Social Psychological Explanations

Introduction

It is described as truism within psychology that the situations and personality interact in order to generate the behavior. Individuals are reported to act within the different behavioral contexts. The individuals are the products of their diverse environments and are consequently the producers of the very environment which they are actually encountering. The human beings are indeed not a very passive object but bare simply buffeted about by the environmental contingencies. The individuals are reported to select the kinds of settings they will avoid or enter, have the ability of changing the particular setting by their actions and their presence, have the ability of influencing others within that particular social sphere, and consequently transforming the environment in numerous ways (Philip, 2008). In most cases, people have the ability of influencing the exact course of the events that their lives take and can also shape their own destiny.

Baumeister and Zimbardo argue that situational factors are highly explanatory of violence even though dispositional factors still matter. Gilligan on the other hand, privileges social-psychological explanations. This paper will therefore critique these two schools of thought. Further the paper will discuss the two approaches in the context of how well they actually help in the understanding of violence through the incorporation of a case study of the extremist group that was referred to as the MOVE or simply the MOVE Organization which was a black liberation group that was based in Philadelphia and founded by the famous John Africa.

Social Psychological Explanations

            The argument by Baumeister and Zimbardo that the situational factors are highly explanatory of the violence even though the dispositional factors still matter is compelling to a greater extent. Situation is very significant as compared to the individual’s disposition. This particular school of thought is permeated through the book of Philip Zimbardo that was titled, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. While this paper will be in disagreement with the various implications that is drawn from the book, this particular case is undeniable. The book was based on the Stanford Prison Experiment which is actually one of the increasingly cited experiments in psychology. It is reported that Zimbardo and some of his colleagues made a selection of a group of young men who were psychologically normal and subsequently randomly gave them roles as prisoners and guards in a particular role play that they were supposed to conduct at the basement of the university. It is indicated that immediately the experiment began, the guards began to abuse those who were playing the role of prisoners and consequently created a more elaborate methods of the psychological torture. The experiment was supposed to take two weeks but was terminated by Zimbardo on the sixth day due to fear of interfering with the participant’s mental health. This famous experiment indicates a school of thought that the very good individuals can actually become bad and violent as a result of the situation they find themselves in (Philip, 2008).

The first half of the book has provided a blow by blow account of the psychological experiment that was carried out, with a whole chapter allocated to each of the days that began from the Sunday through to Friday morning when the experiment was actually terminated. The details shown in the book regarding the experiment is actually enthralling and this paper finds within the books interesting new factoids. First was the fact that abuse, while actually very terrifying to all the prisoners, it did not actually breach the very guidelines that were set by Zimbardo and others who were involved in the experiment. The experiment at this point showed that there was no any form of physical violence and consequently the participants in the experiments behaved as if the prohibition was an obvious constraint. However, this paper is of the opinion that it would actually be interesting to actually carry out the experiment with less upright citizens in order to determine if they the constraint would have still been held (Philip, 2008).

The second was the way Zimbardo and his colleagues who carried out the experiment played various roles in the experiment, as well as the way they got transformed with the roles. In the experiment, Zimbardo played the role of a superintendent while the other colleagues acted as the wardens. Indeed, it did not actually take any longer before they began falling into the roles, nudging the guards to be increasingly tougher and implying to the various prisoners that they indeed had very limited right of leaving the role they played and consequently manipulating the outsiders in believing that the prisoners were treated very well. The other individuals who also participated in the experiment such as pro bono lawyer, prison chaplain, as well as the parents of the prisoners also fell under the spell of the particular experiment and subsequently began as if the experiment was actually a real life situation. The power of situation in this experiment is reported to have extended beyond the particular experimental subjects (Philip, 2008).         .

The experiment that was conducted by Zimbardo and his colleagues has made a clear indication that the various situational factors are increasingly significant. But in order to emphasize on the particular situational assessment; Zimbardo seems to be very blind to the actual role played by the individual’s disposition in forming the specific situation that is faced by the others. A case in point is when the guards became clearly very reluctant in pushing the prisoner; it was a shove from the various experimenters in their different roles as superintendent and wardens that made them to be increasingly aggressively. The guards who were passive also derived their motivation from the others who were more aggressive within their shift. Another specific result of the individual’s disposition forming a greater part of the situational environment for the others is the likelihood for the feedback loops. The individuals with the bad dispositions generate a particular situation where the good individuals might get involved in the bad things and thereby creating a lastingly negative state of affairs for all the individuals. The most significant issue is how to break the feedback loop (Philip, 2008).         .

