Social Engineering and the psychology of becoming the other

All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power...   
- Friedrich Nietzsche 

On April 5, 1968, Jane Elliott, a US primary school teacher conducts a social experiment on her all-white class of third graders. She tells her class that blue-eyed people are superior to brown-eyed people, that they are “smarter, faster, and better”. She asks a brown-eyed boy who challenges her “Is your father brown-eyed?”. When the boy nods, she adds “One day you came to school and you told me your father kicked you”. The boy nods again in agreement. “Do you think a blue-eyed father would kick his son?” The third grader responds “yep, he would”, but in the background another student volunteers, “my father is blue-eyed and he’s never kicked me!” Elliott then gives blue-eyed students a number of privileges, to which brown-eyed students are not entitled.   

Over the span of a single day, the brown-eyed students and blue-eyed students separate out, as the blue-eyed students act as if they own the playground during the interval, the brown-eyed children remain in a corner, with eyes cast down, looking sad and small. The blue-eyed students taunt brown-eyed students as “brown-eyes” and fights erupt between blue- and brown-eyed students. She later states “I watched what I had been marvellous, wonderful, cooperative, thoughtful children turn into nasty vicious, discriminating little third graders within a space of 15 minutes.” She demonstrates that prejudice is learned and that too easily and quickly.   

Five years later, Phillip Zimbado, a professor in psychology, conducts “the prison experiment”, which shows that such behaviour is not limited to third graders. In fact, he finds that even he is capable of unjustifiable inhumanity when the conditions are right.   

Zimbado selects twenty-odd college students through open advertisement in the university newspaper to participate in a two week long experiment. He randomly assigns half the volunteers to prisoner roles and the rest to guard roles. The prisoners are blindfolded, hosed down naked, and locked up. The guards, on the other hand, receive uniforms and clubs and are told they could do whatever they want to maintain law and order as long as physical violence is not used.   

Within hours, some guards begin to harass prisoners, to dehumanize them and punish them. “Prisoners” acquire characteristics of prisoners and, when the chaplain visits, about half of them refer to themselves by their prison number rather than their actual names. Prisoners demonstrate ill effects, with some even becoming hysterical and crying uncontrollably. The violence and intimidation from guards grows with time and by the sixth day, Zimbado is shocked to find himself acquiring the authority of the guards and treating prisoners badly. He decides to terminate the experiment. Much later he observes that of the 50 or so people who visited the “prison”, only one, Dr. Christina Maslach, was shocked and upset with what he had done to the prisoners. No one else had protested.   

Phillip Zimbado, a professor in psychology, conducts “the prison experiment”, which shows that such behaviour is not limited to third graders. In fact, he finds that even he is capable of unjustifiable inhumanity when the conditions are right

Zimbado demonstrates the ease with which groups of people can victimize another group through highlighting a few group markers that to those outside seem almost too simplistic to be believable. He shows, much as Elliott did five years earlier, how easily a them-versus-us mentality can be cultivated with some very simple social engineering.   

Today neither of these experiments would be permissible on ethical grounds. Yet, they demonstrate, as have study after study after study, how easily typically honourable, peaceful people can be made to do the most unconscionable acts because of how “truth” is told and manipulated. It is often overlooked that in both these experiments people in authority played a major role. With ease, ordinary individuals acted in horrific ways because of the re-telling of who they are in a manner that suited those in power.   

As we deal with the Easter Sunday mayhem, we must realize that we are also capable of being manipulated and that those with authority can use simple tricks to make us act against our best judgement. While Elliott and Zimbado are unlikely to have used these methods for political gain, other unscrupulous individuals will.   

These experiments make human beings appear as victims of their circumstances. This is not the case. There can be among us those who resist such manipulations and there are ways that communities can see through them. However, sometimes, what we are made to believe as ‘truth’ may simply be portrayed to us to provide benefits to those holding authority. We must resist such manipulations and the first step to doing so, is through comprehending the manner and ease with which we can be manipulated.   

The author is a psychologist, teaching at the Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya.