PDFlib PLOP: PDF Linearization, Optimization, Protection

Page inserted by evaluation versionwww.pdflib.com – sales@pdflib.com

JADE 23.2 ©NSEAD 2004

169The Rehabilitative Role ofArts Education in Prison:Accommodation or Enlightenment?

Paul Clements

The prisoner constituency is one of the mostexcluded in society. Addressing recidivismrequires amongst other considerations, anenabling of these individuals to fulfil rehabilitativeintent. The article argues that this necessitatesan educational discourse and methodology thatis embedded in concepts of emancipation andempowerment, where creativity and heuristiclearning enable personal transformation. Thearts are one of the agents that can naturallyencourage spontaneous and participatory learn-ing, enabling a more liberating and self-directedrehabilitative process. Notwithstanding, artseducation in prison illuminates the strugglebetween individual creative needs and socialaccommodation. Historically the shifting para-digm of penal policy has reflected a widerpolitical intention. But there is an irony as the

New Labour government that champions socialinclusion has overseen the reduction of oppor-tunity in prison to engage with the arts, replacedby an instrumental agenda concerning basic, keyand cognitive skills. Furthermore, this hasarguably been costly and ineffectual, hence theneed to accommodate a more creative andexpressive curriculum. The article has beendivided into two parts. The first examinescompeting discourses of penal educationalprovision in order to assess the role of the arts.The second part examines a radical educationalagenda of inclusion based on emancipatorytheory, as a conduit for personal transformation,in which the creative arts have a central role.

Abstract

The prison context: penal educationThere has been a massive increase in the prisonpopulation of England and Wales from 42,000 in1992 to 70,000 in 2002 [1]. Furthermore, this ispredicted to rise by between 21,500 and 39,500by 2009 [2]. That being the case, the onus on real-istic rehabilitative strategies ever increases,hence the need to examine educational philoso-phy and practice within this context.

William Forster [3] researched the history ofpenal education, delineating the areas of educa-tional activity which have become established inBritish prisons. These include: vocational training,remedial education (basic literacy and numeracy),academic programmes (from GCSE to degree),the therapeutic (cognitive skills and angermanagement courses) and finally the recre-ational, in which he placed arts and crafts. Thesewere perceived as harmless activities allowing asentence to be completed more easily. Forsterrecognised an uncertainty among prison educa-tionalists as to whether education should benon-interventionist with regards to socialdeviancy or wrapped up in reformative work. Asregards evidence to prove rehabilitative interven-tion, he recognised that the longer term effect ofprison educational experience is difficult to eval-uate, due to the multi-variable nature of factorsinvolved and need for prisoner privacy and confi-dentiality.

He distinguished between three overlappingeducational aims: firstly, personal development;secondly, social purpose (redressing socio-educational injustice and disadvantage); andfinally, community education with the emphasison participation. He was concerned with the pres-sure of an increasing functionalism, which wasreflected in demands for measurable outcomesto justify expenditure, and with the far-reachingclaims for the effects of prison education, beyondwhat can be proved.

Prison education models, shifting paradigmsStephen Duguid [4], offered a more forthrightcritique of prison education which reflected the

shifting models of modern correction theory. Heillustrated this through the history of the Canadiansystem. Firstly the ‘medical model’ (1945–1975)took an approach to criminal behaviour thatunderstands it as an illness, the causes of whichcan be diagnosed. Hence education is a form oftreatment. Secondly, a rejection of the rehabilita-tion model (1974–77), as there is no surety ofsuccess. This was re-interpreted as the ‘nothingworks’ theory, in which, benign neglect isperceived as effective as treatment, and alsoimportantly costs less money. Thirdly, the ‘oppor-tunities model’ (1977–87), which championed there-emergence of an educational paradigm consist-ing of five components: cognitive instruction(critical thinking), participative decision-making(choice), moral education, criminal personality, anda focus on the humanities.

