First, the Milgram experiment, which was devised in the 60s, three months after the start of the trial of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann.  Milgram wanted to know "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"  Everyone was under the opinion that there was something special about the Germans that made them either bloodthirsty by nature, or so sheeplike that they would harm people on command.  Milgram wanted to prove that anyone could be lulled into harming others.

Basically, Milgram is person E, and he tells the subject (person T), that they are there to help teach a person in another room to memorize things under different conditions.  The person in the other room (person L) is actually an actor.  The subject, by the way, thinks that he has been randomly assigned to be the "teacher" in this experiment.  Milgram would always mention that the person in the other room has a heart condition, and would then tell the subject that their job is to quiz the person in the other room on word pairs, and when they are incorrect, the subject is to give increasingly strong shocks to the person.

Obviously, the actor never received any shocks, but would get a lot of things wrong, and every time, would scream as the subject shocked him.  As long as Milgram was there to encourage the subject to increase the voltage each time, they subjects would, until the actor started to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject.  After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, and then the actor would just go silent.  At this point, many subjects indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner.  Some subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment.  Most continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.  After the first protest by the subject, Milgram would say "Please continue".  Next protest- "The experiment requires that you continue".  Third protest?  "It is absolutely essential that you continue".  Fourth protest- "You have no other choice, you must go on".  If the subject still wished to stop after all four successive verbal prods, the experiment was halted. Otherwise, it was halted after the subject had given the maximum 450-volt shock three times in succession.

So what did people do?  65 percent (26 of 40) of the subjects administered the experiment's final 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment. No participant steadfastly refused to administer shocks before the 300-volt level, and none of the people who left early would leave the room before being given permission.  Milgram found that obedience and willingness to go all the way increased when the experiment was held in a university setting, and when Milgram wore a white lab coat.

Watch all the Matrixy 1984ish V for Vendetta movies you want, but that experiment haunts me.

In warmer and more life-affirming news, Harry Harlow did this precious experiment in the mid-60s as well, with Rhesus monkeys.  He removed baby rhesus monkeys from their mothers, and offered them a choice between two surrogate mothers, one made of terrycloth, the other of wire.  They were divided into two groups, and in the first group, the terrycloth mother provided no food, while the wire mother provided an attached baby bottle containing milk.  In the second group, the terrycloth mother provided food; the wire mother did not. It was found that the babies clung to the terrycloth mother whether it provided them with food or not.  If the babies were placed in an unfamiliar room with their cloth surrogates, they clung to it until they felt secure enough to explore. Once they began to explore, they would occasionally return to the cloth mother for comfort. Monkeys placed in an unfamiliar room without their cloth mothers acted very differently. They would freeze in fear and cry, crouch down, or suck their thumbs. Some of the monkeys would even run from object to object, apparently searching for the cloth mother as they cried and screamed. Monkeys placed in this situation with their wire mothers exhibited the same behavior as the monkeys with no mother.  The study found that monkeys who were raised with either a wire mother or a cloth mother gained weight at the same rate. However, the monkeys that had only a wire mother had trouble digesting the milk and suffered from diarrhea more frequently. Harlow interpreted this to mean that not having contact comfort was psychologically stressful to the monkeys.

Of course they want a comfy mommy!  Look at that scared baby!  It reminds me of that scene in Ghostbusters II when Egon is observing a girl with a puppy and says "now let's see what happens when we take the puppy away".

And, the granddaddy of all experiments that make you lose your faith in human nature, the Stanford Prison Experiment.  You've probably at least heard of this study.  In 1971, Phillip Zombardo, a professor at Stanford, recruited participants in the paper by offering them $15 a day to participate in a two-week "prison simulation."  Twenty four men, mostly white and middle class, were chosen.  The "prison" itself was in the basement of Stanford's Jordan Hall, which had been converted into a mock jail. An undergrad research assistant "warden" and Zimbardo the "super".  The men were divided in half randomly, and half were assigned to be prisoners, the other half guards.

The guards were given wooden batons, khaki uniforms, and mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact.  Prisoners wore ill-fitting smocks and stocking caps. Guards called prisoners by their assigned numbers, sewn on their uniforms, instead of by name. A chain around their ankles reminded them of their roles as prisoners.  The guards went through orientation before starting the study, to learn how to properly control the prisoners' lives, and the prisoners were "arrested" at their homes and "charged" with armed robbery. The local police assisted with the arrests and conducted full booking procedures on the prisoners, which included fingerprinting and taking mug shots. At the prison, they were transported to the mock prison where they were strip-searched and given their new identities.

So what happened?  The experiment quickly grew out of hand. Prisoners suffered — and accepted — sadistic and humiliating treatment from the guards. The high level of stress progressively led them from rebellion to inhibition. By experiment's end, many showed severe emotional disturbances.

A riot broke out on the second day. The guards volunteered to work extra hours and worked together to break the prisoner revolt, attacking the prisoners with fire extinguishers without supervision from the research staff.   Guards forced the prisoners to count off repeatedly as a way to learn their prison numbers, and to reinforce the idea that this was their new identity.  Sanitary conditions declined rapidly, made worse by the guards refusing to allow some prisoners to use the bathrooms.  Mattresses were a valued item in the spartan prison, so the guards would punish prisoners by removing their mattresses, leaving them to sleep on concrete. Some prisoners were forced to go nude as a method of degradation, and some were subjected to sexual humiliation, including simulated homosexual sex.

Zimbardo himself got caught up in the prison simulation, and on the fourth day, when some prisoners were talking about trying to escape, Zimbardo tried to have them moved to an actual police station.   An undergrad assistant was asked to go in and interview the prisoners and was shocked and appalled by the treatment they were getting.  She questioned Zimbardo (who later married her!!) and after some thought, he shut down the experiment.  It had only gone on for six of the planned 14 days.

Here's a great website with a slide show of pictures of the experiment, which has been deemed unethical and also kinda badass.  It's also a name that's dropped every time someone mentions the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.

I've been thinking about the complexity of bullying situations lately. And today I happened across the blog of an inspirational woman who is in the midst of an ugly bullying drama, fully casted. There's the victim, the bully and her two supporters, and the innocent bystanders. It's all tying in nicely with the book I'm reading by Dr. Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect. I'm particularly interested in the role of the innocent bystander, which of course is not the powerless roll we believe it to be. I think that's where the banality of heroism (Zimbardo's term) as well as the banality of evil grows, according to our individual reactions to the situation at hand.

All of this thinking brings me to this little film short. It's written for parents and teachers, but I think it'd be great for use in community groups. There are supplemental classroom materials are available at Bullfrog Films. It's an expensive film but you can borrow it from the nearest college or university library. The interlibrary loan service at your local public library might be able to get it for you too.

Enjoy!

Homework: Read part I of Cuckoo's Nest (9-129).  In the right-hand column of the chart you worked on today, list  techniques used by 'Big' Nurse Ratched to maintain control in the ward that correspond to the ones used by the 'guards' in Zimbardo's prison.  

Work on those media analyses!

Chi non conoscesse l'esperimento di Zimbardo lo può trovare in questo sito, dedicato al 100% a quanto accaduto nel 1971 a Stanford. Il film prende spunto dalla realtà e estremizza il tutto, realizzando una vicenda che ruota attorno a personaggi un po' atipici (il protagonista è un taxista-reporter dal carattere forte, ma a tratti il suo comportamento sembra mosso dall'intenzione di realizzare uno scoop, stravolgendo in parte il senso dell'esito dell'esperimento). Certamente il tutto è cinematograficamente più avvincente in questo modo, ma forse chi conosceva la vicenda reale si attendeva qualcosa di più "fedele" ad essa, magari anche a discapito di un po' di azione.

Il film non eccelle certo per quel che riguarda il sottolineare i processi psicologici evidenziati a Stanford. Risultati che ancora oggi sembrano incredibili e, almeno per quel che mi riguarda, destabilizzanti.

Come sottolineato anche dallo stesso Zimbardo, non stupiamoci poi dei fatti di cronaca (leggeteci Guantanamo, Abu Graib o quant'altro vogliate), non storciamo il naso, non scuotiamo la testa: chi ci assicura che noi, nei panni dei carcerieri, non saremmo anche peggio?

Sospiro allora, promettendomi di leggere L'Effetto Lucifero quanto prima e lasciando qui di seguito un breve clip trovato su yuoTube:

The Stanford prison experiment was a psychological study of what it meant to be a prisoner and a prison guard, psychologically. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by psychologist Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of 70 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. The students who were assigned to be the prisoners were paid $15 a day as an incentive, which is worth about $80 per day in 2008 dollars.

Prisoners and guards rapidly adapted to their roles, stepping beyond the boundaries of what had been predicted and leading to dangerous and psychologically damaging situations. One-third of the guards were judged to have exhibited "genuine" sadistic tendencies, while many prisoners were emotionally traumatized and two had to be removed from the experiment early. Finally, Zimbardo terminated the experiment because he realized that his experiment was unethical.

Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman Jr wrote in 1981 that the Milgram Experiment in the 1960s and the later Zimbardo Experiment were frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature.

