Objectively speaking, taking participatory learning as an example, participatory learning can improve learners' enthusiasm for learning, strengthen the interaction between professors and learners, and promote learning effects. Of course this is off topic.
I have not systematically studied the theory of participatory xxx, and have little understanding of its history and principles. But I well remember the trainer saying that if participatory xx is to be effective, it needs to be empowered. How to empower, need to build organization.
This video made me think of and coined the term participatory experiment.
Establish two organizations - prison guard group, prisoner group.
Power is given separately - control, obedience.
Of course, because the organizers have money, they naturally set up a director group, formulated the rules of the game, and gave themselves supervision and referee power.
The logical framework of this experiment is that the prison guards and prisoners are at opposite ends of the scale, and the director must manage an unbalanced balance at these ends and observe the performance of each group.
Thus, a participatory experiment began.
At first, the two groups did not enter the state and behaved in an organized and undisciplined manner.
Gradually,
the leaders of the prison guard team realized their power. Leaders are not born. Only those who are best at discovering their own power and best using their power can become leaders.
In the absence of a sound and powerful supervisory system, the moral level of the leader's personal will determines the morality and behavior of the entire organization.
The prisoner group also did not have a leader. Whether a leader can be produced depends on whether the external pressure is strong enough and whether it can produce dead ends under power.
Although the organizer was removed throughout the participatory experiment, two organizations were established for the experiment.
However, it is obvious that the prison guards, as the party with a small number, have higher organizational principles than the prisoners group.
The reason is hard to say. I don’t study sociology. From my work experience, it is better to organize and coordinate with fewer people than to have more people. Ordinary people are more obedient to people with power. Of course, what I know is only the appearance.
Prison guards have the power to control prisoners, but are limited to the use of violence, and prisoners have no rights other than obedience.
According to my common sense, as long as it is power, there must be the possibility of being abused.
In order to establish authority, prison guards must use the power in their hands, and the more they use their powers, the easier they are, so they enter the role they have been given and lose their identity.
Prisoners are the most unidentified people. As a mess of sand, they do not recognize the rights and obligations of their roles, and they unconsciously challenge the authority of the prison guards.
So with the guidance of the director team, under the leadership of the leaders, the prison guards started the road of establishing authority.
It's not bloody at the beginning, and it has the taste of the game.
With the director's absence, the balance of the experiment is tipped, and the guards, with their unchecked powers, begin a bloody reign.
Chairman Skin said that where there is oppression, there is resistance.
So inspired by the mental pressure of sacrificing a prisoner, a leader who led prisoners to escape was born in the dark box of the dead corner of power (I think of the excellent term of the ancient East - black under the lamp). During this period, some members of the director's team found that the balance was seriously out of balance and tried to control the situation, but they were tyrannized by the prison guards who were empowered by them. Although the right to have financial power has the right to speak, but the power to rule by violence is more attractive, not to mention, with power, will there be a shortage of money? In fact, the failure of the director team here is not in empowering others, but in failing to foster an agent of their own interests among the prison guards.
After some battle, at the cost of the death of two people, the film has a moral settlement and a harmonious ending.
In fact, in my understanding, I would prefer prisoners to turn themselves into masters after winning the struggle, to centralize internal democracy, to be dictatorial to prison guards, and to grasp the control and support of the director team with money so as to climb to the commanding heights of morality and governance .
As a participatory experiment, although it paid a price, the result of this experiment was successful. He concentrated part of the society and stimulated contradictions in a short period of time, reflecting part of the truth.
As the end of this article, it should be sublimated. In fact, this is a ruthless exposure and criticism of the democracy and freedom advertised by Western capitalism:
one of the criticisms is the hypocrisy of capitalist democracy:
although the separation of powers is geometrically stable, it is geometrically stable. The three points above are connected by three edges. The film reflects the three points of capitalist society - the director of prison guards and prisoners did not form a stable triangle.
The director uses money as a bait to build a model of this society. His approach is debatable. Although people motivated by money are easy to recruit, they lack spiritual connection. Will be loving and dedicated.
The rights of the prison guards are given by the director, so the prison guards only need to be responsible to the director, but the director did not establish a mature and noble party organization or support agents among the prison guards, so he could not implement effective supervision and adjudication, so there will be no fear. Violence against prisoners.
As the miserable bottom of society, prisoners are born with only obedience, and have no cards in their hands that can restrict the director team and prison guards. As Marx said, in the struggle, only the chains are lost, but the whole world is gained. Lenin also said similarly, that revolution breaks out among the prisoners of the weakest link in the imperialist chain and brings it to its final victory.
The second criticism is the weakness and compromise of the bourgeoisie:
the prisoners' revolution is an incomplete revolution, they were forced to overthrow the rule of the prison guards and save the director's team and themselves, but their weakness makes it unorganized Become a living revolutionary progressive force without uniting to establish their own dictatorship system. Its compromising nature also makes it hand over the fruits of victory to neo-liberalism, so what awaits them is still only an old system that has been replaced by dynasties. The leader of the prisoners escaped from the experiment, but not from the system. He and the heroine live on the edge of the system. On the other side of the sea is a new socialist blue sky. Their happiness is short-lived and will disappear in the progress of human society. Under the wheel, it becomes a placebo for an illusory capitalist democracy.
View more about The Experiment reviews