Lastly, the ‘new medical model’ (late 1980s topresent) was born. Here the direct programmingof cognitive skills became independent of educa-tional input. Because it gave responsibility toprisoners, the opportunities model was perceivedas too unstable. Allowing them to make choiceswas seen as aimless, so the educational approachwas rejected. A cognitive skills programme withina psychological paradigm was recognised asmore efficient and a better morale booster forstaff. Prison rehabilitative practice in England hasbeen similarly affected by such concerns, nowfirmly embedded in the new medical model.

Adult education and the cognitive model:competing discourses of rehabilitationBut Duguid [5] argued that the cognitive skillsprogramme was less successful at reducingrecidivism than an adult educational modelsteeped in the humanities. He maintained thatthe cognitive skills programme reduced re-offending for the low-risk group by only 11.2 percent compared to the control group of roughly 50per cent after one year, and had minimal effect onhigh-risk categories of prisoners. Whereas in aparallel study of the effects of a post-secondaryeducation programme, roughly 80 per cent of

170Paul Clements

JADE 23.2 ©NSEAD 2004

JADE 23.2 ©NSEAD 2004

171Paul Clements

those participating successfully completed threeyears out of prison on release. On top of this 57per cent of the high-risk offenders were success-ful in the same period. He lampooned themerry-go-round of correctional policies, whichbesides advancing careers and costing money,have adversely affected those unfortunate pris-oners used as guinea pigs. He maintained thatthe main reasons for the rise of the new medicalmodel was a need for quick results to satisfyfunding and to improve the morale of prison staff,as the ‘nothing works’ idiom needed to beinverted, to give prison staff a purpose.

The government’s own Social Exclusion Unit(SEU), recognised that the root problem for anyrehabilitative strategy was the need to tackle drugrelated crime, with 70 per cent of prisoners havinga drug misuse problem [6]. Also, not unsurpris-ingly, it extolled the success of cognitive skillsprogrammes. A Home Office review suggeststhat prison-based thinking skills programmes canresult in reconviction rates which are up to 14percentage points lower than comparison groups.Based on the number of prisoners expected tocomplete such programmes this year, this repre-sents a reduction of around 21,000 crimes. [7]

But neither the Home Office or the SEU areimpartial, embedded within government agen-das of accommodation.

Conversely Eric McGraw castigated the sixyears (1997–2003) of cognitive rehabilitationwithin the English penal system as wastedmoney and opportunity. He maintained thatbehavioural programmes are flawed, becausethey are not designed for adults, with infantilisa-tion embedded in their design. His example of aprisoner being told that his thinking is wrong by ayoung psychologist with limited experience oflife, reflects their rigid and contrived nature, fail-ing to accommodate different views andopinions. Furthermore there was a huge cost toconsider. The treasury has already allocated cashfor more Offender Behaviour Programmes –currently £25 million a year – to continue until2006 in up to 100 prisons. They have probably

worked out that the £200 million they havealready spent could have paid for the annualtuition fees for 50,000 low risk offenders to studyat Cambridge for three years – the entire prisonpopulation in 1995 [8].

This is compounded by the Home Office’sadmission that it has been unable to determinethe number of prisoners that have participated onthe courses, due to drop out, and furthermore, astheir own studies concurred, such programmeshave made little difference to one – and two –year reconviction rates for both adult males andyoung offenders, actually increasing reconvictionrates for low to medium risk prisoners.

Maybe wide-ranging educational programmesare value for money in comparison, and maybetter enable adults in particular to help recogniseadult responsibilities, interests and better garnerself-esteem.

