The last 20 years has witnessed a rise in prison-based drug treatment in Nordic countries. This increase has challenged the prominence of the punitive prison, and created changes in the roles of both clients and staff. This article explores the development of two institutional inmate identities: the offender and the client, which have occurred as a consequence of this shift in prison policy. However, in their institutional narratives and daily practice both prison officers and counsellors often fluctuate when addressing inmates as offenders and/or clients. This fluctuation creates a “fuzzy” dynamic. These institutional identities are characterized, on the one hand, by inmates being dealt with by counsellors as ‘real people' and ‘equals’, but simultaneously counsellors are resorting to the control opportunities allowed by the prison authorities such as urine tests and the use of isolation cells. On the other hand, prison officers handle inmates within a disciplinary logic, while concurrently dealing with them as inmates deserving a fair chance – a view resonant with the drug treatment ideology applied in prisons.
BrookmanFCopesHHochstetlerA (2011) Street codes as formula stories: How inmates recount violence. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography40(4): 397–424.
2.
CarrES (2011) Scripting Addiction: The Politics of Therapeutic Talk and American Sobriety, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
CharmazK (2006) Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis, London: Sage.
4.
CoolsMde KimpeSDe RuyverB (2009) Contemporary Issues in the Empirical Study of Crime, Antwerpen: Maklu Publishers.
5.
Cowden S and Singh G (2007) The ‘User': Friend, foe or fetish. A critical exploration of usesr involvement in health and social care. Critical Social Policy 27(5): 5--23.
6.
CrawleyEM (2004) Emotion and performance. Punishment & Society6(4): 411–427.
7.
CreweB (2011) Soft power in prison: Implications for staff-prisoner relationships, liberty and legitimacy. European Journal of Criminology8(6): 455–468.
8.
CruikshankB (2001) Revolutions within: Self-government and self-esteem. In: BarryAOsbourneTRoseN (eds) Foucault and Political Reason. Liberalism and Neo-liberalism and Rationalities of Government, London: Routledge.
9.
DonohueEMooreD (2009) When is an offender not an offender? Power, the client and shifting penal subjectivities. Punishment & Society11(3): 319–336.
10.
DukeK (2000) Prison drug policy since 1980: Shifting agendas and policy networks. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy7(4): 393–408.
11.
DukeK (2006) Out of crime and into treatment? The criminalization of contemporary drug policy since tackling drugs together. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy13(5): 409–415.
12.
FoxKJ (2001) Self-change and resistance in prison. In: GubriumJFHolsteinJA (eds) Institutional Selves, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 176–191.
13.
GarlandD (2001) Punishment ad Welfare, Aldershot: Gower.
14.
GoffmanE (1961) Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates, New York, NY: Anchor Books.
15.
GubriumJFHolsteinJA (2001) Institutional Selves – Troubled Identities in a Postmodern World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
HackingI (1999) The Social Construction of What?, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
17.
HolsteinJAMillerG (2007) Social constructionism and social problems work. In: HolsteinJAMillerG (eds) Reconsidering Social Constructionism – Debates in Social Problems Theory, London: Aldine Transaction, pp. 151–172.
18.
JärvinenMAndersenD (2009) The making of the chronic addict. Substance Use & Misuse44: 865–885.
19.
JärvinenMMillerG (2010) Methadone mainteneance as last resort: A social phenomenolgoy of drug policy. Sociological Forum25(4): 804–823.
20.
Jöhncke S (2009) Treatmentality and the governing of drug use. Drugs and Alcohol Today 9(4): 14--17.
21.
KolindTFrankVADahlH (2012) Prison drug treatment in Denmark: A historical outline and an analysis of the political debate. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs29: 547.
22.
KolindTFrankVADahlH (2010) Drug treatment or alleviating the negative consequences of imprisonment? A critical view of prison-based drug treatment in Denmark. International Journal of Drug Policy21(1): 43–48.
23.
Kriminalforsorgen (2001) Kriminalforsorgens Statistik. The Danish Prison Service’s Statistics.
24.
LieblingA (2000) Prison officers, policing and the use of discretion. Theoretical Criminology4(3): 333–357.
25.
LieblingA (2008) Incentives and earned privileges revisited: fairness, discretion, and the quality of prison life. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention9(suppl 1): 25–41.
26.
LipskyM (1980) Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the public services, New York, NY: Russel Sage Foundation.
27.
LosekeDR (2001) Lived realities and formula stories of “battered women”. In: GubriumJFHolsteinJA (eds) Institutinoal Selves – Troubled Identities in a Postmodern World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107–126.
28.
LosekeDR (2007) The study of identity as cultural, institutional, organizational, and personal narratives: Theoretical and empirical integrations. The Sociological Quarterly48: 661–668.
29.
Lyons T (2014) Simultaneously treatable and punishable: Implications of the production of addicted subjects in a drug treatment court. Addiction Research & Theory, 22(4): 286--293.
30.
MairGBartonA (2001) Drugs throughcare in a local prison: A process evaluation. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy8(4): 335–345.
31.
Mathiesen T (1965) The Defence of the Weak: A Sociological Study of a Norwegian Correctional Institution. London: Tavistock Publications.
32.
McIntoshJSavilleE (2006) The challenges associated with drug treatment in prison. Probation Journal53(3): 230–247.
NylanderPÅHolmCJukicE (2012) Drug treatment in Swedish prisons – Moving towards evidence-based interventions?NAD Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs29(6): 561–574.
35.
NylanderPÅLindbergOBruhnA (2011) Emotional labour and emotional strain among Swedish prison officers. European Journal of Criminology8(6): 469–483.
36.
PresserL (2004) Violent offenders, moral selves: Constructing identities and accounts in the research interview. Social Problems51(1): 82–101.
37.
PresserL (2009) The narratives of offenders. Theoretical Criminology13(2): 177–200.
38.
Regeringen (2003) Kampen mod narko. Handlingsplan mod narkotikamisbrug. Regeringen.
39.
Regeringen (2010) Kampen mod narko II. Handlingsplan mod narkotikamisbrug. Regeringen.
40.
SandbergS (2009) Gangster, victim or both? The interdiscursive construction of sameness and difference in self-presentations. The British Journal of Sociology60(3): 523–542.
41.
SandbergS (2010) What can “lies” tell us about life? Notes towards a framework of narrative criminology. Journal of Criminal Justice Education21(4): 447–465.
42.
SandfortJR (2000) Moving beyond discretion and outcomes: Examining public management from the front lines of the welfare system. J-PART10(4): 729–756.
43.
SeddonTWilliamsLRalphsR (2012) Tough Choices. Risk, Security, and the Criminalization of Drug Policy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44.
Strauss A and Corbin J (eds) (1997) Grounded Theory in Practice. London: Sage Publications.
45.
Stöver H and Michels I (2010) Drug use and opioid substitution treatment for prisoners. Harm Reduction Journal 7(1): 1--7.
46.
SykesG (1957) The Society of Captives, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47.
TourunenJWeckrothAKaskelaT (2012) Prison-based drug treatment in Finland: History, shifts in policy making and current status. NAD Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs29(6): 575–588.
48.
Tutenges S, Kolind T and Uhl A (2015) Explorations into the drug users’ perspectives. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy 22(3): 173--175.
49.
ValentineK (2007) Methadone maintenance treatment and making up people. Sociology41(3): 497–514.
50.
WaldramJB (2007) Narrative and the construction of `truth' in a prison-based treatment program for sexual offenders. Ethnography8(2): 145–169.
51.
WeinbergD (2005) Of Other Inside. Insanity, Addiction and Belonging in America, Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
