Acting as Correctional Officer: Authority Through Discretionality

The chapter focuses on the practices of correctional officers. In doing so, the chapter argues that correctional officers occupy a gray zone akin to Dubois’ description of bureaucrats. They effectively serve as the State’s arm and contribute to shaping the State’s proxemics, but they often develop a sense of betrayal toward the true bureaucrats—those who occupy offices with higher ranks, removed from the actual day-to-day work. The chapter provides numerous examples from fieldwork to illustrate the confusion in interpreting disciplinary bureaucracy as merely a punitive instrument rather than a precise and official resource for rectifying illegitimate situations. However, the discretionary nature of rewarding behaviors deserving positive appreciation does not appear to be limited to objective systems of regulation. While the presence of individuals in prison is justified in terms of demerit due to actions that have negatively impacted society according to the law, individuals are primarily judged for specific qualities that do not align with societal ideals. The chapter observes that correctional officers’ preference for informal practices over management and observational activities serves as a practical and efficient tool for mitigating the sense of diminished authority and the perception of being passive agents. Consequently, the punitive power of paperwork is weakened, and it is relegated to its most neglected function—to merely document, without real consequences—a bureaucratic function. The chapter extends the analysis by arguing that the enforcement of order, a competent performance governed by protocols and rules, is manifested differently within the same prison environment based on the gendered roles of correctional officers and prisoners. Gender norms impact the work of correctional officers and are reflected in their interactions with inmates.