8 April 2007

On 3 April 2007, The New York Times published Claudia Dreifus’ conversation with social psychologist Philip G. Zimbardo (“Finding Hope in Knowing the Universal Capacity for Evil,” San Francisco).  Zimbardo is notorious for his Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE) of 1971, in which he demonstrates how “anonymity, conformity and boredom can be used to induce sadistic behavior in otherwise wholesome students.” More recently, he served as expert witness leading to the conviction of Sgt. Frederick for his actions at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. 

In the interview, Zimbardo explains that he has always been interested in “the person behind the mask,” reasoning that anonymity allows for “antisocial behavior, as seen by the Ku Klux Klan.”

Oh, really?

What I find surprising throughout the entire interview is not only that Zimbardo completely negates the possibility of individual agency, blaming instead environment and other external factors, but also that Dreifus does not bother to call him on this point.  In effect, Zimbardo takes on an approach semi-reminiscent of John Locke’s tabula rasa, pointing to the external environment and boredom as factors affecting the individual’s internal psychological and amoral behavior. 

Absolutely no agency here – none!

This more than anything else is horrifyingly disturbing, especially because I believe in the power of individual agency – whether it be moral or amoral.  I do not believe in passivity, never had, never will.  It is weak.  It is a cop out.  It is disempowering.  On the whole, it is inaccurate.  No, it will never fly with me.  The individual who has access to his full capacities executes actions deliberately.  He may react to environmental stimuli, but his reactions are actions just the same.  There may be unintentional slips, or parapraxes as Freud would say, but these too are deliberate actions.  If the individual has an inherent capacity towards amoral actions, there may be extenuating circumstances or environmental factors that ‘fall into place’ allowing for the individual to seize the moment to act on those amoral proclivities.  Contrary to Zimbardo, the ‘evil environment’ is not something that turns the ‘good person’ evil.  Instead, it is rather inopportune circumstance that enables the individual to take agency to perpetrate heinous acts just as easily as it is opportune circumstance that enables the individual to take agency to help his fellow man. 

I believe in the individual.  I believe in everyone’s ability towards good.  I believe in leading and living by example.  It is in everyone just as much as the opposite is also inherent in everyone.  There must exist both sides to make us who we are, to test our character, and to guide us in the choices and actions we decide upon each waking second.  To believe otherwise and strip away our active capabilities, to live in passivity, would be the worse more amoral crime.  Mexican jumping beans jump to avoid the sunlight.  Why are we choosing to mask as legumes?

When we explain away our actions to the external environment, when we strip away our agency, we shirk our fundamental responsibility to our fellow man – our accountability.  Recently, I wrote about SarbOx and the SEC and the EPA’s stance on PPCPs (pharmaceutical and personal care products – the new emergent pollutants in the nation’s waters).  There is an increasing and rather progressive call (however long overdue) for transparency and accountability from the corporations we invest in and from the agencies we elect to protect us and our environment.  Perhaps the stronger demand should begin at the individual level, let us be held accountable for our actions, own up to and moreover, proclaim our own agency.  Maybe then our actions will stem from a position of empowerment rather than defeat, of effective agency rather than passive external reaction.

Today more than ever, we are creating ever newer technologies that help us mediate multiple environments between reality and virtuality.  We have the ability to be portable, individual, fully functioning broadcasting stations unto ourselves.  We can defy limitations of time, space, and geography to communicate, express, and to effect social and political change.  Contrary to Zimbardo, through the power of anonymity that is the net, rather than choose to commit amoral acts, individuals are increasingly effecting good.  Masks are not the answer.  Rather, look to agency and empowerment in that agency. 

This is the pregnant potential of the hyphen – a hyphenation that is just as omnipresent as it is omnipotent.