Table of Contents

• The Concept of Dehumanisation
• The Structural Basis of Dehumanisation in Prisons
• The Social Psychology of Dehumanisation in Prisons
• Dehumanisation and Prisoner Identity
• Gender and Dehumanisation in Prisons
• Race, Class, and Dehumanisation
• The Consequences of Dehumanisation
• Dehumanisation Beyond the Prison Walls
• Comparative Perspectives
• Towards Humanisation of Prisons
• Conclusion

Prisons are multifaceted social institutions where the logic of punishment, security, and control often collides with the ideals of human dignity, rehabilitation, and reintegration into society. Within these closed environments, the process of dehumanisation frequently takes root, manifesting in practices that strip incarcerated individuals of their individuality, humanity, and social worth. For sociology students, investigating this process is crucial for understanding how institutions shape identities, reproduce inequalities, and reinforce broader structures of social control and exclusion.

This article provides an extended examination of the mechanisms and consequences of dehumanisation in prisons, demonstrating how it affects prisoners, staff, and society at large. It situates prisons within broader sociological debates on power, authority, social order, and human rights, while also reflecting on potential pathways toward more humane forms of punishment and justice.

The Concept of Dehumanisation

Dehumanisation is the reduction of human beings to a condition of less than human status. It involves treating people as objects, animals, or faceless numbers rather than as full human subjects endowed with dignity and agency. In sociology, dehumanisation is closely tied to domination, exclusion, and marginalisation, and it functions through both structural arrangements and everyday interactions.

Two Forms of Dehumanisation

• Animalistic dehumanisation: Prisoners are perceived as lacking civility, morality, or culture, reducing them to primal beings driven by instincts. This perception justifies harsh treatment under the belief that prisoners are inherently dangerous or uncivilised.
• Mechanistic dehumanisation: Prisoners are treated as objects or machines, devoid of individuality, emotion, or subjectivity. They are catalogued as numbers, managed like inventory, and disciplined as if they were malfunctioning machines.

Both forms of dehumanisation appear in prisons and reinforce each other, legitimising punitive practices while denying prisoners recognition as full human beings.

The Structural Basis of Dehumanisation in Prisons

Prisons exemplify what Erving Goffman called total institutions. These institutions control nearly every aspect of an individual’s life, from eating and sleeping to communication, movement, and bodily functions. This totalising structure provides fertile ground for dehumanisation.

Key Structural Mechanisms

• Loss of autonomy: Prisoners are denied the ability to make routine decisions. Schedules, meals, and living arrangements are imposed.
• Uniformity: Clothing, identification numbers, and routines standardise existence, erasing individuality.
• Surveillance: Constant observation through guards and cameras eliminates privacy and reinforces the perception of prisoners as objects under scrutiny.
• Disciplinary regimes: Solitary confinement, strip searches, and restraints communicate the body’s subjection to external control.

Architecture and Space

The architecture of prisons contributes significantly to dehumanisation. Cells, barred windows, and restricted movement embody exclusion. Michel Foucault’s analysis in Discipline and Punish highlighted how prisons embody disciplinary power: they not only confine but also reshape behaviour and identities. Panopticon-like structures foster internalised surveillance, turning the prisoner into a self-regulating subject.

Bureaucracy and Standardisation

Prison bureaucracies reduce people to case files, risk categories, and actuarial calculations. Sociologists note how administrative systems dehumanise by stripping away individuality, replacing human complexity with quantifiable traits.

The Social Psychology of Dehumanisation in Prisons

Prisons are not just physical environments but also psychological arenas where power, identity, and survival intersect. The daily interactions between guards and prisoners intensify processes of dehumanisation.

Labeling and Stigma

Once labeled as criminals, individuals bear a “spoiled identity.” In prison, this stigma is institutionalised, shaping interactions and social status. Prisoners internalise labels that reinforce feelings of shame, worthlessness, and exclusion.

Power and Obedience

Prison staff adopt authoritarian roles, sustaining asymmetrical power relations. Following Foucault, power is not merely repressive but productive: it produces disciplined bodies and submissive behaviours. The imposition of rules, inspections, and punishments reinforces the treatment of prisoners as objects of control rather than autonomous subjects.

Emotional Numbing

Staff often rely on dehumanising perspectives to cope with the emotional burden of punishment. By viewing prisoners as less than human, staff reduce empathy and maintain authority, but this comes at the cost of mutual hostility and mistrust.

The Guard-Prisoner Dynamic

The classic Stanford Prison Experiment, though ethically controversial, revealed how quickly roles of guard and prisoner can foster cruelty and dehumanisation. Although criticised for its methodology, the experiment remains a striking illustration of institutionalised power and identity transformation.

Dehumanisation and Prisoner Identity