Grypsowanie (Poland)

Grypsowanie 🇵🇱
Location: Poland
Definition: Prison jargon used by inmates
Keywords: Poland – CEE – Europe – EU – Dialect – Language – Community
Clusters: Conformity – Resistance
Author: Piotr Majda
Affiliation: PhD student, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, UK

By Piotr Majda, PhD student, School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London, UK

The term grypsowanie originates from the old-German word grips, meaning to catch/seize or to understand/grasp. It was originally used to denote all kinds of prison subculture’s argot. In Polish prisons, the term identifies a language used by a group of people, called grypsujący (grypsman). It is not only a language, that is used exclusively within prisons, but also a code of conduct. The first record of Polish prison’s subculture associated with grypsing dates to the XIX century, in an 1867 note by Karol Estreicher in the Polish Newspaper, where prison argot was described as: “a philologist would not be able to reach the source of multiple words” (Rodasik et al. 2013). The emergence of modern grypsing is associated with Warsaw’s “Gęsiówka” penitentiary complex. It gained popularity within juvenile detention centres and quickly spread across the country, becoming the most commonly used prison dialect.

In the 1970s, the state launched a campaign against this prison subculture (Moczydłowski 2002, Szaszkiewicz 1997). To identify and isolate subculture members, prison personnel would ask all newcomers whether they are grypser because according to their creed no grypser can deny his membership at cost of being downgraded in the prison hierarchy (Michalska and Michalski, 2020). To conceal themselves and avoid losing honour, grypsmen would change their name to “grypsujący”(Jarosz 2011).

In the case of prison argot, there is a clear attempt to resist societal institutions (Michalska and Michalski 2020). On one hand, some inmates would say that grypsing demonstrates fortitude, steadfastness, and honour, while on the other hand, it is a phenomenon conducive to committing crimes, trapping ex-inmates in a downward spiral of violating the law and going back to prison (Szaszkiewicz 1997). Argot is a “symbolic expression of group loyalty” (Zarzycki 2015, 19), where use and fluency are a measurement of allegiance and integration to the group. Prison argot functions include consolidating hierarchy, organization, and imposing rules in the prison, with differences between prisons and countries.

Grypsing regulates every single aspect of prison life, from eating to the sleeping regime, all do and don’ts. According to Michalska and Michalski (2020), the main principles of grypsing are usually the same in all prisons across Poland, and they include:

• Opposition to law and justice in all its forms. Grypsmen cannot cooperate with prison personnel, reveal any associates in a crime or any information about grypsing, and not even shake hands with any of the prison personnel nor inmates lower in the hierarchy.
• Group solidarity: grypsmen shall protect each other, from both internal and external threats. The former refers to support in prison hardship (sharing resources etc.) and the latter corresponds to planning and committing crimes inside and outside the prison. These rules include joint responsibility for any other grypsmen behaviour, support during disciplinary punishments (e.g. by sharing food) and not denying membership in the subculture.
• Personal dignity and honour – becoming a grypsman improves inmate’s social status, strengthens loyalty and honesty towards other members but also gives the mandate to demand respect from outsiders, whilst treating them with disdain. It is prohibited for grypsmen to eat while someone is using the toilet or pick any items lying next to it, drink water directly from the tap or ask anyone’s help.

The prison hierarchy within the subculture can be divided into three levels (Michalska and Michalski 2020, 9):

• Inmates-grypsmen, also known as git-man or humans. They understand and follow grypsing rules, the highest caste of the prison hierarchy, which can be joined only through examinations and tests. This group consists of elders of the highest authority in the prison, grypsmen and fuss-masters – cell leaders.
• Inmates who don’t participate in grypsing: “inhumans” or “suckers”. This group is perceived as inferior to grypsmen as outsiders without honour, potential snitches, and weaklings. They are usually exploited by grypsmen to clean, fulfil their errands or even take the blame for their violations. They cannot eat with grypsmen or shake their hands (Kamiński, 2004).
• The lowest caste consists of so-called “fags”. Members of this group have no right to speak, other inmates are highly aggressive and disrespectful towards them. Grypsmen perceive them as snitches and collaborators of prison personnel. They are given feminine names and are often rape victims as any other interaction with them is forbidden (Kamiński, 2004).

Despite a highly hierarchized organisation, the grypsing code allows upward and downward movements between groups. Thus, a grypsman can lose his status if he violates the code, e.g. by using “fags” utensils, becoming a “sucker” or even a “fag” in case of major misconduct. However, a “sucker” can be accepted to the grypsmen ranks if he passes all tests, and demonstrates cunningness, wit, and knowledge of the argot. The only group banned from any social mobility are the “fags” as this label cannot be washed away or amended anyhow, and attempting to hide it (e.g. after a transfer to a different prison or cell) can determine serious consequences (Kamiński 2004).