Michael Collins, utilising a Foucauldian critiqueof prison education, was keen to show that thekind of power relationships and coercive struc-tures that shape it affect much of adult educationpractice. He was particularly scathing of educa-tion characterised as self-directed learning andrecognised education in prison as being anaccommodative strategy that helped sustainpenal objectives. Offenders were earmarked fortreatment to normalise the criminal mind. But theirony was that, far from transforming prisonersinto honest citizens, prisons were better able tomanufacture criminals more adept, empoweredand better networked in their profession of crime.He comments that the vast set-up to treat, correctand, hence, infantilise criminals as delinquentsremains firmly embedded in the penal system asa normalizing technology. It serves to fix individu-als via panoptic techniques (the documentaryapparatus, psychiatric assessments, diagnostictesting etc.) that lead to precise, objective codifi-cations of the individual [9]. Furthermore, Collinsmaintained that the modification of criminalbehaviour within prison education practicecarried with it an artificiality that was notconducive to learning or encouraging autonomy

and democracy. Both Duguid and Collins were concerned at the

lack or trustworthiness of research that proves thevalidity of rehabilitative programmes. Thisincluded the period allotted to prove success, thedifficulty in delineating significant variables andwhether there are other more important causalfactors. Another criticism of the cognitive skillsprogramme, is that it pre-screens participants,choosing only specific categories of prisonerswith particular behavioural profiles. These includeproblems related to, ‘impulse control, rigid think-ing, lack of means end testing and egocentricity[10].’ Arguably, these offenders are the most likelyto change their criminal habits anyway.

Moreover, Maguire and Honess [11] in theirinvestigation into distance learning in prison weresurprised at the dearth of research surroundingprison education in Britain. They investigated thecompletion of distance learning educationalcourses, through a longitudinal study of thirty pris-oners. Due to the lack of consistent research,claims that present rehabilitative programmes aresuccessful, reveals more about the mechanisms ofbureaucratic spin and advocacy than of evidence.

Purpose of arts education in prisonIt is important to determine the purpose of artseducation within this context. Flynn and Price [12]undertook a national survey of prison education,which echoed the Prison Service Arts in PrisonsWorking Party, listing its rationale. This includesprisoners: using time constructively, expressingthemselves effectively and acceptably, develop-ing self-awareness and achieving a sense ofself-worth, respecting others and working collab-oratively, developing skills and taking pride inthem, providing a route back into education,becoming more in touch with themselves andtheir behaviour, maintaining and strengtheningties with family, making choices and acceptingresponsibility, finding a way into employment,better relating to prison staff and others throughshared interests.

Marian Liebmann [13] took a more therapeu-

tic line citing the arts in prison as a means of non-verbal communication, a bridge betweentherapist and client, and means of self-expressionand exploration. They are a safe way of dealingwith unacceptable emotions such as anger, andas an aid to discussion. The visual artist ColinRiches [14] expanded on this theme, referring tothe hidden therapy behind classroom or work-shop art projects. But such an understanding ofpsychological healing and growth has to becontextualised, as such benefits may simplyallow a prisoner to survive a sentence.

Anne Peaker, who set up the Unit for Arts andOffenders, to support the development of artsopportunities for those in prisons, special hospitalsand units, considered them neither contained in aneducational or therapy framework, but somewherebetween. The function of the arts for inmates wasindividually determined but came, ‘from a need tofind a voice of their own in a situation where theyhave few means of communicating with others andwhere they suffer a consequent loss of identity[15].’ This was conceived within a holistic frame-work which sought to develop the whole person.The creative capacity of the arts allows and instilsconfidence in prisoners, challenging their low self-esteem and assuring them that they are wortheducating. They are a vehicle through whichinmates can occupy themselves constructively andescape from the pressures of their immediatesurroundings.

Lucy Phillips [16] researched how experiencedarts practitioners in the USA tackled the problemof whether their work in institutions is a socialservice or artistic enterprise. She argued that theperception of the artists who facilitate suchprogrammes is that they are primarily involved inartistic, not social work. Therefore aestheticconsiderations are critical, with social outcomesnaturally resulting. She concluded that the artsneed to be argued for on their own terms, as theyare on to a losing financial battle against moreessential services, and to do this, there needs tobe a more profound debate and awareness ofhow the arts interact with society. Maybe this is

JADE 23.2 ©NSEAD 2004

172Paul Clements

JADE 23.2 ©NSEAD 2004

173Paul Clements

best served by treating the arts more education-ally or within a paradigm of play or leisure, not oneof work, social utility or therapy, where they tooreadily become lost in their instrumentality.

