I can understand why this has become a criminology/prison sociology classic. It is very well written for an academic text. Sykes' findings read like a novel, and are both accessible and informative.

Due to the time period it was written in, there are some misogynistic phrases used and unfortunately the text reflects the (then legal) fact that homosexual men were classed as sexual deviants within prison society.

However, whilst this doesn't sit well it is probably best regarded as 'of its time' and I don't think it is fair to let it detract from the academic findings, which are still important in understanding the experience of imprisonment.

Considered a staple for anyone studying sociology and issues of criminal justice, The Society of Captives provides an intriguing ethnography of life within maximum security prison. Highlighting the cause of strikes and riots behind bars while also explaining issues of prison labor and behavior of prison authority, Sykes presents unbiased narratives that may be of interest to students just beginning their research.

Since it was written decades ago, I can’t help but wonder what a similar project would look like today, especially in the age of mass incarceration. Reading this alongside Foucault’s Discipline & Punish is a must. This book will definitely prove valuable in further research and academic projects.

The dedication of this book is to the "man in prison-both the prisoner and the guard." While it shies away from making any philosophical commentary on the effectiveness (and quite frankly, the requirement) of modern prisons, the book does aptly convey the society of a prison as seen from the eyes of both the captors and the captives.

The captors are required to convert seemingly vague and conflicting objectives set out by the free society into actionable policy inside a prison with the primary goal of ensuring the captivity of the prisoners and secondary goals of ensuring order and utilizing the workforce. While it would seem that in a society where the captors have complete and total control over everything, it would be easy to carry out these policies, the author goes into great detail on how even total power has its defects and cracks.

The captives, on the other hand, must endure the mental trauma of living under these seemingly random policies while still finding a purpose in their life. As a result, various personalities of prisoners arise, which although quite dated and reprehensible as discussed in the book, provide an idea of the argot roles that prisoners take up.

This was a book that I learned about at a job research talk at work. I read it and was struck by how much of it was familiar from movies - Cool Hand Luke and the Shawshank Redemption both seem to draw heavily from it, or from the same material.

From a personal standpoint, it was interesting to see how much captivity is similar still. My experiences working at Camp Bucca in Iraq were described quite well in terms of the sociology of prisoners and guards.

It's a dense, but easily-digestible read and is thought-provoking.

This book is for all my brothers and sisters in lock down.

This was a very interesting socio-ethnographic take on the Trenton maximum security prison. Sykes' attention to power negotiations and prison argot is especially useful. Sykes is a good writer, thought provoking and highly quotable. This is a text that will endure as a classic in the field of criminology.

The sociological portrait of a maximum security prison is fascinating. However, the book is of its time and includes some bigoted references to homosexual inmates.

I thought this book was kind of interesting. It was written in the 50's, to me a long time ago; when one of the prisoners did something not good, he was placed isolation with a restricted diet: bread and water. The author mentions deviant behavior: a guards comes upon two prisoners in a cell, both are naked and one is on top of the other. The guards and prisoners have a strange relationship. I gave this read 3 stars, I found myself rereading parts of the book several times to get the full meaning of what the author was trying to say; long sentences that leave the meaning stretched over miles of barren landscapes. Honestly, I wouldn't read this book again; I'm just happy to have finished it, thanking god it was only some one hundred thirty pages long. However, it gives an excellent view of the inside of a maximum security prison.

I grabbed this on a whim from a clearance rack as it fit the week’s challenge. It was an interesting read in some parts, especially in its deconstruction of the roles and goals of prisons, and how the “custodians” are pulled between contradictory ones and how they typically choose to balance them. Since it was written in the 50s, there’s some weird stuff in there, including “Power, like a woman’s virtue, once lost is hard to regain.” But overall, this sociological perspective was a nice, new experience for me.

I didn't like this book as an actual sociological study, but I did enjoy it as a glimpse into an American Maximum Security Prison of the 1950's. Must be the History student in me. There were a number of interesting points to look at from a new millenium point of view, such as what a "hipster" in prison meant to the fact that the case study prison (in New Jersey) had a number of inmates essentially convicted for being homosexuals. Quite interesting overall though.

No reviews for this book? Hard to believe given the number of used copies available. Surely many have read "Society of Captives"?
Sykes uses the sociological framework of Talcott Parsons to analyze the "life of prison" in terms of its effects on the inmates. Sykes was obviously a key reference point for Goffman's work in "Asylums". Sykes works around the idea of describing a maximum security prison as a "total institution", but fails to really nail the concept down.

He makes some interesting observations about the conflicting motives of guards on the front line of the prison. I found troubling his conclusion that the level of control sought to be imposed upon the prisoners was ever elusive. This seemed, to me, to be a justification for the behavior that goes on behind prison walls.

His interesting discussion of prison riot and rebellion prefigures some of Foucault's analysis in "Discipline and Punish". In fact, I picked up my copy of Discipline and Punish immediately after (and during) reading this book and found the effect to be akin to a light bulb going on in my head.

While Sykes lacks the conclusions of Foucault, his simplified analysis of the structure of prison makes reading Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" about 100% easier.

Here is not the place for a more detailed comparison between the two books. None the less, any committed reader of Discipline and Punish should feel compelled to digest this book: After all, it only costs a buck and can be read in a single afternoon!

I didn't really want to give this a rating at all but the GR app required it for me to update the status to completed. I didn't especially enjoy this though I'm sure it has academic value and has been influential for criminology. Just a personal "meh" because I read it for class when I have a cold and would rather have been sleeping. Note: tinges of racism and homophobia permeate throughout, a historical artifact.