50 years or so ago, the University of Stanford’s psychology Professor Philip Zimbardo and his research team set out to investigate ‘power’ and how it is perceived by people who are in ‘control’.  

This experiment, known as The Stanford Prison Experiment, remains riddled with doubts but, notwithstanding, it has been cited often in psychology texts and remains a usable piece of research. 

Basically, this exercise entailed that a group of male students, who were recruited via a public call, were split up following an interview.  Half assumed the role of prisoners and the other half as prison wardens. The experiment was initially planned for 15 days but had to be called off after 6. It appeared that the students who took on the roles ‘turned’ prisoner or prison wardens expediently.  

In the mock prison built in the basement of the University, Prof.  Zimbardo assumed the character of the main prison warden. Two of the ‘prisoners’ wanted out and abandoned the experiment because they couldn’t cope with the ill-treatment and hounding that was going on. The methodology and the ethics of this experiment are still considered dubious, but many believe this experiment sheds light on a number of ingredients that potentially impact our institutions and the power engagement between those in authority and the subjects (or the ones we now refer to as clients or service users).  

The truth is that the lessons learnt from this study are indeed worthy of reflection on what is happening in our institutions. 

In fact, some learning points from this research can be extracted and potentially generalized in a number of settings, first and foremost prison, but also in other institutions such as residential homes for children, for the elderly, detention centers, monasteries, residential homes for disabled people and homes that host persons with mental health problems, drug rehab programs and so on. 

An estimated 10,000 people are currently ‘housed’ in such institutions in Malta and one would question whether institutionalization which lies at the end of the welfare support continuum is what is really needed (and so often). One could question why we don’t invest as much in community services, albeit a repeated appeal from professionals in the social sector. It seems that the State is more than happy to siphon endless resources in this model of ‘support’, which is proven to be useful for some and a letdown for many more. 

It appears that our welfare culture is more focused on fitting people into pigeon holes than locating the challenges and addressing them through community based social services, local government and capitalizing on the intrinsic passion and energy to help that lies in most people in our neighborhoods. 

The paradigm shift is what we need. 

Back to The Stanford Prison Experiment, which has pushed the research envelope and remained a point of reference in understanding people in context of ‘power’ versus those in a position of ‘vulnerability’. 

Naturally, not all the findings apply equally and to every context. People who are coerced into a system like prison, the elderly who are strong-armed by their relatives, involuntary admission in psychiatric services, detention services, children who are taken away from abusive contexts and put into forced placements, probably interpret subjugation of the ‘system’ in a different way than those who voluntarily choose to live in institutions.  

But my point here is that, notwithstanding that some service providers do try to make the system work, the impact is mostly adverse. There are certain elements that need to be surfaced so that the potential damage done by institutionalization is mitigated. Our system, regrettably I dare say, still values enlisting people in ‘homes’ (‘…taf inti ha nserrah rasi’, says the relative!). 

The truth of the matter is that it has always been easy for people, even with minor troubles, to be deposited into homes, thinking that this automatically entails that we are providing the epitome of welfare services - which might be true in the short-term, but no fancy internal decorations and no soothing pastel wall-colours will take away the noes. It is, for many, easier to anonymize people’s difficulties by consigning them into homes than trying to respond to the challenges that people are facing. This is a draconian methodology I loathe, applauded by a welfare system keen to ‘put people’s minds at rest’ (as the saying goes, ‘boghod mill-ghajn boghod mill-qalb’) and at the same time remove the ‘problem’ rather than trying to engage the community. 

The Stanford Prison Experiment implied a number of urgent issues related to institutionalization and its impact on the people providing or receiving the service that needed to be realigned. 

For example, this study showed very clearly that the context, per se, was problematic and could instigate undesirable and adverse reactions. Am I implying that all contexts, whether it’s a mental health hospital, a prison, a residential home for children and so on and so forth, are on the same level? Of course not. 

The systematic oppression that happens in our prisons and detention centers concern me.  What agencies are trying to do in homes for children, monasteries or private homes for the elderly also have the potential to leave an undesirable bearing.  However, this might not carry the same affliction, but if we are not careful this could possibly have a similar fall-out – because institutionalisation changes us. 

For example, issues whereby individuality is suppressed can be located in most institutions notwithstanding the efforts made to ease this. It could be that prison officials do it more ‘in your face’ with an aggressive idiom, timetabling, systemic control, uniforms, coercive body language and sanctioning beyond comprehension. This would be further compounded by the use of inmate uniforms that dehumanize the prisoners, systematic aggression to keep people in line, bells, fall ins, use of tranquilizers, strict schedules, lack of training and lack of educational opportunities that disallow inmates from feeling useful and valuable.  

This regimentality can seep through other institutions, even though they might not intend for this to happen. Take homes for the elderly or the psychiatric hospital or even some of the residential homes for persons with disability or possibly monasteries. Look at what is happening; frequent and unexplained rotation of staff, meals that are pre-established with no participation of the persons consuming the food, rooms shared with people you might not want to choose to share the room with, social workers that are lumped on the individual (a service you might not even want), trolleys with unmarked cutlery, patronizing language (‘aw sabiha’), timetabled and controlled visiting and staff uniforms. People here are divested from choices they can easily do for themselves, but they are stopped short because this would disrupt the order and make life ‘difficult’ for staff and management! 

What if I want a snack out of schedule? 

What if I do not want to eat using their own cutlery? 

What if I would like to go for a walk or have sex instead of sitting passively on the sofa watching TVM (and the ‘control’ is at the security officer with no hope of watching anything on TV they want to) because it is the ‘time for that’?

What if I want supper at 8pm, as they were used to, and not at 5pm to accommodate the shifts? 

I assure you the restrictions, desexualizing and lack of identity is a major dilemma in most of our institutions, try hard as we may. The organization, the schedules, the systems take over. Nothing beats the commune – no names to a face, just ID Card numbers, namelessness and facelessness.  

The potential oppression and control are so evident and strong because clients/service users are in a very defenseless position, uprooted from their secure environment and placed in an alien context where authority reigns supreme.   

What’s worse about all of this is that staff members, as soon as they put on their uniforms, subscribe to instructions by the people at the ‘top’ even if they might not agree to. They feel that their loyalty rests with the establishment rather than with the needs and aspirations of their clients (vide The Stanford Prison Experiment). This spells disaster. This is the watershed moment when all principles are thrown out of the window and its ‘me’ telling ‘you’ what is best. People in power tend to give up what they believe in. Oh and when you are paid by the State – the conflict is even bigger. Where would my loyalty rest, to my employer, potentially the same agent of domination or with the people who are seeking liberation through the services we offer?  

The answer, we know.  

The residents in all of these shenanigans soon learn that they had little effect on what happens to them. They are quick to realize that the guards, the ‘staff’, the ‘carers’ are at the tip of the hierarchy and it’s either their way, or no other way.

Somehow, The Stanford Experiment becomes a déjà vu .