THE CONCEPT OF PRISONIZATION RESTATES THE IDEAS OF GENERATIONS OF SOCIAL REFORMERS WHO BELIEVED THAT CRIMINALLY SOPHISTICATED INMATES 'CONTAMINATED' THEIR NAIVE ASSOCIATES, THUS PERPETUATING A CRIMINAL SUBCULTURE. PRISONIZATION PERSISTS IN LITERATURE WHICH VIEWS PRISONS AS 'SCHOOLS FOR CRIME,' DESPITE CONCRETE EVIDENCE INDICATING THE INEFFECTIVENESS OF SEPARATING PRISONERS BY CLASS LINE AND SOPHISTICATION. TWO CRITIQUES WHICH ARGUE THAT PRISONIZATION IS A MYTH ARE DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED IN THEIR APPROACHES. THE ARTICLE BY SMITH AND FRIED DEMONSTRATES THE POLITICAL BASIS FOR CRIME AND PUNISHMENT. THE AUTHORS VIEW PRISONERS AS REVOLUTIONARIES, INCARCERATED ON CLASS LINES, WITH THEIR PUNISHMENT BEING UNRELATED TO SOCIAL JUSTICE. THE HAWKINS MONOGRAPH PERCEIVES PRISONERS AS BEING MORE INTERESTED IN THEIR OWN REHABILITATION. HAWKINS DEMONOSTRATES THAT ADOPTING THE PRISON CULTURE IS NOT RELATED TO TIME SPENT IN PRISON, AND THAT PRISONERS' ADAPTATION TO IMPRISONMENT REFLECTS BROAD CULTURAL CONDITIONS. RATHER THAN LEARNING CRIMINALITY IN PRISONS, PRISONERS MERELY BRING WITH THEM PREDISPOSITIONS WHICH CAN BE ACTED OUT. SMITH AND FRIED ARGUE THAT THE PRISONIZATION CONCEPT ATTEMPTS TO TRANSFER THE INDIVIDUALS' PROBLEMS TO THE ENVIRONMENT, RATHER THAN THE PREFERRED METHOD OF DEVELOPING A NEEDED NEW SELF-IMAGE FOR THE PRISONER. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION CONCERNS THE MATERIAL USED BY THE WRITERS. REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (TWK)