last Days of Alcatraz.” History, published March 31 2013. http://www.npr.org/2013/03/31/175847684/living-memories-from-the-last-days-of-alcatraz  Obel, C. “Collapsing Gender in Competitive Bodybuilding: Researching Contradictions and Ambiguity in Sport.” International Review for the Sociology of Sport 31 no.2 (1996): 185-202.  Olin, Erik. “San Quentin Prison: A Portrait of Contradictions.” The Politics of Punishment: A Critical Analysis of Prisons in America. Harper Colophon Books, 1973.  Olivardia, R., H.G. Pope, and J.I. Hudson. “Muscle Dysmorphia in Male Weightlifters: A Case-Controlled Study.” American Journal of Psychiatry 157 (2000): 1291-1296.  Osborne, Thomas Mott. Society and Prisons. Some Suggestions for a New Penology. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1916.   Ozano, Katherine. “The Role of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise in a Female Prison.” Unpublished master’s thesis. University of Chester, Cheshire, United Kingdom, 2008.  Palmer, Brian. “Do Prisoners Really Spend all their Time Lifting Weights?” Slate, published May 24 2011. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/05/do_ prisoners_really_spend_all_their_time_lifting_weights.html      102  Parra, Ysmael. “Letter from San Quentin, California to Alice Greenfield.” Calisphere. University of California Digital Achieve, July 11, 1943. http://www.oac.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb100006pk/  Payne, G., and J. Payne. Key Concepts in Social Research. London: Sage Publications, 2004.  Pawelko, K.A., and T.K. Anderson. “Correctional Recreation, Weightlifting, and Rehabilitation: A Comparison of Attitudes.” Paper presented at the Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Canadian Association for Leisure Studies, Nanaimo, Canada, May 2005.  Peim, Nick. "The History of the Present: Towards a Contemporary Phenomenology of the School." History of Education 30, no. 2 (2001): 177-90.  Pelaez, Vicky. “The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New Form of Slavery?” Global Research, March 31, 2014. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-new-form-of-slavery/8289  “Pentonville Prison”. Friends' Weekly Intelligencer 4, April 8, 1948.  Perini. “Ed Yarick's Gym in Oakland, California.” Published May 26, 2013. http://theofficebodybuildingworkout28918.yuku.com/topic/8540/Ed-Yaricks-Gym-in-Oakland-California#.Ujs7Z3-E5qw  Pisciotta, Alexander, W. Benevolent Repression. Social Control and the American Reformatory-Prison Movement. New York: New York University Press, 1994.   Pisciotta, Alexander, W. “Scientific Reform: The "New Penology" at Elmira, 1876-1900.” Crime & Delinquency 29 no.4 (1983): 613 – 630.   Polson, Gary. “State Budget Shortfalls Impact Correctional Recreation; The View from Both Sides.” Paper presented at National Correctional Recreation Association Conference, Omaha Nebraska, 2002.    Polson, Gary “Weightlifting in Prisons.” Strength Tech Inc., 2003, http://www.strengthtech.com /correct/issues/listing/listing.htm  Polson, Gary. “National Correctional Recreation Association.” Strength Tech, published 2004. http://www.strengthtech.com/correct/ncra/ncra.htm  Pope, H.G., A. Gruber, P. Choi, R. Olivardia, and K. Phillips. “Muscle Dysmorphia: An Underrecognized Form of Body Dysmorphic Disorder.” Psychosomatics 38 (1997): 548-557.  Pope, H.G., K.A. Phillips, and R. Olivardia. The Adonis Complex: The Secret Crisis of Male Body Obsession. New York, NY; Free Press, 2000.      103  Pratt, John. “'This is Not a Prison': Foucault, The Panopticon and Pentonville.” Social & Legal Studies 2 no. 4 (1993): 379-380.  “Provision to Eliminate Weights in Prison is Debated.” CNN Prison Weightlifting Show. Originally aired April 22, 1994. Retrieved from http://www.strengthtech.com/c orrect/issues/mediais/cnndis.htm  Putney, Clifford. Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.   Raine, Adrain. The Psychopathology of Crime: Criminal Behavior as a Clinical Disorder. San Diego: Academic Press, 1993.  Raine, A., Brennan, P.A., Farrington, D.P., & Mednick, S.A. Biosocial Bases of Violence. New York: Plenum Press, 1997.  Rafter, Nicole H. Creating Born Criminals. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997.  Rafter, Nicole. “Somatotyping, Antimodernism, and the Production of Criminological Knowledge.” Criminology 45 no.4 (2007): 805-833.  Rafter, Nicole H. The Criminal Brain: Understanding Biological Theories of Crime. New York: New York University Press, 2008.  Raynor, Peter, and Gwen Robinson. “Why Help Offenders? Arguments for Rehabilitation as a Penal Strategy.” European Journal of Probation 1 no.1 (2009): 3-20.  Rimke, Heidi. “The Pathological Approach to Crime.” https://www.academia.edu/369087/The_ Pathological_Approach_to_Crime_Individually_Based_Theories  Rotman, Edgardo. “The Failure of Reform: United States, 1865-1965.” In The Oxford History of the Prison. The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, edited by Norval Morris and David Rothman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.  Ryska, T. “Sport Involvement and Perceived Scholastic Competence in Student-Athletes: A Multivariate Analysis.” International Sports Journal 7(2003): 155–171.  Sabo, Don, Terry A. Kupers and Willie London, eds. Prison Masculinities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2001.  Sadan, E. “Chapter 1: Theories of power.” In Empowerment and Community Planning: Theory and Practice of People-Focused Social Solutions, 53-71. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers, 1997.  Sampson, J., and R.J. Laub. “Unraveling Families and Delinquency: A Reanalysis of the Glueck’s Data.” Criminology 26 (1988): 355-380.     104   Sampson, R.J., and J.H. Laub. “Unraveling the Social Context of Physique and Delinquency.” In Biosocial Based of Violence, edited by A.P. Raine, A. Brennan, D.P. Farrington, and S.A. Mednick, 175-188. New York: Plenum Press, 1997.  Schwarzenegger, Arnold. Total Recall: My Unbelievably True Life Story. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2012.  Sekula, Alan. “The Body and the Archive.” October 39 (1986).  Shayt, David. “Stairway to Redemption: America's Encounter with the British Prison Treadmill.” Technology and Culture 30, no. 4 (1989): 908-938.  Sheldon, William H. The Varieties of Human Physique: An Introduction to Constitutional Psychology. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940.   Sheldon, William H. The Varieties of Temperament: A Psychology of Constitutional Differences. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1942.  Sheldon, William H. Varieties of Delinquent Youth: An Introduction to Constitutional Psychiatry. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949.  Sheldon, William H.  Atlas of Men: A Guide for Somatotyping the Adult Male at all Ages. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1954.  Spierenburg, Pieter.  “The Body and the State: Early Modern Europe.” In The Oxford History of the Prison. The Practice of Punishment in Western Society, edited by Norval Morris and David Rothman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.  Shuman, James. “‘Iron Men’ Do Their Thing In Holiday Powerlift Meet.” The San Quentin News, Friday January 7, 1972.  http://sanquentinnews.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/san-quentin-news-jan-7-1972.pdf  Simon, Jonathan. “The Return of the Medical Model: Disease and the Meaning of Imprisonment from John Howard to Brown v. Plata.” Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 48, (1978): 217-256.  Smith, Beverly. “Military Training at New York's Elmira Reformatory, 1888-1920.” Federal Probation 52 no.1 (1988): 33-40.   Smith, S. “Methods of Discipline in Reformatories.” The Independent 51(1899): 2651-2561.  Solnit, R. Wanderlust: A History of Walking. New York: Penguin Books, 2001.   Steinfeldt, J. A., H. Carter, E. Benton, and M.C. Steinfeldt. “Muscularity Beliefs of Female College Student-Athletes.” Sex Roles 64 (2011): 543–554.      105  Steinheimer, C.E. “Photographic Essay: San Quentin Prison.” Life Magazine, October 27, 1947. http://www.gettyimages.ca/detail/news-photo/unidentified-inmates-at-san-quentin-lift-free-wights-in-news-photo/103054236?Language=en-U  Stephens, Elizabeth. “Francis Galton’s Composite Portraits: The Productive Failure of a Scientific Experiment”, 2014. https//www.academia.edu/6746153/_Francis_Galton_s_ Composite_Portraits_The_Productive_Failure_of_a_Scientific_Experiment_; p.  Stohr, Mary K., and Anthony Walsh. “History of Corrections.” In Corrections: The Essentials, 16-32. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2011  Sutherland, Edwin H. “Book Review.”J. CruM. L. & Criminolgy 911, no. 29 (1939).  Telander, Rick. “Sports Behind the Walls.” Sports Illustrated. Published October 1988. Retrieved from http://si.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1067898/index.htm  Tepperman, Alex. “We Will NOT Pump You Up: Punishment & Prison Weightlifting in the 1990s.” Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://florida.academia.edu/AlexTepperman/ Papers/552170/We_Will_NOT_Pump_You_Up_Punishment_and_Prison_Weightlifting_in_the_1990s  Tepperman, Alex. “Prison Weights for No Man: Interpreting a Modern Moral Panic.” Critical Issues in Justice and Politics 7 no.1 (May 2014): 1-15.  Tepperman, Alex. “Not-So-Giant Steps: San Quentin Baseball and California’s Penal Culture.” Retrieved from https://florida.academia.edu/AlexTepperman  Treadwell, James. Criminology. London: Sage, 2006.  Todd, Jan. “Size Matters: Reflections on Muscle, Drugs and Sport.” Iron Game History,10 no. 3 (2008): 3-22.   Truss, Geoffrey, and Wanda T. Hunter. "Recreation Programs." Encyclopedia of Prisons & Correctional Facilities. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2012.  Vertinsky, Patricia. The Eternally Wounded Women. Women, Doctors, and Exercise in the Late Nineteenth Century. New York: Manchester University Press, 1990.  Vertinsky, Patricia. “Embodying Normalcy: Anthropometry and the Long Arm of William H. Sheldon's Somatotyping Project.” Journal of Sport History 29 no.1 (2002): 95-133.  Vertinsky, Patricia. “Physique as Destiny: William H. Sheldon, Barbara Honeyman Heath and the Struggle for Hegemony in the Science of Somatotyping.” Canadian Bulletin of Medical History = Bulletin Canadien d'Histoire De La Médecine 24 no.2 (2007): 291-316.      106  United States Department of Justice. “Quick Facts about the Bureau of Prisons.” Federal Bureau of Prisons. http://www.bop.gov/news/quick.jsp  Wagner, M., R.E. McBridge, and S.F. Crouse. “The Effects of Weight-Training Exercise on Aggression Variables in Adult Male Inmates.” The Prison Journal 79 no1. (1999): 72–89.   Walby, Kevin, and Nicholas Carrier. “The Rise of Biocriminology: Capturing Observable Bodily Economies of ‘Criminal Man’.” Criminology & Criminal Justice 10 no.3 (2010): 261-285.   Wachsmann, Nikolaus. “Review of ‘The Oxford History of the Prison: the Practice of Punishment in Western Society.’” Reviews In History 14 (1996).     Western, Bruce. Punishment and inequality in America. New York: Russell Sage, 2006.  Welch, M. “Guantanamo Bay as a Foucauldian Phenomenon: An Analysis of Penal Discourse, Technologies, and Resistance.” The Prison Journal 89 no.1 (2009): 3-20.  Wiegers, Y. “Male Bodybuilding: The Social Construction of a Masculine Identity.” Journal of Popular Culture 32 no.2 (1998): 147-161.  Wiener, Leigh. “Alcatraz Recreation Yard 1963 [Image format].” In Alcatraz: The Last Day. San Francisco: Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, 2012.  William, D.J. An Experiment on the Inclusions of Strength Training in Offender Substance Abuse Treatment. Offender Program Report 5 (2006): 17-29.   Wilson, James Q., and Herrnstein, Richard. Crime and Human Nature. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985.  Wines, Enoch Cobb and Theodore William Dwight. Report on the Prisons and Reformatories of the United States and Canada, 1867. https://archive.org/details/reportonprisonsr00corruoft  Winfree Thomas, L. and Howard Abadinsky. Understanding Crime: Essentials of Criminological Theory. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009.  Winkeljohn, Matt. “When Weight Lifting Was Banned in Georgia's Prisons.” Atlanta Journal Constitution, Sunday 22 March 1998. http://www.strengthtech.com/correct/issues/mediais/ajc/ajcfeat.htm  Winiger, Steve, and Tiffany White. “The Dumb Jock Stereotype: To What Extent Do Student-Athletes Feel the Stereotype?" Journal for the Study of Sports and Athletes in Education 2 no.2 (2008): 227-237.   Wittenberg, Peter. “Power, Influence, and the Development of Correctional Policy.” Federal Probation 60 no.2 (1996): 43-48.       107  Worfolk, Claton. “San Quentin Giants.” The New York Times. Published October 24, 2014 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/opinion/san-quentins-giants.html?_r=0  Wood, John. “Jenkins Hudson.” Old Time Strongman. Published October 24, 2014 http://www.oldtimestrongman.com/blogs/new-blog/2014-10/23-1054-jenkins-hudson  Wright, Erick Olin. “San Quentin: A Portrait of Contradictions.” Retrieved from: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Published%20writing/POP.c4.pdf  Wright, R.A., and Miller, J.M. “Taboo Until Today? The Coverage of Biological Arguments in Criminology Textbooks, 1961 to 1970 and 1987 to 1996.” Journal of Criminal Justice 26 no.1 (1998): 1-19.  Wuebben, Joe. “Hard Time: At a New York Maximum-Security Prison, 27 Inmate Bodybuilders Competed for the Title of Mr. Nap.” Joe Weider’s Muscle & Fitness 66 no.5 (May 2005): 140. Retrieved from Canadian Periodicals Index Quarterly Database.  Yin, Robert K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2003.  Zuckerman, M. “Personality and Psychopathy: Shared Behavioural and Biological Traits.” In The Neurobiology of Criminal Behavior, edited by J. Glicksohn, 27-50. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2002.         

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0135657/manifest

Comment

Related Items