From Spoiled Identity to Cleft Identity: Parenting, Penal Stigma and Suspended Citizenship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reading and re-reading the article, I struggled for a long time to arrive at a conclusion for several reasons:

I believe that auto-ethnographic work is important and including own experiences as a method is valid. However, I also have qualms about the approach of this paper. I feel like the authors do not provide enough depth in many areas. The vignettes chosen are very interesting and in-depth insides into the authors’ experiences but they are not set into context enough as there is a wide range of varied experiences of people with sexual offence convictions (I’ll shorten it to PSOC hereafter) regarding their post-release life - and the theoretical work is again in-depth in certain areas but not rounded enough for a general Social Sciences paper. The paper does not engage quite enough with general literature on crime and punishment with regards to shame and with literature on sexual offending in particular to provide a rounded view on the issue.

For readers with no prior experience with criminal justice and in particular post- imprisonment supervision not enough is explained about the situation. It does not become clear enough for example that there are differences depending on the length of sentence regarding the notification requirements under the SO Act and that this is not an indefinite requirement for everyone.

There are two abstracts – the one in the download is the one I am now referring to (the other one that is online only in the peer review screen is very differently set up): In the abstract you argue that ‘the systems governing people labelled ‘sex offenders’ operate in ways that exceed what Michel Foucault (1978) described as biopolitical governance and say that while biopolitics assumes the possibility of rehabilitation and reintegration, the contemporary punishment bureaucracy often forecloses these possibilities’ – I wonder if this is quite true with regards to biopolitics inherently assuming possibility for reintegration but also and relatedly, it might be better to fully allow this argument to be opened up in the main text and focus more on the broad insights into the paper in the abstract. I would advise to take mention of Foucault out of the abstract as it is not centred particularly in the paper later on.

You reiterate further down in the abstract that ‘parents with sexual offence convictions remain subject to ongoing surveillance, disclosure and stigma (Erving Goffman 1963), marking them as permanently suspect.’ I would argue that a source like Goffman who did not specific work on PSOC is not the best choice for introducing the subject in the abstract esp. as you are moving beyond Goffman’s work in your paper (see p.5). Instead I would point you towards the excellent scholarship that exists on SO experiences (for example Ievins’s 2023 work on the stains of imprisonment and moral communication).

On page 4 you are argue that stigma as a concept is insufficient but at the same time you are locating the important aspects of stigma mostly in relational dynamics rather than state management of PSOC (e.g. in quoting Condry on exclusion from community, friendship and civic life). I feel like the theory and subsequent discussion could be more nuanced on the various effects (inter-personal/social to institutional and state power). Moreover, I also feel that you are working with some definitions of family life as positioned in biopolitical care (also p.4) when we know from varied research that families are highly complex and often sites of violence and difficult dynamics. So I am missing here a reference to which research would ‘ordinarily’ position families in this way or an engagement with research on families more widely.

I feel like more could be said from the outset about the different stages of stigma across the justice journey (from arrest/early reporting by newspapers/court to prison to post prison). Analytically in the paper they all merge into one/are not seen as quite different points at which people feel different senses of stigma/identity and how PSOC experience might align or be different to other ‘offenders’.

On page 5 you write that ‘Cleft identity reveals the incompatibility between a politics of care and a politics of life (see Rose 2007) marked by permanent punishment. It interrogates the premise that some citizens must remain indefinitely administrable in order for others to ‘feel safe,’ and it questions the expansion of surveillance, disclosure, and precautionary restriction as default responses to harm’ – I feel like this is a very important point that is not unpacked enough. I also feel like this would need to be set in wider discourses where the state is interrogated in a different way as in the UK context it aims to (and does) use surveillance on all its citizens.

On the methodology I want to highlight how important I think it is to present findings that are in part at least auto-ethnographical – but I feel that in the light of such a gap in the literature on PSOC experiences in general and esp. in the field of post release and reintegration it is a shame that you rely on one source alone. I also wonder if this is enough for a general paper or if this was better suited for a discussion piece. Quite a lot of what you write about in the methodology section does not actually cover your methodology but explanations about the justice system or theory which should probably be put elsewhere in the paper. Instead I would have liked to hear more about the actual data at hand, how and why the vignettes were chosen, how long the interview was, how it was analysed, coded transcribed, what about your positionalities and ethics regarding professional and research roles and so on.