The second half of Zimbardo’s book places the experiment that was carried out in a very broad context. The chapter on conformity, power and obedience carries out an examination of how the individuals are actually willing to breach the norms or simply oppose power. The next chapter of the book on deindividualization and dehumanization creates a discussion on how the depersonalizing individuals can make individuals treat each other as lesser human. The book proceeds to analyze the various events in the Abu Ghraib Prison within Iraq. Zimbardo is reported to have acted as one of the witnesses of one of the Abu Ghraib accused individuals, Chip Frederick. Fredrick is reported to have been one of the seven individuals considered to have ranked low to face the full brunt of the prosecution for the historical abuse. The military simply stated that the seven were the bad apples within the barrel (Philip, 2008).

Zimbardo has given a much extended discussion concerning the environment where the accused existed as well as the very strong effects of the particular situation. He goes ahead to illustrate the details of the abuses carried out. The school of thought of Zimbardo based on the various events in the experiment is the fact that situation is resulted to the conduct and not particularly the Chip Fredrick’s disposition. The argument by Zimbardo is very strong since it paints a very compelling picture of exactly how the particular situation that was faced by the individuals working within Abu Ghraib would have actually affected them. Incase the prison was put under a good control with very strong and clear instruction from above, the abuses could not have happened (Philip, 2008).

Baumeister on the other hand is from a school of thought that evil and violence is actually more composed complicated as compared to disposition. Moreover, evil or violence is relative just the same way as killing and murder in a war. When a human being is killed one party is honored while the other is hanged. In order to adequately understand violence, it is significant to actually understand fully the perpetrators. He believed that the perpetrators of violence are actually acting for the very good of the whole humanity just like the case of the MOVE organization who derived with the opinion of creating deal society. Moreover, the perpetrators of the violence such as the Philadelphia police in the case study creates a magnitude gap where the pain inflicted becomes much for the victims but the perpetrators are actually seeing it very differently. The pure aggression is actually very rare and there is an escalation with the reciprocity. Baumester therefore increasingly concentrates on the perpetrators of the violence without giving adequate information regarding the origin of the violence and the fundamental issues behind the violence (Roy, 1999).

On the other hand, James Gilligan authored a book that was titled Violence: Reflections on Our Deadliest Epidemic. Gilligan was a very prominent forensic psychotherapist and psychiatrist who was from the school of thought that violence as well as its prevention should be approached in a non-moralistic and naturalistic way as a particular problem of the public health and subsequently the preventive medicine. He suggested that violence should be thought of as a given symptom of the life threatening pathology that just like all the other forms of illness has a cause or etiology, a pathogen. James (1997) went ahead to indicate that,

“A consensus on the causes and prevention of violence has been emerging over the past few decades among investigators of this subject from virtually every branch of the behavioral sciences. All specialties, independent of each other, have identified a pathogen that seems to be a necessary but not sufficient cause of violent behavior, just as specifically as exposure to the tubercle bacillus is necessary but not sufficient for the development of tuberculosis. The difference is that in the case of violence the pathogen is an emotion, not a microbe – namely, the experience of overwhelming shame and humiliation. And just as people’s vulnerability to tuberculosis is influenced by the state of their body’s defence mechanisms, so their vulnerability to violence is influenced by the state of their psychological defence mechanisms” (p, 23).

Disarmingly, but very convincing is the argument by Gilligan that is very much clear that violence can be prevented as well as how this can be done as long as there is sufficient motivation. He has cited data of the vast differences in the individual as well as collective violence within the various societies globally. His main target was his own country the United States of America that is reported to be more violent than any of the other democracies as well as the other developed countries. Approximately 2 million of the population is in prison which is 1 percent of the total population. Moreover, the U.S. is the most dominant nation in terms of material and economic aspects. Gillian has quoted Johanna (2002) which states that, “we have the level of criminal violence we do because we have arranged our social and economic life (as we have)…the brutality and violence of American life are a signal that there are profound social costs to maintain these arrangements” (p 30).

Central to the radical thesis of Gilligan is the fact that violence spiral from the psychopathological roots of the hidden shame and also that the societal systems are responsible for causing further shaming and shame therefore resulting to a circle of the causation. This is significant and a very considerable claim which is particularly significant at the time of righteousness and moralism. There are increasing huge pragmatic and clinical consequences. The experience of shame is reported to be antithetical to the thought and actually breeds the rudimentary defensive reactions such as violence and macho attitudes, and it is correlated phonologically to the paranoia. There is an excellent clinical chapter in Gilligan book titled Violent action as symbolic language, where he addresses the very common vital clinical problem,

“Understanding violence requires understanding what thought or fantasy the violent behavior symbolically represents. Doing this is especially difficult in the case of most violent people, because they are so oriented toward expressing their thoughts in the form of actions rather than words. Their verbal inarticulateness prevents them from telling us in words the thought their behavior symbolically expresses” (James, 1997, p 31)

In the very last chapters of Gilligan’s book, he makes an analysis of the biology of violence as well as the gender differences and consequently addresses sociology of violence. He considers race, economics, and class taking as his prompt the observation made by Gandhi that the very deadliest type of violence within a society is poverty. He is from the school of thought that structural violence within the societal systems such as the rising rates of disability and death that is suffered by the individuals who occupy the very rungs of a given society. Gilligan believes that this outweighs as the public health problem the behavioral violence which is simply the unnatural deaths that are caused by the individuals with which the health professionals are more familiar with and consequently which the media are more preoccupied. He states that where violence, “is defined as criminal, many people see it and care about it. When it is simply a by-product of our social and economic structure, many do not see it; and it is hard to care about something one cannot see” (James, 1997, p 17).  Indeed, this particular school of thought contradicts the Baumeister and Zimbardo argument that situational factors are highly explanatory of violence even though dispositional factors still matter.