The diagram presents the steps faced by each new inmate upon arrival in the cell. Newbies are inmates who already served time in prison, rookies are those entering prison for the first time. At each new arrival, prisoners will be asked whether they participate in “grypsing” and the answer will determine the next steps. Answering “yes” automatically indicates a liar who will be beaten and will receive a “fag” label for pretending to be grypsing. True grypsmen know that only fellow grypsmen can vouch for them. However, if a newcomer replies “no” but shows a desire to learn and join the group, he will be tested for weeks or months to test his strength, acumen, pain tolerance, alertness and sense of humour (Kamiński 2004). If the adept passes the tests, he can be allowed to learn argot: the experienced grypsmen will conduct so-called “prison university” or “bajera” at night.

A diagram showing newcomers' possible paths upon arrival in the cell. Source: Kaminski, M.M., 2003. "Games Prisoners Play": 195.

Examples of argot vocabulary include (Małkowski 1971,138; Zarzycki2015, 20; Kamiński 2004, 192-195):

• Piguła (a pill) – for a doctor
• Fortepian (a piano) – prison’s warden
• Szamie który? (anyone grub?) – a routine question before grypsman uses the toilet
• Nie kasztanić! (don’t crap) – another call, this time to not use the bathroom as a grypsman is eating
• Bez kicioru (no soap)
• Dziara (tat/tattoo)
• Zadyma, afera (affair)
• Berło (scepter) – toilet brush

Despite a strict ban on using the language outside prison walls, the argot vocabulary transpired through cinematography (e.g. the movie “Symetria”, 2003) and music (especially rap) into the everyday polish slang, frequently without awareness of prison-related etymology (Zarzycki 2015).

Between 1945 and 1989, inmates would in participate in prison subculture on a much bigger scale than nowadays. Grypsmen used to make up to 80% of prisoners, “fags” no more than 1-2%, and “suckers” would encompass the remaining 18-19% (Kamiński 2004). Yet, with the fall of communism and 1990s institutional changes in Poland, prisons’ rigidity decreased, and inmates were granted numerous rights in the process of democratization and humanization of the penitentiary system (Moczydłowski 1994), decreasing the need for an internal support network. According to more recent data, the percentage of prisoners involved in prison subculture dropped to 38% or even as low as 14% (Kamiński 2004).

The number of prisoners using argot decreases rapidly, mainly due to the loosened selection process (Skręt 2004). Grypsing is no longer reserved for the most cunning, physically and mentally strong, but rather used as a support group for inmates not coping with reality inside and outside prison walls. The grypsing principles were also reduced to just two: do not snitch and don’t get involved in sexual relations with other prisoners (Skręt 2004).

Funding

This research was realized as part of the EU Commission Horizon2020 MSCA Innovative Training Networks (MSCA-ITN) project MARKETS: Mapping Uncertainties, Challenges and Future Opportunities of Emerging Markets: Informal Barriers, Business Environments and Future Trends in Eastern Europe, The Caucasus and Central Asia, Grant agreement ID: 861034.

References

Jarosz, M. 2011. "Więzienie w krzywym zwierciadle tekstów medialnych" [Prison in the fun-house mirror of media texts]. Kultura – Media – Teologia 5: 34-45

Kaminski, M. 2003. "Games Prisoners Play". Rationality and society, 15(2): 188–217

Kamiński, M. 2004. Games Prisoners play, Princeton University press

Małkowski, S. 1971. “Drugie życie” w zakładzie wychowawczym [„Second Life” in Juvenile detention centre]. Etyka, Tom 8: 135-147

Michalska, A. And D. Michalski. 2020. Zachowania niepożądane w zakładach karnych Wybrane zagadnienia [Undesirable behaviour in penitentiary facilities – Selected aspects]. Warszawa-Olsztyn 2020.

Moczydłowski, P. 1994. "Więziennictwo: od systemu totalitarnego do demokratycznego" [Prisons: from a totalitarian to a democratic system]. Przegląd Więziennictwa Polskiego 8: 3-16

Moczydłowski, P. 2002. Drugie życie więzienia [The Hidden Life of Polish Prisons]. (red). graf. Bohdan Butenko i Wiechu Łoś. Warszawa: "Łośgraf", 2002.

Rodasik, R., Ćwiertnia, E., Zat’ko, J. 2013. "Język podkultury więziennej - gwara, język migowy, tatuaż" [The language of prison subculture – argot, sign language, tattoos]. Kultura Bezpieczeństwa. Nauka-Praktyka-Refleksje 13: 116-141

Skręt, R. 2004. "Obraz podkultury więziennej we współczesnym zakładzie penitencjarnym" [The image of prison subculture in the contemporary penitentiary facility]. Nauczyciel i Szkoła 1-2 (22-23), 143-152

Szaszkiewicz, M. 1997. Tajemnice grypserki [The secrets of grypsing]. Wydawnictwo Instytutu Ekspertyz Sądowych, 1997.

Zarzycki Ł. 2015. "Socio-lingual Phenomenon of the Anti-language of Polish and American Prison Inmates". Crossroads. A Journal of English Studies