Zimbardo and his team intended to test the hypothesis that prison guards and convicts were self-selecting of a certain disposition that would naturally lead to poor conditions. Participants were recruited via a newspaper ad and offered $15 a day to participate in a two-week "prison simulation." Of the 75 respondents, Zimbardo and his team selected the 24 males whom they deemed to be the most psychologically stable and healthy. These participants were predominantly white and middle-class.

The "prison" itself was in the basement of Stanford's Jordan Hall, which had been converted into a mock jail. An undergraduate research assistant was the "warden" and Zimbardo the "superintendent". Zimbardo set up a number of specific conditions on the participants which he hoped would promote disorientation, depersonalization and deindividuation.

Guards were given wooden batons and a khaki, military-style uniform that they had chosen at a local military surplus store. They were also given mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact. Unlike the prisoners, the guards were to work in shifts and return home during off hours, though at times many would later volunteer for added duty without additional pay.

Prisoners were to wear only intentionally ill-fitting muslin smocks without underwear and rubber thong sandals, which Zimbardo said would force them to adopt "unfamiliar body postures" and discomfort in order to further their sense of disorientation. They were referred to by assigned numbers instead of by name. These numbers were sewn onto their uniforms, and the prisoners were required to wear tight-fitting nylon pantyhose caps to simulate shaven heads similar to those of military basic training. In addition, they wore a small chain around their ankles as a "constant reminder" of their imprisonment and oppression.

The day before the experiment, guards attended a brief orientation meeting but were given no formal guidelines other than that no physical violence was permitted. They were told it was their responsibility to run the prison, and they could do so in any way they wished.

Zimbardo provided the following statements to the "guards" in the briefing:

You can create in the prisoners feelings of boredom, a sense of fear to some degree, you can create a notion of arbitrariness that their life is totally controlled by us, by the system, you, me, and they'll have no privacy… We're going to take away their individuality in various ways. In general what all this leads to is a sense of powerlessness. That is, in this situation we'll have all the power and they'll have none.

— The Stanford Prison Study video, quoted in Haslam & Reicher, 2003.

The participants who had been chosen to play the part of prisoners were told simply to wait in their homes to be "called" on the day the experiment began. Without any other warning, they were "charged" with armed robbery and arrested by the actual Palo Alto police department, who cooperated in this part of the experiment.

The prisoners were put through a full booking procedure by the police, including fingerprinting, having their mug shots taken, and information regarding their Miranda rights. They were transported to the mock prison where they were strip-searched, deloused, and given their new identities.

The experiment quickly grew out of hand. Prisoners suffered — and accepted — sadistic and humiliating treatment from the guards. The high level of stress progressively led them from rebellion to inhibition. By experiment's end, many showed severe emotional disturbances.

After a relatively uneventful first day, a riot broke out on the second day. The guards volunteered to work extra hours and worked together to break the prisoner revolt, attacking the prisoners with fire extinguishers without supervision from the research staff.

Prisoner counts, initially devised for the prisoners to learn their identity numbers, degenerated to hour-long ordeals where guards tormented the prisoners and imposed physical punishments, including long bouts of forced exercise. The prison became dirty and inhospitable; bathroom rights became privileges, which could be, and frequently were, denied. Some prisoners were forced to clean toilets with bare hands. Mattresses were removed from the "bad" cell block and the prisoners forced to sleep naked on the concrete floor. Moreover, prisoners endured forced nudity and even sexual humiliation.

Zimbardo cited his own absorption in the experiment he guided, and in which he actively participated as Prison Superintendent. On the fourth day, he and the guards reacted to an escape rumor by attempting to move the entire experiment to a real, unused cell block at the local police station, because it was more secure. The police department refused, citing insurance liability concerns; Zimbardo recalls his anger and disgust with the lack of co-operation, between his and the police's jails.

As the experiment proceeded, several guards became progressively sadistic. Experimenters said that approximately one-third of the guards exhibited genuine sadistic tendencies. Interestingly, most of the guards were upset when the experiment concluded early.

Zimbardo argued that the prisoner participants had internalized their roles, based on the fact that some had stated that they would accept parole even with the attached condition of forfeiting all of their experiment-participation pay. Yet, when their parole applications were all denied, none of the prisoner participants quit the experiment. Zimbardo argued they had no reason for continued participation in the experiment after having lost all monetary compensation, yet they did, because they had internalised the prisoner identity, they thought themselves prisoners, hence, they stayed.

Zimbardo concluded the experiment early when Christina Maslach, a graduate student he was then dating (and later married), objected to the appalling conditions of the prison after she was introduced to the experiment to conduct interviews. Zimbardo noted that of more than fifty outside persons who had seen the prison, Maslach was the only one who questioned its morality. After only six days, of a planned two weeks' duration, the Stanford Prison experiment was shut down.

The Stanford experiment ended on August 20, 1971, only 6 days after it began instead of the 14 it was supposed to have lasted. The experiment's result has been argued to demonstrate the impressionability and obedience of people when provided with a legitimizing ideology and social and institutional support. It is also used to illustrate cognitive dissonance theory and the power of authority.

In psychology, the results of the experiment are said to support situational attributions of behavior rather than dispositional attribution. In other words, it seemed the situation caused the participants' behavior, rather than anything inherent in their individual personalities. In this way, it is compatible with the results of the also-famous Milgram experiment, in which ordinary people fulfilled orders to administer what appeared to be damaging electric shocks to a confederate of the experimenter.

Shortly after the study had been completed, there were bloody revolts at both the San Quentin and Attica prison facilities, and Zimbardo reported his findings on the experiment to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary.

The experiment was widely criticized as being unethical and bordering on unscientific. Current ethical standards of psychology would not permit such a study to be conducted today. The study would violate the American Psychological Associate Ethics Code, the Canadian Code of Conduct for Research Involving Humans, and the Belmont Report. Critics including Erich Fromm challenged how readily the results of the experiment could be generalized. Fromm specifically writes about how the personality of an individual does in fact affect behavior when imprisoned (using historical examples from the Nazi concentration camps). This runs counter to the study's conclusion that the prison situation itself controls the individual's behavior. Fromm also argues that the amount of sadism in the "normal" subjects could not be determined with the methods employed to screen them.

Because it was a field experiment, it was impossible to keep traditional scientific controls. Zimbardo was not merely a neutral observer, but influenced the direction of the experiment as its "superintendent". Conclusions and observations drawn by the experimenters were largely subjective and anecdotal, and the experiment would be difficult for other researchers to reproduce.

Additionally, it was criticized on the basis of ecological validity. Many of the conditions imposed in the experiment were arbitrary and may not have correlated with actual prison conditions, including blindfolding incoming "prisoners", not allowing them to wear underwear, not allowing them to look out of windows and not allowing them to use their names. Zimbardo argued that prison is a confusing and dehumanizing experience and that it was necessary to enact these procedures to put the "prisoners" in the proper frame of mind; however, it is difficult to know how similar the effects were to an actual prison, and the experiment's methods would be difficult to reproduce exactly so that others could test them.

Some said that the study was too deterministic: reports described significant differences in the cruelty of the guards, the worst of whom came to be nicknamed "John Wayne." (This guard alleges he started the escalation of events between "guards" and "prisoners" after he began to emulate a character from the Paul Newman film Cool Hand Luke. He further intensified his actions because he was nicknamed "John Wayne" though he was trying to mimic actor Strother Martin who played the role of the sadistic "Captain" in the movie.) Other guards were kinder and often did favors for prisoners. Zimbardo made no attempt to explain or account for these differences.

Also, it has been argued that selection bias may have played a role in the results. Researchers from Western Kentucky University recruited students for a study using an advertisement similar to the one used in the Stanford Prison Experiment, with and without the words "prison life." It was found that students volunteering for a prison life study possessed dispositions toward abusive behavior.

Lastly, the sample size was very small, with only 24 participants taking part over a relatively short period of time. This means that it is very hard to generalise across a wider scale. Also, the sample selection only contained males, meaning that the sample then is 'androcentric' again, leading to a lack of representativeness.

my response
it shows that if you give a person the opportunity to feel superior and to make someone feel inferior, even if it's just for a day, he would take it... it also shows how self we can be.
and i wanted to point out that it's exactly like what we did in the jim crow laws before the 60's. it was all about race and inequality, and the whites were "superior" to african americans. so the whites treated the african american very badly. and the african americans were "helpless" until the 50's.

So che molti di voi sono piuttosto turbati a causa dei risultati elettorali delle ultime settimane e quasi increduli di fronte a questo ennesimo, direi tragico, epilogo di esperienza democratica.

Ultimamente – e non sarà stata la prima volta, nè l’ultima – vi sarete interrogati profondamente sul senso di tutto ciò, sul perchè dell’accaduto, sul perchè di questo così sconsiderato agire dei vostri connazionali, della massa umana in genere.

