Cooking in prison from crook to cook

Linda Kjaer Minke

Linda Kjaer Minke is an

Associate Professor, based at
Department of Law, University
of Southern Denmark, Odense,
Denmark.

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe and analyse the principle and practice of self-catering
system in a Danish prison. Self-catering is a reflection of the Danish correctional principle of normalisation
between prison and community life. Unlike some other jurisdiction, issues of control in meal preparation are
subordinate to prisoners right to choose and prepare their own food.
Design/methodology/approach Findings are derived from 13 months of ethnographic fieldwork in
a Danish maximum security prison for men, including in-depth interviews with 68 prisoners.
Findings Overall findings showed that thinking about meals and their preparation is time consuming for
prisoners who tend to be positive about the system making connections with their ability to exercise
responsibility for making healthily choices. The research concludes that prisoners possibility for developing
cooking competences during incarceration could support prisoners change in social identity from crook
to cook.
Originality/value Food is a fundamental need and the ability to choose what to eat and to prepare ones
own food should be a right for all people, including prisoners. This research shows that Danish prisoners
are very pleased about the system of self-catering. Most prisoners are concerned about preparing their
own meals according to their taste and cultural diversity. If the prison offers the opportunity to train as
a chef during imprisonment it could support the prisoners change in social identity from crook to cook
on the outside.
Keywords Prisoners, Prison, Qualitative research, Rehabilitation, Food, Self-catering
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Food is a critical part of human experience that cannot be underestimated (Foster, 2006).
Food is used by all human beings to nurture and understand body, identity, and relationships
and prisoners are no exception (Roos et al., 2008; Kruttschnitt and Dirkzwager, 2011).
Prison administrators recognise that quality of prison food can have implications for prison order
and safety: Food (y) is one of the four things you must get right if you like having a roof on your
prison (Prison Governor, UK National Audit Office, 2006, p. 1). Quality of food is perceived to be
as important to prisoners as the opportunity to receive visits and letters and have access to hot
water. While the roots of prison riots are complex and diverse, complaints about food quality
and shortages may spark off disturbances (Useem, 1985).

The author would like to thank the

anonymous reviewers for their
valuable comments and
suggestions to improve the quality
of the paper. The author is also
grateful to Amy Smoyer (US) and
Mary Munro (UK) for their work on
improving the paper. Finally the
author is grateful to the Danish
researcher Lars Moeller, who
introduced the author to this
journal.

In his famous study, Sykes recognised the poor quality and lack of variety in prison food (Sykes,
1958), which may be understood as one of the pains of imprisonment. Other researchers
have been concerned with the extent to which prison diets meets basic nutritional needs
or if prison meals meet the dietary requirements of prisoners who, for religious reasons,
abstain from certain food (e.g. Lester et al., 2003; Liu, 2003-2004; Frechea, 2005; Lines, 2008;
Edwards et al., 2009).
There has been some work done on the range of meaning attached to food in prison, from
nutritional questions mentioned above through the construction of relationships and identity.
For example, Bosworths (1999) qualitative study in three English womens prisons, explored
prisoner resistance to authority by focusing on the relationship between food, power, and

PAGE 228 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014, pp. 228-238, C Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1744-9200

DOI 10.1108/IJPH-09-2013-0044

rebellion. She found that, the women cannot control what food is served or the timing of meals,
so that the prisons control over their bodies extends to nutrition and its consequences for their
physical being. Rejection of meals provided a protest against this institutional dominance of the
body and a potent token of rebellion against prison authority (Bosworth, 1999). Similarly, Smiths
examination of the link between women, health, and incarceration in England constructed
prison food as a reciprocal but conflicting mechanism of control. She found that women
regard prison food as punishment within a punishment. In rejecting the meals, the
women regained partial control over their bodies (Smith, 2002). The Norwegian criminologist
Thomas Ugelvik found an association between meals and rebellion in a remand centre in Oslo.
Prisoners were permitted to prepare their food in cooking groups of eight to ten in a small
communal kitchen area but were otherwise locked in their cells where, contrary to the rules, they
also prepared meals. This strategy was interpreted by Ugelvik as rebellion against the prison, the
prison authorities, and the Norwegian society itself. Among immigrant prisoners, food was also
used to assert their national/ethnic identities and construct them as not-Norweigian (Ugelvik,
2011). Hunger strikes are an acute form of food-related resistance that have been used to
express rebellion and protest against the prison authorities and, more generally, the State.
In these cases, the protest is rarely about the food alone, but rather that the prisoners feel their
rights have been violated in a number of areas (Human Rights Watch, 2012; Amnesty
International, 2012).
The construction of prisoner relationships and identity may also take place around the provision
of meals Godderis (2006). In this Canadian research prisoners had introduced a modified form of
self-catering in the prison kitchens with preparation jointly carried out between staff and
prisoners. Meals were served and consumed in the prison canteen, where prisoners sat at
tables with set seats: an arrangement which was reported to generate tension and conflict.
Some prisoners joined catering groups based on their cultural identities, with permission to buy
and prepare culturally appropriate foods either in the prison kitchen or on the units.
The permission was granted unless the prison staff deemed the scheme to be a threat to safety
and order (Godderis, 2006). A recent study by Earle and Phillips (2012) concerned the
expression of ethnic and social identity in an English medium security prison, where each wing
has a shared area with food preparation facilities. Prisoners appreciated the opportunity for
self-catering and that ethnicity, religion and the traditional concept of masculinity were
constructed and deconstructed through the preparation of meals (Earle and Phillips, 2012).
Finally, Smoyer (2013) US study of women prisoners describes the ways in which people collect,
prepare, consume, and distribute food contribute to prisoner identity and relationships. Women
used their food to build self-narratives about themselves as good and healthy (Smoyer,
2013). Meal provision in prison was seen as humiliating and interpreted as a reflection of the
States lack of concern for their rehabilitation.
To summarise, the literature suggests the tremendous impact of institutional meals and food
systems on prisoners physical and mental health during incarceration. The ways in which
prisoners deal with prison food has been interpreted as an expression of power and resistance,
which impacts a fundamental aspect of an individuals construction of self: the right to choose
what, when, and where to eat. This paper explores in more detail how prisoners in Denmark
manage the self-catering regime and how this is used to construct and maintain inmates social
hierarchy, relationships, and identities.
Position as a prisoner and the role as cook
The status of prisoner contains a set of different possible roles which varying social norms are
attributed so that, for example, some roles are dominant or active while others are considered
subordinate or passive (Bates, 1956; Goffman, 1961). However, the range of roles available to
prisoners is limited. Some are determined by prison administrative policy, so that for example,
to avoid punishment prisoners may play a subordinate role towards staff and prison authorities.
Similarly, the prison system may push inmates to assume passive roles that suggest they have
atoned for their crimes and rejected their criminal persona. To avoid sanctions, exclusion or
hostility from peers, the prisoner has to live up to the prisoners code of conduct: never to
talk to staff unless on business and to be loyal to fellow inmates (Clemmer, 1940/1958).

VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH PAGE 229

This prisonisation process encourages the acquisition of roles and identities which may be
counterproductive in terms of rehabilitation. In contrast, when prisoners are provided with
opportunities to construct non-criminogenic personalities, possible shifts in identity may
promote desistance (Maruna, 2001). The opportunity for prisoners to prepare their meals offers
just such a pathway that may facilitate the development of positive identities. TV programmes
about cooking and the social construction of male chefs as high-status celebrities (e.g. Jamie
Oliver (UK), Joseph Bastianich and Jeff Henderson (US) and Claus Meyer (DK)) have fostered
a social environment in which cooks are held in high esteem both inside and outside of prison.
Respect for prison cooks is also derived from the normative expectation that chefs possess
knowledge and skill, that is, the ability to handle cooking equipment and prepare and cook
various fruits, vegetables, and meats. In short, prison cooking allows prisoners to connect with
a positive identity that is associated with respect, wisdom, and self-efficacy. Prison cooking also
provides inmates with essential life skills by teaching them how to cook for themselves.
Social identity occurs in the complex interaction between a persons membership of certain
social groups (self- or group identification) and the categorisation of others. In that way social
identity is never unilateral but develops as a product of social processes identification and
categorisation. Sometimes there is non-compliance between an individuals identification of
a membership to a certain group and acceptance from the other group members and vice versa
(Jenkins, 2000; Goffman, 1983). Also a person may be categorised by other persons without his
acceptance. For example, a prisoner may feel he belongs more to another social group than the
group of fellow inmates but because of his (formal and legal) categorisation as a prisoner he will
be apprehended by fellow inmates, staff and the surrounding society most of all as a prisoner.
When the prison system offers possibility for membership of the social group cook it gives
prisoners opportunity to have a positive social identity.

Danish prison system

In Denmark, responsibility for the enforcement of the penalties imposed by the courts lies with
the State. The Danish Ministry of Justice and the Directorate of the Danish Prison and Probation
Service administer these penalties. The Danish Prison and Probation Service have a prison
capacity of 4,151 or 73 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2012, the average daily occupancy
rate was 3,985 prisoners. Of these 3,985 prisoners, 1,792 people (more than one-third) were
remand prisoners in remand centres, 1,309 people were serving their sentence in one of the
eight open prisons, and 884 people were serving in one of the five closed prisons or closed
sections in open prisons (International Centre for Prison Studies, 2013; Danish Prison and
Probation Service, 2013).
In all of the Danish correctional facilities, regardless of the level of supervision (open or closed),
an attempt is made to ensure that the prison is organised in such a way that the conditions within
the walls more or less resemble the conditions outside the walls. This principle of normalisation is
a fundamental tenet of the prison system. For example, prisoners wear their own personal
clothing, not a special prison uniform. All prisoners are allowed to receive visits in private visiting
rooms and prisoners maintain their voting right during imprisonment. In accordance with the
principle of normalisation, prisoner self-catering was introduced on a trial basis in 1976 in
connection with the commissioning of a new closed prison. The self-catering system requires all
prisoners (except prisoners held in remand centres and isolation units) to buy and prepare their
own meals. Initially, there was some scepticism about this system on the part of a minority of
administrators in the Danish Prison and Probation Service, who assumed that prisoners would be
incapable of managing their finances for food or preparing their own meals. However, experience
has shown that most prisoners are capable of spending their allowance and preparing food
(Hansen, 2001). Also, in general, prisoners are positive about the self-catering system.
According to the Danish Executive Order Section 43, prisoners must undertake all food-related
tasks, like cleaning and cooking, as much as possible (Consolidation Act No. 435, 2012).
However, neither the Danish Prison and Probation Service nor the local prison authorities have
written specific rules about how to manage prisoner self-catering. The operationalisation of
these regulations is enacted during the everyday prison life and decisions of the prisoners.

PAGE 230 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014

In regards to the organisation of self-catering, the prison authorities have noted that: It is
common for prisoners to form food-groups[1].

Research design, ethics, and analysis strategies

Data for this paper comes from a qualitative study of a maximum secured (category A) prison
with a capacity for 240 male prisoners. In this adult facility, most prisoners are over the age of 23,
approximately 30 per cent are of non-Danish ethnic origin and roughly half of the prison
population is serving sentences of more than eight years, including some life sentences.
The crimes committed primarily involve serious drug offenses, homicide, aggravated assault and
robbery. The prison consists of four wings, each with four sections; a single section can house
up to 22 individuals.
To protect prisoner privacy, confidentiality agreements from the Danish data Protection Agency
and the Danish Prison and Probation Service was signed.
The prisoners typically responded to the request for information or interviews by trying to be
helpful. They expressed the belief that sharing their experiences of imprisonment could shed
light about prison life and the different problems that people have to handle during imprisonment.
A significant point is that criminals, or in this case prisoners, are not necessarily powerless
against researchers attempts to get what they want from them (Becker, 2007). All prisoners
were informed about the aim of the study and they had the option to decline the interview if they
did not want to be studied. Because of prison order and security issues, both prisoners and staff
could require me to leave the prison if they found my presence to be intimidating or troublesome.
During the time of research I withdrew myself twice because of prisoners who did not want to
talk or participate in the study.
During this 13 month ethnographic study (November 2006-January 2008), I held keys to the
prison and it was possible to move freely anywhere in the prison during daytime hours.
Data collection methods included participant observation and in-depth individual interviews
throughout the prison. In total 1,090 hours of participant observation was conducted, joining in
all dimensions of the prisoners daily activities. Participation observation included, but was not
limited to, activities related to food such as: shopping in the prison grocery store, preparing food
and eating with the prisoners individually and as part of a food-group. This experience made it
possible to observe the prisoners social relationships with each other and with the staff,
document how prisoners structured their time during the day and evening, and build an
understanding about the processes related to prison life in general (Minke, 2014).
In addition, interviews with 68 prisoners (31, 4 per cent of the prison population) were made.
All interviews were conducted in the privacy of prisoners cell without the presence of staff or
other prisoners. At the time of the research 48 of the participants were using the self-catering
system. The remaining 20 inmates were imprisoned in either the detention unit, isolation unit or
a unit for drug addicts, and were receiving meals from the canteen. However, even these prisoners
being held is segregated units had the possibility to shop for supplementary groceries and snack
foods at the prison shop.
Interview participants were recruited using a system of convenience sampling. Some interviewees
volunteered themselves and others were selected. The participant sample reflected the
socio-demographic diversity of the prisoners by age, ethnicity, length of sentence, type of crime.
The hierarchical positioning amongst the prisoners was also taken into considerations.
The semi-structured interview instrument included questions about prisoners perceptions
of the self-catering system and participation in food-groups. In total, 59 interviews were
audio-recorded and transcribed, creating approximately 1,041 pages of text. For the remaining
nine interviews, written notes were taken because the participants felt uncomfortable about
being audio-recorded.
The qualitative material was coded and analysed inductively with the intention of highlighting the
participants perspectives. Interpretations and findings were checked with the participants to
establish the credibility and trustworthiness of the analyses (Spradley, 1979). The research
methodology and analysis strategies were rooted in an epistemological framework that

VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH PAGE 231

considers prisoners as acting subjects, whose actions have meaning that can be explained by
the ethical and moral dimensions of the prison context (e.g. Sykes, 1958; Galtung, 1959; Goffman,
1961/1967; Carlen, 1983; Bosworth, 1999; Liebling, 2004; Rhodes, 2002; Crewe, 2009).

Study findings
Below, the results will be presented in the following sub-sections:

description of self-catering system;

perception of self-catering system;

food-group membership;

food-group roles; and

food-group non-participants.

Description of self-catering system

Each section of the prison, which housed up to 22 people, had a kitchen with standard cooking
equipment, including hotplates, ovens, pots, pans and various kitchen utensils. The specific
types and quantity of kitchen equipment varied greatly from one section to the next. However,
generally speaking, the equipment was limited. For safety reasons, kitchen knives were fixed to
the wall by a steel wire.
Prisoners shopped for food at a small grocery store inside the prison. The prison shop inventory
included most of the everyday grocery items that would be available at a Danish grocery store in
the community[2]. However, the prices were generally higher than those in the stores outside the
prison, especially relative to the prisoners pay. Some products inside the prison, such as
sausages and vegetables, cost up to 50 per cent more than comparable items on the outside.
In 2013, prisoners received EUR 8.64 per day for food (EUR 60 per week) and 0.90 EUR per day
for personal hygiene and cleaning supplies (EUR 6.3 per week)[3]. In addition, the prisoners are
required to work, for which they were paid a basic hourly rate of EUR 1.3 (EUR 48.10 per week).
In total, prisoner income from food and hygiene allowances plus work income was approximately
EUR 114 per week. This food allowance was described as inadequate by study participants:
You get EUR 60 every week to cover costs [y] I pay EUR 54 to my food-group and this amount only
covers supper. Beside this I also have to pay another EUR 15 to my other food-group at the
workplace to cover lunch and I also have to buy lunch Saturday and Sunday [y] The grocery store
adds 50 per cent to the prices. It is ridiculous (P59).

This description suggests that individual affiliation with more than one food-group can spread
food stipends thin and that this shortage is exacerbated by high prices in the prison store.
Perception of self-catering system
In general, all participants in this study reported being extremely satisfied with the self-catering
system. First, they expressed an appreciation for having control over the composition of their
diet. Second, self-catering was perceived as bolstering their desire for autonomy:
They [the prison authorities] dont decide which products I buy at the prison grocery store. Of course
I cant buy beer but they dont decide which regular food product I buy. They dont decide when to
shit, sleep, and eat otherwise they decide everything (P10).

Self-catering is one of the few areas not controlled down to the very last detail by the closed
prisons practices and regular routines. Therefore the ability of prisoners to choose when and
what they ate had a significant impact on the participants perception of independence.
Food-group membership
As described earlier, neither the Danish Prison and Probation Service nor the local prison
authorities provide written specific rules about how self-catering systems should operate in the
individual sections of the prison. Management of everyday prison food life is left to the prisoners.

PAGE 232 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014

These prisoner-created systems are built around food-groups, which are self-created teams of
prisoners that pool food resources and cook with and for each other.
Around two-thirds of individual interview participants (n 34) were members of food-groups.
The most common reason participants reported for joining these groups was that it made
financial sense: funds could be pooled and it was cheaper to cook for more people.
Participants described food-groups that generally included two to four people. This preferred
size was perceived as easier to organise than larger groups, with regard to planning the
menu, meal times, etc. The largest food-group observed had nine members. In that case,
it was a group of resourceful (skilled and not drug addicted) prisoners serving long prison
sentences. Several of the members had a distinct interest in cooking, and the members took
turns cooking.
Participants described forming food-groups along several different bases. Consideration for
taste and different food preferences, for example, had a bearing on the group membership.
Prisoners who wanted to eat pork rarely joined food-groups with Muslim prisoners and prisoners
who favoured high protein/low-fat diets would not be likely to join a food-group with other
prisoners who regularly prepared potatoes with gravy. Status and positioning also dictated the
composition of food-groups. Prisoners with high status and power did not join food-groups
on an equal footing with people of significantly lower status than themselves. Affiliation with
a food-group, and the prisoners position within these groups, was an expression of social
capital and allegiances. Food-groups constituted a central social network in the prison society
which was manifested not only in organisation of self-catering systems, but also resolution and
negotiation of conflicts unrelated to food.
One participant reported that he spent three to four weeks studying the food-group structure of
a section, making a deliberate decision about which food-groups would be most advantageous
to affiliate with. This caution reflects an appreciation of the fact that affiliation with a food-group
also constructed alliances and relationships that extended to other non-food aspects of prison
society. As a prisoner put it:
If there are four of you who eat together, thats four of you who stick together (P53).

In short, there is nothing random about the construction of food-groups and the participants
reported selecting membership in a group, and their role (s) therein, based on careful consideration
of the larger social dynamics of the prison.
Affiliation with a food-group could certainly bring its share of problems. Sticking together meant
that a prisoner could be held accountable for the behaviour of the other food-group members.
One prisoner explained the following:
If we sit and eat together on a daily basis [y] I would stand by you if youre having problems with
someone (P23).

The fact that the prisoner is expected to be loyal to those in his food-group is shown by the
following scenario observed during the ethnographic study. Three prisoners were part of
a food-group. Two of these individuals had a score to settle with another prisoner outside the
food-group, which culminated with the two members attacking the person concerned.
The victim of the attack was part of a strong group in the prison society and immediately after the
attack, most prisoners realised that the assault would be reciprocated. There was a high risk that
the third person in the food-group would have to pay for the assault committed by members of
his food-group. Some days later, he was the victim of a serious assault, although he expressed
relief that he had not been given steel. He also expressed pride that he had acted bravely and
in a way that demonstrated his loyalty to the food-group. Recognising this potential for conflict,
one prisoner explained that he tried to avoid affiliation with a specific food-group that included
a prisoner who was at the root of many conflicts in the prison:
I dont care for that alliance, because then it would be me who would have to take care all the time
and I cant be doing with that (P53).

Some food-group members could cause such a headache[4] that the problems associated
with their group outweighed any benefit, financial or otherwise. In such cases, some participants
chose to eat alone for strategic reasons.

VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH PAGE 233

Food-group roles
Participants described how food-groups included specific roles like cook, waiter, and dishwasher.
Each role had its own social meaning and power. The job of food-group cook was associated with
prestige and social status within the prisoner hierarchy. Members of the food-group expressed
confidence in the culinary skills of these cooks and their ability to observe rules relating to hygiene
and/or religious/cultural norms. As one prisoner explained:
I am the oldest and have been involved with restaurants and know more about food, so I have taken
on the job of cooking because I was not sure that the others were hygienic enough, how they
seasoned the meat or what went in the dish. They trusted me and knew that I made good food (P56).

As this quote illustrates that the job of cook often was occupied by relatively resourceful
prisoners with skills and an interest in cooking. In most cases, they were full members of the
food-group and were not paid salaries for the job as cook.
Participants reported recruiting fellow prisoners as waiters and/or dishwashers. It was often the
less powerful prisoners who were assigned to these duties. In some cases they applied for the
job and in other cases they were working off a debt owed to fellow inmates. While considered
a submissive position, waiter and dishwasher jobs were desirable for some prisoners whose
financial circumstances were compromised due to prison debts related to drug use or other
vulnerabilities. The pay for waiter and dishwashing tasks varied from section to section, from
EUR 25-50 per week, depending on how many prisoners or food-groups were part of the
washing-up scheme. A cook explained how individuals were recruited into the position of waiter
or dishwasher, and the benefits imparted:
We get weak prisoners to work for us, but if we werent there, they wouldnt get anything to eat (P12).

For example, one participant with an on-going drug habit explained that he used the food money
to pay off his prison debts:
Every Wednesday, I usually buy a EUR 40 roast for people. Then I have a little money left over for myself,
which I use for shopping (P9).

Because he used most of his food allowance to purchase food (a roast) in order to pay his prison
debts, he had little remaining money to buy food for his own consumption. In such cases, where
a prisoner had financial problems and was forced to survive on very little, it was not unusual for
other prisoners to give their leftovers to the person concerned.
Participants also described volunteering for these roles and sub-contracting the role to other
prisoners with even less social status. One participant described himself as an entrepreneur in
this respect. He inquired among different food-groups in the unit whether they needed someone
to do the dishes. He took on a job for EUR 80 and then outsourced the task to a weaker prisoner
for EUR 25.
Through these roles, the prisoners constructed their own socio-economic position and the
status of others. The dining room functioned as a showroom for these roles and a display
of resources and position within the prison. To be served by a fellow prisoner was a sign of
power a marker of social position and status. For example, I observed an interaction in which
one prisoner served as cook, waiter, and dishwasher. In this case, he did not partake of the
dinner even though he was the cook. The prisoner prepared an exquisite dinner for the group at
the laid table in the dining room, rushing around serving the hot meal in bowls and dishes. At the
end of the meal, he lit cigarettes for the food-group members. The serving prisoner was then told
to take the dishes away. When I passed the kitchen, I observed the serving prisoner washing up.
An order for dessert was given to the kitchen, after which the group retired to the units TV room
to await their order for coffee and warm apple tart. Even though the servicing prisoner had a drug
habit, he was less exposed to bullying among fellow prisoners because he had cooking abilities
and was in possession of the role as a cook. Compared to other weak prisoners with no cooking
skills, he seemed more relaxed and safe.
While the role as waiter and dishwasher did assign a diminished social status, most of the
participants I interviewed who were employed to carry out these various service functions
claimed to be satisfied with the arrangement. It gave some an opportunity to pay back debts in

PAGE 234 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014

some cases, debts owed to the individuals who they served. Others had the opportunity to
supplement their earnings and thus contribute to their familys economy on the outside.
For example, on one occasion, I observed a newly arrived prisoner try to boost his earnings by
approaching the units various food-groups to enquire whether they required assistance.
As a repeat offender, he actively sought out these service positions. These actions reflected
his familiarity with the prison operations and food systems. His ability to create the best possible
outcome from the prison situation allowed him to extract some power and status from an
otherwise weak position.
Food-group non-participants
Approximately one-third of the prisoners (n 14) who I interviewed did not belong to
a food-group and generally ate alone. Participants reported three main reasons for this.
First, some prisoners would take a break from food-group membership for dietary reasons.
One prisoner explained:
I have left the food-group for a couple of weeks because Im taking a break. Im tired of all that cream.
I just need to give my stomach a rest (P8).

After a period of dieting, he returned to the food-group. Second, some prisoners were loners:
they did not want to socialise with the other prisoners and kept to themselves during
imprisonment. In other situations, affiliation could be a problem in its own. As I have explained,
a risk of joining a food-group is that one has to be prepared to back other food-group members if
they get into trouble. This is a responsibility that some individuals do not want to bear. Third,
some prisoners ate alone because they were excluded; no one wanted them in their food-group.
Prisoners who were not affiliated with a food-group generally did not have as much social capital
as prisoners affiliated with a food-group. These prisoners were often bullied and at high risk for
being exploited or excluded by fellow inmates. This vulnerability illustrates that, while food-group
affiliation could be problematic, membership did provide a level of protection.