Arts education in prison is very popular, andthere are five reasons for advocating it. Firstly,dynamic security. By occupying prisoners insomething of interest and fun that absorbs them,this helps towards the security within the prison,and is a welcome contrast to the negative boredomand stress of prison life. Secondly, the arts are a re-introduction to education for many prisoners whotruanted from school. By engaging the hands andthe eyes of new students, this naturally developstheir minds. Once interested in the arts, studentswill be more willing to look at more mundane andless attractive educational options, those forinstance linked to the basic skills curriculum. Thirdly,creativity and new ways of thinking, traditional terri-tory of the arts, coincide with rehabilitative needs.For instance, applied theatre allows the space topractise new roles. Fourthly, the arts offer an oppor-tunity to explore individual potential and alternativeinterests as well as increase self-esteem. They aidcommunication and allow prisoners to value theirown and other people’s ideas and cultures. Lastly,engagement with the arts helps produce active citi-zens and develops a critical attitude in them. Sucha manner is necessary in order to examine lifestyle,but this cannot be foisted onto prisoners (as in acognitive framework), but has to be their choice anddiscovery.

The Arts and instrumentalityWhen researching into the changing role andcurriculum of prison education, I discovered theconsequences for a particular education depart-ment with regards to the instrumental use of thearts. At HMP Brixton, an old local prison, thecurriculum in 1996 included 43 weekly classes inarts subjects, whereas correspondingly, by 2001this accounted for ten. Furthermore, such classeswere run only if they included a basic and keyskills curriculum. Arts classes had been replacedwith classes entitled, ‘Firmstart with Pottery’ and

‘Basic Skills through Art,’ amongst other instru-mental agendas. I recognised that, ‘Sadly, therenaissance in prison arts has been replaced by anage of instrumental reason and measurement [17].’

This supports the findings of a surveyconducted by The Unit for Arts and Offenders [18],which found that 75 per cent of prisons had expe-rienced cuts to their arts programmes in the 2000/1financial year and 43 per cent of classes were cutto make way for the basic and key skills curriculum.This included the visual arts, woodwork, craft,drama, pottery, music and photography. It recom-mended that arts classes should be supportive,not alternative, to this curriculum.

Moreover David Wilson [19], a writer on prisoneducation, whilst not denying the need for a basicskills agenda, calculated that this failed to accountfor 30-40 per cent of the prison population, whorequired a higher level of education. This presentemphasis on basic and key skills was stimulatedby the introduction of the core curriculum in 1995and development of key performance targets thatintend to reduce the number of prisonersreleased without basic skills at level two or above.

Anders Lustgarten, a creative writing tutor,condemned the systematic eradication of creativecourses in drama, art and culture. He ridiculed,‘statistics [as] the surrogates of success. Annualintake 1000 men, annual productivity 1000 certifi-cates, result (irrespective of what’s taught, to or bywhom), education [20],’ because they fail to recog-nise quality and value. But his greatest wrath wasreserved for the lowest common denominatorqualifications that are unlikely to override thestigma of criminalisation for prospective employ-ers. In contrast, he explained his involvement inprison drama, and how during the rehearsalschedule he could visibly assess the changes andgradual empowerment of prisoners through theirinvolvement in a production of ‘Accidental Deathof an Anarchist’ at HMP Wandsworth.

Opinion as to the role and function of artseducation in prison is divided and inconsistent,but the current basic and key skills emphasis hasaffected their wider utility and more importantly,

the arts curriculum has atrophied. Flynn and Price[21] discovered from their survey that someEducation Coordinators considered arts activitiesto be an integral part of the education curriculum,whilst others perceived them to be merely leisurepursuits (as if this excluded them from any educa-tional utility). They concluded that the arts weremore concerned with internal goals and self-development.