Beh, questo mio modesto scritto vorrebbe in qualche modo rispondere a tali domande, o alla domanda per eccellenza, quella che assilla da secoli studiosi e da anni me medesimo e che si potrebbe riassumere simpaticamente con “ma la gente c’è o ce fa?” Attenzione però, qui non si vuole in alcun modo banalizzare la questione, bensì risolverla attraverso un percorso empirico ed un ragionamento logico.

Questo post, che potrebbe tranquillamente mettere la parola fine a questo blog, non tanto per mancanza di ulteriori argomenti, quanto per il suo carattere “definitivo” e riassuntivo dello stesso, lo ritengo un dovere verso quella ristretta cerchia di individui che pensano invece di ballare - dal momento che sono sempre più convinto che le due funzioni non siano espletabili nel corso della stessa vita - ma che peccano terribilmente di ottimismo e di ingenuità; voglio che capiate ciò che io ho già capito e di cui vi faccio dono.

Credo che tutti voi non imbecilli vi siate chiesti almeno una volta nella vita – giacchè questa tendenza interrogativa è presupposto necessario per l’appartenenza alla suddetta categoria – perchè la maggior parte delle persone che vi hanno insegnato a considerare vostri simili adottino, o abbiano adottato, storicamente, uno stile di vita così poco intelligente ed esibiscano una così elevata scelleratezza in ogni azione del loro esistere.

Come sia possibile, quindi, che esistano “Il Grande Fratello”, le religioni, la moda, la mafia, la fame, le guerre, la massoneria, Puff Daddy, i bracconieri, il calcinculo e la corrida.

La risposta definitiva è più semplice di quanto possiate immaginare e coincide perfettamente con due nomi del passato: Stanley Milgram e Philip Zimbardo, due ricercatori che hanno dimostrato empiricamente la veridicità delle teorie di Gustave Le Bon che pubblicò nel 1895 un’opera dal titolo “Psicologia delle folle”.

Milgram fu uno psicologo statunitense il quale nel 1961 condusse un esperimento di psicologia sociale atto a studiare il comportamento di soggetti a cui un'autorità (nel caso specifico uno scienziato) ordina di eseguire delle azioni che confliggono con i valori etici e morali dei soggetti stessi.

L'esperimento, noto appunto come esperimento Milgram, cominciò tre mesi dopo l'inizio del processo a Gerusalemme contro il criminale di guerra nazista Adolf Eichmann. Milgram concepiva l'esperimento come un tentativo di risposta alla domanda: "È possibile che Eichmann e i suoi milioni di complici stessero semplicemente eseguendo degli ordini?"

I partecipanti alla ricerca furono reclutati tramite un annuncio su un giornale locale o tramite inviti spediti per posta a indirizzi ricavati dalla guida telefonica. Il campione risultò composto da persone fra i 20 e i 50 anni, maschi, di varia estrazione sociale. Fu loro comunicato che avrebbero collaborato, dietro ricompensa, a un esperimento sulla memoria e sugli effetti dell'apprendimento.

Nella fase iniziale della prova, lo sperimentatore, assieme a un complice, assegnava con un sorteggio truccato i ruoli di "allievo" e di "insegnante": il soggetto ignaro era sempre sorteggiato come insegnante e il complice come allievo. I due soggetti venivano poi condotti nelle stanze predisposte per l'esperimento. L'insegnante (soggetto ignaro) era posto di fronte al quadro di controllo di un generatore di corrente elettrica composto da 30 interruttori a leva posti in fila orizzontale, sotto ognuno dei quali era scritto il voltaggio, dai 15 V del primo ai 450 V dell'ultimo. Sotto ogni gruppo di 4 interruttori apparivano le seguenti scritte: (1-4) scossa leggera, (5-8) scossa media, (9-12) scossa forte, (13-16) scossa molto forte, (17-20) scossa intensa, (21-24) scossa molto intensa, (25-28) attenzione: scossa molto pericolosa, (29-30) XXX.

All'insegnante era fatta percepire la scossa relativa alla terza leva (45 V) in modo che si rendesse personalmente conto che non vi erano finzioni e gli venivano precisati i suoi compiti come segue:

Quest’ultimo veniva legato ad una specie di sedia elettrica e gli era applicato un elettrodo al polso, collegato al generatore di corrente posto nella stanza accanto. Doveva rispondere alle domande, e fingere una reazione con implorazioni e grida al progredire dell'intensità delle scosse (che in realtà non percepiva), fino a che, raggiunti i 330 V, non emetteva più alcun lamento.

Erano previsti quattro livelli di distanza tra insegnante e allievo: nel primo l'insegnante non poteva osservare né ascoltare i lamenti della vittima; nel secondo poteva ascoltare ma non osservare la vittima; nel terzo poteva ascoltare e osservare la vittima; nel quarto, per infliggere la punizione, doveva afferrare il braccio della vittima e spingerlo su una piastra. Lo sperimentatore aveva il compito, durante la prova, di esortare in modo pressante l'insegnante: "l'esperimento richiede che lei continui", "è assolutamente indispensabile che lei continui", "non ha altra scelta, deve proseguire". Il grado di obbedienza fu misurato in base al numero dell'ultimo interruttore premuto da ogni soggetto prima di interrompere la prova. Al termine dell'esperimento i soggetti furono informati che la vittima non aveva subito alcun tipo di scossa, che il loro comportamento era stato del tutto normale, che anche tutti gli altri partecipanti avevano reagito in modo simile.

Contrariamente alle aspettative, nonostante i 40 soggetti dell'esperimento mostrassero sintomi di tensione e protestassero verbalmente, una percentuale considerevole di questi, obbedì pedissequamente allo sperimentatore. Nel primo livello di distanza, il 65% dei soggetti andò avanti sino alla scossa più forte; nel secondo livello il 62,5%; nel terzo livello il 40%; nel quarto livello il 30%. Questo stupefacente grado di obbedienza, che ha indotto i partecipanti a violare i propri principi morali, è stato spiegato in rapporto ad alcuni elementi, quali l'obbedienza indotta da una figura autoritaria considerata legittima, la cui autorità induce uno stato eteronomico, caratterizzato dal fatto che il soggetto non si considera più libero di intraprendere condotte autonome, ma strumento per eseguire ordini. I soggetti dell'esperimento non si sono perciò sentiti moralmente responsabili delle loro azioni, ma esecutori dei voleri di un potere esterno.

L'obbedienza dipende anche dalla ridefinizione del significato della situazione. Ogni situazione è caratterizzata infatti da una sua ideologia che definisce e spiega il significato degli eventi che vi accadono, e fornisce la prospettiva grazie alla quale i singoli elementi acquistano coerenza. Dal momento che il soggetto accetta la definizione della situazione proposta dall'autorità, finisce col ridefinire un'azione distruttiva, non solo come ragionevole, ma anche come oggettivamente necessaria.

Le numerose ricerche che hanno successivamente utilizzato il paradigma di Milgram (come quelle di David Rosenham), hanno tutte pienamente confermato i risultati ottenuti dallo studioso, che sono stati ampiamente discussi anche nell'ambito di quel cospicuo filone di studi interessati a ricostruire i fattori che hanno reso possibile lo sterminio ad opera dei nazisti.

Dieci anni dopo Zimbardo riprese alcune idee di Le Bon; in particolare la teoria della deindividuazione, la quale sostiene che gli individui di un gruppo coeso costituente una folla, tendono a perdere l'identità personale, la consapevolezza, il senso di responsabilità, alimentando la comparsa di impulsi antisociali. Tale processo fu analizzato da Zimbardo nel celebre esperimento, realizzato nell'estate del 1971 nel seminterrato dell'Istituto di psicologia dell'Università di Stanford, a Palo Alto, dove fu riprodotto in modo fedele l'ambiente di un carcere. All’esperimento, che ha dell’incredibile, si sono ispirate due pellicole: La gabbia, film di Carlo Tuzii e The experimet, film di Oliver Hirschbiegel del 2001.

Fra i 75 studenti universitari che risposero a un annuncio apparso su un quotidiano che chiedeva volontari per una ricerca, gli sperimentatori ne scelsero 24, maschi, di ceto medio, fra i più equilibrati, maturi, e meno attratti da comportamenti devianti; furono poi assegnati casualmente al gruppo dei detenuti o a quello delle guardie. I prigionieri furono obbligati a indossare ampie divise sulle quali era applicato un numero, sia davanti che dietro, un berretto di plastica, e fu loro posta una catena a una caviglia; dovevano inoltre attenersi a una rigida serie di regole. Le guardie indossavano uniformi color kaki, occhiali da sole riflettenti che impedivano ai prigionieri di guardarle negli occhi, erano dotati di manganello, fischietto e manette, e fu concessa loro ampia discrezionalità circa i metodi da adottare per mantenere l'ordine. Tale abbigliamento poneva entrambi i gruppi in una condizione di deindividuazione.

