Possibilities of Control in 6 days; Zimbardo

[Pure]

A Stanford psychologist simulated a prison setting and had ordinary students, volunteers, be either guards or prisoners. The was a consensual arrangement, with a degree of information given, undertaken for pay. The guards were to control the prisonars, but not harm them; and the experiment was to last 2 weeks. Some 'prisoners' were let go, for health reasons, before the six days had elapsed. In six days this was the state of the prisoners! The experiment was called off.

Short term but thorough dominance; does a short term approach have possibilities of establishing rather complete domination/control? note the 'blind obedience' mentioned at the end. (And of course a somewhat lesser or different degree would easily be possible.)

http://www.prisonexp.org

[The prisoners' coping, in Zimbardo's words]

Prisoners coped with their feelings of frustration and powerlessness in a variety of ways. At first, some prisoners rebelled or fought with the guards. Four prisoners reacted by breaking down emotionally as a way to escape the situation. One prisoner developed a psychosomatic rash over his entire body when he learned that his parole request had been turned down. Others tried to cope by being good prisoners, doing everything the guards wanted them to do. One of them was even nicknamed "Sarge," because he was so military-like in executing all commands.

By the end of the study, the prisoners were disintegrated, both as a group and as individuals. There was no longer any group unity; just a bunch of isolated individuals hanging on, much like prisoners of war or hospitalized mental patients. The guards had won total control of the prison, and they commanded the blind obedience of each prisoner.

 

[WynEternal]

Not trying to be rude or anything, but my addled brain is trying to figure out the relevance of this article. The lifestyle shouldn't be like a prison environment where submissives feel that they have to do something just to get by among other things.

Will try to write more later, but just wanted to ask.

 

[WynEternal]

Ah, I re read it again and found your question.

 

[WynEternal]

If blind obidience is the outcome you are looking for, then what is the use of dominance? Even short term dominance.

Unless it was in a setting where the submissive sees no hope and a total loss of control, then they would no longer be a submissive, but a prisoner.

Submission is freely given to dominants who command both respect and loyalty, but with that is a sense of purpose on the part of the submissive.

The coping effects brought about in the article shows a detachment from reality, hence the blind obdience, but I really don't think that it's the same as submission.

 

[MissTaken]

There is a huge difference between obedience based on the futility of exerting one's choice and obedience based upon a power exchange.

Exchange being the operative word.
I give you something.
You give me something back.

 

[WynEternal]

LOL What she said too.

 

[Pure]

Miss T said,

There is a huge difference between obedience based on the futility of exerting one's choice and obedience based upon a power exchange.

Exchange being the operative word.
I give you something.
You give me something back.

I remind you these were not actual prisoners, but, one might say, consenting 'role players', actually college students with no mental problems (to begin with).

In this scenario,
Obedience was given to the 'guards'
Control and discipline was given back.

Seems like that would fit your 'exchange' idea quite well. By the way, there is nothing inherently 'nice' or democratic about exchange, or obedience based in it:

In a robbery:
I, the victim, obey and give money
The robber gives me freedom to go, unharmed.

 

[Pure]

Winnie Ternal said,

Not trying to be rude or anything, but my addled brain is trying to figure out the relevance of this article.

I presume you seen the term 'training of a sub', and read of such disciplinary programs?


The lifestyle shouldn't be like a prison environment where submissives feel that they have to do something just to get by among other things.

Well, these volunteer prisoners had to follow certain rules and routines--e.g., 'counts', times to get up. Lacking that they weren't to be shot, but there were penalties/punishments, ranging from having to do pushups to a day in 'solitary.' Ever heard of an account of a bdsm episode where there was an enforced 'solitary' period, say, in a darkened room?

Thanks for your response. Try a going for a walk, addle feel better.

 

[MissTaken]

*edited for tact*

I stand by my first opinion in that there is no power exchange here, not in the context that takes place in BDSM.