Regarding the vignettes: they are very poignant and interesting insights – you do also discuss them in relation to some of the theory but I would have liked to see a much stronger connection to some of the literature that engages with PSOC experiences and punishment/penology literature. Also I feel like for readers not so familiar with Goffman’s theory, concepts like permanence, front/backstage etc need to be explained a little bit more (maybe in the literature review) somewhere in the paper. I was also wondering, as you are bringing two separate sets of literatures together on PSOC and parenting, if you need to have a section where you engage with the theory on stigma specifically regarding the role of parenting before engaging with it in relation to PSOC parenting.

The discussion is very interesting and the readers are again immersed in a large number of theories which all are complex and challenging in their own right. This made we wonder if this paper would fare better solely as a theory paper which maybe focuses particularly on one or two rather than all of Foucault, Goffman, Bourdieu, Rose, Fanon, Mbebe and more and really went deeper -  this includes engaging with other people’s readings of these works.

Author Response

1. Scope and depth / positioning of the paper

Recommendation: The paper is not sufficiently “rounded” as a general social sciences paper and does not engage widely enough with literature on crime, punishment, and sexual offending.

Response:
We appreciate this concern and have clarified the intended scope of the paper. As Reviewer 3 notes, the manuscript is best understood as a theoretical and phenomenological intervention rather than a generalisable empirical study. We have now made this explicit in both the abstract and introduction, including the following clarification: See Page 2

“This article is not intended as a generalisable empirical study… but as a theoretically oriented intervention grounded in a single, analytically rich case.”

In response to the reviewer’s suggestion, we have incorporated Levins (2023) to empirically ground the argument that stigma is durable, institutionalised, and reproduced through governance structures, directly supporting the paper’s move beyond interactionist accounts

We have strengthened the analytical distinction between interpersonal, institutional, and state dimensions of stigma by clarifying how these operate simultaneously but at different registers (see pp. 7, 9, 10 and 16), particularly the discussion of disclosure regimes, media reactivation, and administrative recallability

Page 11 we added - While these vignettes are drawn from a single case, they reflect dynamics widely documented in research on stigma, punishment, and post-release life, allowing for analytic rather than statistical generalisation.

We also acknowledge (page 17) the limitations of this single case-study approach - This paper has several limitations. It is based on a single case study and therefore does not aim to provide empirically generalisable findings. The focus on one individual, who is also a co-author, may raise questions of representativeness and positionality. However, the aim of the paper is analytic rather than statistical generalisation, using a theoretically informed case to illuminate broader dynamics of stigma and governance. Future research could extend this framework across different populations, gendered experiences, and institutional contexts.

 

2. Contextualisation of the criminal justice system

Recommendation: Insufficient explanation of post-release supervision and notification requirements.

Response:
We have added a concise clarifying sentence in the methodology section outlining variation in notification requirements and supervision, ensuring that readers unfamiliar with the system are not disadvantaged, while avoiding extended descriptive digression that would detract from the paper’s analytical focus. See Page 9

In the UK, notification requirements vary depending on sentence length and offence, with some individuals subject to time-limited registration and others to indefinite supervision, although all remain embedded within systems of disclosure and risk management.

Rather than mapping stigma across all stages of the justice process, the paper now explicitly delimits its focus to the post-conviction period.

 

And Page 8: While stigma emerges at multiple points across the justice process (from accusation and trial through imprisonment and release), the analysis here is deliberately delimited to post-conviction and post-release conditions, where the permanence of administrative inscription, disclosure, and recallability becomes most pronounced.

 

3. Abstract and use of Foucault

Recommendation: The claim regarding biopolitics and reintegration may be “overstated”; and that Foucault may be overemphasised in the abstract.

Response:
We have revised the wording in the abstract to clarify that the argument concerns interpretations and applications of biopolitical governance in practice, rather than an absolute claim about Foucault’s position.

“We argue that the systems governing people labelled ‘sex offenders’ operate in ways that exceed what Michel Foucault (1978) described as biopolitical governance. While biopolitical frameworks have often been interpreted as oriented toward the optimisation and management of life, including through practices of rehabilitation and reintegration, contemporary punishment bureaucracies frequently foreclose these possibilities in practice.”

 

We hope that this preserves the theoretical argument while addressing the concern about overstatement.

4. Use of Goffman in the abstract

Recommendation: Goffman may not be the most appropriate reference point in the abstract.

Response:
We have removed the Goffman reference (and replaced it with the more relevant Levins 2023 – reference) and have refined the abstract to foreground the paper’s broader contribution and reduced the prominence of individual citations.

5. Theoretical balance and focus

Recommendation: The paper engages too many theoretical frameworks and may benefit from narrowing its focus.

