You should read Philip Zimbardo's The Lucifer Effect. I don't care who you are, you should read it. If you are (as I am) especially interested in psychology and ethics, then you have particular reason to read it. But no matter who you are, this book could change your life.
Before I get into the many things I admire about this book, I'd like to mention, the few things I don't like about it:
First, I'm
not thrilled about the religious overtones in the title, which also
tend to suggest some sort of supernatural agency or magical “free will”
that is precisely not what the book is about. I would have instead
called it the The Nuremberg Effect, because
the greatest demonstration of its principles came twice in Nuremberg:
The first time, when Adolf Hitler rallied the crowds to his service, and
the second time, when the response to accusations of war crimes was
almost invariably “I was just following orders”. Unlike Lucifer in Hell,
an imaginary being in an imaginary place, the Nazis at Nuremberg were
entirely real human beings in an entirely real human city, and their
biological and psychological similarity to the rest of us is as chilling
as it is undeniable.
Second, Zimbardo's discussion of absolute versus relative ethics is
philosophically naïve; it equates universal moral norms with
deontological absolutism, and describes utilitarianism as a form of
“relative ethics” when in fact a nuanced utilitarianism based on rules
and preferences is one of the best candidates for a viable theory of
universal, non-relativistic ethics.
He makes a worthwhile distinction between absolutism and
non-absolutism, but he doesn't seem to realize that absolutism is not
considered credible by any mainstream philosopher, nor is it workable in
real life.
Third, the writing style doesn't seem particularly polished, and the
diction is rather strange in places. I often found myself jarred by the
way a sentence was worded, or by the way two sentences were strung
together. It's not bad writing exactly; it just doesn't seem as good as it could be.
But in general, this is a great book, great not in the slang sense of “very cool”, but indeed great in the sense of a work that will (or ought to be) forever remembered as ground-breaking. The Lucifer Effect (along
with the Stanford Prison Experiment which it describes and reflects
upon) forces us to rethink much of what we thought we knew about human
behavior.
I remember all throughout reading this book, my strongest feeling was invariably “Not me”; Not me, never me, I could
never do any of these things. But let us consider for a moment the
demographics of the experiment: psychologically normal 18-25 year-old
male psychology students from prestigious American universities, all
with no criminal record, mostly White, mostly middle-class. I am that demographic. It was chosen specifically because it was thought to be the least likely
group of young males to engage in wanton evil (they wanted to use young
males since young males perpetrate nearly all violence in the world;
but an experiment involving actual felons wouldn't have convinced anyone
of anything). It would have been me. I
can't be sure which one I would have been: the kind-hearted but passive
guard Geoff, or the sadistic tyrant Hellmann? 416, who risked a hunger
strike to protest the conditions, 8612, who became immediately
distressed and uncontrollable, or 2093, who rigorously obeyed orders
without question or resistance? We should all reflect upon these
questions, for a complete measure of a man's character must surely
include what he would do in any situation, not merely those which are safe and familiar.
On
the other hand, part of the point Zimbardo is making is that character
isn't nearly as powerful as we ordinarily suppose. He is arguing
precisely that the greatest atrocities in history were perpetrated not
by incorrigibly evil monsters, but by perfectly ordinary men in terrible
circumstances. His evidence for this claim is substantial, and I am
convinced it must be correct; but still my mind reels to suppose it. Who
would I have been at Nuremberg? Who would I have been under apartheid?
Yet
there is hope, for Zimbardo is careful to point out that certain
personality traits really do offer protection against systemic forces.
He calls this constellation of traits “heroism”, and says that it rests
in the minds of people who are not only good under ordinary
circumstances, but continue to be good even under extraordinary
circumstances. He isn't sure whether it's possible to detect a hero ex ante, but
he does think that these skills are trainable. If this is right, then
heroism training should be among our highest priorities as a
civilization. We should be training people to resist persuasion, to
challenge authorities, to reflect upon their own individual moral
values.
Indeed, perhaps the most important step in this process is to read The Lucifer Effect. If
this is the case, it should be required reading for military
commanders, police commissioners, political candidates, high school
teachers, college professors—ah, why not, everyone. This is something we all need to understand and cope with.
The reward could well be the end of human atrocity!
No comments:
Post a Comment