Conclusion
The study has led to some findings about using qualitative methods when conducting prison
research. Participant observation as a method provided a unique opportunity to observe and
participate in daily prison life, sometimes as a dinner guest in different food-groups and other
times as a full member of prisoners food-group. The different roles in this context were as
a dinner guest and an interested researcher. The prisoners went to great efforts to cook delicious
meals for me when I was a dinner guest. In addition, the prisoners made great effort to include
me as a member of various food-groups. Due to participant observation valuable insight was
gained into the dynamics of the self-catering system within the prison. During the conversations
and structured interviews with prisoners, it was possible to ask in-depth questions about how
the self-catering system was structured and how the self-catering system affects prison life
in general. The prisoners responses to questioning demonstrates that using participant
observation as a method has given valuable insight into interaction patterns and social dynamics
that form part of the prisoners insignificant everyday life experiences. The research shows that
the system of self-catering involves complex relationships with roles and positioning. Therefore,
participant observation as a method is shown to have valuable implications for an outsider in
developing an understanding of how prison works.
Food is a fundamental need and the ability to choose what to eat and to prepare ones own food
should be a right for all people, including prisoners. This research shows that Danish prisoners,
in general, are very pleased about the system of self-catering. Most prisoners are concerned
about preparing their own meals according to their taste and cultural diversity. This research also
shows that the price of food in the prison grocery store can cause frustration among the
prisoners, but the food-system in Danish prisons is not as such a mechanism of control.
The prison authorities consider the self-catering system to be a positive way of putting the
principle of normalisation into action. In addition, it is an effective strategy for providing meals
to prisoners. Self-catering helps to avoid riots over bad prison food; although it may lead to
built-up frustration over high prices in the prison store.

VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH PAGE 235

The research also shows that the food-groups within the self-catering system are used to
construct relationships among prisoners and form social identities. The social identity as a cook
has a positive impact on the prisoners self-image and is highly significant to the prisoners
positioning in prison society. In some cases, vulnerable prisoners provide services for
food-groups as waiters or dishwashers. While these roles diminish the social status of the
individuals who partake in this work, waiter and dishwasher jobs also allow people to earn a little
extra money or pay their debt to fellow inmates. From this, several participants expressed
enthusiasm for these jobs and were pleased about the opportunity to improve their life
conditions inside prison. In other cases, participants reported that they were bullied into these
jobs and described the positions as a source of exploitation. In contrast, the cook position
assigned prestige and social status and was perceived as a source of power. Vulnerable
prisoners can achieve more status among fellow inmates by obtaining cooking skills. As a result,
they may become less exposed to abuse from fellow inmates. If the prison offers the opportunity
to train as a chef during imprisonment it could support the prisoners change in social identity
from crook to cook on the outside.

Notes
1. www.dr.dk/NYHEDER/htm/magasiner/kriminalitet/vridslose/
2. Except for yeast and certain liquids such as alcohol and perfume.
3. Executive Order no. 1034 (2012)
4. Word used by prisoners for perception of problems.

References
Amnesty International (2012), Amnesty International Report 2012 The State of the Worlds Human Rights,
Amnesty International Ltd, London.
Bates, F.L. (1956), Position, role, and status: a reformulation of concepts, Social Forces, Vol. 34 No. 4,
pp. 313-21.
Becker, H.S. (2007), How we deal with the people we study: the last seminar revisited, in Downes, D.,
Rock, P., Chinkin, C. and Gearty, C. (Eds), Crime, Social Control and Human Rights, Willan Publishing,
Devon.
Bosworth, M. (1999), Engendering Resistance: Agency and Power in Womens Prisons, Ashgate,
Aldershot.
Carlen, P. (1983), Womens Imprisonment A Study in Social Control, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
Clemmer, D. (1940/1958), The Prison Community, Holt, Reinhardt and Winston, New York, NY.
Consolidation Act No. 435 (2012), Consolidation Act No. 435 of 15 May 2012 (Danish Enforcement of Penal
Sentences Act).
Crewe, B. (2009), The Prisoner Society: Power, Adaptation and Social Life in an English Prison, Clarendon
Studies in Criminology, Oxford University Press.
Danish Prison and Probation Service (2013), Statistics 2012, Publisher: Danish Prison and Probation
Service, Copenhagen.
Earle, R. and Phillips, C. (2012), Digesting men? Ethnicity, gender and food: perspectives from a prison
ethnography, Theoretical Criminology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 141-56.
Edwards, J.S.A., Hartwell, H.J. and Schafheitle, J. (2009), Prison foodservice in England, Journal of
Foodservice, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 157-66.
Executive order No. 1034 (2012), Executive order no. 1034 of 5 November 2012 on prisoners remuneration.
Foster, R.K. (2006), Prison foods, Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 31, pp. 173-4.
Frechea, T. (2005), Health care, in Bosworth, M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Prisons and Correctional Facilities,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp. 400-37.
Galtung, J. (1959), Fengselssamfunnet et forsk pa analyse (The Prison Community An Attempt at
Analysis), Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.

