There are uncanny similarities and differences between the novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding's and the Stanford Prison Experiment, conducted by Philip Zimbardo. Two of the main subjects from LOTF were civilization and savagery. When put into isolation, would the boys on the island be civilized or fall into the trap of savagery. In the SPE, Zimbardo wanted to find out how humans would perform in a prison-like environment. He put 24 male students in a prison simulation, role-playing as prisoners and guards.
In both Lord of the Flies and the stanford prison experiment, it is demonstrated that people’s more dark and savage side comes out when they are placed in a situation where they are isolated from civilization. In the stanford prison experiment, the college students’ dark sides came out only 36 hours into the experiment: “And finally, about were hostile, arbitrary, and intensive in their forms of prisoner humiliation. These guards appeared to thoroughly enjoy the power they wielded, yet none of our preliminary personality tests were able to predict this behavior,” (SPE 12). The experiment began with average middle class college students who were told to act like prison guards. For the time being, they were isolated to the prison and interacting with the “prisoners” all day.
In society, the people with more power are likely on a higher level than those who have less power. A person who is given orders has the right to decide whether to follow them or not, and this idea is clearly the situation from reading “The Perils of Obedience,” “The Stanford Prison Experiment,” and watching “A Few Good Men.” At the end of the film, why did the two marines not have to go back to jail, but were no longer allowed to be Marines? Why was their case pardoned from prison sentencing?
In A Few Good Men, director Rob Reiner portrays the court case of two Marines named Dawson and Downey, on trial for the murder of another Marine, William Santiago. Santiago was killed due to a code red ordered by Kendrick and Jessep. Dawson and Downey felt that they are innocent because they were just following orders. The same situation arises in “The Perils of Obedience,” by Stanley Milgram. Milgram believes that everyone is inclined to be obedient but not hold responsibility, and proves this by including an experiment where while administering shocks to learners, teachers would only continue when being told to do so and when they were told that they are not responsible for what happens to the learner.
In comparison, Lt. William Calley maintained his actions within My Lai were entirely in response to superior orders and did not endure any remorse by carrying out directed orders (Kelman& Hamilton 136-137). As to why Dawson and Downey instinctively followed an unethical command to inflict pain on Pfc. Santiago, Kelman and Hamilton convey that the structure that authority contributes to the situation effects the reactions to the explicit or implicit orders (Kelman& Hamilton 140).The Uniform Code of Military Justice, UCMJ, might refute Kelman and Hamilton by providing that military personnel must follow the lawful orders of his superior officer; in addition, it includes they have the obligation to disobey unlawful orders when in direct violation of the UCMJ ("A Duty to Disobey..."). If Dawson and Downey had the right to follow code and disobey the unlawful order of authorizing Santiago with a Code Red, then why would they follow through with the command? Ian Parker provides when there is a slight channel for disobedience, individuals tend to be more vulnerable to fascism and react in a destructive manner.
In 1971, Philip Zimbardo set out to conduct an experiment to observe behavior as well as obedience. In Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment, many dispute whether it was obedience or merely conforming to their predesigned social roles of guards and prisoners that transpired throughout the experiment. Initially, the experiment was meant to test the roles people play in prison environment; Zimbardo was interested in finding out whether the brutality reported among guards in American prisons was due to the sadistic personalities of the guards, disposition, or had more to do with the prison environment. This phenomenon has been arguably known to possibly influencing the catastrophic similarities which occurred at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003.The
Second, The Stanford Prison Experiment was a psychological study that was too inhumane to continue because of the behavior of the prison guards when handed with superiority and the mental breakdowns of the prisoners. E: “Now, you 'll all be given sunglasses and uniforms to give the prisoners a sense of a unified, singular authority… And from this point forward you should never refer to this as a study or experiment again,’’ (Dr. Phil Zimbardo).