That aside:

How much info did these kids have?
Here is what I found.
"As with real prisoners, our prisoners expected some harassment, to have their privacy and some of their other civil rights violated while they were in prison, and to get a minimally adequate diet -- all part of their informed consent agreement when they volunteered"

THat hardly describes delousing, strip searches etc. Furthermore, the young men in the study were not given a choice of role. They were assigned guard status or prisoner status and for the prisoners, they didn't know until they were "arrested."

As for BDSM, would a Dominant who was concerned for the safety of His submissive emulate prison solitary for six days? I doubt it as there are reasons it is effective, but far more concern for the affects of long term solitary.

Also, keep in mind, that what these young men were put through happened around or right before the prison uprisings that led to awareness and sweeping changes in legislation concerning treatment of prisoners.

There are too many variables here to be able to draw a decided link between this 32 year old study and BDSM.

A submissive choses to be a submissive.
A Dominant choses to be a Dominant. As a Dominant personality, how could you tolerate even 24 hours of serving another. Could you tolerate being collared, being made to crawl on all fours or even simply undress and reveal yourself for inspection? Probably not, because it is not something you would enjoy. A submissive would enjoy many of these things.

Secondly, BDSM is based on INFORMED consent and exchange. Communication being the key. Even if you hold to the more violent sexual nature of some Dominants, you certainly can't practice violent sex with a submissive unless she is willing and aware. Otherwise, you would be arrested, mayhaps? These young men were given minimal information IMHO. How many college age students would have signed such a consent knowing they would be naked, deloused and searched before other students/peers?

 

[lark sparrow]

Not getting too deep into it, but interesting...

"Then, when we ended the hearings by telling prisoners to go back to their cells while we considered their requests, every prisoner obeyed, even though they could have obtained the same result by simply quitting the experiment. Why did they obey? Because they felt powerless to resist. Their sense of reality had shifted, and they no longer perceived their imprisonment as an experiment. In the psychological prison we had created, only the correctional staff had the power to grant paroles."

This was an experiment to coerce compliance and mimic imprisonment, but I found this paragraph interesting. It's similar to what submissives do with their Dominant - sense of reality had shifted - that's what we seek, but it's a shared and consensual reality, a common goal.

"There were three types of guards. First, there were tough but fair guards who followed prison rules. Second, there were "good guys" who did little favors for the prisoners and never punished them. And finally, about a third of the guards were hostile, arbitrary, and inventive 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. The only link between personality and prison behavior was a finding that prisoners with a high degree of authoritarianism endured our authoritarian prison environment longer than did other prisoners."

Also interesting - remind you of any Dominants you know? And the classifications we have in BDSM about "true" Dominants or different styles?

"I ended the study prematurely for two reasons. First, we had learned through videotapes that the guards were escalating their abuse of prisoners in the middle of the night when they thought no researchers were watching and the experiment was "off." Their boredom had driven them to ever more pornographic and degrading abuse of the prisoners.

Second, Christina Maslach, a recent Stanford Ph.D. brought in to conduct interviews with the guards and prisoners, strongly objected when she saw our prisoners being marched on a toilet run, bags over their heads, legs chained together, hands on each other's shoulders. Filled with outrage, she said, "It's terrible what you are doing to these boys!" Out of 50 or more outsiders who had seen our prison, she was the only one who ever questioned its morality. Once she countered the power of the situation, however, it became clear that the study should be ended.

And so, after only six days, our planned two-week prison simulation was called off."

"After observing our simulated prison for only six days, we could understand how prisons dehumanize people, turning them into objects and instilling in them feelings of hopelessness. And as for guards, we realized how ordinary people could be readily transformed from the good Dr. Jekyll to the evil Mr. Hyde."

Again, about prison and forced compliance, but I can see some similarities. The main difference being the seeking and consensual nature of BDSM as a life or play style. Rather than feeling "hopeless", we feel fulfilled and transcendent. It also reminded me of people who think they might like BDSM as a lifestyle, because they like roleplaying it sexually, only to find that actually giving up control longer-term is no fun and unfulfilling to them personally. There's alot of territory that could be explored and compared, but I'm too lazy right now.