Response:
We appreciate this observation. Rather than reducing the theoretical scope, which Reviewer 3 identifies as a key strength, we have improved signposting and clarity of the conceptual trajectory, ensuring that each theoretical framework is more clearly positioned in relation to the development of cleft identity. Reviewer 3 read this section exactly as it was intended, as a theoretical history, however brief, mapping the evolution of the concept of ‘stigma’ from its origins as a phenomenological concept to one that is firmly embedded in state practices and institutions – as Reviewer 3 points out  – “The engagement with the broader literature on stigma is impressive. The paper maps a genuine conceptual trajectory from Goffman through Braithwaite, Link and Phelan, Bourdieu, Tyler, and on to Foucault and Mbembe, and does so with analytical purpose rather than mere citation.”

In the post-script on page 17 – we highlight this ‘trajectory’ within stigma studies – “As the trajectory of stigma studies reveals, scholarship has traversed from the phenomenological immediacy of the spoiled identity to increasingly structural accounts of power. Yet it is in Bourdieu’s (1984) insistence that symbolic power is exercised through classificatory struggle that we see most clearly what is at stake. The stigmatised subject is enclosed within a classificatory regime not of their own making.”

 

 

6. Family as a biopolitical site of care

Recommendation: The paper assumes a particular model of family without engaging broader literature.

Response:
We have clarified that the discussion refers to normative constructions of family within governance frameworks, rather than empirical claims about all family life, and have added brief signposting to reflect the complexity of family dynamics. See page 5.

We have clarified that references to parenting as a site of care refer to normative constructions within governance frameworks (Gillies 2007), rather than empirical claims about family life, and have added brief signposting to the complexity and ambivalence of family relations.

 

7. Stages of stigma across the justice journey

Comment: The paper does not sufficiently distinguish between stages (pre-trial, prison, post-release).

Response:
We agree that this is an important distinction. We have clarified in the text that the paper focuses specifically on post-conviction and post-release conditions of governance, while acknowledging that stigma operates differently across stages of the justice process.

Page 11 - While these vignettes are drawn from a single case, they reflect dynamics widely documented in research on stigma, punishment, and post-release life, allowing for analytic rather than statistical generalisation

Across the revised manuscript, we have made more explicit the shift from stigma as an interactional phenomenon to stigma as a state-mediated technology, clarifying how interpersonal, institutional, and political dimensions operate in concert rather than as separate explanatory levels. We made the following additions in relation to this -

Page 2 - This does not displace the interpersonal and affective dimensions of stigma identified in earlier scholarship; rather, it re-situates them within a stratified field in which personal experiences, institutional practices, and state classifications operate in conjunction but with differing analytic weight. Stigma is lived interpersonally, administered institutionally, and authorised politically.

Page 8 - While stigma emerges at multiple points across the justice process (from accusation and trial through imprisonment and release), the analysis here is deliberately delimited to post-conviction and post-release conditions, where the permanence of administrative inscription, disclosure, and recallability becomes most pronounced.

8. Methodology and use of a single case

Recommendation: Reliance on one case raises concerns regarding depth and generalisability.

Response:
We have strengthened the methodology section by:

• explicitly identifying the study as a single-case (n=1) phenomenological analysis
• clarifying the analytic (rather than statistical) purpose of the case
• We have clarified that while the empirical material is a single case, the analytic concepts are informed by sustained longitudinal engagement with a wider population through organisational practice, strengthening the grounding of the conceptual claims. See page 7

These revisions clarify the methodological rationale without altering the fundamental design of the study. See Page 2

This article is not intended as a generalisable empirical study of people with sexual offence convictions, but as a theoretically oriented intervention grounded in a single, analytically rich case. Its aim is to develop conceptual insight rather than provide representative claims about all individuals subject to such classifications.

9. Methodological detail

Recommendation: More information needed on data collection, analysis, and ethics.

Response:
We have added a concise paragraph outlining:

• recording and transcription of the dialogue
• the iterative analytic process
• ethical considerations, including positionality and co-authorship

The dialogue was recorded, transcribed, and thematically analysed through iterative discussion between the authors. Ethical considerations were central throughout, including the dual role of participant and co-author, issues of consent, and the management of identifiable personal material within a highly stigmatised context.

10. Engagement with parenting and stigma literature

Recommendation: The paper could better integrate literature on parenting and stigma.

Response:
We have added targeted references and brief framing to situate the analysis within this literature, while maintaining the paper’s primary focus on conceptual development.

• Herek, G.M. (2007) ‘Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice’, Journal of Social Issues, 63(4), pp. 905–925.
• Levins, A. (2023) ‘The lived experience of people with sexual offence convictions: stigma, risk, and everyday life’. Criminology & Criminal Justice, pp. 1–20.
• Meyer, I.H. (2003) ‘Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence’, Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), pp. 674–697.

