Societal Events Connection

Societal Events Connection

Introduction

Philip Zimbardo had access to very many images and videos that depicted the abuse done by guards towards the prisoners at Abu Ghraib in 2003. He compiles a collection of the pictures in a short video on his TED presentation to explain the gruesome, explicit and horror that the prisoners went through in the hands of the guards. Some of the images exhibited degrading and simulated sex acts whereas others went to the extremes of showing the guards standing next to corpses. To explain how good people turn evil, Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment at Stanford University that involved the students posing as prisoners and guards. However, the experiment was halted after five days when the student guards started acting abusive towards the prisoners coercing them into nudity and sexual acts

1. Differences and similarities between Abu Ghraib and Stanford University Study

In both Abu Ghraib prison and the Stanford University experiment, the prisoners went through a lot of psychological torture, humiliation and abuse from the guards. For example, the prisoners were sleep deprived as they were woken up in the middle of the nigh to recite count. Anybody who was unable to recite correctly was made to do pushups until they got it all right. When this happened, their mental capacity that is supposed to handle stressful situations was greatly severed and they started experiencing memory problems due to the fact that they got very little sleep.

In both, the prisoners underwent physical torture as well. Doing exercise was a way of punishment and it could last as long as the guards wanted it to, or until one got right whatever was asked of them by the guards. They were often moved from one cell block to another so as to deny them the ability to relax and feel comfortable even though they were in prison. In addition to that, the guards put the prisoners in very exhausting physical conditions that interfered with the bodies and caused them a lot of harm

The difference between the two is that the one at Stanford University was just a simulation and the prisoners did not entirely feel as much pain as those who were at Abu Ghraib. At Abu Ghraib, the prisoners were men, women and children. They were subjected to the worst forms of torture that exist during wartime including rape, sexual abuse, torture and even in other instances murder. Zurbriggen (2008). At the end of the experiment at Stanford University, the guards felt remorse for their actions towards the prisoners. On the other hand, the guards at Abu Ghraib justified their actions of abusing the prisoners by saying that it is the way things happen in a situation of war.

2. What arguments, assumptions or conclusions the evidence supports

From the evidence gathered, people are supposed to be accountable for their behavior. When someone does something wrong no matter the situation they are in, they are to be held into account of their actions. Trying to understand the reasons why someone behaves in a certain way is not entirely the same as excusing that behavior. This means that in as much as the behaviors of the guards at Abu Ghraib were fueled by external forces such as the war and their desire to impose the superiority on the prisoners, it is not correct to let them go unpunished as their actions caused harm to many other people. The men, women and children who left the prison alive were severely traumatized because of the hostility meted upon them by the guards.

The response at Abu Ghraib was not the same. The fact that there was a whistle-blower and another who commits the evil acts shows that even when people are exposed to the same situations, reactions might be different compared to one’s position in the whole process and also how they entirely internalize whatever is happening around them. For example, Philip Zimbardo says that at the Stanford Prison study where he was the superintendent made him feel nothing towards the suffering of the prisoners because his work was mainly inclined towards focusing on the guards in the prison. This made him feel detached from whatever the prisoners were going through. Zimbardo (2004).

3. Other historical events the Stanford Study helps us understand

The Stanford University experiment was put in place to bring to light the real situation as it happens in the prisons during a time of war when people are unsettled for both the prisoners and the guards. Carnahan and McFarland (2007). This study helps us understand how broken the world and its systems are, which in turn project all the problems to the humanity involved. In a structure that involves powerlessness and power, people are capable of anything just to exert their dominance on the other party and feel a mightier sense of superiority.

The horrendous torture and humiliation at Abu Ghraib and also the Rape of Nanking in China showed that Philip Zimbardo’s explanations made it easier for psychologists to create a distinction between understanding behavior as a situational occurrence and not a dispositional occurrence.

Conclusion

Philip Zimbardo says that the way to prevent evil actions is by teaching children the “banality of kindness.” This will go a long way at ensuring the character people exhibit in a crowd are good and they will look over the others to ensure they are fine. The Stanford University experiment has depicted how possible it is for good people to change to evil depending on the situations they are subjected to. For example, both the guards at Abu Ghraib and the guard students at Stanford University changed their behavior to fit the situation they were going through.

References

Carnahan, T., & McFarland, S. (2007). Revisiting the Stanford Prison Experiment: Could participant self-selection have led to the cruelty? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 603-614.

Zurbriggen, E. L. (2008). Sexualized torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison: Feminist psychological analyses. Feminism & Psychology, 18(3), 301-320.

Zimbardo, P. G. (2004). A situationist perspective on the psychology of evil: Understanding how good people are transformed into perpetrators. The social psychology of good and evil, 21-50.