Abstract
Brian Nelson speaks fast, and his Chicago ‘’dees’ and ‘dats’ promise to spare his audience some of the usual fluff; he evokes sympathy in his audience while handling his own outrage or recalling tough memories. In the spring of 2010, Brian was released from Tamms Closed Maximum Security prison (CMAX), the Illinois supermax, after spending 12 years in solitary confinement. Opened in 1998 and closed in 2013, Tamms was originally meant to function as temporary added punishment for prisoners already serving time in other state prisons. Yet many prisoners, including Brian, wound up being held in isolation at Tamms for many years—some for the duration of its operation. During Brian’s incarceration at Tamms, he suffered severe depression, became a central figure in litigation over the treatment of Tamms prisoners with mental illness, and organized a prisoner-written newsletter and hunger strike for improved conditions. Since his release, he has been a vocal activist, attempting to persuade members of the public that the conditions of extreme punishment in US supermax prisons inflict invisible but lasting psychological harm. Like the other former supermax prisoners who provide the impetus for this chapter Brian possesses considerable personal and political agency. Yet when he speaks about Tamms, he becomes visibly upset, often choking back tears and shrugging as though he has momentarily given up trying to explain his experience.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agamben, G 1995, Homo sacer, Stanford University Press, Redwood City, CA.
Blair, C & Cooper, M 1987, ‘Tbc humanist turn in Foucault’s rhetoric of inquiry’, Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 73, pp. 151–71.
Cooper, MM 2001, ‘Rhetorical agency as emergent and enacted’, College Composition and Communication, vol. 62.3, pp. 420–49.
Davis, A 2003, Are Prisons Obsolete? Seven Stories Press, New York, NY.
Geisler, C 2004, ‘How ought we to understand the concept of rhetorical agency? Report from the ARS’, Rhetoric Society Quartei’ly, vol. 34.3, pp. 9–17.
Greene, RM 2004, ‘Rhetoric and capitalism: rhetorical agency as communicative labor’, Philosophy and Rhetoric, vol. 37, p. 3.
Hauser, G 2012, Prisoners of conscience: moral vernaculars of political agency, University of South Carolina Press, Columbia, SC.
Illinois Department of Corrections 2009, Tamms closed maximum security writ: o\’er\’ie.v and Ten-Point Plan, Illinois Department of Corrections.
Illinois Department of Corrections 2012, Tamms Correctional Center: Institutional Directive, Document 05.12.110, Illinois Department of Corrections.
John Howard Association 2012, A price Illinois cannot afford: ‘Tamms and the costs of long long-term isolation, John Howard Association. Available from: <http://thejha.org/sites/default/ files/TammsReport.pdf>.
Kupers, TA et ai. 2012, ‘Beyond supermax administrative segregation: Mississippi’s experience rethinking prison classification and creating alternative mental health programs’, Criminal fustice and behavior, vol. 36, no. 10, pp. 1037–50.
Ladau, E 2007, ‘Bare life or social indeterminacy?’ in Sovereignty & life, eds M Calarco & S DeCaroli, Stanford University Press, Redwood City, CA.
Miller, R 2009, Capital fax Hog IS September 18. Available from: <http://capitolfax.com/ ?p= 9505&wpmp_switcher=desktop>.
Palti, E 2004, ‘The “return of the subject” as a historico-intellectual problem’, History and Theory, vol. 43.1, pp. 57–82.
Pawiawczyk, G & Hmidsdorfer, B 2009a, ‘Trapped in Tamms: supermax confines inmates to cells 23 hours a day’, Bélevule News Democrat 21 August. Avail able from: <http://www.bnd.cora/2012/08/21/2292279/trapped-in-tamras-supermax — prison.htm 1>
Pawiawczyk, G & Hmidsdorfer, B 2009b, ‘Tamms psychiatrist: inmate is a “manipulator”’, Belleville News Democrat 16 September. Available from: <http://www.bnd.com>.
Pawiawczyk, G & Hundsdorfer, B 2011, ‘Inmate wants opportunity to get out of Tamms’, Belleville News Democrat 11 September. Available from: <http://www.bnd.com>.
Rhodes, LA 2005, ‘Changing the subject: conversation in a supermax’, Cultural Anthropology, vol. 20.3, pp. 388–41!.
Rashov. Snyder 1999, Trie United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, East Si. Louis Division.
Shaw, DG 2001, ‘Happy in our chains? Agency and language in ihe postmodern age’, History and Theory, vol. 40.4, pp. 19.
Westefer v. Snyder 2010, Document 540. 1–94. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2015 Nadya Pittendrigh
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Pittendrigh, N. (2015). Making Visible Invisible Suffering: Non-deliberative Agency and the Bodily Rhetoric of Tamms Supermax Prisoners. In: Reiter, K., Koenig, A. (eds) Extreme Punishment. Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137441157_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137441157_9
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-56056-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-44115-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social Sciences CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)