PLUMS

Introduction:

Mankind, in every epoch, has always had a penchant for the macabre and the evil. Whether it be pillaging of castles, imperialistic ventures of colonization or wiping out enrollments; there is no end to the creative destruction that man can wreck if left to his own devices. Among the plethora of literature on various heinous acts that have been perpetrated, the work of Phillip Zimbardo stands unrivalled because as opposed to just delineating acts of evil, Zimbardo answers a deceptively simple question; ‘Understanding how good people turn evil.’ In his critically acclaimed book, ‘The Lucifer Effect’, Zimbardo chronicles the events of his infamous ‘Stanford Prison Experiment’ and quantifies the psychological factors which push one to traverse into the ambit of acts which are deemed as profane. The insight provided by Zimbardo, while stomach-churning, is of monumental importance because it not only allows one to map the effect that one’s surrounding has on one’s sense of identity, it also provides falsifiable and scientific explanations as to why evil exists ubiquitously in today’s morally degenerate world.

Overview:

Before delving further into an analysis of Zimbardo’s book, the exigence of the books needs to be understood. In 1970, Zimbardo conducted his infamous, and failed, Stanford Prison experiment in which he simulated a prison in the basement of the psychology building in Stanford with the hopes of investigating the various dispositional, situational and systemic factors which contribute towards, what Zimbardo calls, “deindiviudation.”(Zimbardo 21) The book draws on the findings of the experiment in 1970 and tries to reconcile the inhumane behavior of correctional officers in the notorious Abu Gharaib prison in Iraq during the regime of Sadam Hussein.

Before Zimbardo begins to chronicle the events of the experiment itself, he provides the reader with a very important caveat: the psychological factors which are conducive towards the prevalence of evil instincts within an individual. Zimbardo draws the dichotomy between the evil as being “essentialized” (Zimbardo 6), meaning it is innate in some others and absent in others, and evil being an “incrementalist” feature (Zimbardo 7) which means that every individual, given the right stimuli, is capable of perpetrator evil acts. Zimbardo further buttresses his arguments on various approaches to evil by explaining who simultaneously certain “dispositional, situational and systemic” (Zimbardo 7) factors also contribute to people committing acts of evil. Penultimately, he then addresses the element of power system and their top-down dominance and how authoritarian regimes are more often than naught characterized by heinous because of how easy It is for evil to permeate into the landscape when one person or entity wields absolute power. He then goes on to provide instances outrageously evils acts by providing examples such as the rape of the people of Rwanda in the spring of 1994 and the rape of the people of Nanking, China, in 1937 as example. A salient feature of Zimbardo’s work which increases the efficacy of his arguments is how Zimbardo furnishes each psychological viewpoint with examples as aforementioned. Having established the necessary psychological foundation surrounding the independent variable which he looks to investigate, Zimbardo delves directly into the experiment and begins arresting the volunteers in collaboration with the police department of Palo Alto on a Sunday morning; the arrests are made to look as legitimate as possible in lieu of the real world likeness created by the police officers as they recite the Miranda rights of the prisoners, the filming of the entire arrest and official booking and registration of the prisoners in the Palo Alto police station. As the guards and prisoners assume their roles, the slow process of deindividuation and dehumanization begins. While the day starts off with mild instances of humiliation such as the presence of a “locked chain” ( Zimbardo 40) around the ankles of prisoners, the prohibition of wearing undergarments and referring to prisoners as their registration numbers the abuse slowly becomes more inhumane due to arbitrary abuses of power being conducted by guards such as conducting prisoner counts at 2 AM in the morning and further penalizing the prisoners by having to repeat these counts in a mind-numbingly monotonous manner if the guards wanted the counts to be “sweet” or to be sung by the prisoners ( Zimbardo  49). The prisoners are further forced to refer to the guards not by their names but as “Mr. Correctional Officer” (Zimbardo 51) which further accelerates the process of the loss of identity. What’s important to appreciate at this point in time is that Zimbardo is recording all the proceedings in real-time from a control room and it’s this covert surveillance by Zimbardo which truly enlightens the reader as to the extent to which the guards and prisoners begin to internalize their roles. Further, Zimbardo provides the insights of the guards and prisoners alongside stating the happenings of each day; this Is very useful because statements such as that of prisoner 7258 stating how “as the day goes on, I wish I was a guard” (Zimbardo 51)  helps the reader keep track of the timeline of the deindividuation of the volunteers. Sunday is an eventful day as towards the end, the first signs of rebellion can be seen as prisoner 2093 violates the time constraints he is given for going to the lavatory; the wheels of anonymity have been set in motion, but the process is being hampered as old identities clash against the new, engendered ones.