I risultati di questo esperimento sono andati molto al di là delle previsioni degli sperimentatori, dimostrandosi particolarmente drammatici. Dopo solo due giorni si verificarono i primi episodi di violenza: i detenuti si strapparono le divise di dosso e si barricarono all'interno delle celle inveendo contro le guardie; queste iniziarono a intimidirli e umiliarli cercando in tutte le maniere di spezzare il legame di solidarietà che si era sviluppato fra essi. Le guardie costrinsero i prigionieri a cantare canzoni oscene, a defecare in secchi che non avevano il permesso di vuotare, a pulire le latrine a mani nude. A fatica le guardie e il direttore del carcere (lo stesso Zimbardo) riuscirono a contrastare un tentativo di evasione di massa da parte dei detenuti. Al quinto giorno i prigionieri mostrarono sintomi evidenti di disgregazione individuale e collettiva: il loro comportamento era docile e passivo, il loro rapporto con la realtà appariva seriamente compromesso da seri disturbi emotivi, mentre per contro le guardie continuavano a comportarsi in modo vessatorio e sadico. A questo punto i ricercatori interruppero l'esperimento suscitando da un lato la soddisfazione dei carcerati, ma dall'altro, un certo disappunto da parte delle guardie.

Secondo l'opinione di Philip Zimbardo, la prigione finta era diventata, nell'esperienza psicologica vissuta dai soggetti di entrambi i gruppi, una prigione vera. Assumere una funzione di controllo sugli altri nell'ambito di una istituzione come quella del carcere, induce ad assumere le norme e le regole dell'istituzione come unico valore a cui il comportamento deve adeguarsi, induce cioè quella "ridefinizione della situazione" utilizzata anche da Milgram per spiegare le conseguenze dello stato eteronomico (assenza di autonomia comportamentale) sul funzionamento psicologico delle persone. Il processo di deindividuazione induce una perdita di responsabilità personale, ovvero la ridotta considerazione delle conseguenze delle proprie azioni, indebolisce i controlli basati sul senso di colpa, la vergogna, la paura, così come quelli che inibiscono l'espressione di comportamenti distruttivi. La deindividuazione implica perciò una diminuita consapevolezza di sé, e un'aumentata identificazione e sensitività agli scopi a alle azioni intraprese dal gruppo: l'individuo pensa, in altri termini, che le proprie azioni facciano parte di quelle compiute dal gruppo.

L'importanza e l'attualità degli studi di Zimbardo è dimostrata dalle recenti vicende riguardanti le torture cui furono sottoposti i prigionieri iracheni nel carcere di Abu Ghraib, ad opera di militari statunitensi, durante l'occupazione militare dell'Iraq, iniziata nel 2003 come anche da quelle subite nel 2001 dai manifestanti del G8 di Genova da parte delle forze dell’ordine italiane nel carcere di Bolzaneto. Le immagini diffuse dai media, che ritraggono le sevizie e le umiliazioni subite dai prigionieri di guerra, ad esempio, risultano drammaticamente simili a quelle prodotte durante l'esperimento dell'Università di Stanford.

In sostanza, la volontà di Stanley Milgram e Philip Zimbardo era quella di dimostrare come la cattiveria non fosse una peculiarità dell’essere umano, una sua caratteristica innata; ma, dimostrando questo, essi non hanno fatto che dimostrare qualcosa di ancor più terribile e catastrofico: non è l’individuo ad essere naturalmente predisposto alla cattiveria, ma è la specie umana ad essere in larga parte naturalmente tendente all’imbecillità, alla pura sottomissione all’autorità e alla totale impossibilità di autogestione e autoliberazione. Tutto questo secondo le percentuali dei loro esperimenti, che sono veri, accaduti, inequivocabilmente documentati. Tutto questo, se dopo la semplice e diretta osservazione dei fatti della nostra quotidianità e dell’analisi della storia, falsificazioni e omissioni a parte, ve ne fosse ancora bisogno.

Questi sono i numeri, queste le statistiche, e da qui non si esce.

Ogni manifestazione della volontà collettiva ci è testimone di questo, in ogni epoca, in ogni luogo.

L'esempio più lampante è costituito, del resto, dalla percentuale di "non credenti"  distribuite sul pianeta:  un misero 15%, contro l'85% di ciechi credenti che si affidano al dogma religioso, alla mitologia monoteista, alla superstizione ed al pensiero magico, nelle modalità previste dalla particolare zona terrestre ove essi si sono trovati a nascere.

Solo se sottomessa e guidata da un singolo illuminato, la massa può, casualmente, comportarsi in un modo giusto, ed è questo il problema. Esperimenti di questo genere ci dimostrano palesemente che è sempre una risibile minoranza a ragionare con la propria testa, di dissociarsi dal pensare comune e contestare l’autorità in diverso modo.

Non c’è infatti regime dittatoriale, cosca malavitosa o elìte dominante il cui potere possa manifestarsi ed instaurarsi senza il tacito consenso, se non l’attiva accondiscendenza, di una massa inetta e malleabile come quella identificata definitivamente da Milgram e Zimbardo.

Non c’è deportazione e sfruttamento di massa che sarebbe possibile se la maggior parte della gente non fosse tarata sin dalla nascita e predisposta a subire passivamente.

Non c’è alcun elitarismo in pensieri di questo tipo, ma solo una tragica rassegnazione derivante dallo studio degli eventi storici e di quelli contemporanei; la Storia ci è testimone di quanto dico nella misura in cui essa è nient’altro che la storia della brutale stupidità e della "banalità del male", come l’ha chiamata Hannah Arendt, della “terrificante normalità umana”. Ad essa quindi si dovrebbe guardare con tutto l’orrore ed il disprezzo possibile, invece che con meravigliato stupore.

Si prenda in considerazione lo spaccato forse più emblematico della storia recente in questo senso: il regime nazista e le sue atrocità, che alcuni trovano persino surreali, inumane.

In realtà non c’è proprio nulla di inumano negli eventi che portarono allo sterminio e alla tortura sistematica di milioni di persone, nulla che dovrebbe stupirci e che non sia spiegabile attraverso le dimostrazioni di Zimbardo e Milgram.

E’ così idiota infatti anche solo pensare che, casualmente, centinaia, migliaia, di persone crudeli e sadiche nascano nella stessa area geografica e si incontrino attuando un progetto comune; la verità difficile da accettare è che le SS erano composte da i vostri vicini di casa, dai vostri genitori, dai vostri fratelli e da tutte le persone che vedono nella “legalità” e nella legge qualcosa di necessario e assoluto, pensate a quel 30% arrivato ad infliggere la scossa più forte nel quarto livello nell’esperimento Milgram. I soldati di Hitler non commisero nulla che non fosse illegale, cioè stabilito e sancito dall’alto e quindi, in una logica di questo genere sono meno condannabili delle violenze perpetrate da un qualsiasi poliziotto ai danni di un arrestato in uno stato democratico. Ovviamente l’etica non ha nulla a che vedere con tutto ciò, ma il paragone mi occorreva per rendere l’idea di una massa manovrabile, di un branco di soldatini e cani addestrati all’obbedienza; questo e poco più sono infatti gli eserciti.

E’ quindi inesatto affermare che “la natura umana è cattiva”, che “l’istinto omicida è connaturato e insito nell’uomo”, o che “gli uomini sono buoni a parte qualche eccezione”, è invece esatto dire che “il 70% circa degli uomini tende, in diversa misura, per natura, alla sottomissione e all’obbedienza”. Guardate con i vostri occhi.

Non bisogna limitarsi ad avere paura dello schiavista, ma anche, e soprattutto, dello schiavo, poichè egli quasi sempre non è che la goffa caricatura del suo aguzzino, come il povero lo è del ricco e l’operaio lo è del padrone; lo schiavo partecipa al male ed alla sua messa in atto poco meno dello schiavista.

Ne consegue che, non solo la dittatura e la democrazia siano forme di governo negative e dannose, ma qualsiasi forma di governo, o necessità di un governo, sia già sintomo di una umanità che non deve lasciare speranza alcuna in un mondo migliore. In particolare, la seconda è così pura e desiderabile nell’immaginario comune perchè paragonata alla prima, ma lo stato naturale non è il regime, ma la libertà individuale totale, quella che nemmeno contempla la mancanza di se stessa.

La società non può essere migliore di quella che è proprio perchè essa stessa, nella sua accezione tecnica, è espressione di una forzatura, di una costrizione alla convivenza impossibile naturalmente, se non nelle sue forme più primitive e ristrette.

Un mondo di individui non ottusi non avrebbe bisogno di alcun governo, di alcuna legge e di alcun precetto morale piovuto dall’alto, come io non ne ho bisogno. L’Anarchia viene quindi a rappresentare l’unica forma politicizzata del buon senso, la forma di non governo della quale le persone intelligenti hanno il bisogno e dovrebbero rivendicare il diritto. L’unica alternativa “meno peggio” che l’uomo dai principi etici dovrebbe desiderare è il puro caos, perchè ad una organizzazione ingiusta, qual’è questa, è preferibile una disorganizzazione equa, e nel caos totale c’è una parità ed una uguaglianza di fondo non da poco. Tutto il resto non è che una muta rassegnazione alla dittatura di una maggioranza, ossia di quel 70% di popolo che è schiavo per sua natura intrinseca e che l’esperimento Milgram ci ha indicato. La dittatura dell’imbecillità, per l’appunto, ed i risultati delle ultime elezioni politiche italiane ne sono l’ennesima prova lampante con quel 70/80% circa di votanti diviso fra i due partiti più autorevoli ed accreditati, più pubblicizzati e simili fra loro negli intenti e negli interessi rappresentati, Veltrusconi. Nulla quindi accade a caso.

