Page 13 - 254988_AJA_JF22_NEW-1

That is, after experiencing an extremely stressful to handle the emotions and other changes that come
event, staff may expect (and they may also be expected with exposure to events of extreme stress. Their only
by their peers and supervisors) to “get back on the recourse for coping may be:
horse” immediately, or to not even fall off the horse in • denial—“I’m good!”—which feeds the code of
the first place, and to go back to performing their duties silence further,
as though nothing significant happened. “Just another • dissociation, that is a lack of awareness of one’s
day in paradise.” emotions and thoughts, or
Female staff, especially those in custody positions,
can fall into the same trap as they seek the acceptance • “checking out” through behaviors such as
daydreaming.
of their male peers in order to secure their place on
the team. In some ways, women staff experience even Both denial and dissociation are aided by practices
more pressure than men to not show emotional distress based on avoidance, such as substance misuse and
on the job. Women working in custody positions have other addictive behaviors, and not focusing on the
to overcome the belief of some male staff that women moment—both of which affect professional functioning,
are too fragile, too emotional, and too empathetic to be health, and quality of life.
working in a custody role.
For example, male staff may be afraid that a female The Damage It Causes
officer could freeze and not fight when the battle is on. Because of the “I’m good!” code of silence, staff
That is why female custody staff may feel the need to learn to become ashamed of their vulnerabilities. They
prove themselves twice as much as male staff in order to may be getting emotionally injured on the job, but the
be accepted as “good enough” and as “one of the guys.” message from their organization is to not acknowledge
being hurt and that such acknowledgment is shameful
and unacceptable. They are even given the message
Separating the Real Deal from the Counterfeit that if they were strong enough, they would not get
On the surface, an officer saying “I’m good!” after
a traumatic or high-stress exposure may look to hurt in the first place. Regrettably, staff internalize these
messages. They absorb them; regard them to be true,
some like the “real deal”—true resilience, true grit, legitimate, and valid; and live their lives accordingly.
toughness, and strength to overcome adversity and
to “bounce back.” However, the officer’s claim of no When this is their norm, corrections staff become
adverse consequences of traumatic events may not be conditioned to keep their innermost life concealed—
true resilience at all. In fact, some research has named even from their closest co-workers, friends, and family
this type of behavior “negative resilience,” false grit members. It is as if they are wearing a laughing face
(Friedman & Higson-Smith, 2003). mask, but are weeping behind the mask. I can’t begin to
Negative resilience has been defined as the count the number of times I heard “We had no idea he
appearance, or impression, of bouncing back after was hurting! He showed absolutely no signs of distress,
ever!” after a corrections employee died by suicide.
traumatic exposure, when in reality those so exposed
are coping poorly. Negative resilience is fake, a Because of practicing the “I’m good!” code of silence,
cardboard cut-out, an imitation—not the real thing. affected individuals can appear unscathed following
In addition, negative resilience is typically driven traumatic incidents. However, due to the fact that a
by the belief that appearing to be “tough” under all corrections career offers a “steady diet” of traumatic
circumstances and not showing “soft” emotions, such exposure and cumulative traumatic effects, there comes
as sadness or tenderness, are admirable goals to pursue a point where they can no longer maintain the front of
if one wants to be successful in handling stress and “I’m fine,” and crash.
danger. As Susan Jones, a retired warden, has stated, “We
Negative resilience has been attributed to know that human beings cannot continue to ‘stuff”
“disenfranchised distress” (Friedman & Higson- these events forever. As corrections professionals we
Smith, 2003). Disenfranchised means that the distress know that the effects of this ‘stuffing’ are often found
is present, but it is not allowed to be shown; its in our relationships with other people in our lives,
expression is banned, forbidden. That is, in corrections including our family, and in our bodies.”
work settings, staff’s emotional distress due to the The “I’m good!” code of silence strips staff of their
extremely stressful nature of traumatic events is not freedom to acknowledge to themselves and to others—
acknowledged or validated; neither is it not viewed as without shame—any lasting emotional wounding due
legitimate, understandable, or acceptable. to the job, or to accept that they are unable to work
Additionally, due to lack of training at their through traumatic experiences on their own. And as a
agencies and lack of trauma-responsive approaches result, it keeps them from seeking the relational support
in their workplaces, staff may simply not know how and help they so desperately need.

AMERICANJails JANUARY | FEBRUARY 2022 | 11