The background of the content of the film is the famous Stanford Prison Experiment in 1970.
Why would a group of socially well-behaved "model citizens" end up being a mob? Why can such a big change occur in just a few days?
At the beginning of the experiment, it showed the scope of the prison guard's power and the norms that prisoners should abide by. This seems to be no problem. Carefully found that the prisoner had to say "yes, Mr. Prisoner" to the prison guard, which showed that the prison guard and the prisoner were of different grades, and the experimenter had indicated from the beginning that some human rights were to be given up in this experiment, and the basic rights were not. Now, this small world is not under the control of the law, and is only subject to some optional control by the experimenters, which lays the groundwork for the "killing" of the prison guards later.
At the beginning, everyone was laughing and talking, and the prison guards often got along with the prisoners. Everyone just wants this experiment to end quickly, get the money and go home. The first sign of the conflict was that one of the prisoners was unwilling to drink milk, and the protagonist immediately went over to help him drink it, which was equivalent to not giving face to the prison guards and making everyone think that the guards were looking for trouble; at night, he was doing things all over again, which was even more exciting. contradiction between each other. Since the number of prison guards is less than that of prisoners, the behavior of the prisoners at this time seems to be inconsistent with the behavior of the "prisoner", which increases the psychological insecurity of the prison guards. Furthermore, the prison guards are There are tools of violence, and the prisoners only have bare hands, so the prison guards decided to give them a small slap in the face.
This disarming was really effective. Most of the prisoners succumbed to the means of the prison guards and became very obedient, and the prison guards also tasted the sweetness. After this sweet treat, the prison guards have entered their "roles" very well. They have forgotten their roles in society. They think that in this small experiment, they are the kings except for the experimenters. The professor only talked about the behavior of the prison guards verbally and did not use his own power. He also wanted to see how far the experiment would develop if it was not affected by external conditions, which led to the revolt of the prison guards when the professor went to the academic salon. .
To be honest, if there is no protagonist, the contradiction between prisoners and prison guards will not develop so fast, but there is no guarantee that everyone's contradictions will not be stimulated. Power and hierarchy are unequal. In this environment, the people at the top of the power are influenced by the environment, and the desire for control that originally belonged to the deep level or did not exist in the conscious mind is stimulated. Of course, a person with a strong belief will always stick to his principles, but most people don't have such a strong belief. Even if there is a belief, it may be shaken by this environment. One of the prison guards in the film, Bash, is influenced by his own inner conscience, and he doesn't think he should be at the top of the power experiment in this experiment. It is a pity that he was soon abandoned by other prison guards and became a prisoner. In the final escape, he could not maintain his usual sanity, and attacked the prison guard with a fire extinguisher. Of course, he cannot be expected to be rational in this situation. After all, the other party has weapons, and if he is challenged by survival, his rationality will be challenged.
I don't have an answer to the question I raised. After all, I don't specialize in psychology or social psychology, so I can't answer exactly why such a situation occurs. But still want to express my humble opinion.
1. If there is a strong supervisory body, would prison guards still be so presumptuous and intensify their emphasis on their "authority"? But there is another problem here. A strong oversight agency will eventually become another "prison guard" if there is no other agency to oversee it. How to turn the system model of first-level supervision and first-level supervision into a chain of supervision or a mode of mutual supervision? The "separation of powers" model in the United States is actually a good reference. Without supervision, the environment of the expansion of power will have a great impact on people. Unless the individuals in this environment have firm beliefs or other reasons, it is difficult to be alone.
2. In addition to the external supervision system, is there any way for individuals to establish self-supervision? Can an individual be as objective and impartial as a third-party agency? Obviously this is difficult to do, it's like asking a person to beat himself up, or if he does something unethical and no one sees and no one condemns him, he still relies on his own strength to condemn himself. It is difficult to achieve but not impossible. I think it is necessary to rely on human rationality, to maintain a rational state all the time, to separate another fair and objective self from oneself, and to let the "God" in the heart judge and criticize oneself. On the other hand, reason can well control people's bad emotions. It doesn't mean that people's emotions are not good. Only when they have emotions can they be called people. or without outside supervision. Human emotions need to be vented at the right place and at the right time, and then use human reason to deal with the problem. Admittedly, this is difficult to do, so people need external forces to supervise themselves.
I intend to start a business in the future, and this film gave me great inspiration. The question of how to establish a system will need to be further studied in the future.
I am so ignorant.
View more about The Experiment reviews
