The Zimbardo Experiment

I will be analyzing the Zimbardo prison experiment from the structural-functional and symbolic-interaction approaches.
Structural-functional approach: A question that a sociologist subscribing to the structural-functional approach might ask is how prisons benefit society and keep it functioning on a macro level, assuming prison is a social structure and it exists to benefit society. Prisons exist as a means to house criminals until they are ready to be released back into the public sphere. The manifest functions of prisons are to rehabilitate criminals and deprive them of multiple freedoms as a form of punishment for their crimes against society. Those manifest functions do not apply to the experiment, as none of the so-called "inmates" were professed or convicted criminals. Instead, another manifest function would be more relevant: to house criminals for a period of time until they can be returned to society to contribute positively. The latent functions of prison are to remove all individuality of a prisoner and promote absolute obedience to authority. Promoting absolute obedience to authority would benefit society, as an obedient criminal populace that respects authority would be less likely to become repeat offenders. That line of thinking--of absolute deference to authority--applies to many structures in society today: school demands respect for teachers and obedience from students, jobs demand respect for superiors and obedience from rank-and-file (with the added bonus of financial compensation), and parents demand respect and obedience from their children. That has the added effect of affecting the psyche of prisoners as a whole, as exemplified by the Zimbardo experiment. Within the experiment, there is a clear change from insolence to deference for the prisoners: in day 2, cell 1 attempted a rebellion to improve their living conditions and had multiple levels of support from the other cell blocks, while in day 6, prisoner 416 attempted a hunger strike, alone, but not a single other prisoner vouched for him or aided in his cause. This is a clear example of a social structure (prison) producing a social function (obedience). An example of social dysfunction caused by prisons would be the psychological damage inflicted to some of the inmates as a result of losing their identity. All of these changes reveal the subject's sociological imagination: they readily accepted their roles, generally, so that the prison could function smoothly.


Symbolic interaction approach: A question that a sociologist subscribing to the symbolic interaction approach might ask is how the inmates and guards changed their behaviors as a result of their roles, and further building on that, how heavily did social exchange factor into their encounters. When examining the prisoners and guards on a case-by-case basis, one could sort the prisoners into three main types and the guards into two main types. The prisoners could be sorted as rebellion, break down, and model prisoners. Each is self explanatory: the rebellious prisoners actively sought to change their situation, the break down prisoners could not deal with the emotional and psychological stress that came about because of this experiment, and the model prisoners were the ones who acquiesced and did as the guards said. The guards themselves could be split into two groups: the sadistic guards, and the good guards. The sadistic group seemed to take pleasure in working the prisoners as hard as they could, while the good guards did quite the opposite and would rather let the prisoners off easy. Each individual responded differently to the simulation, but generally followed main patterns due to how they were allowed to act. Factors that could affect their behavior would be instances that would benefit or harm them. An example of how social exchange would factor into everyday encounters between the inmates and the guards would be how the guards routinely reward model prisoners and routinely punish those who fall out of line. Thus, if an inmate sees that he benefits from being obedient rather than boisterous, he will become obedient, and receive lenient treatment as a result. Consequently, the more obedient the prisoners are, the more satisfaction that the guards are likely to feel because keeping the prisoners docile is in their job description. This is a clear example of individuals doing what will benefit them most, and a "beneficial" relationship arising from two needs being met simultaneously. These changes in behavior are a direct result of the sociological imagination of the subjects: they have fully immersed themselves into the roles given to them and made the roles their own. They may not fully realize it, but the subjects have changed their behavior to fit their environment while still retaining some semblance

SHIU, HENRY C.H. “Buddhists.” The Religions of Canadians, edited by JAMIE S. SCOTT and JAMIE S. SCOTT, University of Toronto Press, 2012, pp. 261–306, www.jstor.org/stable/10.3138/j.ctt2ttxz8.11.

