Nowadays, Stanford Prison Experiment is being commonly referred to as such that provides validity to the application of a situational approach, within the context of defining the extent of people’s capacity for evil. According to Philip Zimbardo, who conducted this experiment in 1971, it is not the particulars of people’s psycho-biological constitution, which characterize their ability/inability to indulge in behavior that is being usually perceived as ‘evil’, but solely the environment: “Systems are the engines that run situations that create behavioral contexts that influence the human action of those under their control” (2007, p. 179). Nevertheless, despite the fact that in his book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil, Zimbardo strived to undermine the soundness of a dispositional outlook on the subject matter, while providing readers with the details of the Stanford Prison Experiment, this experiment’s conclusions subtly support the idea that the specifics of human behavior are being biologically predetermined rather than socially constructed. In the paper, I will aim to explore this thesis further.
As of today, the majority of critics share Zimbardo’s understanding of the Stanford Prison Experiment’s implications as such point out the fact that people’s behavior is essentially contextual. For example, in her critical review of Zimbardo’s book, Kelly Smith states: “The Lucifer Effect is ultimately an extended argument for the situational outlook on human behavior, especially when used to explain why people do things that seem truly evil and immoral” (2008, p. 288). Nevertheless, only a few critics (and Zimbardo himself) do realize a simple fact that, during the course of the Stanford Prison Experiment, its participants were given a chance to get in touch with their true biological essence as descendants of primates. For those who observed social realities within the pack of gorillas, for example, it is absolutely clear that these realities are defined by alpha males being continuously preoccupied with trying to ensure their dominance over females and over male-rivals by subjecting them to physical and sexual abuse on a full-time basis. Given the fact that the species of Homo Sapiens had descended from primates, it makes perfectly logical sense why many seemingly adequate people get to derive sadistic pleasure out of perpetrating evil acts when they know that they would be able to get away with it, without being punished – people’s layer of civility is only a skin-deep and underneath this layer resides a monkey. By being placed under the set of extreme circumstances that imply the absence of any legal restrictions whatsoever, people get to act in a way that is natural to all primates – they instantly divide themselves into dominant and submissive sub-groups.
Therefore, I cannot agree with the author of The Lucifer Effect promoting the idea that people’s tendency to act evil cannot be discussed outside of the ‘systemic oppression’ discourse. What the Stanford Prison Experiment had shown is that people’s ‘evilness’ is not something that is being imposed on them from the outside, but something that stems from within. The realization of this fact alone deems the experiment’s situational implications conceptually fallacious – it is not the specifics of a social environment that are solely responsible for the way people react to life’s challenges, but the extent of these people’s physiological and psychological atavism. In its turn, this explains why, whereas; some participants of Zimbardo’s experiment that played the role of guards did show sadistic inclinations, the others did not. The same applies to those participants that played the role of prisoners – as we know, throughout the course of an experiment, some of them never ceased conspiring to escape, while others had simply adopted a subservient stance, without even trying to put up any resistance. What it means is that, in the case with every particular ‘prisoner’, it were namely the specifics of his psychobiological makeup, which defined his behavior.
Despite apparent inconsistencies in how the designer of Stanford Prison Experiment went about promoting situational ‘methodology of evil’, this experiment is still being referred to by particularly ‘progressive’ social scientists as the ultimate proof of ‘evil’ as a socially constructed notion, as opposed to being simply the reflection of individual’s criminal mindedness. The reason for this is simple – the situational approach to evil correlates with dogmas of political correctness. In her critical review of Zimbardo’s book, Rose McDermott states: “Those who establish and maintain a system which encourages and allows situations predisposing individuals within them to commit evil acts are themselves responsible for structuring opportunities for sin to flourish” (2007, p. 646). Why does the crime rate among representatives of ethnic minorities in Western countries appear especially high? As it appears out of Zimbardo’s book’s context, this is because these people are being systematically subjected to ‘institutionalized poverty by subtle racists in high offices. Therefore, if someone rapes and kills a woman, for example, namely euro-centric society should be blamed for this crime. In other words, there can be little doubt that from the very beginning, Stanford Prison Experiment never ceased being affected by its designer’s strong affiliation with the left-wing political agenda. This is why I cannot agree with suggestions that this experiment represents an undeniable scientific truth-value.
References
- McDermott, R. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil – by Philip Zimbardo (review). Political Psychology, 28(5), 644-646.
- Smith, K. (2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil (review). Public Integrity, 10(3), 287-291.
- Zimbardo, P. (2006). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. New York: Random House.