You are NOT on the DirtyGreek.Org homepage. Please CLICK HERE to go there.
The Zimbardo Prison Study took place in 1972 in the basement of the Stanford University psychology building, and its results are equally interesting as the Milgram Experiment. Prisoners and guards were selected from a group of subjects who had voluntarily signed up for the study. There was no notable differences between them in the beginning, but as the experiment progressed...As the guards became more aggressive, prisoners became more passive; assertion by the guards led to dependency in the prisoners; self-aggrandizement was met with self-deprecation, authority with helplessness, and the counterpart of the guards sense of mastery and control was the depression and hopelessness witnessed in the prisoners. As these differences in behavior, mood, and perception became more evident to all, the need for the now righteously powerful guards to rule the obviously inferior and powerless inmates became a sufficient reason to support most any indignity of man against man:
Guard K: "During the inspection, I went to cell 2 to mess up a bed which the prisoner had made and he grabbed me, screaming that he had just made it, and he wasn't going to let me mess it up. He grabbed my throat, and although he was laughing I was pretty scared... I lashed out with my stick and hit him in the chin (although not very hard) and when I freed myself I became angry. I wanted to get back in the cell and have a go with him, since he attacked me when I was not ready."
Guard M: "I was surprised at myself ... I made them call each other names and clean the toilets out with their bare hands. I practically considered the prisoners cattle, and I kept thinking "I have to watch out for them in case they try something.'" Could this explain how the situation in Abu Ghraib got so bad so quickly? And what does this say about our method of punishment, namely giving full power to guards who are often on the same social level as their prisoners? At one point, there was a prisoner "riot" in the prison. The response by the guards is shocking:At first they insisted that reinforcements be called in. The two guards who were waiting on stand-by call at home came in, and the night shift voluntarily remained on duty without extra pay to bolster the morning shift. The guards met and decided to treat force with force. They got a fire extinguisher that shot a stream of skin-chilling carbon dioxide and forced the prisoners away from the doors; they broke into each cell, stripped the prisoners naked, took the beds out, forced the prisoners who were the ringleaders into solitary confinement and generally began to harass and intimidate the prisoners.
After crushing the riot, the guards decided to head off further unrest by creating a privileged cell for those who were "good prisoners" and then, without explanation, switching some of the troublemakers into it and some of the good prisoners out into the other cells. The prisoner ringleaders could not trust these new cellmates because they had not joined in the riot and might even be "snitches." The prisoners never again acted in unity against the system. One of the leaders of the prisoner revolt later confided: "If we had gotten together then, I think we could have taken over the place. But when I saw that the revolt wasn't working, I decided to toe the line. Everyone settled into the same pattern. From then on, we were really controlled by the guards." The questions posed by the experment are far-reaching.Can it really be, you wonder, that intelligent, educated volunteers could have lost sight of the reality that they were merely acting a part in an elaborate game that would eventually end? There are many indications not only that they did, but that, in addition, so did we and did other apparently sensible, responsible adults.
Prisoner 819, who had gone into a rage followed by an uncontrollable crying fit, was about to be prematurely released from the prison when a guard lined up the prisoners and had them chant In unison, "819 is a bad prisoner. Because of what 819 did to prison property we all must suffer. 819 is a bad prisoner." Over and over again. When we realized 819 might be hearing this, we rushed into the room where 819 was supposed to be resting, only to find him in tears, prepared to go back into the prison because he could not leave as long as the others thought he was a "bad prisoner." Sick as he felt, he had to prove to them he was not a "bad" prisoner. He had to be persuaded that he was not a prisoner, that the others were also just students, that this was just an experiment and not a prison, and the prison staff were only research psychologists. A report from the warden notes, "While I believe that it was necessary for staff (me) to enact the warden role, at least some of the time, I am startled by the ease with which I could turn off my sensitivity and concern for others for a 'good cause.'" We need to take these things into consideration. Not so much to question whether the Abu Ghraib guards should be punished; obviously they should. However, in light of this experiment and The Milgram Experiment, perhaps we should look harder to find out who sent down the orders that started this problem, if indeed someone did order the torture. If someone did, that person should be punished equally severely, if not more than, the guards who perpetrated these acts.
The coup de grāce? The female soldier shown in the photos, Army Pfc. Lynndie England, says she was "just following orders." There's a video clip there as well of an interview with England.
|
