Untitled document(6)

docx

School

St. John's University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

1000C

Subject

Chemistry

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by AmbassadorIronFinch3

3. Zimbardo: “Pathology of imprisonment” p.68 a) Within this experiment, Zimbardo along with his other colleagues were researching what it meant to be a prisoner and guard psychologically. Out of 70 students only two dozen were chosen, then with the flip of a coin decided who would be a guard. Each student picked were from middle class homes, reputable students, and emotionally stable. They were given an incentive of 15 dollars each day they participated. The experiment was meant to last two weeks and would take place in, “Stanford County Jail.” It was a mock prison, thus the men were made to be unexpectedly arrested and put through all procedures before being taken in. Zimbardo also would take part in the experiment as the superintendent. b) The experiment had to be cut short at 6 days. Life within this mock experiment had gotten so frightening that the experiment could no longer continue. Zimbardo found himself being dragged into the experiment as the superintendent and did not stop the experiment, even after prisoners pleaded that they would return all of the money if the experiment was stopped. What they noticed was that the guards had begun taking joy in giving the prisoners punishments, and found creative ways to do so. In just a couple days all their morals and principles were wiped away, despite coming from a reputable background the guard became nasty. They treated the prisoners “as if they were despicable animals” while the prisoners had become servile. They only had thoughts on escaping and ways of surviving the best they could. Eventually this led to the prisoners only looking out for themselves, or as the author puts it, “each man for himself.” It was observed that when one of the prisoners had been put in solitary confinement, the others had the option to give up their blankets to free him. No one did, they did not want to

sacrifice their own warmth for one of them. The experiment didn’t just change there, the guards had also been split into bad guards and good guards. Those who were considered good befriended the prisoners, however, they were only seen as good because they weren’t as bad as the bad guards. They would do small favors for the prisoners but never went against the authority of a bad guard. They would keep their own ego high because others saw them in a positive light. By being out of the way of the bad cops and by helping the prisoners, Zimbardo goes on to acknowledge that they may have been the ones with all the power. The good guards would keep the prisoners from rebelling, but would never send any complaint to Zimbardo the superintendent about the situation. d) After the experiment ended, Zimbardo found that just assigning labels to each other gives one enough reason to act in a certain way based on the power given in that position. He takes note that the reason for this is due to “social forces and environmental contingencies.” Due to this sole reason it creates this need for internal control in order to rationalize such behavior. He continues to explain the reason why it isn’t expected or underestimated is because it isn’t obvious at first. Even Zimbardo did not realize and stopped the experiment not because of what was happening but due to the idea of being in either position. This also explains his second statement, we typically avoid putting ourselves in situations where we could be controlled. Finally those in the position are considered weak because people hold themselves with higher regard in the sense that they wouldn’t go that low. e) The guards acted that way due to their environment but also as Zimbardo said, social Forces. Take their outfits into consideration and the freedom they were given, because

they were no longer just middle class and intelligent students they now had the power to do what they wanted without facing any consequences. This would be seen as okay because the prisoners are in there for a reason, but in the experiment after being evaluated by a former prison chaplain, he said that they showed the same signs as prisoners in real prison. It goes to say that sociologically your social environment makes an impact on everyone's role within that society or place. In this case would be the roles between a dominant figure and a subservient one. 4) Meyer: “If Hitlter Asked You to Electrocute a Stranger, Would you? Probably” p.71 a) Stanley Milgram, a Jew and a social psychologist, made a plan to show that Germans were different. He based his hypothesis over the fact that thousands of people decided to follow Hitler and act on his authority. His main goal would be to uncover that Germans were more obedient and less to question authority. With that he could research why certain groups of people were more obedient than others. His experiment would start in America on High Street under the name of Yale. In the experiment there was a series of questions needed to be answered, one would be the teacher and one would be the learner. The teacher would give electric shocks to the learner for every question answered wrong, each volt going up by 15 volts. The man in a white lab coat would watch over the teacher and tell them to continue if the teacher was to hesitate. Milgram found in the first test that each and everyone would shock the learner all the way despite having felt a shock themselves. Milgram would then go in a series of multiple changes to his test. Second time he added light protest, and in the third protest in anguish, finally the title of the laboratory. He found that there needed to be a large disturbance before subjects showed

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

disobedience. However even then there would be a good portion going through all the way to 450 volts. b) Milgram never took his experiment to Germany because for one, he did not have any disobedience in his first experiment to even compare to anything. Secondly this experiment completely disproved his hypothesis. Only until there was audible anguish did 35 percent not proceed to go all the way, however 65 percent still did, Milgram continued to change the experiment to the point of getting physical. When the man in the lab coat asked to push the learners hand down 30 percent did. Thus the situation arose a different type of question instead. c) There are two clear social forces within the experiment, one being the man in the lab coat. He clearly held an authoritative position within the experiment, as most of the participants would continue further just because he said so, this may have been due to his appearance. The lap coat made people believe that he was of a higher position. The second would be the location of the experiment. Since it happened under Yale, there was a legitimate authority. Some underlying forces would be the props and dialogue, in the first experiment the person in the lab coat told them that the electric shocks are not dangerous, that single piece of information allowed them to continue. The second were the props, as mentioned before the lab coat, the book on the table, and the wall in between them. It all caused for obedience with each participant. d) The statement is false. It is just as possible to have a second holocaust here as it happened in Germany. Whether or not America is democratic, the experiment still stands, that even if the participant understands it's morally wrong, under authoritative figures they are more than likely to obey. Take the presidency of Trump, under his ruling there was

massive discourse over the election of Biden from Trump's followers. He allowed for people to attack the capitol, specifically his followers, he never admitted to it but his silence and mere acknowledgment of the situation made his followers find reason in doing so. During the enlightenment era, it was proposed that the government held more than one branch for a similar reason. Despite the experiment being done in the 1960s, even earlier it was sought to have more branches in authority to avoid this, due to human nature and its relation with power. That goes to say that what happened in Nazi Germany could happen here in America with or without democracy under a specific authoritative figure. 7. Erikson, “Collective Trauma at Buffalo Creek” p.49 The disaster of Buffalo Creek caused by the breakage of a dam causing flooding of the streets of Buffalo Creek caused many sociological and psychological repercussions. First and foremost before addressing the towns issues it needs to be understood that this all occurred due to a coal company, they no longer trusted or respected the company despite it providing many jobs for the residents of Buffalo Creek. For the residents the company had a responsibility to keep their homes safe, because the community was so heavily rooted, these morals also applied to the coal company. For that same reason the residents felt betrayed by the company for building an untrustworthy dam that destroyed a part of their identity. The residents did not feel any sincerity in the company’s way of “apologizing” because their first reaction was to treat the survivors who were employees for many years in hopes of avoiding a lawsuit. This major loss of a society caused people to become withdrawn, they had been so heavily focused on working with the thought that they are helping their community, it became a

part of their person. If they played a role in their community then they felt needed, but now that this was lost, it no longer remained true and eventually they began to feel like a burden. The case here in Buffalo Creek was different, instead of regaining a sense of community after years they could not rebuild that, in fact Erikson describes it as “collective trauma” which describes the little improvement within the community. It can even be argued that the trauma built a different community based on that trauma, as the community began to change for the bad or what was considered bad before. Due to this social life died down, there was no longer a physical place for the residents to enjoy themselves, this includes their personal belongings. Buffalo Creek lost everything in one day, it became apparent to each and every resident that this can happen at any time, which raises the questions of what's the point. Due to the residents not having anywhere to input, they began to practice more solidarity, people were no longer relying on each other because no one felt like they could offer anything. With the loss of sharing issues, so was the loss of empathy within the community. As Buffalo Creek lost confidence in themselves they also lost their morals. As the community had placed several unspoken rules and roles it became apparent to each resident what to do and what not to do. With the community there to watch, standards were placed among each other, but that was lost, thus slowly but surely substances were beginning to enter the picture. With the structure of a community diminishing so was the structure of families, the familial bonds were becoming weaker as young boys and girls began to rebel more and with no community to judge them, the less inclined they felt to stop. This was both the older and younger generation of Buffalo Creek or in other words generational trauma. With social order being lost, people lost their own order, no longer understanding one another and refusing to do so only worsened the situation.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The collective trauma made building a whole new community much more difficult. The residents had become too fragile in the sense that their fear of losing everything again ws much larger than the motivation to build a new community. Despite all experiencing the same thing, everyone was on a different stage of grief, no one felt safe and the isolation heighted that fear. The Buffalo Creek lost all social order that removed the safety net for the residents resulting in crime and rise in substance usage which eventually led to even more vulnerability that was being buried time and time again by each resident. 8. Ammerman,”Religious Fundamentalism; A Sociological Study” p.24 Ammerman became curious about fundamentalism and its role in American society. However before that she had to become acquainted with a certain service/church, which she calls Southside Gospel Church. The initial purpose of becoming acquainted is due to the negative reputation sociologists have within these fundamentalist congregations. Due to sociologist/secular researchers seeking an answer for everything and anything fundamentalists would not answer their questionnaires because these researchers were seen as sinners unwilling to repent. Thus Ammerman was made to take a different approach, after receiving permission from the pastor she took on the role as a participant observer. Ammerman chose participant observation and interviews as her research methods as she was able to build a connection to show understanding instead of just having them fill out surveys. She could talk to them face to face and see their daily life within their community, which made fundamentalists less wary of her and even after finding out her identity they did not mind her or become less distant, rather they accepted her because she was playing her role within the church. Ammerman was singing, praying, anything that they did she did and thus she did not

look out of place with the fundamentalists. Due to her approach as a participatory observer she was able to enter the church with much ease without gaining data that was affected by her presence, a known issue with this research method. The second research method Ammerman used was interviewing a method of surveying. She had a difficult time gaining information of the people who attended church but with the help of the pastor and secretary she was able to make a random sample of who she would interview. By the end of it she had interviewed sixty-two adults who were part of the fundamentalists, twelve adults who weren’t, and four children. The first issue here would be interviewer bias, because she had made appointments with each of them with again the permission of the pastor, many of the participants had gotten ready in advance. They cleaned up not just the house but sometimes their own appearance as well before meeting. They had become nervous about the potential of choosing a wrong answer, which is the biggest issue with interviews. Due to them being face to face many would often go for a more socially acceptable answer rather than the truth, this method could result in some skewed data. It is also more time consuming than most methods as it requires personal time with each and every individual but Ammerman was correct in choosing this route. Although she understands that the accuracy is not that of a questionnaire, the likelihood of them even participating in a questionnaire would result in little to no data for her. She was able to make them comfortable enough to answer their questions truthfully as she even had a few participants asking for the real questions. Ammerman was essentially an outsider, but the idea of learning exactly what it is to be a fundamentalist is difficult. She mentions it herself in the very beginning as well, and that is because belief and faith are difficult to measure especially if one isn’t a worshiper themself. Ammerman concluded that most of these fundamentalist churches hold similarity among each

other and it is the reason why they are able to join together, or why when someone switches churches they are able to understand each other. They still follow similar principals, but in terms of faith, that data is not obtainable unless you are part of the fundamentalists. Although Ammerman can learn skin deep what it means to be apart of a fundamentalist church, she cannot exactly understand what it means to be saved, or what force ties them together to form such strong ideals. 9. Anderson: “The code of the Street,” p.225 Elijah Anderson describes the code of the street as a cultural adaptation, that is to the “lack of faith in police and the judicial system.” Essentially explaining that the reason for why the code of the street is so heavily followed despite being unpredictable is because it maintains order one way or another. Without faith in police or the judicial system the people within these communities all have to find a way to survive without the help of the government in regards to their safety. To emphasize why violence is used as a form of adaptation it is because the violence is regulated. There are rules made and with those rules comes punishment if they are not followed, in this case the difference between “street” and “decent” does not matter. Those who run the streets are in charge of keeping the community in order by allowing certain things through, but with the mixture of drugs and drug trafficking the nature of it becomes far more aggressive. Due to this the children within this environment must also learn how things work, and with little to no paying jobs most young people turn to the streets in order to make some sort of income. This isn’t the only adaptation made, because they are still a community there is a specific bond among one another, almost familial, and these are usually young adults who come from homes who are

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

loving and have middle-class ideals which are just as strong as the power of violence. With both violence and this sense of family holding the community together, they have been able to make it work. With everyone following some type of rule they are able to completely fall apart. Without the police and judicial system they had to find a way to make things happen. If the nature of the code is very aggressive then why do young people follow it the most? That is because at the root of it, it means respect, and in an environment where it can be easily lost those who withhold their respect are held in high regard. Not only are they able to take care of themselves but they are also able to move people within these ghettos, because they hold the highest amount of power. It is also a way of control, with security already being loose due to the government not providing it, it also means that a sense of security is important. This most often can mean paranoia in being disrespected because it poses a threat to one's authority, in this case to the people who are admired. The reason why young people may follow this code closely is because from the moment they are born within these areas they do not know safety, what they know is having their guard raised. With the people regulating the violence, it adds a certain safety for them and even more so when they are a part of that violence. It is under the pretense of public safety, which to some degree is very true. The situation is a paradox, without crime or aggression there are no rules that keeps them in check, with lawful procedures being removed from the picture they can no longer rely on that. It goes to say that if the law is concerned at all, then without the violence or aggression who is to say that these communities wouldn't be worse. However, that same violence is what most bystanders witness and continues to lower the amount of police activity, yet had there been more activity many young people would lose a source of income. These rules were adapted because they had no other option, with no laws in place each

man and woman had to find a way to survive even if it meant through the dirtiest means possible. For that reason it is held in high regard, because in a place with no hope or aid from the police or judicial system they found a way to pull themselves out. A prime reason why it isn’t fought back against. There is a mutual understanding between those considered “street” and those considered “decent” which pulls them all together.

Katheryne Rojas Perez

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version