Nonetheless, a creative and critical educationsteeped in the arts and humanities may well be abetter rehabilitative tool than a psychologicallybased cognitive or dumbed down basic skillsprogramme. This curriculum is also an appositere-introduction to lifelong learning, as it encour-ages a broad exploration of cultural values, as wellas of individual behaviour and lifestyle, bothemancipating and empowering the prisoner.

A radical educational agenda of inclusion and rehabilitation: empowermentand emancipationTom Inglis analysed the two concepts of empow-erment and emancipation in terms of how powerrelations and structures affect the field of adulteducation. He challenged the commonly heldview that emancipation can be attained throughpersonal transformation and questioned theconcept of empowerment altogether. He citedthe need for value which was central to humanityand overcoming organisational self-interest. Forhim empowerment involved, ‘people developingcapacities to act successfully within the existingsystem and structures of power [22],’ which hastraditionally been one of the aims of lifelongeducation, but increasingly appropriated by business, management and industrial training.Empowerment can therefore be perceived as asubtle and pervasive means of organisationalmanipulation.

Emancipation on the other hand is concernedwith changing the system by critically analysing,resisting and challenging the structures of powerbeyond merely individual concerns. The morepsychological emphasis on empowerment, in

terms of the realisation and reconstruction of theself, recognises education in terms of unblockingand unlocking capacities in response to the effectsof power, not confronting this process. Inglissuggested that there was a need to discover a pre-social and authentic self, which is very differentfrom a process of self-realisation and empower-ment which has shifted the focus onto theindividual and ignored any analysis of power andthe structures that operate to control that individ-ual. His distinction between working within thesystem (empowerment) or changing that system(emancipation) is crucial to understanding the func-tion of the arts which transgress this boundary.

The self as agent of social changeInglis was influenced by Foucault, who perceivedpower as exercised locally through self-censor-ship, creating docile bodies. Collins, cited earlier,related this accommodative process to prisoneducation. Foucault’s remedy was:

An ongoing process of externalsing, problematising,and critically evaluating one’s being, actions, andthoughts, (through which) a critically reflective self isconstituted. This self becomes the center of control.If properly constituted we no longer need the regu-latory discourse of psychiatry. Through emancipatorylearning, we become our own psychiatrists [23].

Here psychiatry can be understood in terms ofrigid cognitive prison programmes, which along-side educational ones have failed to liberate orempower, as students too readily (and subcon-sciously) self-censor in order to appease theeducator or psychologist, and operate withinparticular frameworks. In order to become the‘psychiatrist’, this requires greater breadth anddepth of learning and a necessary analysis ofoppression, the effects of power structures andhow they operate in society.

Inglis recognised that although there has beena proliferation in popular forms of psychologicalliterature about self-confidence and assertive-ness which help empower individuals, these

JADE 23.2 ©NSEAD 2004

174Paul Clements

JADE 23.2 ©NSEAD 2004

175Paul Clements

have failed to emancipate. Adult Educationteachers therefore need to encourage students toanalyse and challenge the social and political struc-tures that inform their realities in order to acquire theskills and knowledge to make informed decisions.This includes an analysis of power structures in thefamily, workplace, community and nation.

Education for personal transformation: a Freirian pedagogyAdult Education requires a theory and pedagogyof power, in order to move beyond individual tosocial change. Concepts of empowermentemphasise the individual student attaininggreater economic, political, social and culturalcapital, where education becomes a form ofinvestment. Paolo Freire originally critiqued sucha normative understanding, utilising the term‘banking education’. He viewed this conventionalframework of education as an act of depositingwhich negates inquiry. Students were recepta-cles to be filled by the educator.

