Aesthetic Mechanisms of Dehumanization in the Prison Industrial Complex

Abstract

My dissertation argues that the aesthetic conditions of incarceration seriously impact the experiences and treatment of incarcerated people in the United States. In Chapter I, I argue that humans have aesthetic needs which are integral to our wellbeing. Aesthetic needs include the need to enact aesthetic agency as well as the need to have aesthetically fulfilling experiences. When aesthetic agency is severely constrained, as it is in many carceral contexts, aesthetic harm may occur. Chapter II discusses the relationship between aesthetic harm and dehumanization. Aesthetic harm can be understood both as a form of and a sign of dehumanization. As a form, aesthetic harm can be understood as a method of dehumanization which utilizes aesthetics. As a sign, aesthetic harm refers to the phenomenon where prior exposure to dehumanization reinforces future subjection to aesthetic harm. Thus, there is a feedback loop occurring with aesthetic harm: prior exposure to aesthetic harms as a form of dehumanization increases the likelihood of continued exposure to mistreatment, both aesthetic harm and other types of harm. Chapter III explores examples within two categories of aesthetic harms: those associated with the conditions of the environment incarcerated people are subjected to, and those which come from the objects they encounter in the prison. Designing goods and spaces with the goal of better managing and controlling a population and saving costs is often at odds with building a space which provides support for the needs of the incarcerated, something which is essential for rehabilitation. Chapter IV examines acts of aesthetic resistance. Aesthetic resistance involves attempting to regain or retain agency related to one’s everyday aesthetic experiences and creative expression. These acts work to resist dehumanization by countering the aesthetic harm which creates and exacerbates dehumanization in the carceral context.