Power

[Wojtek Sokolowski]

Miles:
> Zimbardo (and I) would argue that you misunderstand the 
> results of the SPE.  The results actually undermine your 
> position, as I understand what you're arguing.  It is not 
> necessary to understand the specific subjectivities of the 
> individuals in the social roles of prisoners and guards to 
> effectively predict their behavior: you simply need to know 
> who is in which social position in a social structure.  The 
> "subjectivity" of the guard is irrelevant to the analysis of 
> the social structure of the prison.  --And so in any social 
> situation: the general patterns of behavior are not the 
> product of unique subjectivities; rather, the individuals are 
> products of the demands of the social positions they occupy.

 I thing your interpretation of SPE is too static.  If memory serves,
these folks did not "jum" into their ascribed by the experimenter roles
right away - there was some trepidation at the beginning. But th
eunequal power relations developed quite quickly as a result in
_interaction_ between these two groups.  That interaction was defined by
the following circumstances: (i) one group had the capacities that the
other did not, (ii) they use of those capacities was sanctioned by
culturally defined roles, i.e. legitimate, and (iii) there was a
considerable absence of feedback from exercising that capacity,
exacerbated by the fact that it was only an experiment (in that way, SPE
was more like a B/D game in a bedroom).

The bottom line is that "power" asymmetries are not pre-scribed apriori
by social roles and relations - they emerge from social interactions in
which prescribes roles, expectations, and capacities have some, but not
necessarily decisive, influence.

Wojtek