Monday morning starts off with another prisoner count being conducted by the guard but something very peculiar occurs; for the first time, the guards threaten to use violence against non-cooperative prisoners as the guard Ceros “smacks his club against his open palm, making the wap wap sound of restrained aggression.”(Zimbardo 57) Further, the abuse of power starts to become even more arbitrary as prisoners are forced to shout that it’s a “wonderful day.” (Zimbardo 58) Due to the failure of prisoner 8612 to meet the standard set by the guards as far as making his bed is concerned, he is thrown into the “hole” (Zimbardo 59); an improvised simulation of solitary confinement. Rebellion stars brewing as prisoners starts responding to the senseless abuse of guard power such as dragging the blankets of the inmates through pins but slowly, the prisoners start assuming a rather mellowed and submissive stance whereas the guards assert their dominance. While there is also an escape attempt by prisoner 5704, the effort fizzles out resulting in a penultimate frenzy of idiosyncratic counts being conducted by the guards eventually leading to prisoner 8612 breaking down and being removed from the experiment. An important fact to be cognizant of at this point in time is that 8612 had earlier asserted how this entire ordeal Is a “simulated experiment,” And its “no prison.” (Zimbardo 61) Within just one day, the roles have been deeply engrained that the loss of identity and distress can be physically witnessed in the prisoners. The next few chapters of the book further outline the extent of deindividuation. On Tuesday, prisoners are visited by their parents, siblings and spouses and while one would expect the prisoners to cry out in agony to their loved ones, many reassure their families that they are being taken care of and are happy;  prisoner 819, a very frequent member of solitary confinement, comments when asked by his brother if he wants to get out, “I can’t be out of here, I am in this wonderful place.” (Zimbardo 95) Next, one has to appreciate the oversight that Zimbardo shows while conducting the experiment; He ensures that the prisoners are visited by a priest on Wednesday as a means to not psychologically evaluate the prisoners and quell some of their grievances, but also to ensure that the most authentic prison environment is present in order for the dispositional factors to run their course. By the same token, Zimbardo then institutes a “Parole Board” (Zimbardo 100) whose sole purpose is to give the “semblance of democracy in this authoritarian setting.” (Zimbardo 90) The Parole board listen to the arguments made by each prisoner which are penultimately buttressed by the testimonies of the guard before the parole board finally reviews the cases. Again, the sheer breadth of experience of Zimbardo as a proficient experimenter is seen because having the necessary vision and creativity to institute a parole board is something which very few researchers can depict through their work. The parole board meets the plaintive pleas of the prisoners with utter indifference, since it’s all part of an experiment, and readers face a very spine-chilling reality; the prisoners are completely immersed within their new identities. The parole board asks the prisoners if they will be willing to forfeit their fee for being paroled right at that instant and 3 out of 4 men answered in the affirmative. Behind the veneer of the obvious, this statistic is proof of the strong dispositional factors at play because the idea of giving up the pay signals that the prisoners consider the remuneration less important their freedom; however, what’s surprising is that despite no longer having any purpose to continue to be part of the experiment, ‘ each prisoner passively submitted to the system, holding out his hands to be handcuffed…’ before the guards took them away. Similarly, as Zimbardo reflects in his notes, none of the prisoner says, ‘since I do not want your money, I am free to quit this experiment and demand to be released now.’ The malleability of identities is seen through this example. Thursday marks a grim day because the guards resort to sexually degrading punishments. Again, what’s important to note is how the chronology which Zimbardo provides us with helps one to follow the progression of arbitrariness and loss of identity within the prisoners and the guards; the transition from minimalistic punishments such as prisoner counts to extreme forms of punishment such as enacting  sexual scenarios is perhaps the most appropriate yardstick with which the reader can follow the slow degeneration of initial identities and the permeation of evil. Friday marks the last day of the experiment as the signs of distress reach an alarming pedestal. Zimbardo doesn’t just provide a summary of the debriefing of the prisoners and attempts to counter act the deindividuation, he also provides insight into questions such as “why the prisoners failed to request legal advice.” (Zimbardo 178)  Moreover, Zimbardo provides his own reflection In this chapter; the fact that Zimbardo admits that “I was overcome by the aphrodisiac of positive power…” (Zimbardo 179) after having set the prisoners free goes to show that the prison setup had not just affected the guards and the prisoners, but also the researcher itself; this is a further testimony to the fervor of situational forces and their roles in helping people cascade into evil. This aforementioned fervor is further made obvious through the reflections of the prisoners and powerful statements such as those by prisoners 5486 and 8612 stating, “the most apparent thing that I noticed was how most of the people in this study derive their sense of identity and well-being from their imediate surroundings…” and “it was the part, the psychological part that was the worst.” (Zimbardo 186) In the rest of the chapters, the defining feature of this books comes into the spotlight; The psychological caveats and insights into dynamics of the various off-shoots of the experiment. Zimbardo enlightens the readers with the “alchemy of character transformations” (Zimbardo 195) and breaks down how the transformations map onto the theory of “learned helplessness” (Zimbardo 196) by Martin Seligman. Another appeal to ethos put forth by Zimbardo is how he relates this theory and previously mentioned dispositional forces with the famous story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde; this allows the audience to understand a rather complex psychological concept easily in lieu of Zimbardo’s prowess of diluting complexities while still maintaining their essence. Another defining characteristic of this book is the candid tone which Zimbardo adopts; while discussing the ethics of the experiment in chapter 11, Zimbardo openly admits that the experiment was blurring lines between ethical and non-ethical however he adds another dynamic to this debate on the ethicality of the experiment by first discerning between “absolute ethics” (Zimbardo 233) and “relative ethics.” (Zimbardo 235) Chapter 12 of the book sees Zimbardo investigating social dynamics such as “power, conformity and obedience.” (Zimbardo 258) He further goes onto show how these dynamics run their course by citing infamous examples such as the racial cleansing conducted by Nazis, suicide bombers obliterating civilians and school shooters hunting children indiscriminately. He adds another academic layer of credibility to his explanation by quoting the Milgram Experiment within which the volunteers knowingly administered fatal shocks to random people because they were part of centralized and hierarchical power structure. Finally, Zimbardo ties in this entire discussion on the psychology of evil by exporting his findings from the SPE and laying them onto the tortures at Abu Ghraib. In a very specific manner, Zimbardo breaks down the actions of the infamous abusers such as ‘Chip’ Frederick and Charles Graner. The prowess of Zimbardo is seen in this chapter as he relates the behaviors of these guards to the behaviors of the guards in the simulated SPE in 1970; this allows the reader to truly understand how and why the abusers conducted such heinous acts.