Page 5 - This body of work is complemented by emerging research specifically examining the lived experiences of people with sexual offence convictions, which documents the enduring effects of stigma, moral condemnation, and institutional control in shaping post-release life (e.g. Levins 2023).

Page 7 - Beyond the carceral context, related scholarship on sexual stigma and institutional engagement highlights similar dynamics of concealability, disclosure, and anticipatory regulation (e.g. Herek 2007; Meyer 2003), suggesting that the condition examined here resonates with a broader sociology of stigmatised sexual identity.

11. Suggestion to reframe as a theory paper

Response:
We appreciate this suggestion. As Reviewer 3 observes, the manuscript already functions as a theoretically driven contribution grounded in empirical material, and we have clarified this positioning more explicitly in the revised manuscript.

Page 16 - This paper has several limitations. It is based on a single case study and therefore does not aim to provide empirically generalisable findings. The focus on one individual, who is also a co-author, may raise questions of representativeness and positionality. However, the aim of the paper is analytic rather than statistical generalisation, using a theoretically informed case to illuminate broader dynamics of stigma and governance. Future research could extend this framework across different populations, gendered experiences, and institutional contexts.

We hope that these interventions and amendments have adequately addressed the majority, if not all of Reviewer 1’s comments, suggestions and recommendations.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for having prepared this innovative piece. In its current form, I find this manuscript to have various strenghts, but also some limitations that, in my opinion, should be addressed before publication.

Among the strengths, I can mention:

• The originality of this piece, which brings light to an issue scarcely studied with empirical, qualitative material, accessing a unique case study
• The literature review combines classic literature on the topic of stigma, biopolitics, necropolitics with more reent pieces.
• The access to the sample --yet very limited-- is unique. 
• This research is highly innovative, provocative and potentially relevant.
• Most of the findings (vignettes) were pertinent, relevant, and meaningful on this topic

At the same time, I see some aspects where, in its current form, the manuscript could (and should) improve before publication

• In the Introduction, the authors may exert caution when claiming that "this paper examines the lived and political consequences of parenting with a conviction for a sexual offence in contemporary Britain" (page 1, line 22) since --yet original and innovative-- this paper considered one case study as the sample, so the statement about parenting and Britain should be more modest in scope. So, a better realignment between the methods and the claim(s) must be addressed.
• Perhaps the authors may further discuss / argue for the social relevance of conducting this research. While they do so when presenting the recidivism statistics for sex offenders, they may consider an additional enhancement of this point. 
• The methodology could be improved by letting the reader know that this is a case study (n=1) within a phenomenological framework, or something similar. In its current form, it is confusing and one has to guess / wait for additional clarity.
• At the same time, despite being one case, no additional information is provided regarding socioeconomic context or info about the case that is being studied. While I see (and appreciate) the attempt that the authors are making about making visible a highly stigmatized, problematic situation, I think it is important to better characterize this case study.     
• Additional information could be provided in terms of the recruitment of the participant
• IRB permission or similar should also be explicitly included I think.
• In its current form, there is no clear conclusion / discussion 
• No potential limitations of this paper are discussed by authors. In its current form, one has to just agree with the authors

Author Response

See attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a theoretically ambitious and genuinely original paper that makes a meaningful contribution to the sociology of stigma and critical criminology. The concept of cleft identity is the paper's central achievement, and it earns its place in the literature. The argument that Goffman's model of stigma management presupposes the possibility of situational containment, and that this presupposition fails for parents carrying a sexual offence conviction, is well made and convincingly developed across the three vignettes. I recommend acceptance with minor revisions.

Strengths

The paper's most significant contribution is conceptual. Cleft identity names something that existing frameworks have not adequately captured: the structural irreconcilability of two state-imposed master statuses that make simultaneous and incompatible moral demands on the same subject. The move from Goffman's spoiled identity to cleft identity is not merely terminological. The authors demonstrate carefully and persuasively why the interactionist toolkit, passing, concealment, narrative repair, is simply inadequate when stigma is institutionally archived, legally preserved, and permanently recallable. This is a strong theoretical contribution.

The engagement with the broader literature on stigma is impressive. The paper maps a genuine conceptual trajectory from Goffman through Braithwaite, Link and Phelan, Bourdieu, Tyler, and on to Foucault and Mbembe, and does so with analytical purpose rather than mere citation. The decision to bring necropolitics into dialogue with biopolitics in order to describe the condition of suspended citizenship is theoretically productive and well executed. The paper makes a persuasive case that the 'sex offender' classification produces something closer to civic death than to the optimisation of life that biopolitical frameworks assume.

