How a person views themselves is known as self-perception and identity. While the article “The Science of Solitary Confinement” by Joseph Stromberg heavily relies on how a person’s mind is affected while being forced into solitary confinement, the article “Self-Concept” by Saul Mcleod reflects on the self-concept facet. The two authors provide crucial information about personality development, with Mcleod providing his work in bullets that make it easier to read. Stromberg takes the traditional approach of writing his article in a point-by-point format, capturing the reader’s attention and effortlessly conveying the information. In both pieces, the writers speak about people’s personalities and the various factors affecting their development. They differ because Mcleod wrote about how people control their self-perception while having the ability to change it, whereas Stromberg focuses on how the prison system breaks down a prisoner’s mental state and shapes their identity, causing effects that can last a lifetime. Mcleod and Stromberg’s work shows the dangers of solitary prisons on inmates’ self-identity, self-esteem, and ideal self.
Human beings naturally exhibit unique identities and perceptions about themselves that are shaped by contributing life elements, such as a person’s environment. For example, persons with anorexia often believe that they are fat due to influences from parents, friends, or the media, according to Mcleod (1). Stomberg maintains that prisoners’ environment affects their identity significantly. Being confined to a small space makes many inmates display depression signs and suicidal thoughts, with many no longer feeling like they have control over their minds. Stromberg states that “We are all social beings and people in environments that deny the opportunity to interact in meaningful ways with others begin to lose a sense of self, of their own identity” (2). Accordingly, locking inmates inside solitary cells denies them the natural need to heal through socialization, leading to distress and severe character obliteration.
Intimidating settings, such as solitary prisons, distort people’s self-image by promoting the worthlessness view among individuals. Mcleod notes that people enjoying freedom generally have a positive view of self. The aspect emanates from the fact that being free implies living uprightly and social acceptability. Morse and Gergen (1970) shows that self-image may change rapidly in uncertain or anxiety-arousing situations. The study involved participants waiting for a job interview in a room with two different types of people, ‘Mr. Clean’ and ‘Mr. Dirty’. Mr. Clean dressed officially with a briefcase, while ‘Mr. Dirty’ wore an old T-shirt and jeans, and carried a sex novel. Morse and Gergen (1970) finds that participants placed with ‘Mr. Clean’ developed low self-esteem, with those in the room with the dirty alien increasing (Mcleod 3). Therefore, solitary prisons, just like the room with the intimidating being, make many inmates view themselves as worthless persons, thus challenging their rehabilitation potential.
Lack of adequate research on solitary prisons’ impact on inmates jeopardizes investigations regarding their real effects on humans. In his article, Stromberg stresses that research is very limited in the prison system compared to other instances. The scholar states that “Huda Akil, a neuroscientist at the University of Michigan, is interested in the neurological impacts of isolation, but is limited by the fact that no U.S prison is willing to allow its isolated prisoners to take part in the research” (2). Stromberg insists that researchers investigating the matter must rely on indispensable findings on how stimulation and social interactions affect the brain and hypothesize its possible effects on a prisoner in isolation (3). Consequently, scholars’ significant ignorance on the solitary prisons’ effects on humans’ personality and well-being promotes the erroneous correction philosophy that causes harm instead of rehabilitating offenders.
Mcleod and Stromberg focus mainly on self-perception and identity concepts despite taking dissimilar approaches. For instance, the two sources reflect on the topic through people’s general experiences’ considerations. Throughout Mcleod’s article, the researcher breaks down how persons see themselves through the definitions of others. Mcleod believes that self-concept has three different components, including self-image, self-esteem, and the ideal self (1). Stromberg takes the same approach to detail how the prison systems’ use of solitary confinement causes negative impacts on inmates. For most of the article, Stromberg references Craig Haney, a psychologist at UC Santa Cruz who takes several decades studying the mental effects of the prison system. Stromberg says, “Most prisoners spent at least 23 hours per day in this environment, devoid of stimuli (some are allowed in a yard or indoor area for an hour less daily), and are denied physical contact on visits from friends and family, so they may go years or decades without touching another human, apart from when they are placed in physical restraints by guards” (2). Stromberg then goes on to use supporting evidence by adding that this sort of treatment takes a toll on inmates, based on surveys conducted by Haney and his colleagues over 500 inmates (Stromberg 2). Therefore, Mcleod and Stromberg provide quintessential information regarding personality development worth implementation.
Solitary prisons worsen inmates’ psychological conditions other than improving them. Stromberg reiterates that solitary confinement can easily breakdown a person’s mind to the point of requiring psychiatric help to recover, especially due to the paradigm’s long-term effects on the brain. Being lonely for extended periods without access to natural sunlight or interaction with other people can cause a person to lose self-concept, suffer severe psychological stress such as chronic depression, and withdrawal from social contact because of anxiety (Mcleod 2). Mcleod thus maintains that how people think about, evaluate, and perceive themselves is strongly influenced by their surroundings and upbringing. He details how the reaction and comparison to others, social roles, and identity play a role in how humans view themselves as worthy or worthless beings. Furthermore, Mcleod mentions that “A person’s ideal self may not be consistent with what actually happens in life and experiences of the person” (4). The claim confirms that a person’s environment plays a crucial role in how they perceive themselves. Accordingly, the solitary prison option of correcting offenders hardly works and should be abolished to help offenders realize real reintegration.
Overall, the two articles by Stromberg and Mcleod provide essential information about the effects of solitary prisons on individuals. Both authors express how an individual’s surroundings and environment impact self-perception. Stromberg stresses that solitary confinement ultimately ruins the possibility of positive outcomes in a prisoner’s mindset after being released, thus defeating the rehabilitation purpose. Equally, Mcleod provides evidence that human lives are guided by positive and negative factors that determine how people views themselves and identify with society. Therefore, the two sources reiterate the harmful effects of solitary imprisonment on people’s psychological well-being, suggesting the system’s removal.
Works Cited
Mcleod, Saul. “Self-Concept.” 2008.
Stromberg, Joseph. “The Science of Solitary Confinement.” 2014.