As far as the ends justifying the means, in the scenario of the “Blue eyed/Brown eyed” exercise, ends do justify the means. Okay, one kid punched another kid in the gut, but he wasn’t hospitalized. That would cross a line. One could argue this experiment might influence school bullying. However Ms. Elliott seemed to have gone into the exercise with the controversy in mind. Through out the video, she seemed to have a routine down for multiple scenarios.
There was a moment during the exercise with the adult group when a woman wouldn’t cooperate because Ms. Elliott did not call her by her name. Elliott then enlarges her control by questioning a brown eyed participant, “Is she being rude, inconsiderate, uncooperative, insulting? Are all those the things we accuse blue eyes to be?” The members silence only fuels Elliott’s oppressive authority. It also pulls the example from The Privilege, Power, and Difference book concerning the privileged blaming the oppressed for the oppression: victimizing the victim.
To follow up on that moment, she asked the privileged brown eyed group why they didn’t defend the blue eyed. It was concluded that questioning the privileged, whether oppressed or not, is much more difficult than taking a back seat and letting a few do the fighting. It’s the path of least resistance.
If any experiment needed questioning, as far as safety was concerned, to me The Stanford Prison Study was more questionable. Elliot had done her homework more thoroughly than Philip Zimbardo did with The Stanford Prison Study. In watching the two, I felt Zimbardo’s experiment had more potential to fall apart than. Elliott’s. There’s irony in this. Elliott had no formal training in psychology when creating her experiment, Zimbardo did.
I don’t know if the Brown eyed/Blue eyed exercise is still being practiced, but the fact that this is one of many videos that shows footage of racial oppression’s cruelty can get the point across. Some of these forms of oppression are dated, but some aren’t. By extracting the oppressive behaviors that are practiced still in society, and having a discussion about such oppressions, people can be empowered.
I agree with you completely. The Stanford Prison Experiment was much more dangeous. I think Elliott's exercise also did more good than bad too. Talking about race issues is tough and there will normally be reistance but overall I think it was a well thought out teaching plan.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Dr.Zimbardo's experiment had more potential risk but for me both experiments were disturbing because the subject to study were humans under discriminating and humiliating behavior. Stanford prison experiment were with grown up youngsters while this was with innocent third graders. Kids have got tender minds and are not really aware of the cruelties of society around them and these kids may be have never seen a black kid in that small town. Experiment was well conducted but make them to wear collars was a little too much. Jane proved her point through her experiment that how human behavior can divide the society in categories like privileged beings and not so privileged beings.
ReplyDeleteGood post--I like how you compare Elliott's experiment with the Stanford one. As the Wikipedia article on Elliott discussed, there were very real repercussions for her from doing this. Those whites who speak out forcefully on racism often face such backlash, and it extracts a toll--so kudos to Elliott for keeping up this challenging work for so many years!
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I ever worry about is when everyday Americans hear about these experiments and their outcomes. Some people, I assume, are horrified by the results which is helpful for reducing the behavior. The people I worry about are the ones who believe these experience explain human behavior/ nature more clearly and allow for oppression to go on because 'it is only natural.'
ReplyDelete