MOVE Organization Based In Philadelphia as a Case Study 

MOVE is reported to have been established in the year 1972 as a Christian Movement for Life by the famous John Africa who is was a very charismatic leader but illiterate. This was actually an extremist group who had their followers mostly from the African American communities. There are reported to have worn dreadlocks and consequently advocated for the radical structure of green politics as well as the return of the hunter-gatherer society and clearly stated their opposition to the medicine, science, and technology. Just the same way John Africa did, his followers are reported to have also changed their personal surnames to Africa which they regarded as their motherland (Robin, 1994). The members are reported to have lived in a commune within a house whose ownership can be traced to Donald Glassey within Powelton Village that was located in the West Philadelphia. The members are reported to have staged profanity laced and bullhorn amplified demonstrations that were against they institutions that they were opposing morally such as the zoos as well as the speakers they were opposing their schools of thought. The group established compost site of the garbage as well as human waste within their yards which actually attracted the cockroaches and rats and consequently they believed that it were actually wrong to use the pest control to kill vermin. Their school of thought attracted increased hostility from their immediate neighbors as well as scrutiny from the police within Philadelphia. The confrontation between the MOVE organization and the police escalated into violence since the two groups did not want to compromise their stands and this resulted to the police bombing their residences killing some of their members (John & Hilary, 1987).

Baumeister and Zimbardo’s school of thought that the situational factors are highly explanatory of the violence even though the dispositional factors still matter is compelling to a greater extent can be used to explain the violence between the police and the MOVE organization. Zimbardo is of the opinion that situation that was created by the MOVE organization members can be used to explain the origin of the violence. This situation arose when the members moved to a row house at the 6221 Osage Avenue within Cobbs Creek area of the West Philadelphia. This followed several complaints from the neighbors that the members were broadcasting the political messages as well as the health hazards they created as a result of the piles of composite and consequently the indictment of the members in several crimes that include contempt of the court, parole violation, making terrorism threats, and the illegal possession of the firearms. The move by the police to clear the building they occupied and subsequently arrest the members resulted to an armed standoff. Therefore, it is this particular situation that resulted to the violence with the police resulting to firing and even bombing the members. Baumeister also believed that evil or violence is relative just the same way as killing and murder in a war and therefore, the violence that the police perpetrated towards the MOVE organization members was warranted by the behaviors of the members.

Gilligan on the other hand believed that violence as well as its prevention should be approached in a non-moralistic and naturalistic way as a particular problem of the public health and subsequently the preventive medicine. This therefore means that the MOVE organization and the police should have not engaged on the violence without adequately looking at the moral and natural aspect of it. The members should have done everything possible within their powers to ensure that the situation did not escalate into violence. Indeed, Gilligan privileges social-psychological explanations and believed that violence where violence, “is defined as criminal, many people see it and care about it. When it is simply a by-product of our social and economic structure, many do not see it; and it is hard to care about something one cannot see.” From the statement, it significant to indicate that the violence in this case would have not been seen as a crime but rather a breakdown in the social structures of the society and the best way for the police would have been dealing with the psychosocial issues as opposed to the violence they resorted to.

Conclusion

Baumeister and Zimbardo argue that situational factors are highly explanatory of violence even though dispositional factors still matter. Gilligan on the other hand, privileges social-psychological explanations. Indeed, Baumeister and Zimbardo believes that situations often necessitates violence while Gilligan is from the school of thought violence should not be seen as a crime rather it should be seen in terms of the social and economic structures.

References

Johanna, S. D. (2002). Move: Sites of Trauma (Pamphlet Architecture 23) Princeton: Architectural Press

James, G. (1997). Preventing Violence (Prospects for Tomorrow). ISBN: 0500282781

John, A. & Hilary, H. (1987). Burning Down the House: MOVE and the tragedy of Philadelphia, W.W. Norton & Co., ISBN 0-393-02460-1.

Philip, Z. (January 22, 2008). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House Trade Paperbacks; Reprint edition.

Roy F. B. (1999). Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty. W.H. Freeman & Company

Robin, W. (1994). Discourse and Destruction: The City of Philadelphia versus MOVE.  University of Chicago Press