Drawbacks:

The first set of drawbacks of this book are in fact drawbacks of the SPE itself. Zimbardo knowingly let abuses be carried under his supervision while the initial agreement which was signed with the students clearly stipulated that basic amenities such as protection against violence and proper hygiene shall be provided. Second, Dr. Peter Gray of ‘Psychology Today’ makes the very valid point that the America of 1973 was crippled by innumerable instances of police brutality and prison riots. For a psychology professor, at Stanford, who was looking to observe the happenings in a simulated prison, how could Zimbardo be so lax in not putting up robust safety mechanisms for the prisoners. Third, the abuse carried out by the prisoners wasn’t solely of their own devices; rather, more often than naught the prison superintendent, Zimbardo, categorically told the prisoners that “… we can create boredom. We can create a sense of frustration. We can create fear in them…they’ll have no privacy at all… they will have no freedom of action.” (Zimbardo 55) To top it all off, Zimbardo provides conflicting reflection on this abuse he helped to create. While in the preface he mentions how “it was emotionally painful to review all of the videotapes” and how “ time had dimmed my memory of the extent of the suffering of many of the prisoners,” (Zimbardo IX) Zimbardo actually justifies the abuses by presenting the argument of relative and absolute ethics while clearly stating that “was the SPE study unethical…however there are other ways of viewing this research that provide a reasonable no.” (Zimbardo 231)  Moreover, in his article ‘The lie of the Stanford prison experiment’, co-conspirator and ex-convict Carlo Prescott admits that ‘…ideas such as bags being placed over the heads of prisoners, inmates being bound together with chains and buckets being used in place of toilets in their cells were all experiences of mine in  the old Spanish jail.’ Hence, the authenticity of the experiment and the exact role being played by dispositional factors in dulling the sense of identities of the guards and forcing them to resort to ‘creative evil’ Is trivialized.  The Second set of problems with Zimbardo’s work is linked to the logistical drawbacks of the book; the book is an exhaustive read spread over 561 pages and Zimbardo takes more than 250 pages to present the events of the experiment which could have been summarized in much briefer and concise manner. As an extension of the previous point, the reason behind the writing of this book was to expose the claims made by whistleblowers against the Abu Ghraib prison and to understand why they were conducted in the first place; however, since Zimbardo takes so much time to delineate the findings of the SPE, the reader lose interest by the time they get the point of Abu Ghraib prison because of the monotonous way that Zimbardo presents the findings of his experiment. Last, the book has a fundamental weakness which other reviews often don’t cover in-detail. During both halves of the book, Zimbardo reconciles other acts of evil such as the sexual abuses conducted by clerics, the destruction causes by the My Lai butchery in Vietnam, the atrocities in Rwanda, but something very crucial is amiss in these examples; while Zimbardo reconciles them on the basis of his findings in the SPE and based on the commonality that they are all acts of evil, he fails to recognize that these events have more elements diametrically opposed to one another than they have in common. For example, one cannot possible associate the rape of the people of Rwanda with suicides in Jonestown because the necessary element of corruption of centralized power which is present in the case of Rwanda is absent in the latter example. Similarly, the atrocities conducted in Nanking cannot be linked with the harassment conducted by priests as the necessary element of imbuing religious clerics with unfettered authority is lacking in the first example. Hence, it is the specific sociological paradigms which Zimbardo doesn’t factor in while attempting to explaining these acts that make his work less credible.

Conclusion:

            The lucifer Effect is a book which indeed has rocked the cradle of 50 years’ worth of psychological research and has interesting ramifications on both prison systems and ethical standards of experimentation. Though being a slightly difficult read, the book is essential for everyone looking to make sense of evil acts which ubiquitously riddle their immediate surroundings and social landscapes. Though the book may be specifically useful for the personnel that regulate the servers at the time of enrollment, it’s a must-read for anybody with the willingness to put in the time.