ENLIGHTENMENT and MORALITY

Two Classic Experiments

Some years ago a psychologist named Zimbardo carried out an experiment that became something of a classic in its field. It concerned prisoners and guards in a prison-like setting, and the interactions between them. As with all good experiments the guinea pigs were volunteers, representing an average (young) male cross section. No women were involved, which may have been significant.

The group was split at random into 'guards' and 'prisoners' and the experiment was conducted in a building temporarily converted into a 'prison'. The aim was to make the setting as realistic as possible, and was to last several weeks. Anyone, guard or prisoner, could resign from the experiment at any time. They were all being paid for their participation. The guards were equipped with uniforms, which included mirrored sunglasses to prevent eye contact and give a certain amount of anonymity. No violence was allowed, nor fraternisation with the prisoners. The guards had fixed shifts, and could go home when not 'on duty'.

Real police (who were co-operating with Zimbardo) arrested the prisoners. They were arrested at home, taken outside (so the neighbours could all have a good look, for the sake of embarrassment), handcuffed and driven to the 'prison'. There they went through the standard dehumanising procedures common everywhere. They were stripped, examined, given ill fitting prison clothes and a list of rules. They were allowed to keep their hair, as cutting it was deemed to be going too far! In short, each person was fully encouraged to play their specified role.

So what happened?

The results were surprising and disturbing. Remember that these were ordinary people. The guards became sadistic bullies. They came to enjoy their power over the prisoners, even putting in unpaid 'overtime'. Their favourite topic of conversation was 'problem prisoners' and the system in general. They made up additional petty rules in order to further dominate and humiliate the prisoners, and were not above minor casual brutality when they thought they were not being watched. The prisoners, meanwhile, became the mirror image of the guards. They also were obsessed with the conditions. They talked about the guards' behaviour, and generally became depressed and unhappy. They became docile and lethargic. Both groups became more polarised and extreme as the experiment went on. The prison became their whole world, with their past lives apparently seeming unreal.

The degree to which this reality superseded 'normal' life can be judged as to what happened when prisoners applied for 'parole'; that is, they wanted to get out. When parole was refused and Zimbardo ordered the guards to return them to the cells, they complied! Some even begged their wives or girlfriends to hire lawyers to get them out. Yet all they had to do in reality was say they had had enough of the experiment and leave. They 'knew' this, intellectually, but could not act upon it emotionally.

The experiment was ended half way through, after only one week, before it got out of hand.

The lessons learned were that nearly every 'normal' person could be made to behave as above. Guards who were given power over dehumanised prisoners invariably abused those powers. The prisoners themselves largely 'accepted' the treatment by becoming the 'opposite' of the guards, and fully polarising the situation. That such happens easily is seen when one looks at such institutions as concentration camps, prisons and similar establishments.

However, of more interest to us is the fact that the reality of the situation was obscured as the participants went deeper into their roles, as given. What would have been the enlightened perspective? What would have been the outcome of the experiment if those involved had stood up and said: 'Hey, look, it's only an experiment, a game. We aren't really prisoners, we aren't really guards. Remember, we're only pretending. And also remember when it is all over and we are once more in the real world, how are we going to explain or excuse our behaviour? I'm quitting; goodbye' But that did not happen; if it had, this would not have become a 'classic' experiment.

It is a lesson in how easily a normal person's model of what they consider to be 'reality' can be turned on its head in the space of days. Not months or years, but days!

One aspect of enlightenment is being able to see things for what they are - to maintain a detached perspective. That this is difficult should be becoming obvious. The people above had lost their sense of reality after a few days of playing their roles. Their model of 'what is real' had been changed dramatically and easily. How much more difficult is it to maintain, or attain, an enlightened state after a lifetime of 'playing the game'?

The second classic experiment concerns the degree to which normal people tend to abdicate personal responsibility in favour of obeying orders from an authority figure.

The real subject, 'Mister X' was told by the white coated authority figure, 'The Experimenter' that they were to take part in an experiment concerning the effectiveness of pain stimulus in a learning situation.

The false subject was an actor who was supposedly wired to an electrical current source, and all that Mister X had to do was administer a mild electrical shock, under the direction of The Experimenter, whenever the subject got an answer wrong.

The experiment began and, as wrong answers arrived mild shocks were delivered and the subject yelped, believably, in mild pain. In reality there was no electric shock, merely the pretence of one. As the experiment proceeded Mister X was ordered to turn up the voltage progressively into the red zone until the subject was screaming and begging to be released. After this had gone on long enough the actor remained silent, no matter how severe the 'shocks', as if to suggest unconsciousness or death.

So, did ordinary people such as 'Mister X' do as they were told and torture their victim to unconsciousness, despite his screams and pleading? The answer is yes, they almost always did. Not without a great deal of reluctance in many cases, admittedly. They had to be constantly reassured, or pressured, that The Experimenter knew what he was doing, and that he would take full responsibility.

Mister X was always told to ignore the screams and that it was all part of the test and was to be expected. In almost every case they did not like doing it, objected to it, hesitated, but in the end turned up the voltage and pressed the button.

There have been many variations on the above experiments and they all confirm that ordinary people can be made to do almost anything given the right circumstances. It seems that those who refuse are certainly a small minority, and not 'normal' at all.

The above illustrates that most 'normal' people have only a thin, easily cracked, veneer of civilisation and morality and no clear sense of reality. Which, given humanity's history, should come as no surprise.

Bear in mind too that all of the above people were volunteers who had little or nothing to lose by refusing to go along with what they considered wrong. They would not lose their job, or their house. They would not be imprisoned (for real), or punished, or executed.

So, I can almost hear you think, 'I would not do that, certainly not now'. Well, what makes you so special? Which of us has not at one time or other failed to do what we considered to be the right thing (for whatever reason)? And what of the future? Are we normal, or do we train to be special?