The more students work at storing depositsentrusted to them, the less they develop the criti-cal consciousness which would result from theirintervention in the world of transformers of thatworld. The more completely they accept thepassive role imposed on them, the more they tendsimply to adapt to the world as it is and to the frag-mented view of reality deposited in them [24].

Banking education suppresses and inhibitscreative power, maintaining the submersion ofstudent consciousness. Whereas a ‘problem-posing’ liberational education is a processorientated unveiling of reality that encouragesconsciousness and critical intervention in the realworld. Freire embedded this praxis in the processof learning language, which was dependent onan understanding of culture and the socio-histor-ical situation of the students. Adult literacy waspart of the process of cultural action wherestudents themselves determine solutionsthrough their own action.

They cannot overcome their dependency by‘incorporation’ into the very structure responsiblefor their dependency. There is no other road tohumanisation – theirs as well as everyone else’s –but authentic transformation of the dehumanisingstructure. From this last point of view, the illiterateis no longer a person living on the fringe of society,a marginal man, but rather a representative of thedominated strata of society, in conscious or uncon-scious opposition to those who, in the samestructure, treat him as a thing [25].

Raising the collective consciousness andenabling authentic transformation of studentsrequires non-authoritarian teaching based onrational discourse, critical reflection and respect.Becoming literate is a critical act of knowing andgoes far beyond learning to decode the writtenrepresentation of a sound system. Such literacydissolves the distinction between verbal andsymbolic language, and focuses on wider issuesof cultural democracy, in order that participantsare better able to shape their environment andultimately society.

Transformation theoryJack Merizow’s Transformation Theory of eman-cipatory learning was steeped in a Freirianpedagogy, but without the politics and socialaction, grounded in the rules of language andhuman development. He was unhappy withpsychological theories, particularly behaviouristassumptions, as they are so amenable to bureau-cratic control, and measurable only because theyfocus on anticipated behavioural outcomes. Themissing dimension is the social conditioning thatinfluences how adults make meaning, how it isconstructed and validated. Like Freire, he under-stood the process of problem solving as thetransforming mechanism, especially in terms ofdigesting new knowledge and understandingthat fail to comply with preconceived notions.This necessitates reflection on problems andacting on insights, in order to permit new mean-ing schemes to be constructed. Emancipatory

education concerns awareness but can beframed within pre-existing fields of adult educa-tion. These include: critical reflexivity, creativity,artistic expression, personal development andtherapy, conscientisation, dialectical thinking,consciousness raising, philosophical analysis,religious conversion and eastern mysticism. Allthese categories relate to the arts.

Ultimately Merizow attempted to analyse andcomprehend how adult learners create meaningout of their experience. This requires andragogy,which he defined as, ‘an organised and sustainedeffort to assist adults to learn in a way thatenhances their capability to function as self-directed learners’ [26], which reduces learnerdependency on educators, and increases theirresponsibility for defining their own learningobjectives and needs. He saw the role of aneducator as provocateur, encouraging alternativeand rational discourse. This is not dissimilar to theFreirian dramaturgist, Augusto Boal [27] whotermed this position the ‘joker’ or ‘difficultator’. Butunlike Freire, Merizow [28] always perceivededucation as the handmaiden of learning withoutthe politics, where perspective transformationdrives the engine of adult development. But thisassumes a benign socio-economic and politicalreality, and a society that wants to nurture inde-pendent free-thinking adults and decision-makers.

Both Freire and Merizow argued for transfor-mative learning through critical reflection, andunderstood how empowerment was inextricablybound to emancipation. Within this paradigm, therole of the arts is paramount, as creativity andspontaneity drive critical reflection and analysis,encouraging a more rounded and self-directedlearner, self-aware and cognisant of other people,cultures and traditions.