Shiu chronicles the exploits of Buddhist immigrants in early Canada. While not terribly informative about doctrine, it provides interesting insight about how Buddhists assimilated into Western society. This could provide an interesting point of comparison when I do more research into Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and other major religions and compare and contrast how they assimilated--or, conversely, shaped--into Western culture. 

Ghose, Lynken. “‘Karma’ and the Possibility of Purification: An Ethical and Psychological Analysis of the Doctrine of ‘Karma’ in Buddhism.” The Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 35, no. 2, 2007, pp. 259–289., www.jstor.org/stable/40014869.

Ghose explores the meaning of "karma" within Buddhism by contrasting it within Western psychology and what it resembles within that field. In short, Ghose asserts that karma is both action and the effects of action. Ghose also questions whether unintentional actions affect karma and how much does karma affect one's life condition at any given time. This expanded my understanding of karma further than what I had learned in my own studies (I study parts of Buddhism as part of my practice and worship).

Chappell, David W. “Monumenta Nipponica.” Monumenta Nipponica, vol. 36, no. 4, 1981, pp. 482–483., www.jstor.org/stable/2384235.

Chappell essentially raves about Nichiren Daishonin, a pioneer in Japanese Buddhism, and his genius and magnanimity. It also nitpicks translations of his autobiography and selected works, but the most important part of the review is when he describes Nichiren's doctrine and charisma, which allowed him to gain more followers. This gives insight into how Nichiren communicated with his followers and presented himself to the public as well as private, as the article contains a summation of his letters to select peoples while he was in exile.

Payne, Richard K. “Monumenta Nipponica.” Monumenta Nipponica, vol. 46, no. 3, 1991, pp. 401–403., www.jstor.org/stable/2385225.

Payne argues that Nichiren Daishonin, a pioneer of sorts in Japanese Buddhism, is the most controversial figure within Japanese Buddhism due to his apparent disregard for certain tenets of Buddhism and egomaniac personality. (I actually follow Nichiren Buddhism, and I take issue with some of what the author says...but that's for a different time). Nichiren seems to utilize questionable methods to encourage his followers and challenges doctrines and accuses the people that follow them of foolishness. This portrayal is starkly different from Nichiren's general portrayals, often as a positive influence and the creator of the Nichiren Buddhist denomination, the largest Buddhism denomination in the United States. This helps bring a different perspective to my arguments.

Hyman, Bronwen, and Alfred H. Shephard. “Zeitgeist: The Development of an Operational Definition.” The Journal of Mind and Behavior, vol. 1, no. 2, 1980, pp. 227–246., www.jstor.org/stable/43852825.

The article attempts to define a zeitgeist, or the spirit of an era. The zeitgeist of an era is hard to encompass due to multiple civilizations valuing different things and differing opinions. Religion could be a considered a zeitgeist in some areas; indeed, religion defines certain time periods, although that is not what the article argues. Instead, the article refers to the literary pieces of specific eras in order to define an era. Religions often rely on texts to explain their doctrine due to the inefficiency of spoken word.

Post 2: Genius Hour Ideas

For Genius Hour, I would like to focus on interfaith studies and/or the political divide.

Blog Post Number 1

I'm a black kid at a majority white school that practices a religion that has its roots in Asia, I play a sport dominated by British people and Egyptians, and my best friends are a tiny Filipino genius and a foul mouthed Mexican-American. I am not sure if I could be more diverse if I tried. A lot of what defines me is my family. My mother and father have shaped me into the person I am today, and their specific style of parenting has given them success with two kids. A lot of my identity is also my religion. I'm Buddhist, and I am associated with the Soka Gakkai International, or SGI, the "official" organization of Nochiren Buddhism in the world. This defines a lot of my worldview and gives me a lens with which to see the world through. There is a fantastic community that supports me in whatever decision I make and helps me stay faithful to religion. Another important piece of me is squash. I play squash almost every day, and it's my preferred sport.