Blog Post #3 - Richard Bisso

Black Friday 2015: A Consumerist’s Future

            Black Friday of 2015 occurred once more, opening stores on Thursday afternoon and evenings, hardly worth of the title its given. But did it live up to the expectations and hype that preceded it? Consumers didn’t think so, which begs the question…why was Black Friday slumping in sales?

            Reports had estimated that sales had declined from physical stores, a 1.2 billion dollar decrease as reported by ShopperTrak; sales on Thanksgiving alone slumped by 200 million, jumping from two billion, to 1.8 billion. Although this may signal a variety of problems, online shopping from last year to 2015 had rose over 14 percent, bringing in over 2.72 billion. Although these numbers are estimated as of recent, the trend towards digitization of consumerism is an interesting thought at the very least.

            The topic of consumerism not just in America, but globally has sparked interesting debates within the past half century, as the rise of capitalism and mass production has allowed for an ease of access with regards to not only electronics, but appliances and other things as well. More recently in the past twenty year has technology rapidly progressed to a mainstream audience, no longer applicable to a select few. Which raises an important question. Are the days of physical shopping coming to an end, or is it just a short sighted futuristic vision?

            I think that overtime, we’ll have even more convenient ways of shopping for what we want on a want and need basis. Already places such as Amazon are deploying drones as a way to deliver items (albeit small ones) to the homes of the their consumers. A plethora of retailers now have mobile apps attributed to their own store, allowing consumers to browse at will, all from their own homes. But in twenty thirty years time, efficiency will be improved with regards to shipping, as retailers rely on the consumerist’s money to continue thriving. A faster delivery service not only allows for higher satisfaction, but builds a trust between the consumer and supplier. Although this may seem convenient, an even more important issue arises. Privacy.

            Within the past few years since the Snowden revelations, there’s been a huge shift with regards to privacy and maintaining trust between the tech user and various search engines. But in relation to retailers, do they really have your best interest at heart? The answer is no. As with Black Friday come the so called deals that they rave about, plastering them all over their websites and online. The truth is that many of these deals were artificially inflated prior to Black Friday, only to have the price drop to what seemed like a deal to the consumer, when in reality, they most likely could’ve bought it at another time at a cheaper price. Not only do they lie, but they do so with conviction.

With Amazon using drones to start delivering products, are retailers and companies one’s that we can actually trust with putting limits on personal privacy? I say no, and for very good reason. Just by looking at the transformation of the internet from early 2000-2015, its easy to see why; gone are the days of pages loading the information that pertains to the link. In 2015, its impossible to click on any page without having load a plethora of ads, all from various companies. Gone are the days of simple web browsing, and hello to ad-blockers and the struggle for noninvasive advertising. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Sites like Reddit, visited by millions, are being astroturfed by companies to promote their products by playing on the idea of memes and societal integration. So what exactly is the future of consumerism? If we continue down the road with privacy erosion at the expense of convenience, there’s no limitation on what can be accomplished by various retailers. The erosion of privacy is guaranteed, and sooner or later, there will no longer be choice if we continue to remain apathetic.

12 Years A Slave

(This post may have spoilers if you have not watched the movie yet!) Over break I re-watched the movie “12 Years A Slave” directed by Steve McQueen.  The first time I watched this movie was my freshman year of college, spring semester with my roommate.  This movie blew me away.  I had no idea what to expect (besides what the title implies) of the story of this movie.  Though I now know that this movie was based on a true story, and on a real man Solomon Northup, from Saratoga Springs, NY and his tragic and traumatic story.
What I noticed while watching this movie, were the obvious references to critical race and ethnicity studies.  I also noticed the obvious trauma that this man, Solomon Northup, endured after being captured and enslaved for so long.  The one essay from our anthology in particular that I would like to bring up is “The Social Construction of Race,” by Ian F. Haney López.
In this essay, the “problems of race” are defined and explained.  “Human fate still rides upon ancestry and appearance.  The characteristics of our hair, complexion, and facial features still influence whether we are figuratively free or enslaved.  Race dominates our personal lives.  It manifests itself in our speech, dance, neighbors and friends – ‘our very ways of talking, walking, eating and dreaming are ineluctably shaped by notions of race’” (López 965).  This section of the reading made me think of the section of the movie where Solomon is directed to retrieve Patsey.  Patsey, in this scene, is with a woman by the name of Mistress Shaw.  Mistress Shaw was able to elevate her status.  By elevating her status, she had a house to live in, even with slaves of her own.  She also mentions that she had not been beaten or whipped in years.  Even though she knew how other slaves were being treated, because she used to be one of them, she did not care.  She was looking out for herself and that is what she saw was best fit for her.
Another section of the essay that I want to bring up is from the section “Biological Race.”  The very first sentence in this section is: “There are no genetic characteristics possessed by all Blacks but not by non-Blacks; similarly, there is no gene or cluster of genes common to all Whites but not to non-Whites.  One’s race is not determined by a single gene or gene cluster, as is, for example, sickle-cell anemia” (López 967).  This proves that no matter what anyone says, we are all the same.  No one is lesser than anyone else, no matter what race or ethnicity; therefore they should not be treated as a lesser.  “12 Years A Slave” really showed the brutal and disturbing truth behind slavery, and what happens when people treat others as less than a human being.
Overall, this movie was extremely interesting.  I feel as though I was able to pick up so much more information watching it this time around.  Looking at this movie through race and ethnicity studies was very interesting, and it made me look deeper into the film than I did before.