Fear of freedom and spontaneityThose excluded from society may fear freedom,which can also impact on their willingness and abil-ity to express themselves. The social psychologistEric Fromm argued that students need to establishtheir own individuality and satisfy inner psycholog-

ical conditions, to free themselves from unjustexternal authority. He perceived the problems ofpersonal freedom and the assertion of individualityas concerning wider social issues beyond innerpsychological problems. Disempowered individu-als lack spontaneity, which encourages a feigningto authority and compulsive automaton-like behaviour. Alternatively, this leads to mimickingauthoritarianism. Powerlessness and insecurityhelp design a very isolated individual, which Frommrecognised requires the challenge of spontaneity:

Spontaneous activity is not compulsive, to whichthe individual is driven by his isolation and power-lessness; it is not the activity of the automaton,which is the uncritical adoption of patternssuggested from the outside. Spontaneous activityis free activity of the self and implies, psychologi-cally, what the Latin root of the word sponte,means literally: of one’s free will [29].

He referred to artists as spontaneous, whosethinking, feeling and acting are expressions ofthemselves. But there is a danger that spontane-ity may unlock other aspects of character whichcan be antithetical to such objectives. Fromm didnot espouse anarchy, distinguishing betweenrational authority and irrational authority, the latterof which can be usurped through a more sponta-neous nature. Here rational authority is never inconflict with the true needs of the individual,which concerns liberation and self-discovery. Heasserted that:

There is nothing of which we are more ashamedthan of not being ourselves, and there is nothingthat gives us greater pride and happiness than tothink, to feel, and to say what is ours. This impliesthat what matters is the activity as such, theprocess and not the result. In our culture theemphasis is just the reverse [30].

This emphasis on action and process in favour ofproduct is the same philosophy behind participa-tory arts programmes, where spontaneity is

JADE 23.2 ©NSEAD 2004

176Paul Clements

JADE 23.2 ©NSEAD 2004

177Paul Clements

expressed creatively and the whole personallowed to emerge.

ConclusionPrison rehabilitative strategies in England andWales are failing, suffering from a chronic short-termism, which is ironic since rehabilitation is along-term objective. Similarly, the whole educationprocess has been hijacked by the basic and keyskills curriculum, which has adversely affected itspractice. The importance of the arts in prison issymbolic of the problem for education in general,especially the extent to which curricula revolvearound extrinsic rehabilitative, vocational and basicskills agendas or are embedded in broader holisticpractice. The arts engage the hand, eye and brain,expressing the identity of the whole person. Butcrucially they encourage a natural self-disciplineand autonomy, very different from an imposedsynthetic cognitive version. Prison educationalpolicy fails to consider this, which reflects poorlyon the narrow focus of intended aims and qualityof wider rehabilitative and social strategies.

Inglis astutely critiqued the empowermentprocess, which by concentrating on the individualacts as a means of social control. Correspondingly,the cognitive skills emphasis in prisons has appro-priated a similar behavioural terrain. Empowermentat the expense of emancipation only exacerbatesthe problems inherent in rehabilitative transforma-tion. New identities need to be self-determined,and the arts are an excellent framework withinwhich the important elements of choice, inclusionand change can operate. Ironically the fear of free-dom seems to reflect educational policy, in whichcreative and expressive opportunity has been rele-gated to the bottom of the priority list, and whereeducation has become a caricature of potentiality.

Empowerment is arid and lifeless withoutemancipation, an unattractive one-dimensionalexistence, and hardly likely in the long term tosustain rehabilitative reality, especially if thisincludes problematic drug therapy. Furthermore,social change is a vital accompaniment to indi-vidual transformation. But unfortunately, the guilt

which can be a spur to transform offenders, hasno equivalent in the public sphere which lackssuch pressure for reform. In its small way, artseducation, which has a wider remit than socialaccommodation, can, by allowing expressionand identity to be (re)discovered, both empowerand assist emancipatory needs, encouragingrehabilitation and inclusivity.