Questi sono naturalmente argomenti impopolari che vedrebbero la più ferrea opposizione da parte di chi rappresenti la classe dirigente, il potere economico e politico e che tragga quindi beneficio diretto da questa ridicola messa in scena che è la democrazia; il loro slogan si basa proprio sul contrario, ossia sulla presunta intelligenza della nazione che opterà per il giusto, votando per il rappresentante delegato più meritevole. Ammettendo invece la statistica idiozia del popolo, essi dichiarerebbero il loro ruolo di ammaestratori e profittatori di incapaci. Alle masse va lasciata l’illusione del potere decisionale e della scaltrezza mentale.

“La gente sono vermi e devono rimanere vermi”, dicono fra loro i camorristi. Affermazione impressionante, certo, ma io, personalmente, il potere lo preferisco sfacciato, brutale nel suo manifestarsi e nel suo dichiarare gli intenti. Tutto questo, viene da sé, al di là del bene e del male.

Giovanni Falcone diceva che la mafia è un fenomeno umano e come tutti i fenomeni umani, avendo avuto un inizio, avrà anche una fine; Roberto Saviano gli risponde che teme che la sua durata sarà quella della specie umana ed è esattamente così, non bisogna farsi illusioni. Finchè la gran parte di noi sarà attratta dal potere più becero, esisterà la mafia, in mille diverse forme. Finchè ci saranno donne pronte a concedersi sessualmente in cambio di denaro e beni materiali, esisterà la mafia, come già la prostituzione. Se considero la malavita colpa del genere femminile? Esattamente così. Ma non in senso sessista, bensì in quello “specista”, per così dire, giacchè la naturale superiorità fisica del maschio lo porterà in eterno ad accaparrarsi le risorse e la stupidità zimbardiana della donna, equamente spartita con l’uomo, chiaramente, la spingerà a desiderare di accoppiarsi con lui, e siccome tutti sono pronti ad accettare il sesso senza potere, ma nessuno vorrà mai il potere senza il sesso, nuove generazioni di mafiosi e camorristi si faranno avanti, in eterno. In un mondo sano le donne ambirebbero a Saviano, che il potere del camorrista lo analizza, lo smonta e lo ridicolizza in un certo senso, e non al camorrista stesso, ingranaggio, aguzzino e vittima allo stesso tempo di un gioco spietato quanto miserabile. Ma, in un mondo sano, la camorra non esisterebbe affatto e non esisterebbe nemmeno alcun tipo di “eroe”, leader, martire e mito, e quindi torniamo sempre lì: se l’umanità meritasse un mondo migliore, lo avrebbe già.

Migliaia e migliaia di pagine sono state scritte da filosofi nel susseguirsi dei secoli; sforzo utile solamente affinchè si istituisse una facoltà di filosofia nelle università. Il pensiero filosofico è probabilmente il prodotto più alto ed il più inutile al contempo, dato che l’unico suo possibile fruitore è il filosofo stesso, il quale non ne ha bisogno. Non capisci che la libertà è un bene perchè te l’ha spiegato Malatesta, non capisci che Dio è una stronzata perchè hai letto Russell. Lo capisci da solo o non lo capirai mai, perchè non ne sei in grado; tutto ciò che devi capire sul mondo, lo capisci entro i 15/18 anni; nei libri si cercano e si trovano solo conferme e forme migliori a quelli che sono già i nostri pensieri e le nostre idee. Ecco perchè la cultura è inutile, come è praticamente inutile scrivere ed informare, dato che l’unico target che si può raggiungere è quello costituito da chi già la pensa come noi o tende fortemente in quella direzione.

Ed ecco anche perchè la censura è quasi una fatica inutile, una sciocca preoccupazione da parte dei potenti nei riguardi di una umanità tanto ebete, che non chiede altro che sguazzare nella propria ignoranza ingoiando avidamente le loro briciole.

L’unico modo per liberare la massa è obbligarla letteralmente alla libertà, in una sorta di dittatura illuminata che è una contraddizione in termini e che costituisce anche essa un’utopia, come disse Jacob Rothschild, “pochissimi capiranno il sistema, e quelli che lo capiranno saranno occupati a far soldi. Il pubblico probabilmente non capirà che è contro il suo interesse”. Si dice che la più grande astuzia del diavolo sia far credere che non esista; bene, la cosa impressionante è che la gente al diavolo ci crede, ma ai Rothschild no.

Dunque, una volta compreso questo, perchè stupirsi di accadimenti di questo genere?

In soldoni, perchè stupirsi che la maggioranza voti Alemanno come sindaco di Roma, sapendo che la maggioranza crede alla madonna, perchè meravigliarsi che Berlusconi governi la nazione che ha inventato la mafia e che vanta la più alta concentrazione di automobili e telefonini? Davvero, non capisco. Non ci vedo nulla di strano, io, personalmente, ho smesso di aspettarmi qualcosa di buono dall’umanità quando mi sono reso conto che il 95% di essa accetti e prema perchè si trucidino milioni di animali ogni giorno nei modi più efferati perchè ”a me mi piace”.

Ognuno ha il governo che si merita, il punto è che io sento di non meritare proprio alcun governo.

Che le cose vadano nel peggiore dei modi possibili, io lo vedo come l’ordinarietà, e anzi mi stupisco quando, per puro caso, qualcosa di positivo avviene.

E ormai mi fa ridere e irrita allo stesso tempo anche il sentir gridare “povera Italia” e “all’estero ci ridono dietro”, da parte di chi sente ancora ingabbiato nella sciocca identità nazionale, come se l’essere nato in una zona del globo che in questo secolo si chiama Italia mi debba identificare col mio vicino più prossimo, Marcellone, la persona più diversa da me che io riesca ad immaginare, come se ci si dovesse sentire in colpa o complici di qualcosa che non si è contribuito a generare solo perchè si appartiene ad una minoranza culturale. Come si fa a non capire che l’Italia non esiste? Che tutte le altre nazioni non esistono e che la nostra voce in capitolo, in fondo, si esaurisca all’interno dei confini della nostra corporeità? “Ci ritroviamo Berlusconi!”, no, io sono io e basta e se qualcuno fosse tanto mentecatto da nutrire un pregiudizio su di me per via del governo che sono costretto a subire nella porzione di terra ove sono nato, beh, mi sentirei più offeso dal parere di un berlusconiano convinto. Se non si esce da questa mentalità del “all’estero ci ridono dietro”, si continua a meritare Berlusconi.

Io non sono la mia nazione, nè il mio lavoro, nè i miei governanti, nè la mia famiglia, ma purtroppo l’idiota dopo aver visto Fight Club si iscrive in palestra.

Mi lascia comunque perplesso il constatare come ci si meravigli che lo stupido agisca da stupido, come che il ladro agisca da ladro, che si pretenda che chi consideriamo in torto e condanniamo ci venga a dare in qualche modo ragione, quando questo rappresenta una palese contraddizione. Come se si potesse essere allo stesso tempo intelligenti e stupidi. No, non è così.

Qui non si tratta di visione pessimistica ma di esperienza reale, di consapevolezza acquisita che non può che obbligarci all’abbandono di qualsiasi speranza: questo mondo non si può cambiare, ma proprio per questo non bisogna smettere di lottare, perchè non c’è speranza, perchè non c’è alternativa, perchè non c’è nulla da perdere e quindi il rifiuto di ogni compromesso è l’unica via.

Il mio appello è quindi non quello a gettare la spugna ma a combattere per noi stessi guardando in faccia la realtà ed ammettendo che siamo soli, senza aspettarsi che ci vengano riconosciute le nostre ragioni da qualcuno, nè da chi combattiamo, nè da chi ci circonda; limitarsi a cercare lo sparuto gruppo di nostri simili e non pretendere di far ragionare chi per sua natura profonda – è dimostrato - non può farlo. In tutto questo ogni senso di colpa va rinnegato, ogni sensazione di arroganza o di peccato di superiorità va bandito. Aprire le porte all’odio ragionato e all’orgoglio che non accetta altra paura che non quella, fisiologica e costruttiva, della sofferenza e della morte.

Potete passare anche tutta la vita a cercare di convincere un cane a liberarsi del padrone, ma esso vorrà sempre e solo un altro osso.

The procedure itself was slightly painful, but was over so quickly it didn’t really count (I gots stamina when it comes to pain, baby). Since then I’ve been pretty achy, but I’m guessing that is normal.

The experience was quite strange. Hard as it may be to believe, it’s not often I find myself half naked and up in stirrups, and it is kind of a vulnerable position.

The chaperone put her hand on my knee and started stroking me, and my first response was an angry “Hey, another human being is making unsolicited, non-consensual physical contact with me,” but then I realised it was actually soothing, so I guess I must have been a bit angsty.

Once I relaxed into my yogic breathing I nudged things mentally a bit to see if I could find anything sexual in the situation, but the answer was a resounding no.

(Interesting aside: I’m reading The Lucifer Effect at the moment, which is all about the Stanford Prison Experiment, so I’m thinking a lot in terms of situational power and responsibility.*

(Were I to admit that I was (or at least tried) fantasising about my doctor while she had her hand inside me, it might raise a few questioning eyebrows, but not much else. If she admitted the same about me, she could reasonably expect to get an official warning. Yet if we met independently in club and I chatted her up, the balance between us would be quite different.)

Anyhoo, being made to feel like I was in a big, warm, safe, motherly environment was actually quite nice – strangely ‘eternal feminine’ feeling, despite the pain. And I’m very excited about actually having the coil now – no more rubbish condoms for me.

The Boy is very excited too – he has been asking me for ages to talk to family planning about contraception options. Presumably he hasn’t realised yet that he’s just waved good bye to his all-anal-all-the-time free pass.

* I am also reading Spiderman fanfiction

Last week I saw a piece on ABC News about an anti-bullying bill waiting Senate approval in Florida.  The bill aims to provide a set of "bare minimum" rules that every school would have to enforce.  Currently schools are responsible for their own set of rules and guidelines.  My concern with the piece on ABC News was that they seemed to equate bullying purely with physical beating.  They naturally showed the recent footage of young girls beating another girl after some cyber taunts.  This kind of depiction of bullying is a shame as it continues to allow the more subtle types of bullying to continue to be in the shadows.

safenetwork.com has a great page on bullying and the various types.  The best part is the series of photos visualizing those types.  You can see some of them along the side of this post.  Their definition of bullying: bullying is when someone keeps doing or saying things to have power over another person. The behavior can be verbal, emotional, and physical. Their suggestion if you see someone being bullied: you should always try to stop it. If you do nothing, you’re saying that bullying is okay with you. The best way to help is probably to tell an adult. It’s always best to treat others the way you would like to be treated.

The idea that you approve bullying by doing nothing can be a strong message to students and it is one I plan to discuss this week.  Jennifer Brooks has a post today on Zimbardo's Lucifer Effect blog that has some ideas on that point.  She has a quote from Desmond Tutu, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”  How apt for describing the bystanders in bullying situations.  And she quotes Martin Luther King, Jr. who said, “the hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict.”

The article then goes on to discuss the idea of standing between two warring parties instead of choosing a side.  Her example comes from Henri Dunant who helped create the Red Cross who stood between warring countries to serve the cause of the wounded.  By standing in the middle, you can show independent thought - show that you understand both sides, but decline to demonize one or the other.  Zoe Weil talked about this idea of avoiding black/white, yes/no, Christian/Muslim kinds of thought.

This second point is important for potential heroes in school as they may not feel comfortable choosing sides in bullying, rather simply wanting the inappropriate behaviour to stop.  By being confident that the act of bullying is not okay, students can feel safe to intervene without fear of favouring on party over the other.

To beat bullying we need to:

• recognize the myriad types of bullying: physical violence, social outcasting, cyber gossiping and intimidation, and name calling among others.
• understand that doing nothing is equivalent to approving.
  
• know that stepping in to stop the behaviour does not mean we have to choose a side.

Recall that the immediate response of the top military command and the Bush civilian command pronounced these acts as the work of a “few rogue soldiers,” as the moral failures of a few “Bad Apples.” General Richard Myers, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added in his televised interview that he was certain such abuses were not “systemic,” but should be blamed entirely on the immorality of those few culprits. Donald Rumsfeld, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “These abuses happened on my watch. As Secretary of Defense, I am fully responsible.” Without a full scale investigation it was not possible at that time to determine whether such abuse was limited to Tier 1A Abu Ghraib, or was in fact, more widespread. The statements were simply urgent damage control to protect the reputation of America’s military and Bush’s war on terrorism. Rumsfeld’s acknowledgment of responsibility did not extend to a recognition of accountability or personal liability – for him or subsequently for any senior military staff: i.e., those who should have borne Command Responsibility for abuses, of which they should have been aware, that were inflicted by their subordinates given they occurred nightly over three long months.

Indeed, the bad apple refrain is played over and over again whenever there is a scandal in our police departments, prisons, and the military, or corporate worlds. Such attribution of evil deeds to the moral disposition of those who commit them fueled the feverish search for infidels in the decades of the Inquisition in many Catholic nations around the world. Focusing entirely on personal defects in the make-up of the culprits ignores the contextual circumstances in which the abuses occurred. However, proper understanding of any complex human behavior involves examination of the dynamic interplay between what actor brings into the behavioral setting and what the social-situational forces operating upon them bring out of those actors. Moreover, the crucial question that must be asked is what is the nature of the system of power that creates, maintains, and justifies situations that produce evil behavior and it also involves an awareness that the line between good and evil is not fixed, but sufficiently permeable to allow ordinary, even good, people to cross over and do really bad deeds at a given time in a particular setting.

As “Superintendent” of the mock Stanford Prison that I created as a simulation to be used in an experiment, I witnessed college student participants, purposely selected “good apples,” become corrupted by the situational forces operating in the “bad barrel” that I had designed. Normal, healthy students role-playing guards quickly began to abuse their prisoners so much so that many role-playing prisoners suffering from acute, extreme stress reactions had to be released. Our planned two-week study had to be terminated after only six days because the whole situation was running out of control. Sensing a similar scenario at work in the Abu Ghraib prison, I accepted the task of being an expert witness for the defense of the Army Reserve sergeant in charge of the MP battalion on the night shift of Tier 1A. As such, I had access to all the investigative reports issued by high-ranking generals and civilian officials, access to the infamous disks that were filled with a thousand trophy photos, and also direct access to the soldier himself by means of personal interviews, psychological testing, and a detailed investigation of his background. After reviewing all this material as well as interviewing military criminal investigators and knowledgeable officers, I concluded in the testimony I gave at his military trial, that although he was guilty as charged, the severity of his sentence should be mitigated both because of his exemplary character and the horrendous situational circumstances in which he and his buddies were forced to work and live.

Before his dungeon tour of duty Chip Frederick had been a remarkably patriotic, honored soldier, and a model citizen. The psych evaluation by a military psychologist concluded that he was normal on all measures; there was no evidence of any sadistic tendencies. Hardly the stuff of a bad apple.

But the situation in which he had to work could not have been worse. The prison was filthy and chaotic. It was subject to frequent blackouts and under almost constant bombardment. Prisoners were attempting to escape. There were no established standard operating procedures, and there was never any oversight or surveillance by officers. This young soldier was forced to work 12-hour shifts, 7 days a week for 40 consecutive nights without a break. When the unexpected insurgency burst out in Fall 2003, large scale arrests of suspected Iraqi men and boys swelled the prison population on Tier 1A from 200 to 1000 prisoners, without increase in the number of the 9 guards under his charge—none of whom had any mission-specific training. The massive assault of negative social psychological forces that had been at work in the Stanford mock Prison was overwhelmingly present in that all too real military prison.

How is the System implicated in these abuses? Tier 1A was under the control of Military Intelligence to be used as their interrogation site. The CIA backed up the control and civilian contract interrogators also conducted interrogations there. When their interrogations failed to elicit “actionable intelligence” (because most detainees had none to give), these authorities pressured the Army Reserve MPs to help them “soften up” the detainees, “take the gloves off,” do whatever was necessary to get them to spill the beans. The intentional absence of surveillance by senior officers during the night shift, coupled with praise of the MPs for breaking prisoners who did talk, and protected by the assurance of deniability for any specific abuses, the System that operated that dungeon provided an open-ended license for torture and abuse.

Many of the official investigative reports indict the system for the failure or absence of leadership, for conflicting leadership, and for the recruitment of these untrained MPs to abuse prisoners. The report by Brig. Gen. Antonio Taguba went further to identify specific officers whom he found guilty of dereliction of duty. Because he openly blamed the system, General Taguba was forced to resign prematurely; essentially he was fired for doing his job too conscientiously.

Chip’s sentence: dishonorable discharge, an 8-year prison term and forfeiture of 22 years of retirement income; he was also stripped of the 9 medals and awards he had earned. Cpl. Charles Garner got 10 years and Lynddie England 3 years; there were lesser sentences for the other MPs staffing that little shop of horrors in Tier 1A. Blame therefore was deflected onto the grunts to enable the big shots running any system to get away with murder and to avoid the vital messages about changing behavioral contexts that breed abuse, inhumanity, and criminal action. Errol Morris’s film, “Standard Operating Procedure,” released on the anniversary of the exposure of abuse at Abu Ghraib, confirms my thesis.

Such transgressions do not occur where military discipline is clear and oversight is practiced, where there is censure for violations and praise for honorable conduct. Rather, most systems of governance are veiled in secrecy; transparency is their enemy. Evil is a slippery slope that always starts with small transgressions and escalates gradually when human character is transformed by the power of social situations -- while most good people observe and do nothing, thereby are guilty of the evil of inaction.

