���Ҵ�ý�ƽ������

Illustration by Dana Heimes��

A decade ago, when Ian��J. Alexander first became interested in studying the U.S. carceral system, imprisonment was a less visible, but by no means unimportant, field of research.

Since then, we’ve had “lock her up,” Alligator Alcatraz and National Guard deployments in American cities.

“Like many people who study systems of structural oppression, I wish my research was less relevant,” Alexander said. “But beyond just the massive expansion of ICE, there’s a larger question around what social and political function prisons serve—and what the state is saying about itself through its carceral system.”

Alexander is interested in studying the histories of media technologies to make sense of political dynamics in the present. Right now, that means looking��at the moments these��tools including radio,��television, phones, smartphones and tablets, and video��visitation—were introduced��into U.S. prisons and jails.

“Media have never been��introduced into prisons by��accident,” Alexander said. “Instead, it is a very intentional, central aspect of carceral��management and operation.”

Alexander, an assistant professor of media studies, joined CMDI in the fall from Carnegie Mellon University, where he was a visiting assistant professor. His research into media in prisons started while he was pursuing his PhD at New York University, and grew out of some of the advocacy work he was doing, such as tutoring people who were imprisoned and trying to stop the expansion of prisons��in the city.

Media technologies, he said, “are different degrees of a kind of weaponry to isolate people. I look at these technologies as tools of struggle, oppression, isolation and manipulation—but also as tools of connection. For instance, the way people inside are using them to make radio shows or podcasts, produce literature, or build solidarity and community and raise political consciousness.”��

His research has included phone and video calls with imprisoned people, as well as digging��into the archives of when��these technologies were��first introduced—and the��circumstances surrounding them. For instance, you might expect a prison would use radio to allow guards to alert the community of an escape—and you’d be correct—but it also led to the formation of prison bands, including some that were escorted to radio stations to perform over the air.

In most cases, the technology has been dual edged. Video visitation, as one example, makes it easier for those who are imprisoned to see family members. But it also makes it easier��for wardens to��limit in-person connections to family and friends on the outside.

Ultimately, Alexander’s work into those media technologies aims to understand the social and political functions prisons serve, which is important at a time when government spending on incarceration has dramatically increased. He said limiting social connections, restricting reading and managing when people speak—all bedrocks of the U.S. penal system—each are kinds of media practices.

“They are managing channels of communication and meaning-building at the level of trying to manipulate a person’s sense of self, sense of belonging and community, and ultimately sense of guilt and shame and correction,” he said.

Joe Arney covers research and general news for the college.