Prison Tours
Robyn Belland
100969167
CRCJ 1000A
Lara Karaian
Kenza Chahlouni
October 3rd, 2014
In both articles the authors’ aim is to generate knowledge about the culture of prison, and what one can take away from a carceral tour. In Piche and Walby’s article, the authors argue that carceral tours can be highly scripted and regulated in ways that obscure many of the central aspects of being in prison. In Wilson, Spina, and Canaan’s article, it is counter argued that with the proper carceral tour, evidence proves that visitors have an overall experience that changes their views on prisoners and life in prison. Piche and Walby base their arguments off of two main ideas, the staging of tours, and the use of a scripted tour guide that enables stereotypes to be built. Piche writes: “facility tours students participated in appeared to be carefully scripted, thereby preventing any deeper discussion about how imprisonment is actually experienced by either prisoners or staff.”1. This is proved by the frequency, the size, and the time when tours are scheduled at. These restrictions show that tours are not showing visitors the ‘back stage’ scenes when the prison could become slightly exposed but rather when the prison is composed and in order.
Next it can be disputed that the tour guide can be seen as a narrator, because they speak only to the audience, and read off a script. It is argued, “these scripted portions of the tour not only contribute to dominant stereotypes of prisoners predatory animals in need of incapacitation, but, in underlining the theatrical nature of the tour event”2. Scripted tours give no allotted time for visitors to engage in conversation with the prisoners. Thus this makes it impossible for visitors to question any stereotypes formed about prisoners and prison. Wilson responds to Piche and Walby’ by further explaining his research based on two themes, the student’s expectations regarding the inmates, and
100969167
CRCJ 1000A
Lara Karaian
Kenza Chahlouni
October 3rd, 2014
In both articles the authors’ aim is to generate knowledge about the culture of prison, and what one can take away from a carceral tour. In Piche and Walby’s article, the authors argue that carceral tours can be highly scripted and regulated in ways that obscure many of the central aspects of being in prison. In Wilson, Spina, and Canaan’s article, it is counter argued that with the proper carceral tour, evidence proves that visitors have an overall experience that changes their views on prisoners and life in prison. Piche and Walby base their arguments off of two main ideas, the staging of tours, and the use of a scripted tour guide that enables stereotypes to be built. Piche writes: “facility tours students participated in appeared to be carefully scripted, thereby preventing any deeper discussion about how imprisonment is actually experienced by either prisoners or staff.”1. This is proved by the frequency, the size, and the time when tours are scheduled at. These restrictions show that tours are not showing visitors the ‘back stage’ scenes when the prison could become slightly exposed but rather when the prison is composed and in order.
Next it can be disputed that the tour guide can be seen as a narrator, because they speak only to the audience, and read off a script. It is argued, “these scripted portions of the tour not only contribute to dominant stereotypes of prisoners predatory animals in need of incapacitation, but, in underlining the theatrical nature of the tour event”2. Scripted tours give no allotted time for visitors to engage in conversation with the prisoners. Thus this makes it impossible for visitors to question any stereotypes formed about prisoners and prison. Wilson responds to Piche and Walby’ by further explaining his research based on two themes, the student’s expectations regarding the inmates, and