Zimbardo Critique
In 1973, Philip G. Zimbardo, professor and author of “The Stanford Prison Experiment” claims, “[W]e sought to understand…the process by which…‘prisoners’ lose their liberty, civil rights, independence, and privacy, while…‘guards’ gain social power” (107). Zimbardo says he wanted to reenact a situation or environment to demonstrate the potential to cause good people to act badly when they are blindly obedient to a figure of authority. However, when Zimbardo chooses subjective phrasing instead of objectivity, he propagandizes his experiment.
Zimbardo starts a planned two week experiment with 21 male college students divided indiscriminately into eleven guards and ten prisoners. They were chosen for their mental stability and …show more content…
Zimbardo states, “[O]ur guards were told that they must maintain ‘law and order’ in this prison” (109). With “considerable latitude to improvise” the participants and the readers are left to their own interpretations of justifiable methods to uphold the law for the guard position (109). Another hazy use of title with lack of definition is the role of “ ’Superintendent’ ” that Zimbardo ascribes to himself (108). All participants, as well as the reader, may assume that this position would oversee, or rule over, all activities. Yet, when guards handled a situation questionably, by using a fire extinguisher, he states, “[W]hat they did was startling to behold” (110). However, Zimbardo does not intervene. To the reader and the participants Zimbardo’s startled reaction and influential involvement clearly biased the “Superintendents” ability to do his …show more content…
When responding to a rumor of a jailbreak, Zimbardo states, “[T]he superintendent went back to the Palo Alto Police Department to request transfer of our prisoners to the old city jail” (114). When Zimbardo refers to himself as the superintendent instead of using the word “I” it is telling of the roleplaying he was engaging in. He also refers to his own actions as “[h]is impassioned plea was only turned down at the last minute” (114). His extemporaneous playacting and references to himself in the third person leave the reader wondering if Zimbardo is trying to distance himself from any
In 1973, Philip G. Zimbardo, professor and author of “The Stanford Prison Experiment” claims, “[W]e sought to understand…the process by which…‘prisoners’ lose their liberty, civil rights, independence, and privacy, while…‘guards’ gain social power” (107). Zimbardo says he wanted to reenact a situation or environment to demonstrate the potential to cause good people to act badly when they are blindly obedient to a figure of authority. However, when Zimbardo chooses subjective phrasing instead of objectivity, he propagandizes his experiment.
Zimbardo starts a planned two week experiment with 21 male college students divided indiscriminately into eleven guards and ten prisoners. They were chosen for their mental stability and …show more content…
Zimbardo states, “[O]ur guards were told that they must maintain ‘law and order’ in this prison” (109). With “considerable latitude to improvise” the participants and the readers are left to their own interpretations of justifiable methods to uphold the law for the guard position (109). Another hazy use of title with lack of definition is the role of “ ’Superintendent’ ” that Zimbardo ascribes to himself (108). All participants, as well as the reader, may assume that this position would oversee, or rule over, all activities. Yet, when guards handled a situation questionably, by using a fire extinguisher, he states, “[W]hat they did was startling to behold” (110). However, Zimbardo does not intervene. To the reader and the participants Zimbardo’s startled reaction and influential involvement clearly biased the “Superintendents” ability to do his …show more content…
When responding to a rumor of a jailbreak, Zimbardo states, “[T]he superintendent went back to the Palo Alto Police Department to request transfer of our prisoners to the old city jail” (114). When Zimbardo refers to himself as the superintendent instead of using the word “I” it is telling of the roleplaying he was engaging in. He also refers to his own actions as “[h]is impassioned plea was only turned down at the last minute” (114). His extemporaneous playacting and references to himself in the third person leave the reader wondering if Zimbardo is trying to distance himself from any