When structure disappears among civilized people, chaos arrives. In the novel “Lord of the Flies” by William Golding, the boys find each other on the island and they try to set up a type of rule within the island and the boys. Much like how in the “Stanford Prison Experiment” by Sam McLeod, when the experiment starts, it is an organized and set up way. The article states “Guard were instructed to do whatever they thought was necessary to maintain law and order in the prison and to command the respect of the prisoners” (McLeod). In both the book and the article, the beginning was the time for them to start the way of how order was supposed to be.
Stanford Prison Experiment: "Evil" by Nature vs. "Evil" by Circumstance? Overview of the Experiment The "Stanford Prison Experiment" was conducted by a psychologist at Stanford University known as Philip Zimbardo. The experiment itself was conducted in order to find out the effect of becoming a prison guard and being a prisoner from a psychological standpoint, and Zimbardo was interested in seeing how good people acted in an evil and oppressive regime. The test subjects voluntarily joined the experiment; the prison guards were paid a low sum of money for their participation, while the prisoners were undergraduates attending Stanford University.
This connects to the idea of guards having the capability of turning evil through an atmosphere of the prison environment where they can turn evil and have no remorse feelings towards the prisoners. From the article, "Stanford Prison Experiment," by Saul McLeod, he explained that the evil tactics that were made by the guards were from the atmosphere of the prison environment because the norm for a prison guard is to act tough and have no remorse feelings towards the prisoners when assigning punishments. He also added that guards acted this way because they lost their sense of personal identity when they dressed up as a guard, which can show they may have believed that they were actual guards and the experiment was real, which might’ve triggered their dark side with harsh punishments. Therefore, losing their personal identity in a prison environment may have been the factor where they triggered their evil side during the prison
The house is filled with Father and Thomas 's yells. Why can 't my family understand that my brother, Thomas, is a Whig? He only has different stand points on this new act England has passed, The Stamp Act. Ever since March 22, 1765 when the Stamp Act was passed (history.com) that 's all that is talked about in the colonies anymore. I wish I could tell them that I am a Whig too, but Mother and Father would hate me forever.
Stanford Prison Experiment Philip Zimbardo questioned, “What happens when you put good people in an evil place? Does humanity win over evil, or does evil triumph?” (Zimbardo, 1971) In 1971 a psychologist named Philip Zimbardo conducted an experiment on the effects prison has on young males with the help of his colleague Stanley Milgram. They wanted to find out if the reports of brutality from guards was due to the way guards treated prisoners or the prison environment.
Stanford Experiment: Unethical or Not Stanford Prison Experiment is a popular experiment among social science researchers. In 1973, a psychologist named Dr. Philip Zimbardo wants to find out what are the factors that cause reported brutalities among guards in American prisons. His aim was to know whether those reported brutalities were because of the personalities of the guards or the prison environment. However, during the experiment, things get muddled unexpectedly. The experiment became controversial since it violates some ethical standards while doing the research.
Authority gives a person the chance to feel superior, and as seen throughout this film, those within the position of authority will only then abuse this opportunity. Given the chance for people to gain authority or rather the sense of authority is enough to awaken the evil within. Within the movie, The Stanford Prison Experiment the guards were enabled to set a line of difference between the prisoners and themselves. They were able to make the prisoners feel weak or emasculated, forcing the students to strip and wear the assigned prison clothes that barely covered their genitals (Alvarez). Forcing the prisoners to wear these feminine articles of clothing and assigning them a number, gives the opportunity to strip away their personality and
The Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by psychologist Philip Zimbardo in 1971 illustrated the direct relationship between power of situations and circumstances to shape an individual’s behavior. During this study 24 undergraduates were grouped into roles of either a Prisoner or a Guard, the study was located in a mock correctional facility in the basement of Stanford University. Researchers then observed the prisoners and guards using hidden cameras. The study was meant to last two weeks. However, the brutality of the Guards and the suffering of the Prisoners was so intense that it had to be terminated after only six days.