* * *

For a collection of posts by or about Situationist contributor, Phil Zimbardo, click here. For other Situationist posts discussing The Lucifer Effect, click here. To buy the paperback version of the book, click here.

I have no idea why I am on an election kick today, I just wake up in this sort of moods sometimes. I came across an article in Relevant discussing the recent interview by Stephen Colbert of Philip Zimbardo. Zimbardo is a Stanford Professor and author of 'The Lucifer Effect' in which he says 'Lucifer was right and God was wrong.' Heres the clip (there is a curse word at the end, bleeped out in case you do not watch prime time television) http://www.comedycentral.com/colbertreport/videos.jhtml?videoId=149094.

What do you think about that? What I find so interesting is that the crowd is cheering for God and the free will. It just seems to me that people have no problem with a God like that, a God dependent on your choices.

We sometimes see colleagues who were promoted suddenly becomes bossy and mean and a righteous law student becomes a greedy lawyer. Why do Angels fall from grace?

In 1971, American psychologist Philip Zimbardo conducted a Standford prison experiment with the help of 24 volunteering undergraduates. They played the role of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison.

The volunteers adapted to their roles a little bit "too well." Some of those who played guards became sadistic and violent towards the prisoners. The "prisoners" were emotional traumatized and some even had a nervous breakdown. This lead to the two week experiment to end on its sixth day.

30 years later, Zimbardo describes the experiment as "Lucifer Effect" to explain how good people turn evil. Different situations -- such as different status, different uniforms and peer pressure affect human behaviours.

Orígenes:

¿Los humanos llegan a ser malos por naturaleza?, o de repente la principal causa es el contexto en el que se encuentran. Tal vez es genético o depende de la educación o los padres: es más probable que tenga un poco de todo. Si es tan complicado averiguar las causas, ¿para qué sirve intentar hacerlo? Para encontrar soluciones, o por lo menos tentativamente descubrir verdades, o algo cercano, que nos digan cuál es la tendencia humana, y por ende, cuál es su futuro. Alguna religión le echará la culpa a demonios o afines, pero ese es un lujo; o dirán que todos somos imperfectos (solo dios es perfecto) y por ende tendemos a ser malvados, pero esa respuesta no satisface. Otros dirán que la maldad es la defensa contra la potencial maldad del otro, o que la maldad se convierte en conveniente para aquel que no encuentra impedimento moral (o de otro tipo) para sacarle provecho. Considerarnos superiores individualmente tiende a eso, sobrevivir aunque cueste la muerte de otro, porque el otro es algo menos que yo. Entonces, ¿cuál es el origen de la bondad? Igual que la maldad, esta puede ser conveniente.

En un video que vi hace poco, Pinker (un tipo que generalmente habla de curiosidades del lenguaje) enumera varias razones, que otros han establecido, por las que se reduce la violencia (no necesariamente se produce bondad):

• En la supervivencia en una sociedad no se puede permitir la anarquía, para esto, permitimos que se reduzcan nuestras libertades, para que se reduzcan las de otros; no matamos, para que no nos maten; y de paso ponemos a un gobierno (recomendación de Hobbes) para que castigue al que rompa las reglas de juego.

• Logramos más trabajando con alguien (versus solo), cuando resulta provechoso trabajar con otro tendemos a no querer matarlo.

• La empatía, la posibilidad de ponernos en el lugar de otro y rechazar hacerle aquello que nos disgustaría hacernos. Jesús lo mencionó (aunque algunos dicen que la frase fue idea de Confucio), según los evangelios de su épico bestseller: “Ama al prójimo como a ti mismo.” También menciona el hecho de que generalmente la empatía no se transmite a los grupos de personas que están más lejos de nosotros, a los que tendemos a considerar subhumanos (es más probable que te pongas en el lugar de tu abuelo que el del panadero. A menos que el panadero sea tu padre).

Los últimos dos me parecen los más importantes, porque se pueden extender a ser bondadoso y no solamente “no malvado”.

Es bastante buena razón, el sueño de que los otros serán tan buenos conmigo como yo lo sea con ellos ahora, para hacer el esfuerzo hacia lo bondadoso (cuánta gente se ha salvado de morir porque alguien a quien previamente ayudaron era su potencial verdugo, o se convirtió en presidente, o justo pasó a tu costado cuando estabas desangrándote en la calle), además nos permite soñar con que en el futuro tenderemos hacia una cultura donde lo natural sea ser bueno (al largo plazo, muy largo plazo…). El otro caso, el trabajar “Tú” y “Yo”, porque ni “Tú”, ni “Yo” haremos tanto por separado, como lo haríamos juntos (la teoría de juegos es un buen ejemplo, la del tipo de “Una mente brillante” , esa en la que actuaba Russel Crowe) justifica, por conveniencia, el buen trato interpersonal, un ejemplo interesante es un congreso, o una asamblea, si no le caes bien al congresista del costado, no te va a apoyar en ninguna propuesta, si no lo apoyas el no te apoyará, si nadie apoya a nadie, todo el país pierde, solo imagínense los avances si comprendieran el valor del trabajo en equipo. Es decir para vivir mejor en el contexto actual, el paso lógico es ser buena gente.

Siempre y cuando el contexto actual se mantenga o mejore (cosa que la tecnología puede intentar prometernos), el contexto es un tema interesante e importante (especialmente para discutir si con la mejora de la vida todo será más simple o si con un megadesastre se destruirá todo lo avanzado). Existe un estudio de Philip Zimbardo, un sicólogo que mostró que en ciertas situaciones en las que se somete a personas “normales” presiones extremas estas pueden adoptar actitudes que consideraríamos inmorales. Ejemplo de esto eran los soldados estadounidenses en Abu Ghraib, soldados presionados en horarios agotadores de 12 horas por día con 40 días de trabajo continuos (Zetter, 2008), entre otros extremos, contexto suficiente para desatar actitudes sadísticas con los prisioneros, a quienes les dijeron que “suavicen” (varias entidades de EE.UU. hicieron este “pedido” que podría fácilmente haber sido un buen empujón hacia los extremos cometidos). Zimbardo realizó un experimento en el que simples estudiantes actuando como guardias y prisioneros en una prisión simulada durante un experimento de 6 días (originalmente era de 2 semanas pero tuvo que ser suspendido), terminó en abusos casi pornográficos y completamente humillantes por parte de los guardias, alguna vez simples alumnos. Se notó que estos acudían siempre a tiempo y sin quejas a sus puestos (tal vez disfrutando su poder) y hasta se presentaron incómodos cuando el experimento fue detenido. Sin embargo, existen personas más predispuestas que otras a la maldad, en el experimento de Zimbardo, algunos guardias eran más buenos que el resto. Pero, llevando la idea a otra situación extrema, si ocurriese un cataclismo de magnitud global (situación realmente extrema, pocos recursos y conocimiento de esto, caos, etc.), que les parecería más importante (cuando no haya comida para los dos): ¿Ser buenos con su vecino (y morir los dos, o que el vecino te mate) o sobrevivir?

Cuando el contexto cambia se pone a prueba la solidez de los principios (si te crees o no que la bondad es buena) adquiridos.

Historia cíclica:

Si existe la posibilidad de que la humanidad sea “buena” y no está en nuestra naturaleza ser malvados, esta parece una meta digna de buscar. Pinker muestra que desde hace 10 000 años, el nivel de agresividad en la raza humana ha bajado continuamente, a pesar del aumento de noticias que pueden existir relatando historias de violencia, los asesinatos decrecen y la humanidad tiende hacia menos agresión. ¿Podemos confiar en que esto continuará?, o puesto de otra manera, ¿realmente tendemos hacia algo?, ¿o siempre volveremos a lo mismo? Churchill dijo: Me gustaría vivir eternamente, por lo menos para ver cómo en cien años las personas cometen los mismos errores que yo. Y luego de una época en que la guerra era cosa de los países vistos como menos desarrollados o atrasados culturalmente, vemos a Estados Unidos envuelto en un terrible enfrentamiento, con miles de muertos y heridos (tanto física como sicológicamente) y, lo peor, gran parte de la sociedad aceptando o tomando como inevitable el camino que el gran país del norte tomó.

Pero volvamos al optimismo, podemos decir que lo que falta es la llegada del ente regulador internacional (la ONU del futuro), eso eliminaría el problema, el gobierno central de Hobbes para las naciones, ya no simplemente para los individuos (personas). Las soluciones existen. Entonces podemos soñar con que tendemos a algo, si es que podemos soñar con que tendemos hacía esta “ONU”, que podemos decir es el mejor contexto para evitar el escenario que plantea Zimbardo, es decir, podemos soñar con un mundo mejor, siempre y cuando factores externos no detengan el avance de la buena salud, la tecnología y el desarrollo de instituciones políticas a favor de todos. Pero difícilmente podemos concluir que tenderemos hacía la bondad, cuando el desastre venga, podemos soñarlo, pero todavía no lo afirmaría. Todavía falta que mucha gente crea que la bondad es conveniente.