By focusing on the purpose of arts educationin prison and particularly how in practice it bestcontributes to reformative work, this clarifies itscapacity to encourage the self-direction, -respectand -management in a voluntary capacity, whichunderpins realistic transformation. But such andr-agogy is sadly missing from educational strategiesin prison, steeped in a measured short-term frame-work, dominated by vocational and cognitiveprogrammes that are parachuted onto often reluc-tant and unwilling students.

References1. Home Office. (2002) Prison Statistics Englandand Wales London: Her Majesty’s StationeryOffice.

2. Travis, A. (2002) Record Prison Population onTrack to Pass 100,000 The Guardian 10/12/02.

3. Forster, W. [ed] (1998) ‘The prison service andeducation in England and Wales,’ in Educationbehind Bars. Leicester: National Organisationfor Adult Learning, pp. 69–70.

4. Duguid, S. (1998) ‘Policy, praxis and rehabilita-tion: prison education in Canada 1945–1995,’ in Forster, W. [ed] Education Behind BarsLeicester: National Organisation for AdultLearning, pp. 21–29.

5. Ibid p. 37–8.

6. Social Exclusion Unit. (2002) Reducing Re-Offending by Ex-Prisoners London: HerMajesty’s Stationery Office, p. 61.

7. Ibid p. 81.

8. McGraw, E. (2003) £200,000,000 Spent onBehaviour Programmes Hasn’t Reduced Re-offending, Inside Time 54.

9. Collins, M. (1988) ,Prison education: asubstantial metaphor for adult education prac-tice,’ Adult Education Quarterly 38 (2) p. 103.

10. Waplington, D. (1999) ‘Enhanced thinkingskills: example of an accredited course,’ inCriminal Justice Conference What is WhatWorks? Conference Report 19–20 Jan. London:Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, p. 13.

11. Maguire, M. & Honess, T. (1997) SupportedDistance Learning in Prisons. London: PrisonEducation Trust, p. 63.

12. Flynn, N. & Price, D. (1995) Education inPrisons A National Survey, London: PrisonReform Trust, p. 18.

13. Liebermann, M. cited in Flynn, N. & Price, D. Ibid pp. 18–9.

14. Riches, C. (1994) ‘The hidden therapy of aprison art education programme,’ inLiebermann, M. [ed] Art Therapy withOffenders.London:Jessica Kingsley, pp.100.

15. Peaker, A. (1994) ‘The arts and people ininstitutions,’ Journal of Art & Design Education ,Vol.13.

16. Phillips, L. (1996) ‘The social impact of theArts Working Paper 9,’ In the Public Interest:Making Art that Makes a Difference in the USA.Stroud Comedia, p. 8.

17. Clements, P. (2002) ‘Arts and regeneration:prisons.the role of the arts in prison,’ LondonArts Cafe Newsletter 19, 12.

18. Unit for the Arts and Offenders (2001) Cutsto Arts Activities in Prisons 2000–2001Unpublished survey of Prison EducationDepartments

19. Wilson, D. (2001) Valuing Prison Education,Prison Report 54.

20. Lustgarten, A. (2001) Notes from theUnderground, Prison Report 55.

21. Ibid

22. Inglis, T. (1997) ‘Empowerment and emanci-pation,’ Adult Education Quarterly 48 (1) p. 4.

23. Ibid p. 7.

24. Freire, P.(1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed.Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 46-7.

25. Freire, P. (1970) ‘The adult literacy process ascultural action for freedom,’ HarvardEducational Review 40 (4) p. 211.

26. Merizow, J. (1991) TransformativeDimensions of Adult Learning. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, p. 99.

27. Jackson, A. introduction to Boal, A. (1992)Games for Actors and Non-Actors. London:Routledge, p. xxi.

28. Merizow, J. (1994) ‘Understanding transfor-mation theory,’ Adult Education Quarterly 44 (4).

29. Fromm, E. (1977) Fear of Freedom. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul p 223

30. Ibid p. 226.

JADE 23.2 ©NSEAD 2004

178Paul Clements