PAGE 236 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014

Godderis, R. (2006), Dining in: the symbolic power of food in prison, The Howard Journal, Vol. 45 No. 3,
pp. 255-67.
Goffman, E. (1961), Encounters: Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction, Bobbs-Merrill.
Goffman, E. (1961/1967), Anstalt og Menneske (Asylum), Jrgen Paludans Forlag.
Goffman, E. (1983), The interaction order, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 1-17.
Hansen, O. (2001), Praktisk dansk kriminalforsorg og behandling (Practical Danish Prison and
Probabtion Service and treatment), in Greve, V., Nielsen, B.G. and Snare, A. (Eds), Nytter det? Mosaik om
kriminalforsorg og kriminalpolitik (For what purpose? Mosaic on the Danish Prison and Probation Service and
Criminal Policy), Jurist- og konomforbundets forlag, Copenhagen, pp. 89-94.
Human Rights Watch (2012), World Report 2012 Events of 2011, Human Rights Watch.
International Centre for Prison Studies (2013), World prison brief, available at: www.prisonstudies.org/
country/denmark (accessed 9 December 2013).
Jenkins, R. (2000), Categorization: identity, social process and epistemology, Current Sociology, Vol. 48
No. 3, pp. 7-25.
Kruttschnitt, C. and Dirkzwager, A. (2011), Are there still contrasts in tolerance? Imprisonment in the
Netherlands and England 20 years later, Punishment & Society, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 283-306.
Lester, C., Hamilton-Kirkwood, L. and Jones, N. (2003), Health indicators in a prison population: asking
prisoners, Health Education Journal 2003, Vol. 62, pp. 341-9.
Liebling, A. (2004), Prisons and their Moral Performance, University press, Oxford.
Lines, R. (2008), The right to health of prisoners in international human rights law, International Journal of
Prisoner Health, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 3-53.
Liu, B.P. (2003-2004), A prisoners right to religious diet beyond the free exercise clause, UCLA Law
Review, Vol. 51, pp. 1153-201.
Maruna, S. (2001), Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives, American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Minke, K.L. (2014), A study of prisonisation among Danish prisoners, Prison Service Journal, Vol. 211,
pp. 37-43.
National Audit Office (2006), Serving Time: Prisoner Diet and Exercise, National Audit Office Press, London.
Rhodes, A.L. (2002), Psychopathy and the face of control in supermax, Ethnography, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 442-66.
Roos, W.M., Diamond, P.M., Diamond, L.A. and Saylor, W.G. (2008), Measurement of prison social climate
a comparison of a prisoner measure in England and the USA, Punishment & Society, Vol. 10 No. 4,
pp. 447-74.
Smith, C. (2002), Punishment and pleasure: women, food and the imprisoned body, The Sociological
Review, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 197-214.
Smoyer, A. (2013), Cafeteria, commissary & cooking: foodways and negotiations of power and identity in
a womens prison, Dissertation, City University of New York/Hunter College.
Spradley, J.P. (1979), The Ethnographic Interview, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Fort Worth.
Sykes, G.M. (1958), The Society of Captives A Study of a Maximum Security Prison, Princeton University
Press, NJ.
Ugelvik, T. (2011), The hidden food: mealtime resistance and identity work in a Norwegian Prison,
Punishment & Society, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 47-63.
Useem, B. (1985), Disorganization and the New Mexico prison riot of 1980, American Sociological Review,
Vol. 50 No. 5, pp. 677-88.

Web reference
Available at: www.dr.dk/NYHEDER/htm/magasiner/kriminalitet/vridslose/ (accessed 10 March 2014).

VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH PAGE 237

Further reading
available at: www.prisonstudies.org/country/denmark (accessed 10 March 2014).

About the author

Associate Professor Linda Kjaer Minke is a Sociologist and currently a Lecturer in Criminology
and Sentence Enforcement Act at the University of Southern Denmark. Her publications
include: The Effects of Mixing Offenders with Non-Offenders: Findings from a Danish Natural
Experiment, A Study of Prisonization among Danish Prisoners, and Fngslets indre liv
[The prison community with a focus on prisonization]. She completed her PhD at the Law
School at the University of Copenhagen in 2010. Associate Professor Linda Kjaer Minke can be
contacted at: lkm@sam.sdu.dk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

PAGE 238 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRISONER HEALTH VOL. 10 NO. 4 2014

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.