What do we think we know?
4. Various attempts exist to explain recurring conflict in resocialising organisations. Explanations cover the particular properties of inmates in particular organisations. Properties include inmates’ similar social backgrounds (Black 1998), stress among staff and hospital patients (Pink 2000) and competing interests of staff and inmates (White 1999; Green 1977). No one attempt is conclusive and, therefore, there is a lingering uncertainty about the explanation(s) of conflict. This situation is compounded by methodological problems of evidence in some studies (eg. Black 1998; Green 1977) and researcher bias (White 1999).
Summary statement: Despite attempts to explain conflict, uncertainty exists because of a degree of inconclusiveness and methodological problems.
5. The reference made earlier to similar social backgrounds of inmates is related to an important claim in the socialisation literature. Specifically, one explanation of the uniformity of outlook and behaviour of inmates after periods of resocialisation is that they spring from similar social backgrounds (Black 1998; Mauve 2000). This claim, that inmates are in an ‘anticipatory state of resocialisation’, is used by Black and Mauve to explain conflict in police academies and convents. They claim that individuals from those social backgrounds are prone to solving problems by creating conflictual situations. Their similar backgrounds, therefore, leads to conflict being widespread in those organisations. This claim might hold for convents and police academies. The uncertainty arises when hospitals, including mental hospitals are included. Conflict is widespread, according to Pink (2000; see also Red 1975) but these organisations differ from others in that inmates do not have similar social backgrounds. So, it appears that the link between social background and conflict is not strong when applied to all resocialising organisations.
Summary statement: It is not clear that conflict can be explained by inmates’ similar social backgrounds in all resocialising organisations.
6. The focus on widespread, recurring conflict in resocialising organisations has produced some speculative explanations. The most notable stems from Blue and Beige’s (2004) review of the literature in this field. Based on secondary analysis of existing work, they claim that this type of conflict is a result of the ‘captive syndrome’. Given all resocialising organisations keep inmates confined, in one form or another, and often against their will, conflict is always a consequence of those individuals perceiving a situation of potential captivity. Blue and Beige go on to say that this captivity syndrome is ‘hard wired’, that is, genetically imprinted but has little opportunity to surface in modern industrial societies. Notwithstanding it being an assertion, the best one could say of this theory is that it is extremely limited to certain types of organisation. Conflict exists in organisations where inmates freely choose to belong and where they can exit at any time. Green (2002) and Vermillion’s (2000) research on passenger ships and religious retreats substantiate this claim of limited application..
Summary statement: Use of the ‘captive syndrome’ argument to explain conflict is extremely precarious because it is an assertion and does not cover situations where inmates can choose ‘to walk away’.