Sure, blind obedience could occur rather quickly - depending on how extreme the measures were - it could occur in two seconds flat with a gun in your face and a menacing stranger threatening to pull the trigger.

Someone who had major "prison" fantasies might have really gotten off on this whole experiment! Did it make ya weak in the knees, Pure?

 

[Pure]

A very thoughtful and well researched Lark S. A pleasure to read.
Imo, it's hard not to see some overlaps. Weak in the knees, yes, but I'm not sure if I could take six days of that type.

Best regards,
J.

 

[Pure]

Hello Miss T,

I appreciate your taking the time to read some of the material and to respond with your usual thoughtfulness, in detail. I'll respond at specific points, below.


I stand by my first opinion in that there is no power exchange here, not in the context that takes place in BDSM.

I have no idea what that means, what you think p.e. is. It was a consensual arrangement.


That aside:

How much info did these kids have?
Here is what I found.
"As with real prisoners, our prisoners expected some harassment, to have their privacy and some of their other civil rights violated while they were in prison, and to get a minimally adequate diet -- all part of their informed consent agreement when they volunteered"

THat hardly describes delousing, strip searches etc.



The standards of informed consent were different then, but they did get more than they might have expected.


Furthermore, the young men in the study were not given a choice of role. They were assigned guard status or prisoner status and for the prisoners, they didn't know until they were "arrested."

Actually the arbitrary assignment to categories makes it more interesting to me. It suggests that the potential for *either* dominating or submitting, is there in everyone, but evoked according to circumstances.


As for BDSM, would a Dominant who was concerned for the safety of His submissive emulate prison solitary for six days? I doubt it as there are reasons it is effective, but far more concern for the affects of long term solitary.

I don't know that there was 'long term solitary', but I doubt it. I had the impression it might be for a day. Further I'm not claiming that Z exactly recreated a bdsm scene of the exemplary type you appear to have in mind.



Also, keep in mind, that what these young men were put through happened around or right before the prison uprisings that led to awareness and sweeping changes in legislation concerning treatment of prisoners.

There are too many variables here to be able to draw a decided link between this 32 year old study and BDSM.

Lark S. seems to see some connections, but yes the situation are different in some ways.



A submissive choses to be a submissive.
A Dominant choses to be a Dominant. As a Dominant personality, how could you tolerate even 24 hours of serving another. Could you tolerate being collared, being made to crawl on all fours or even simply undress and reveal yourself for inspection? Probably not, because it is not something you would enjoy. A submissive would enjoy many of these things.

Well, the guys did not have a choice of roles. Some of the 'guards' were leftie 'peace' types, apparently. Maybe you're suggesting that if the ones becoming prisoners would have been those who think of themselves as submissive, they would have 'enjoyed' the situation? I don't know. I doubt it.



Secondly, BDSM is based on INFORMED consent and exchange. Communication being the key. Even if you hold to the more violent sexual nature of some Dominants, you certainly can't practice violent sex with a submissive unless she is willing and aware. Otherwise, you would be arrested, mayhaps? These young men were given minimal information IMHO. How many college age students would have signed such a consent knowing they would be naked, deloused and searched before other students/peers?

I don't see any problem here, although standards for experiments have changed. If you've ever examined bdsm 'contracts' you will see that often the slave surrenders control of her body in a fairly sweeping way (though serious harm and death are excluded.) She does not know the exact nature of her trials.

In this mock prison, serious harm and death were likewise excluded, and the 'prisoners' surrendered control of their persons--perhaps unaware of the imaginativeness of the 'guards'.

Further I doubt whether enumerating the types of things would have affected the outcomes; college students are going to try for the couple hundred bucks, and not worry about a 'strip search' by fellow students playing 'guards.'

But it's silly to argue about whether the situations are the same; they are not. If the reading got you thinking, that's fine; if you hated it, so be it.

Thanks for all your efforts to explain your 'standard' position, consent, and so on. As you know I do not hold to minute-by- minute 'opt out' set ups as other than a kind of kinky play acting.

 

[Pure]

Hello Miss T,

I've tried to see the real core of your stance, and maybe it's that the situation described was not consensual; you say, for instance:


Secondly, BDSM is based on INFORMED consent and exchange. Communication being the key. Even if you hold to the more violent sexual nature of some Dominants, you certainly can't practice violent sex with a submissive unless she is willing and aware. Otherwise, you would be arrested, mayhaps? These young men were given minimal information IMHO.

While it's true the experiment couldn't even be done in our 'enlightened' time, I don't the the limited information is the key issue. (Harm is.) I agree they kind of signed a blank cheque in volunteering to have 'privacy and 'civil rights' curtailed.

That said, these 'prisoners' were college students. Those confined may not have known of the 'arrest' procedure, but they knew of confinement. Further, it's not 'actual' confinement. Some were let go, for instance.

You appear to be saying they were 1) *actually* kidnapped, and, like kidnap victims, 2)actually held against their will. If that were true, Zimbardo would be a criminal, a bluebeard figure. Yet no matter how harsh or unwise the experiment, no one--excepting possibly you--I know of has suggested criminal acts were performed on those students. Iow, with some shortcomings of information, the student 'prisoners' consented.

We presume their consent was continuing and not withdrawn; no account I've read says that the student prisoners begged for their freedom, as would an actual victim. Some considered escaping, however, but also endured the penalty. In a word they internalized the oppression.

It might also be pointed out that the experimenter himself was surprised at the turn of events, the harshness of the guards, the abjectness of the prisoners. So the issue of 'intent' is prominent; there was no original intention to have such a severe effect.

You have brought up some very key issues and it's not necessary that we agree; it's good to air differing views, I think.

 

[MissTaken]

A return to teh original question with a twist.

"Short term but thorough dominance; does a short term approach have possibilities of establishing rather complete domination/control? note the 'blind obedience' mentioned at the end. (And of course a somewhat lesser or different degree would easily be possible.) "

The answer is yes.

Consider "Stockholm Syndrome" . A hostage will make a connection with his or her captor and identify with them after a period of time. Patty Hearst is a glaring and notorious example of this. As a captive, not only did she become reliant on her captors, she actually began believing and participating in the cause of the SLA.

It is suggested that this connection happens when the hostage feels there is no escape and all of their needs must be met by the captor.

In this situation, a hostage takes total control and dominates the captive, often to the degree to which life and limb are reliant upon a stranger. Then, blind obedience takes place, not only based on fear, but on an emotional connection that can occur in as little as three hours, although most articles I have researched suggested four to six days.

http://www.sniggle.net/stock.php

(This isn't the best link, but there are specific reasons why it was the only one I could find to post here. Pm me for details and discussion if you wish)

 

[Pure]

Hi Ms T,

I'm sure there is some connection with Stockholm Syndrome, but I didn't mean my question about short term dominance to include criminal behavior. Yes, indeed if you stick a gun in someone's face, tie them, stick them in a closet, and iirc, rape them (as in Patty H.) you can certainly terrorize them and cow them in short order. And get them to 'identify' after a few days, if their life depends on it. (But, if I may echo you, this really hasn't much to do with bdsm.)

The interest of the experiment of Z is that no one was kidnapped, no one had a gun pointed at them. No one was raped. No one's life was imperilled or thought (by the 'prisoners' ) to be so. Yet the set up had its effects. So I amend my question and ask, What are the possibilities of 6 days of a consensual, arranged legal set-up? (which does NOT provide a basis for criminal charges).



"Short term but thorough dominance; does a short term approach have possibilities of establishing rather complete domination/control? note the 'blind obedience' mentioned at the end. (And of course a somewhat lesser or different degree would easily be possible.) "

The answer is yes.

Consider "Stockholm Syndrome" . A hostage will make a connection with his or her captor and identify with them after a period of time. Patty Hearst is a glaring and notorious example of this. As a captive, not only did she become reliant on her captors, she actually began believing and participating in the cause of the SLA.

It is suggested that this connection happens when the hostage feels there is no escape and all of their needs must be met by the captor.

 

[James G 5]

My comments here would be that the average human psyche is FAR weaker & more vunerable than most folk would imagine

I've studied a lot of work on psychological torture, brainwashing, conditioning, advertising, marketing, and various similar forms of psychological thought

Human thought is generally based on pattern recognition
Most people are never taught or bother to learn critical thinking
Self awareness & worth for most is based on group think & group identity (which is why peer pressure works)

Using harsh methods (starvation, sensory deprivation, mental cruelty of various sorts, physical abuse helps but isn't necessary), most people can be "broken down" in a short order of a very few days

Their willingness is irrelevant..........."Stockholm syndrome" victims & prisoners are unwilling, people who join cults or the military volunteer

Either way, they are broken down from who & what they were and "remade" in to a new mindset

The people in this study weren't thinking & acting for themselves, or acting along any "natural" Dom/sub dynamics, they were following group-think within the proscribed roles they had accepted, to the point where their reality was altered so they were "living" it, to the point of possible mental harm

As far as use/application in D/s, I think the training/acclimation of a sub by/to a Dom/me will incorporate some of these elements, especially in regards to remaking one's personal reality
But the Dominant needs to exercise a LOT of care here.......this's some of the responsibility I've spoken of wishing to avoid
For instance, as I mentioned in the "Cum on Command" thread, a Dom/me can train a sub to cum on voice command, but if the relationship ends the sub might be unable to cum WITHOUT that command. There're a lot of similar pitfalls that can leave a sub damaged or dependent in all sorts of ways............AND there's a flip side. Assuming the Dominant role can cuase a paradigm shift in the Dom/mes thoughts/behaviors/attitudes that can carry over in to life, in good or bad ways. This's a danger in 24/7 life.

Critical thinking skills, good self-awareness, and an ability to stand on one's own are good for ANYONE, and in D/s can be especially critical to the SAFE and SANE parts of SSC

I hope this made a LITTLE sense

 

[rosco rathbone]

...but if the relationship ends the sub might be unable to cum WITHOUT that command...

Nah, you gotta be kidding.

 

[DVS]

I remember when this happened. Yes, I'm old!
Also, I have a friend who is a prison guard. They are not allowed to make their own rules. They have specific scenarios they must follow, or they can lose their job. Even if that isn't hanging over their head, they have no weapons while in the prison population. And, if they don't give prisoners simple respect (within limitations), they end up having to watch their back. Prisoners are still human (well, most are!). They know when someone is treating them fairly.

The mind can be very impressionable under some conditions. Mental conditioning can be "seen" as cruelty, even if not meant to be. The guards were not Psychology students who may have known their actions were destructive.

Also, there were no true consequences for the guards, if they mistreated a prisoner. Even if there were consequences, losing a $15 test position is not the same as losing a career, and possible black list for a future job. Even one's own subconscious mind may not be a deterrent.

The test guards were given no training and given nearly total control over the situation by making up their own rules. This is not how a true prison is run. The "warden" was just an undergrad and member of the testing group. I would not consider him a non bias control agent.

The guards were given no specific training on how to be guards. Instead they were free, within limits, to do whatever they thought was necessary
to maintain law and order in the prison and to
command the respect of the prisoners. The guards made up their own set of rules, which they then carried into effect under the supervision of
Warden David Jaffe, an undergraduate from
Stanford University. They were warned, however,
of the potential seriousness of their mission and
of the possible dangers in the situation they were
about to enter, as, of course, are real guards who
voluntarily take such a dangerous job .

The prisoners were subjected to some of what real prisoners are, but they had not committed any crime. Sure, they had agreed to the test, but what happened to them still affected their subconscious minds (and, being blindfolded is not part of a real prison situation. A true test condition would not force a blindfold to be used, so the prisoners couldn't see the way to escape. This tainted the test).

Real prisoners know the system, and are more able to accept what happens. Most have been through the judicial process several times and are conditioned for it.

I know this was the 70s, but even then there were rules in prisons. The guards in the movie 'Cool Hand Luke' were road gang guards. Not quite the prison norm, when you think about it.

This was not a test of a pure prison situation. It was a test of how absolute power can corrupt absolutely, and how even the most stable mind might be broken, under controlled conditions.


I also don't see this even remotely close to the control in a BDSM relationship, because there was no respect or trust. It might be close to mental rape, though.

 

[James G 5]

...but if the relationship ends the sub might be unable to cum WITHOUT that command...

Nah, you gotta be kidding.

Uhm, no, not kidding
They'd become so conditioned to the command they couldn't cum without it

 

[Pure]

DVS,

Very interesting posting.

The diffs with real prisoners and real guards are certainly interesting. I can see how some amateur guard might go overboard (about a third did); at the same time, some old 'guards' may become seasoned and clever sadists.

I don't, however, think that the point was to learn about real prisons and their effects; after all the cells were in a psych lab.
Surely the 'prisoner' students knew that the 'guards' were also students. Everyone thought it was for two weeks. Hence I somewhat agree with your point


This was not a test of a pure prison situation. It was a test of how absolute power can corrupt absolutely, and how even the most stable mind might be broken, under controlled conditions.

I don't think the guards had anything like absolute power; they could not take lives; they are said to have used push ups and some solitary, among other things. They had no 'appeal' procedure and could be arbitrary, true, but that arbitrariness is not ABSOLUTE power.

They had the power to arbitrarily inflict some medium level punishments, I would say. Not whipping, electric shock, water immersion, suspending by handcuffs etc. They had no cattle prods; (nothing more than night sticks, I believe).

Lastly, you said,

I also don't see this even remotely close to the control in a BDSM relationship, because there was no respect or trust. It might be close to mental rape, though.

Well, the guard weren't pals and confidants, but the 'players' James and others talk about at parties and conventions are hardly in loving, trusting relationships either.

It seems to me that the 'guards' could be trusted not to kill or inflict serious physical harm on the 'prisoners'. That doesn't sound that different from strangers doing a scene at a convention.

As to parallels, the fictional tale 'Story of O' as well as true life accounts show a number of similar features. Example: the submitting person being stripped, whipped. Blindfolded. Deprived of own clothing. Punished for fairly minute things--i.e., in effect, arbitrarily. Humiliated in front of strangers. Depersonalized--called 'slave' instead of 'Hermann' or 'Mr.Scheisskopf.' Asked to 'service' strangers, sexually.

I find it quite amazing that some posters see no resemblances between the measures of Zimbardo's 'guards' and those of many 'masters' or dominating persons. That both protest love and 'trust' does not essentially change the nature of whats happening--e.g, parents' punishments in the name of love have just as much or more effect than strangers' punishments.

Best,

Pure

 

[Pure]

Bump.

Case of young Ms. Smart, classic Stockholm (a la Patty Hearst) or ?? And how accomplished?

 

[lark sparrow]

DVS,

Very interesting posting.

The diffs with real prisoners and real guards are certainly interesting. I can see how some amateur guard might go overboard (about a third did); at the same time, some old 'guards' may become seasoned and clever sadists.

I don't, however, think that the point was to learn about real prisons and their effects; after all the cells were in a psych lab.
Surely the 'prisoner' students knew that the 'guards' were also students. Everyone thought it was for two weeks. Hence I somewhat agree with your point


This was not a test of a pure prison situation. It was a test of how absolute power can corrupt absolutely, and how even the most stable mind might be broken, under controlled conditions.

I don't think the guards had anything like absolute power; they could not take lives; they are said to have used push ups and some solitary, among other things. They had no 'appeal' procedure and could be arbitrary, true, but that arbitrariness is not ABSOLUTE power.

They had the power to arbitrarily inflict some medium level punishments, I would say. Not whipping, electric shock, water immersion, suspending by handcuffs etc. They had no cattle prods; (nothing more than night sticks, I believe).

Lastly, you said,

I also don't see this even remotely close to the control in a BDSM relationship, because there was no respect or trust. It might be close to mental rape, though.

Well, the guard weren't pals and confidants, but the 'players' James and others talk about at parties and conventions are hardly in loving, trusting relationships either.

It seems to me that the 'guards' could be trusted not to kill or inflict serious physical harm on the 'prisoners'. That doesn't sound that different from strangers doing a scene at a convention.

As to parallels, the fictional tale 'Story of O' as well as true life accounts show a number of similar features. Example: the submitting person being stripped, whipped. Blindfolded. Deprived of own clothing. Punished for fairly minute things--i.e., in effect, arbitrarily. Humiliated in front of strangers. Depersonalized--called 'slave' instead of 'Hermann' or 'Mr.Scheisskopf.' Asked to 'service' strangers, sexually.

I find it quite amazing that some posters see no resemblances between the measures of Zimbardo's 'guards' and those of many 'masters' or dominating persons. That both protest love and 'trust' does not essentially change the nature of whats happening--e.g, parents' punishments in the name of love have just as much or more effect than strangers' punishments.

Best,

Pure

I was also thinking of it in terms of the internet, where fairly instant Masters, Mistresses, slaves and submissives are made. The chatrooms are similiar in being even more make believe than the prison environment. The guards having no training, but in this recreated environment they suddenly had "real power" and a title and everyone suspends reality for a bit. After a time, they all started to believe it. After a time, they found real drama in a contrived situation that was utterly removed from their normal reality and contained few if any safeguards, beyond killing or personal injury.

The student guards believed they were "guards", the student prisoners believed they were "prisoners" and as the situation was isolated from community rules, standards and history, even the people running the study became more interested in protecting and furthering the separate little world they had created. In this case it was not just the student prisoners who succombed, but the student guards as well as the controllers of the study - they all lost touch. Abuse is a possibility in any relationship. Anyone who has a brain is in theory able to be brain-washed.

I think we can clearly see the importance in safe, sane and consensual, safewords, consent, negotiation, etc. - community standards/BDSM societal safeguards that are more than mere slogans when playing with or living roles of D/s or SM. A dominat cannot be sucked into their own hype of power too much and ignore their responsibility, just as a submissive cannot leave their brain at the door and their heart on their sleeve. In BDSM relationships it is not Dominants (guards and wardens) vs the submissives (prisoners who have commited crimes) - it is usually about mutual pleasure and goals within what is considered heady and "dangerous" zones of the human psyche.

This study seemed more along the lines of "The Lord of The Flies" to me rather than any fictional BDSM story or what happens at a play party between informed, skilled, consenting and passionate adults in a BDSM community/society.

 

[Pure]

Lark S, said,


I was also thinking of it in terms of the internet, where fairly instant Masters, Mistresses, slaves and submissives are made. The chatrooms are similiar in being even more make believe than the prison environment. The guards having no training, but in this recreated environment they suddenly had "real power" and a title and everyone suspends reality for a bit. After a time, they all started to believe it. After a time, they found real drama in a contrived situation that was utterly removed from their normal reality and contained few if any safeguards, beyond killing or personal injury.

The student guards believed they were "guards", the student prisoners believed they were "prisoners" and as the situation was isolated from community rules, standards and history, even the people running the study became more interested in protecting and furthering the separate little world they had created. In this case it was not just the student prisoners who succombed, but the student guards as well as the controllers of the study - they all lost touch. Abuse is a possibility in any relationship. Anyone who has a brain is in theory able to be brain-washed.

This is quite a profound take on things, Honey Bun--that precisely the 'unreality' of the 'guards' (students) makes for parallel with a certain bunch of internet 'players'. And that makes for excessive, hardly expected cruelty.

Yes, all lost touch: If you read Zimbardo's comments, well into the project, and after chatting with dozens of colleagues about the events transpiring, a SINGLE woman said, "That's wrong; the prisoner's are being abused. You have to do something."



LS: "This study seemed more along the lines of "The Lord of The Flies"

I can't cite a source but have you heard of attempts to have students of say 10 or even 15 years old, in charge of their own discipline at school? Invariably the student 'courts' and 'judges' attempt to hand out far more severe and cruel penalties than would the ordinary Principal.

 

[MissTaken]

I am attaching a link from Stanford University News Service (1996)

There are several different points that seem interesting, but in terms of the where this conversation has lead, I will highlight a couple of them. Upon reading Zimbardo's comments, 25 years later, about the motivation for the experiment, it seems that it is comparable to what the internet can do in the realm of BDSM, bu tis not necessarily always relevant.

""I had been conducting research for some years on deindividuation, vandalism and dehumanization that illustrated the ease with which ordinary people could be led to engage in anti-social acts by putting them in situations where they felt anonymous, or they could perceive of others in ways that made them less than human, as enemies or objects," Zimbardo told the Toronto symposium in the summer of 1996"

In particular, the anonymous nature of the internet allows many to explore their "darker side" as well as to mentally act out fantasies that they may never have a place in their real life to enact. Does this mean it is a bad thing? NO. But are self annointed Dominants and submissives finding that their response to the openess of sexuality and the acceptance of unacceptable things is alluring to the degree to which that they would to things that they might never have considered? Perhaps, this is the case and in truth, my thinking is that there are many Dominants and submissives who are "born" vis a vis this medium as a result of being lured by the unthinkable rather than their own personal tastes, feelings or personalities. Perhaps I am referring to those that many idly call "wannabe" Dominants and submissives...and the dangers of such are repeatedly discussed elsewhere on this forum, so I wont' make my lengthy post any lengthier.

The second point that I wanted to highlight from the article, falls into the "Lord of the Flies" analogy and returns to the Jekyll and Hyde reference. Malach, Zimbardo's lover and future wife, as well as colleague at the time of the experiement visited the prison situation on the fifth day.

"There, she had a pleasant conversation with a "charming, funny, smart" young man waiting to start his guard shift. Other researchers had told her there was a particularly sadistic guard, whom both prisoners and other guards had nicknamed John Wayne. Later, when she looked at the monitor of the prison yard again, she asked someone to point out John Wayne and was shocked to discover it was the young man she had talked with earlier.

"This man had been transformed. He was talking in a different accent _ a Southern accent, which I hadn't recalled at all. He moved differently, and the way he talked was different, not just in the accent, but in the way he was interacting with the prisoners. It was like [seeing] Jekyll and Hyde. . . . It really took my breath away."

Several prisoners engaged in a debate with John Wayne, she said, in which they accused him of enjoying his job. He said that he wasn't really like that, he was just playing a role. One prisoner challenged this, Maslach said, noting that the guard had tripped him earlier when he was taking him down the hall to the bathroom. No researchers were around to see the act, the prisoner said, which indicated to him that the act reflected the guard's true disposition. John Wayne disagreed, saying that if he let up, the role wouldn't remain powerful. "

I find the reaction and the discussion concerning the guard's reaction as well as the administration and researchers most interesting. There seems to have been almost a "pack" mentality in terms of their exuberism and energy.

http://www.stanford.edu/dept/news/relaged/970108prisonexp.html

 

[Pure]

Nice link, Miss T. You've really done your research and some fine thinking. The longevity of talk of the experiment and its issues is amazing, and I hadn't realized that the whistle blower became his wife.