Razones para el bien:

Existen ¿no? Tendemos hacia el bien, ¿Por qué ir contra la corriente? Buscar el cambio cultural que hará que todos nos ayudemos unos a otros se ha convertido en justificable. Podemos ser buenos sin necesidad de temer el infierno, sino porque simplemente nos conviene, (y de paso tememos, o simplemente no nos gusta, que el vecino sea malo con nosotros).

Conviene, la gente lo está haciendo, el contexto no es malo…

Fuentes:

Jordà, V. (2008). Buscador de frases: Churchill. Recuperado el Marzo de 2008, de Proverbia: http://www.proverbia.net/buscarfrases.asp?Texto=churchill

Pinker, S. (Marzo de 2007). Talks Steven Pinker: A brief history of violence. Recuperado el Marzo de 2008, de TED: http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/163

Zetter, K. (2 de Febrero de 2008). TED 2008: How Good People Turn Evil, From Stanford to Abu Ghraib. Recuperado el Marzo de 2008, de Wired: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/ted_zimbardo

Zimbardo, P. G. (2008). Recuperado el Marzo de 2008, de The Stanford Prision Experiment: A Simulation Study of the Psychology of Imprisonment: http://www.prisonexp.org/

Otros recursos, fuentes, ayudas, etc.:
http://www.lucifereffect.com/
Ben Dunlap: The story of a passionate life: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/208
http://edge.org/q2007/q07_1.html#andersont
Polìtica para Amador, de Fernando Savater

Is the world a better place because of Zimbardo and his famous experiment? What do you think? What do you think Zimbardo thinks?

Hysteria, dementia, paranoia,

he jerks-behaviorism.

Stumbling, blocking, crashing.

Newspaper stands fall before him.

The present on the pavement.

Chaining alliteration,

Alzheimer's atrocious amnesia

he is up!

Modeling his punishment,

his reward is the most negatively

positive-

I'm certain of it!-

reinforcement.

His classical conditioning,

lifetimes of classrooms

offering nothing.

Retrieval is useless in oblivion.

Flailing about, he is extinction.

Bystanders, observational learning.

Stumbling, bumbling

Into the street, he shouts

incoherence, tip-of-the-tongue

warnings from repressed memories

of lives not lived.

Spontaneous recovery.

He remembers.

Car accident.

One 19-year-old soldier is quoted in the report, explaining, much as Phil Zimbardo or Stanley Milgram might, the mechanisms of obedience:

"I watched a prisoner, and we denied him water and food, and to my understanding he did not have sleep for three days. . . . [Y]ou don't really think about it because it's being allowed. You know, cause you're just thinking this is what I'm doing. This man came down from the airfield command center there. Taking it as another directive order from our coalition forces, I just did what I was told."

To listen to the entire report, click here. For a sample of related Situationist posts, go to "Our Soldiers, Their Children: The Lasting Impact of the War in Iraq," "The Situation of a “Volunteer” Army," "From Heavens to Hells to Heroes – Part I," and "Looking for the Evil Actor."

1) Who was your hero as a child and why?

It’s been interesting to ponder this question. At first, no one came to mind. No family member, no community leader, no politician, no teacher. Could I really have had no heroes growing up!? But then I realized that I had plenty of heroes; it’s just that they were all fictional or historical. There was a favorite book about a boy who became blind and learned to first cope with his disability and then to live life fully and happily. That was profoundly heroic to me. There were Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock who were courageous, moral, and often wise. There were the abolitionists, the suffragists, and the people who hid Jews during the Holocaust, risking their lives to change systems of oppression and rescue strangers. There was Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi whose self discipline, unwavering commitment to peace, and perseverance were hallmarks of heroism to me. But there was no one I knew personally, so these fictional and historical heroes became my role models (if not my idols), and maybe that was a good thing because it got me to think big.

2) Who is your hero now and why?

I have so many heroes now I can’t possibly list them all! I still have fictional and historical heroes, including Captain Jean Luc Picard (much more heroic than Captain Kirk I’ve come to realize); Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi remain profoundly influential in my work and thinking. I have many living heroes whom I don’t know personally such as Greg Mortenson who’s building schools for poor children in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Albina Ruiz who’s solving both trash and human rights crises in Peru, Wangari Maathai who started the Green Belt movement in Kenya, Majora Carter who’s creating green collar jobs and restoring her South Bronx neighborhood at the same time, Katie Redford and Ka Sa Wa who won a suit against Unical for human rights violations in Burma, Mimi Silbert who’s helped thousands of convicted felons become productive, law-abiding citizens through her Delancey Street Project – the list goes on and on. And my daily life is now peopled by many heroes, too. Several members of our staff at the Institute for Humane Education and many of our students and graduates are role models for me. My work has brought many people into my life whom I consider heroic, including you, Matt, and Phil Zimbardo, and so many others. That’s how I think of ordinary heroes: people to learn from and emulate. Perhaps the reason I have so much hope, despite the horrors in the world and the major challenges we face, is because I know so many amazing, heroic people who are working to make a difference. I may still idolize historical heroes, but I know that it’s the daily work of the millions of ordinary heroes who will change the world.

According to Philip G. Zimbardo;

"At the core of evil is the process of dehumanization by which certain other people or collectives of them, are depicted as less than human, as non comparable in humanity or personal dignity to those who do the labeling. Prejudice employs negative stereotypes in images or verbally abusive terms to demean and degrade the objects of its narrow view of superiority over these allegedly inferior persons. Discrimination involves the actions taken against those others based on the beliefs and emotions generated by prejudiced perspectives.

Dehumanization is one of the central processes in the transformation of ordinary, normal people into indifferent or even wanton perpetrators of evil. Dehumanization is like a “cortical cataract” that clouds one’s thinking and fosters the perception that other people are less than human. It makes some people come to see those others as enemies deserving of torment, torture, and even annihilation.

In this section, we will examine three forms that dehumanization has taken: Nazi Comic Books against the Jews; Faces of the Enemy—world-wide propaganda images of the “enemy,” and “trophy photos” of American citizens posing with African Americans who had been lynched or burned alive—and then portrayed in post cards mailed to family and friends."

Just as the Germans were prepared to accept Jews as the enemy from within, so to now Americans are being prepared to wake up to the staged Muslim threat. Ironically one of the writers, contributing to fueling this fire, is himself a Jew - Daniel Pipes. He has expended a great deal of energy in fear mongering and his efforts area really beginning to pay off. The Muslim Shoah (Holocaust) - a myth or a coming reality?

"What can be done about this? Zimbardo offers heroism as the "antidote to evil." Teach kids to be ready to act heroically when the see evil. We need to give them real role models. Comic book superheroes are bad models, because they have super powers. A hero is the soldier who reported the Abu Ghraib abuses. People wanted to kill him. They threatened to kill his wife and mother, too. He had to go in hiding. Teach kids hero courses, teach them hero skills, make them heroes-in-waiting."

Speaking of theology, on taking a closer look at Zimbardo's website I noticed that there is a link to a Lucifer Effect Theology Blog.

Zimbardo, author of The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil is speaking today at TED 2008, a  conference of "technology, entertainment, and design." His topic: Abu Ghraib. In an interview on WIRED magazine's website, Zimbardo says:

The situational forces that were going on in [Abu Ghraib] -- the dehumanization, the lack of personal accountability, the lack of surveillance, the permission to get away with anti-social actions -- it was like the Stanford prison study, but in spades.

Zimbardo was a defense witness for Chip Frederickson during his trial relating to Abu Ghraib. His argument was not that Frederickson wasn't responsible for his own actions, but that the conditions Frederickson and others were put under created a perfect storm of conditions - the type of conditions under which good, moral people commit evil acts.

Evil is a fascinating topic - one that we tend to avoid in the mainline church or explain only in supernatural terms. And while I don't think that science - behavioral or otherwise - can fully explain evil or tell us everything we need to know, studies like Zimbardo's are worth paying attention to. Otherwise Christians are stuck wringing our hands over events that happened decades ago, exclaiming "never again!" yet not able to name it (or do anything about it) when it occurs in our own times.

Of course I have mixed feelings about throwing the term "evil" around too loosely - i.e. "Axis of Evil" pronouncements after 9/11 that were not helpful. But how do we in the mainline church find the language to talk about evil again?

I saw a post on Michael Wade's fantastic Execupundit blog today that brought those memories back. He notes that nobility is old-fashioned and uncool - just like we did. Have a look at his list of what it is to be noble and then think about which of them apply to the heroes you know.

• A willingness to help those who are needy.
• Gentleness without weakness.
• Honest.
• Dedication to doing the right thing even if it hurts.
• A more than normal amount of courtesy and kindness.
• Never rushing to blame others.
• Intellectual curiosity.
• Impatience with injustice.
• A love of freedom and independence.
• Disdain for cheap and shabby behavior.
• Courage, both physical and moral.
• A pleasant nature.
• The ability to survive setbacks without becoming bitter.
• Confidence mixed with humility.

I think you'll find a lot of those traits in the heroes you look up to. I think you'll also find them in the heroes-in-waiting you know and perhaps in yourself if you're practicing the heroic habit.