The methodology is handled with appropriate reflexivity. The authors are transparent about positionality, about the co-authorship dynamic, and about the limitations of analytic generalisability. The framing of the dialogue as collaborative reflexive phenomenology is coherent and the authors are clear that the aim is analytic illumination rather than statistical representativeness. This is the right approach for this kind of paper and the authors defend it well.

The three vignettes are well chosen and well analysed. Each one illuminates a distinct dimension of cleft identity: the affective structure of anticipatory fear, the moral complexity of disclosure, and the brutal reactivation of condemnation through media intrusion. The third vignette in particular, with the journalist at the door and the four-year-old child answering it, is viscerally powerful and the analysis does justice to its complexity without overreaching.

The contextual data on MAPPA statistics and recidivism rates is genuinely important. The disjunction between empirically observed risk and the intensity of ongoing regulatory and social response is a critical part of the paper's argument, and the authors are right to foreground it. The Scottish MAPPA data, with zero individuals managed at Level 3 and over 5,400 at Level 1, is striking and lends empirical weight to the theoretical claim about necropolitical excess.

Areas for Revision

The paper's main vulnerability is methodological. While the collaborative reflexive phenomenology approach is appropriate and well justified, the fact that the empirical material rests on a single subject who is also a co-author will invite scrutiny. The authors pre-empt some of this by noting that the analytic concepts emerged from sustained longitudinal engagement with many individuals, not just Author 2. However, this is mentioned somewhat briefly and could be developed further. A short passage clarifying how the broader organisational experience informed and validated the conceptual development of cleft identity would strengthen the paper's methodological credibility without requiring a different methodological approach.

The postscript section describing Author 2 as the exception that proves the rule is thought provoking but slightly underdeveloped. If she is exceptional in her capacity for resistance and institutional leadership, the reader would benefit from a clearer account of what makes that possible. Is it class, social capital, professional networks, or something else? The paper is otherwise attentive to how structural position shapes experience, and a brief reflection here would sharpen the theoretical coherence of the conclusion.

The introduction contains some terminological density that may create unnecessary difficulty for readers who are not already familiar with Foucauldian and Mbembean frameworks. The concepts of biopolitics and necropolitics are introduced quite quickly and the reader has to hold a lot of theoretical vocabulary in mind before the empirical material arrives. A sentence or two of accessible framing early in the introduction, before the theoretical apparatus is fully deployed, might ease this for a broader readership.

The literature review, while genuinely strong, would benefit from engaging with research on stigma and non-normative sexual identities beyond the carceral context. The paper's framework has clear resonances with scholarship examining how stigma shapes institutional engagement, help-seeking, and disclosure decisions among communities whose sexual identities are subject to legal and social regulation. Research on stigma and police reporting, work on stigma and LGBT populations in relation to institutional avoidance and disclosure (Abulafia et al, 2024; Earnshaw et al, 2024; Haviv, 2016; Herek, 2007; Meyer, 2003; Wagner, 2021), and emerging scholarship on how sexual stigma intersects with governance and risk classification more broadly would all sit naturally within the paper's theoretical trajectory and enrich the discussion of how concealable stigma operates under conditions of permanent recallability. Engaging with even one or two of these would strengthen the paper's claim to speak to a broader sociology of stigmatised sexual identity rather than exclusively to the carceral literature.

A minor but persistent issue concerns reference formatting. Several in-text citations vary between author-date and author-year-page styles without apparent consistency, and one or two references in the bibliography appear to have minor formatting irregularities. These should be reviewed against the journal's style guide before final submission.

Finally, the paper focuses on the experience of a woman with a conviction for a sexual offence in Scotland and Britain. The authors are appropriately careful not to over-generalise, but a brief sentence acknowledging how the gendered dimension of Author 2's experience, as a woman in a population that is overwhelmingly male, might shape the specific texture of the cleft identity described would add a useful layer of reflexivity and open productive questions for future research.

These are relatively modest revisions and none of them undermine the core argument. The paper makes a genuine and original theoretical contribution to stigma studies, critical criminology, and the sociology of punishment. I look forward to seeing it published.

Author Response

See attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is great to see such a careful revision and I think you managed to address most comments well and in an impressive way. I only have a few minor comments:

• I really like your sentence on page 2 on the summary: 'the paper asks what happens when an individual is simultanously required to embody two roles that carry incompatible moral expectations' - I was just wondering if you could return to that summary directly at the end of the paper
• One of the added papers is by an author called Ievins (not Levins) - it would be good to correct this in the abstract and paper

 

Author Response

Thank you for flagging this up. We have now corrected the spelling.