Stanford Prison Experiment – Fake or Real?
– A purely conjectural perception
Part II
Changes –
The stage was
set and the plot was established without any basis for setting it up the way
they did it except for their own findings and without empirical evidence
injected into the equation to set a stage properly equipped in all aspect of
the desired environment. A stage that was meant to last longer than the
fourteen (14) days of engagement and actually completed after only six (6) days
of performing or acting out those roles designated to provide findings for the
study and pass them on as being real and behaviorally factual in content. It is
true, the study reached a critical point where termination was mandated. The
study had spiraled out of control.
The tryouts was
doomed to fail when the stage was left empty and the actors had blank scripts
which were based on empty findings of prison conditions fabricated from theory
and other means. No auditions, no real scripts and no authentic technical
advisors prompted failure from the start. Even had the study run its full
course, the defective materials captured or capsulated by these actors were
going to be tainted as the well was poisoned to begin with by the lack of
preparation and studies involved in the diversity of the environment.
Changes that
would impact activities, behaviors, thought patterns, abuses and neglects. A
domino effect that could hardly be captured in a mere two (2) weeks, when in
fact, the average length of time an inmate serves is closer to one (1) in jail
and at least a minimum of two and a half (2 ½) years under various penal
confinement levels and custody circumstances.
No stage would
be sufficiently produced, created or impact the environment without first
taking into consideration how the stage is set and who is in control of the
environment as well as the political will of groups that vary in color, age,
race and ethnicities. Aggravated circumstances that would have included race,
overcrowding, social injustices, staff abuses, organizational stigmas and
disproportional administrative punishments, nature of offense conflicts with
other inmates and of course the propensity of violence either on themselves or
the guards portrayed by ill prepared actors / students.
How the stage
is set, the mindsets of the actors or participants changes with each different
level of energy infused, rejected or forced into a conflicting situation where
tempers, emotions and other discerning forces can change the direction or flow
or energy anticipated or desired by the professor or his cast. Mindsets which
under real prison conditions can be altered by the possession or use of mind
altering substances such as heroin, meth, marijuana, prescription drugs and
other illicit controlled substances banned and considered contraband under most
rules of voluminous prison settings considered to be a standard in the prison
industry.
This study was
about change. It was intended to document human behavioral changes created or
evolved under different circumstances. This was a focal point on human beings
having the ability to adapt or cope with adversity. In addition to those
forces, it also brought to light the world of compliance and non-compliance,
otherwise listed as obedience psychology.
Divided among
two groups, prisoner and guard, the world was made essentially into a black and
white situation that is unreal in any setting. How anyone can accept this as a legitimate
study is beyond my personal comprehension levels thus I chose to write about
this study for such reasons.
These inadequate
obedience studies were created to show how people, ordinary people, prompted,
provoked or stimulated by a trigger by an authority figure, were willing to
exhibit defiance or compliance when told what to do and either chose to comply
or suffer the “painful and potentially” lethal and non-lethal capabilities of a
system designed to shock you into compliance.
Lethal being
those guards who are armed with guns and other lethal weapons and non-lethal
for those carrying mace or chemical agents, batons, or other impact weapons to
gain compliance including their hands and feet. Changes which can underscore
human responses that may fluctuate when a different approach is used. Approach is defined to be verbal or physical
in nature with the invested authority or power by such a person to impose their
will on others. Approach may be singular or plural depending on the situational
assessment of the event or activity.
The logic or
rationale is the enforcement of institutional rules and regulations but by all
means, this could include many other directives or motives given for such a
direct order to comply even with unlawful directives. Approach also means
whether the presence of force is lethal or non-lethal or in other terms,
intimidating or non-intimidating to the prisoners who are subject to these
orders.
So far, based
on changing the stage settings, the Stanford experiment did not underscore or
take into consideration these extreme but common environmental triggers. If
seemed to focus more in a theatrical aspect of how people, “regular’ people
would act if “given too much power, could transform into ruthless oppressors.”
A fact that is based more on a desired predetermined outcome than a reality of
most situations where the interactions have more variables or possibilities
than a “yes” or “no” in the conflict or confrontation. In fact, since it is the
guard’s first prerogative to avoid conflict, such escalations rarely occur on a
routine basis.
There appears
to be some connection between this study and the documentation of the extremely
aggravated circumstances of Abu Ghraib. One cannot and should not connect the
two as a “norm” since there were behaviors on both sides that are questionable
and documented in an already sterile and yet, on the side of a different world
and culture, a more volatile and brutal environment which was not the case on
the Stanford experiment, which had no such dynamic working inside its cultural
settings or expectations.
Comparing the
two would be speculative that they are both the same setting and therefore, the
behaviors are consistent with the study and research provided forty-five years
earlier. Such a fallacy is easy to find and should be taken into consideration
when comparing apples with oranges. However, focusing on the behaviors of the
guards at Abu Ghraib, it was indeed, a travesty of justice; the epitome of
American penal abuse and punishment towards a prison population which numbered
thousands and that was involved in a war of terror and internal political
strife in a civil war. Hardly nine (9) individuals arrested for armed robbery
and burglary if you see the differences here.
Focusing on the
Stanford experiment, the professor, the director and the cast attempt to cite
it as evidence of “atavistic impulses.” They chose to use primitive as a means
to impose punishment because the study lacked the ability to provide the most
recent and best practices used inside jails and prisons at that time. Another
gap that impacts credibility but needless to say, the focus was on these
negative impulses that created regular people into “r.”
The fact is, we
can all become tyrants if the conditions permit themselves to nurture such an
environment. It isn’t that hard to attain if you know how to be a bully or
otherwise inconsiderate person to the other persons’ dignity, respect and
rights. This is what puzzles me so often as to why the Stanford experiment was
done in such a fashion.
What did it
accomplish and did it just confirm what we already knew. People can be brutal
and cruel if allowed to be or given the authority to act that way? Certainly,
we can read the history books and have a sufficient lesson learned there to
avoid spending our time role playing prisoner –guard relationships for six (6)
days.
So I agree with
the writer, Maria Konnikova, who wrote, “The study has been haunted by
ambiguity. Even as it suggests that ordinary people harbor ugly potentialities,
it also testifies to the way our circumstances shape our behavior. Was the
study about our individual fallibility, or about broken institutions?”
An interesting
question as it may be universally applied to several recent prison disturbances
where such brutalities were disclosed and demonstrated how “broken
institutions” can impact public safety or incite riotous behaviors because of
environmental conditions unaddressed and out of control.
Applying the
findings of the Stanford experiment would not solve one problem inside today’s
jails or prisons because it lacks credibility and evidence that such results
were documented under legitimate research condition and controlled
provocations. There is too much room for error in judgements and conclusions to
nail it down to a certainty we could rely on as a reference material and
evidentiary in nature.
The appeal of
the study conforms to the appeal for a reality show on television. Turning a
show like this into a reality episode likened to the “Orange is the New Black”
series might peak the interest of the audience chosen for such reality shows,
but not likely those who work in the profession.
I disagree the
Stanford Experiment was conducted in a “heavy manipulated environment.” It does
not even get close or resemble the realities of the level of manipulation
present in a real jail or prison and should not be presented that way. The
appeal was the setup, the stage and the actions of the players. However, there
was no real value here because the environment was so out of control (the
opposite of manipulated) and the research was so impulsive that the theories
could not be applied in a credible or evidence-based presentation.
Whether these
players were actors, students, prisoners or guards is totally irrelevant. They
all acted outside the normal scopes of people trained to do this job. Role
playing is far from real. Even if the script was real, the actions, mindset,
emotional and psychological aspects of such staged events differ from the real
thing. One can see how the study spiraled out of control so quickly as in a
real setting, there are cultural and administrative parameters that are
followed either by political means or peer pressure.
If their goal
was to provoke thought, to deliver a message of brutality or oppression under
the duress of being a prisoner under the supervision of a guard, they failed
miserably because the authority, the setting and the entire plot was bogus from
the beginning and adds nothing but a theatrical atmosphere to a brutal reality
of real-life jails and prisons.
References:
