Crossposted to Daily Kos

---

Yesterday I wrote about Milgram’s work and how diffusion of responsibility supports torture.

Today I’m continuing that theme, discussing how Zimbardo’s Prisoner Experiment at Stanford shows us similar trends.

First, a summary of the prisoner experiment, for those of you unfamiliar with it.

If you’re not interested in the YouTube version, Wikipedia has a great summary as well.

Here’s the simple version:

When we set up bad structures, we end up with people who do bad things.

That’s it.  It’s that simple.  What Zimbardo mentions (more in this recent interview) is that, in his experiment, the “guards” boiled down to two kinds: “good “guards and “bad” guards.  The “bad” guards are the ones who engaged in brutal behaviors against the “prisoners.”  The good “guards” are the ones who didn’t.

But none of those “good” guards tried to stop it.

In the Stanford experiment, we weren’t dealing with people who had a moral right to be guards.  We weren’t dealing with prisoners who had done anything wrong.  Everyone was randomly assigned to a role.  And yet, still, we had prisoners breaking down.  We had guards deliberately demeaning and abusing prisoners.

Does this ring a bell?

Without proper leadership, people in authority tend towards chaos.  Without proper controls and accountability, people in authority do damage.

Without a proper idea as to who the enemy is, soldiers don’t know what to do.

So they behave badly.

And, like I mentioned yesterday, we don’t want to acknowledge this:

I’m going to mention another concept that I’ve talked about before: cognitive dissonance — the condition that exists when our behavior contradicts our beliefs.  When dealing with cognitive dissonance we sometimes change our behavior, but we sometimes also change our beliefs.

We do not want to think of ourselves as a country which supports or promotes torture.  It contradicts our beliefs.  So when we see that we have, in fact, engaged in torture, we have some choices:

1. we can change our beliefs to convince ourselves that we think torture is ok;
2. we can say “this has to stop” and change our behavior;
3. we can say “this has to stop” and then convince ourselves that we’ve changed our behavior without actually doing it;
4. we can say “we oppose torture” and then reclassify everything we do as something that’s not torture.

We’re so focused on this idea of supporting our troops that we refuse to acknowledge the reality: by failing to hold them accountable and by refusing to hold them to a higher standard, we are doing them damage.  We’re so focused on choosing option #3 above– pretending we’re solving things without actually doing so– that we’re risking serious long-term damage.  

A few weeks ago, in another post, I wrote about the problems facing our soldiers:

In the meantime, as IAVA reports, the professional component of this is far from adequate:

90% of military psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers reported no formal training or supervision in the recommended PTSD therapies, and there is a general shortage of trained mental health professionals in the military.  The Pentagon screens returning troops for mental health problems via an ineffective system of paperwork.  Studies have shown that many troops are not filling out their mental health forms, that there are serious disincentives for troops to fill the form out accurately, and that those whose forms indicate they need care do not consistently get referrals.

Both guards and prisoners in the Stanford experiment suffered mental damage as a result of it.  And this was fake.

Imagine yourself placed in a situation where the rules are unclear and you don’t know what you’re supposed to do, but that your basic role is “guard.”  You don’t know who the enemy is.  Or you don’t know what your prisoners have done.  Or you don’t know why you’re there or what your mission is.

And you’re there, in this prison, guarding people whom you don’t understand, who don’t understand you, and you’re there guarding this scene where you’re the “good” guard.  You’re not the one strapping someone to a table.  You’re not the one holding the suffocation hood.  You’re not the one doing the waterboarding.

But you’re there.  And you’re supposed to be keeping everything in order.  You’re one of the 92% who won’t intervene when someone in the room with you is killing someone.  Because you’re just following orders.

Imagine this insanity happening around you and you being part of it and yet also just a casual observer who had the power to intervene and prevent atrocities and failed to do so.

Now imagine that you think of yourself as a good person, but are connected with this.

Remember the concept of “cognitive dissonance” that I reference earlier?

What do you think this does to a person?

I’m horrified by what I see, but I get that pretending its not there is worse.

I want to support my country, but I can’t do so in a way that ignores the truth.

I want to support the troops, but I can’t do so without knowing who they are and what their limitations are.

I want what we’re doing overseas to stop.  It doesn’t just do damage to other countries and other people.  It does damage to us.  It destroys the hearts of everyone involved: prisoner, guard, soldier, civilian.

It destroys the minds and it destroys the souls.

Montpelier-based Catamount Tavern News (from  where I got the interview with Anthony Pollina here) is announcing that they will become members of the Lithographers Local 1L-Teamsters.  The paper, which is free though only prints around 1200 copies an issue, is entirely worker-owned and controlled. 

 CT News bills itself as "a quarterly Statewide publication covering news, politics, and counterculture for the working Vermonter".

Their press release is here.

Congrats to them.  Who woulda thought a bunch of crazy commies living in the woods could do something they love, And believe in, and get a pension when they retire. 

(Moving it ahead of the diary I just posted because this is so important and local. – promoted by JulieWaters)

with a big hat tip to wdh3  for assistance.

 

Well, then. Today, I was witness to a truly inspiring day of direct action. With results, as you can see from the sign that was on the recruiter's office in Williston, today. All of you old coots who grumble about the youth of today, it's time to listen up. More below the jump…

As you might have read in that action alert I posted yesterday, students from the Mount Mansfield Union High School Peace Club, in conjunction with Iraq Veterans Against he War and a bunch of others in solidarity staged an action today at the Military Recruitment Office in Williston today, with the intent of shutting it down so that no one could go in and sign up to be cannon fodder. The students are also trying to draw attention to the presence of military recruiters in the schools, as well as to inspire and teach high school students about the importance speaking out and acting. From the press release earlier:

On the heels of a campaign launched earlier this week from the halls of MMU, the crowd on Friday will unite under the banner, “Out of Our Schools – Out of Iraq,” which in part “calls upon high school students to learn about and use non-violent civil disobedience to intervene directly in all institutions that are waging this war. Now is the time for students to do this as it becomes increasingly obvious our government, our parents and our teachers will not do it for us,” MMU student Phoebe Pritchett explains.

 

“Military recruiters have had unfettered access to our schools and our personal, private information for too long. We demand an immediate end to this war based on lies and deception, and that our schools shut their doors permanently to the military. We are done doing push-ups in the hallway for a free t-shirt today, and a flag sent home to our parents tomorrow,” says Emily Coon of the MMU Peace Club.

Some of the outrage also stems from a provision in Bush's No Child Left Behind Act that requires schools to hand over student names and phone numbers to recruiters, unless the children's parents opt out.  Interestingly enough, as I was standing outside the Army/National Guard office, I had the privilege of conversing with Dottye Ricks, the woman from Military Families Speak Out who gave that powerful speech at the beginning of the controversial meeting with Peter Welch a few weeks ago. She told me how today she heard Welch on VPR and called in and asked him something to the extent of what he would do about the NCLB/recruiter problem and she told me that he got rather testy and didn't seem to know much about what she was talking about.

Anyways, I arrived about 3pm in the parking lot of that fake town/altar of excess known as Maple Tree Place, met a few other participants, ad proceeded to head down to the recruiters' office, where I was told we'd be meeting another group of marchers. I'd also heard that there was going to be a counter-demonstration led by radio blowhard Paul Beaudry and a group of Others Who Crap Their Pants On A Daily Basis Since 9-11, but that turned out to be a false one. Perhaps there  was a toilet stall somewhere that needed his attention.  Anyways, the group coalesced around the outside of the office, only to find that it was already closed and locked. Jeez. That was easy.

Soon, the other group had met up with us, there was some chanting, a general great buzz and excitement in the air. There was press, both mainstream and indy, as well as a subdued police presence. Some of the demonstrators taped various signs to the windows, as well as pictures of injured soldiers and dead Iraqis.

It didn't seem like there was going to be an opportunity  for civil disobedience, as it's rather difficult to  block entry to a closed, locked office with no one entering. I was chatting with a few people when I noticed on the other side of the green, next to the movie theater, an office that said "Army National Guard" above it. I went over to have a look, and it was open, so I reported back to some others, and off we all went.

At that point, some of us went in to the office. There was one guy sitting at a desk who pretty much ignored everybody, and the military guys were all in back behind some closed door. More chanting and happy ruckus abounds. Someone with a bullhorn began to read off the name of Iraqis killed. Eventually, more police showed up (eventually it was the Williston, South Burlington, and Essex Police, the State Troopers, and the Chittenden County Sheriff). The group was asked to leave, and many did. About 10 or 15 stayed behind and sat down. The cops then blocked the entrance, and the group inside, which consisted of students and older folks, were then  issued citations.

The chanting and revelry continued for about an hour. The mood was actually quite good. Although there was a definitive police presence,  there wasn't really much tension in the air, and there was no violence or escalated confrontation to speak of. Eventually, those inside were taken into a back room where they were put into a Sheriff's van, taken to the South Burlington police station, cited fro trespassing, and released.

All in all, a great day. But the success of the office shutting down for the day is really only a small part of the picture. The real story is the fact that a bunch of high school students coordinated this thing, put it together, and it worked. From what I gathered, they were focussed, on message, and well-organized, which is a lot more than you can say for a lot of other actions that devolve in chaos or a bunch of people sitting around holding hands and singing Imagine.  Go look at this excellent slide show of the event over at the Free Press site. You'll see what I mean. No, it's not Chicago or Paris '68. But it wasn't supposed to be. It's something to look forward to.

I've been quite jaded these last few years. The Bush years have definitely taken their toll on me, as they have on many of you, I'm sure. But I think that many of us who were there today who have our high school years well behind us left there just a little less jaded today. I know I did.

These young people aren't stupid. They've spent almost half their years under Bush in this America that I sometimes hardly recognize any more.  They're sick of being lied to, by the government, by military recruiters. Maybe they're getting as mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. Good.

As more coverage of this rolls in, I'll update this post, so if you're following it, check in every now and then.

Excellent prelim coverage by NTodd at Pax Americana here, with some fantastic photos here. I finally got to meet him today.

Full press release here.

Burlington Free Press article here. More to come.

UPDATE: Another press release, post event, says:

Jaz Whitney was one of 3 minors cited with trespassing at the office inn act of civil disobedience and explains, “Not one but two recruiting offices were shut down for the day, we gained great visibility, and our voices and messages were loud and clear. The situation inside the recruitment office was nerve-racking, but I wasn’t going to back down from something I believe in. This is a great segue into other actions, we will stop this war and get the military our of our schools.”

 

 

Letters, Times Argus

November 29, 2007

I appreciated Dan Barlow’s recent article on the pending report regarding Vermont’s Current Use program. Vermont’s long tradition of supporting environmental stewardship through agriculture and forestry was institutionalized with this program’s inception 30 years ago.

While the program is one that should be highly praised for the majority of its work, there are fundamental questions about how a property owner or farmer qualifies for this program based upon 1977 criteria in a 2007 economy and real estate environment.

One such qualifier includes the gross annual revenue from sale of agricultural crops, set at either $2,000 or $5,000 depending on the amount of acreage enrolled in current use. This monetary figure never included an inflationary time-value formula and therefore sets a very low bar for the economic definition of current agricultural use.

Additionally, changes in the real estate market over 30 years could not have been foreseen by well-meaning legislators in 1977. Due to other environmental efforts from both legislation and nonprofit activity, the ways of suburban development have been tempered over the course of three decades. But over the same period of time there has been a rise of rural gentrification which creates different sets of economic and environmental issues yet to be discussed.

We now have property buyers who have no intention to develop farmlands into cul-de-sacs based on their own environmental values; who have financial and legal means to maintain and conserve their property for future generations; and who may even operate their farm as a money-losing corporation in order to reduce their overall tax liability. Like non-agricultural property owners in mid-western states who still receive tax breaks and annual farm subsidies based on outdated pork programs and national farm bills, Vermont’s own Current Use program may be susceptible to unwarranted tax relief for unintended beneficiaries if review panels do not recommend timely and appropriate changes to statute.

Nate Freeman

 

Crossposted to Daily Kos

---

Stanley Milgram began his research into obedience in the early 1960’s.  His original intent had been to demonstrate that “just following orders” wasn’t a legitimate excuse for Nazis who committed atrocities during the holocaust.

It was his belief that only a select few people would engage in acts which could serious harm to others when ordered to do so.  His belief was shared by the students he polled.

They were wrong.

Milgram’s experiment was a simple one that involved three people:

1. the Authority Figure/Experimenter (E);
2. the Technician/Teacher (T);
3. the Learner (L);

The experiment was set up as follows:

“E” would show up in a white coat and explain to two individuals that one of them would be playing the part of the teacher and one would be the learner and explain the rules.  Then he would hand a slip of paper to each one.  One would say “Teacher” and the other would say “Learner.”  The learner (L) would move to another another room and the teacher (T) would stay with the Experimenter.

Then they would get to work.  

The Teacher would, through a microphone, read a question to the Learner.  If the Learner got the question wrong, T would administer a shock.   Each time the shock was administered, T would increase the voltage a little for the next time and L would scream in pain.

The dial went up to “450 volts.”  In many cases, this was marked as “DANGER” or “LETHAL.”

The thing is, this experiment was a ruse.  The “Learner” was part of the experiment, an actor along with the Authority figure.  No one was shocked.  No one was in pain.  L wasn’t being tested.  

T was.

The idea of the experiment was to discover what our limitations are in terms of what we’d be willing to do to harm another, and how authority can influence those limitations.  I’ll get to the results soon, but first I have to explain something:

In social psychology, we talk about Diffusion of Responsibility, a problem that often occurs when people don’t feel adequately responsible for the circumstances around them.  Having an authority figure available to tell us what to do provides an immense amount of diffusion of responsibility.  

In Milgram’s experiment, E didn’t use threats or cajole.  If T didn’t want to engage in the experiment, the experimenter would first say “please continue.”  If that failed, the next statement would be that “the experiment requires that you continue.”  If that didn’t do the trick, E would say that “it is absolutely essential that you continue,” and finally, “you have no other choice, you must go on.”

If T still refused after those four statements, the experiment would end.

If the experiment didn’t end through refusal, it would end after three “shocks” at the maximum level of 450.

There were no threats to E.  There was no danger.  No loss to refusal.  It was merely those statements on the part of the experimenter.

It’s easy for us to look at this and think, “I wouldn’t ever go that far.”  It’s easy for us to say “I’d never do that.”  

But the fact of the matter is, in Milgram’s work and studies that have replicated it have shown a remarkable consistency: more than 60% of the sample has stuck with the study until the very end, even though they believed at the time that they might be doing serious harm to another human being.  

So yes, I’d love to be able to say “I’d never do a thing like that.”  But I know enough about psychology and self-deception to understand fully well that I can’t be certain how I’d behave if faced with such a dilemma.  On the surface, it seems like a no-brainer and I honestly can’t conceive of doing anything but walking out.  But I don’t know that I’m that much different from so many people who go along with the experimenter.  I don’t know that I’m better than they are and I don’t know that I’m that strong a person.

I hope I am.

But I’m also fine with not knowing that I’m one of that 60+% who would buckle under the dread of the words “it is absolutely essential that you continue.”

So.

Now you know about Milgram’s work.  Some of you knew all this already.  Some of you didn’t.

But that’s not the point of this piece.  

The point is to talk about where we go from here.

In 1974, Milgram wrote an article for “Harpers,” “The Perils of Obedience:”

The problem of obedience is not wholly psychological. The form and shape of society… have much to do with it. There was a time, perhaps, when people were able to give a fully human response to any situation because they were fully absorbed in it as human beings. But as soon as there was a division of labor things changed… The breaking up of society into people carrying out narrow and very special jobs takes away from the human quality of work and life. A person does not get to see the whole situation but only a small part of it, and is thus unable to act without some kind of overall direction. He yields to authority but in doing so is alienated from his own actions.

Even Eichmann was sickened when he toured the concentration camps, but he had only to sit at a desk and shuffle papers. At the same time the man in the camp who actually dropped Cyclon-b into the gas chambers was able to justify his behavior on the ground that he was only following orders from above. Thus there is a fragmentation of the total human act; no one is confronted with the consequences of his decision to carry out the evil act. The person who assumes responsibility has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society.

Let me tell you a story.  A woman I know has a son who, in September of 2001, was in his early teens.  He was at home with his father, when the first tower fell.  They were watching TV at the time, glued to the set.

When the tower fell, his first comment was “cool!”  

There was an awkward pause and at first he didn’t understand what he’d just said.

Then there was a moment of realization on his part.  He looked at his father, confused, and said “wait– that was real, wasn’t it?”

This kid– a perfectly ordinary kid in so many ways– no delusions, no dissociative disorders, no disconnect from reality– said “cool” when one of the towers fell.  He said this not because he was mean, or cruel or inhuman.

He said it because it happened on television.  And when big, dramatic, things happen on television, they happen because of effects, because of writers, because of cameras and tricks and angles and stunt performers.

I’m going to break from this for a moment, because something big is going on:

As I write this diary, there’s a hostage situation over at one of the Clinton campaign offices in New Hampshire.  I don’t know much more than that.  No one seems to know much more at the moment.  I wonder how many people watching it are feeling separated from it, and how many are taking it like it’s something real and profound.  Judging from a quick scan of freerepublic.com (I will not link there), there are definitely people who seem to take it as though it’s a game, and something worthy of jokes.  I don’t mean the sort of jokes that people make when nervous or disturbed.  I mean the sort of jokes that people make when they are, in fact, completely separated from humanity.

I don’t know what to say about this.  I sometimes forget how bad the comments over there can be sometimes, and I shouldn’t be bothered by them, but I just find it disturbing.  I think we need to find a way to bring these people to light without allowing ourselves to be sucked into their twisted world.  I have yet to figure out a way of doing that.  

Obviously, I’m not going to be posting this diary at the time I expected to.  There’s no point at all in posting something like this until the current crisis is resolved, so by the time you’re reading all this, we’ll all know a lot more about what’s going on here.

So, anyway: more from Milgram’s article:

I will cite one final variation of the experiment that depicts a dilemma that is more common in everyday life. The subject was not ordered to pull the lever that shocked the victim, but merely to perform a subsidiary task… while another person administered the shock. In this situation, thirty-seven of forty adults continued to the highest level of the shock generator. Predictably, they excused their behavior by saying that the responsibility belonged to the man who actually pulled the switch. This may illustrate a dangerously typical arrangement in a complex society: it is easy to ignore responsibility when one is only an intermediate link in a chain of actions.

I’m going to mention another concept that I’ve talked about before: cognitive dissonance — the condition that exists when our behavior contradicts our beliefs.  When dealing with cognitive dissonance we sometimes change our behavior, but we sometimes also change our beliefs.

We do not want to think of ourselves as a country which supports or promotes torture.  It contradicts our beliefs.  So when we see that we have, in fact, engaged in torture, we have some choices:

1. we can change our beliefs to convince ourselves that we think torture is ok;
2. we can say “this has to stop” and change our behavior;
3. we can say “this has to stop” and then convince ourselves that we’ve changed our behavior without actually doing it;
4. we can say “we oppose torture” and then reclassify everything we do as something that’s not torture.

It’s not a difficult argument to make that we, as a nation, have adopted a combination of #s 3 & 4.  We’ve not only moved our debate to treat torture as though it is worth a discussion over whether or not it’s an acceptable approach, not through an open discussion but through a redefining of torture into something that ignores the reality behind it.  

This denial of the reality behind it is so severe that someone who’s experienced torture actually got lectured by, of all people, Mitt Romney on how he defines torture.

Here’s the reality as I see it:

1. we, as a matter of policy, torture people;
2. we, as a matter of sense of self-integrity, don’t want to acknowledge that we torture people;
3. despite all this, some of us openly acknowledge that we torture.

We need a wave of action about this, pushing our media to reflect a truthful and accurate narrative about this.   Therefore, every time we see a “news” article which:

1. uses the word “waterboarding” but not the word “torture;”


2. describes the act of “waterboarding” as “similuated” drowning;


3. references without critique the claim that “we do not torture;”


4. references torture on the part of lower-level military personnel without mentioning any higher ups;


5. makes any reference to “torture” without acknowledging any history of torture on the part of the US…

we need to write letters.  We need to bombard these papers with letters reminding them of the truth.  We need to not let them get away with rewriting the narrative to dismiss torture.  We need to eliminate diffusion of responsibility by forcing us front and center into the reality of what’s gone on.

Research on obedience has shown that we comply easily when we feel removed from the situation.  We ignore the reality of things we can not easily control, assuming that someone else will take responsibility.  We find it easier to push a button that will kill someone five miles away than to pull a trigger that will kill someone who will look into our eyes.  We find it easier to ignore an act of atrocity and pretend it is not our problem than to take responsibility for it.  

Torture can only be supported through obfuscation and lies.  We will not stop this until every one of us choose to actively challenge these lies and until we push ourselves to not just bemoan the use of torture but fight it, every of the way.  Fight it when someone claims we need it to get information.  Fight it when someone pretends it isn’t real.  Fight it when someone refuses to acknowledge it.  Fight it when someone obscures its meaning.

Never.  

Stop.  

Fighting.  

Torture.