The Quirky Behavior of the Present Lost in the Portrayals of the Past

The Quirky Behavior of the Present Lost in the Portrayals of the Past

While watching the academy award winning film, “12 Years a Slave” I had a thought, what were the behaviors of people of the past like? Were they strange like us? With all our weird quirks, strange sense of humors, terrible laughs, strange fetishes and all the other characteristics that make us human. Of course, yes, these people did have all these things, but then why are they never portrayed in classic literature or films that reflect a not modern time period?

It seems as though anything that does not date beyond the mid-twentieth century has an air about it that makes it seems as though everyone within that time period was all alike. But in modern novels, such as “Super Sad True Love Story” by author Gary Shteyngart create characters that are so unique and exceptionally quirky. In Shteyngart’s world, the characters are so colorful with descriptions, the reader seems to know almost everything about these fictional beings. What they like to eat, what they think during sex, the way they laugh, their odd habits. It creates a more real experience for me and many other readers. But when we watch films or reading novels that deal with people that are in the Victorian era, for example, then it seems we lose this very real experience. Why do authors choose not to include these kinds of details in their novels? For a moment, I hypothesized that it was possible that these novels were just more plot heavy and therefore they did not necessarily need to focus on the humanistic attributes of their characters. But “Super Sad True Love Story” still offers a dense plot while giving the reader the opportunity to understand their characters the way they would with real people.

A great deal of this subject has to deal with the way culture is shaped in the time period that the author is writing their work. The culture of the present day is far different than the culture of the 1800’s America or 1912 in England. Our society is very much centered on dissecting ourselves. Understanding how our minds work, flashing our quirkiness at each other, outshining one another to see who is the most clever in a restricted word count. It makes sense that the novels and films that are generated in this era are so focused around creating characters with flaws and quirks, because we can identify with them. This a personal opinion, but much of our culture, especially in our generation is so centered around pleasing ourselves and representing us. Books that can reflect traits that many of us have are more likely to be popular.

Thoughts about Black Friday and Cyber Monday..Pros and Cons..

          We have all heard of them, and I am sure that most of us have utilized them, but are they truly as great as people say? Are they really worth all the trouble that people go through to do their shopping then? While I will give you my personal opinion on that, I will also give you some of the pros and cons about these. First, I'm going to start by giving you my opinion, then the pros, then the cons, and lastly, the statistics.
       My opinion is going to mostly be about Black Friday because it affects a holiday now and something I deem quite important, whereas Cyber Monday is not on this holiday. Personally, I do not have a problem with people wanting to get some great deals as well as getting their shopping done, however, I do have a problem with people making their family time plans around their shopping plans. I do not think that your loved ones should come second to shopping, and I understand that that is not always the intention, it's just that people want these deals. It'd be more understandable to me if Black Friday was just then, on Friday and NOT starting on Thanksgiving when you are supposed to be with your family. I am aware that some people do not celebrate holidays or aren't a fan of them and that's fine, but I just think that for the sake's of the people that do and so they don't have that temptation to leave their loved ones to shop, Black Friday should only be on Friday, and not Thursday (as known as..Thanksgiving.) Some of the deals are even beginning before Thursday and stretching out what is supposed to be a singular day event into a multiple days event and I just think that's not right. Cyber Monday doesn't really affect Thanksgiving, or at least, not as badly so I do not really have a problem with it. Feel free to disagree.
       Obviously, the first pro I am going to tell you is the most given one, which is the shopping deals stores offer you. Pros I can think of right away for Black Friday include maybe making it a bonding time by taking someone you love with you and jamming out to Christmas music in the car because it's Christmas shopping for the most part, am I right? Another pro for Black Friday shopping is that it is exercise with constant moving to be first to get the sale and unfortunately for some people, it's the most exercise they may get. Now for Cyber Monday, you can invite a loved one over and both of you do your online shopping while comfortable in your pjs and maybe playing Christmas music or a Christmas film in the background or cuddling with your pet while checking out those deals.
     Now that I've given some of the pros, I must give some cons, because unfortunately nowadays I'm seeing more cons than I am pros for these two events. Beginning with Black Friday in which I am reiterating the fact that since Black Friday is beginning earlier and earlier, people are missing time spent with their loved ones because they are going out for these "spectacular" deals. I say that in quotations because some of the deals I have seen aren't even that spectacular. For example, some deals I have seen are just maybe a few dollars cheaper and I understand that a sale is a sale, however, you could still end up spending the dollars you saved on gasoline so you're spending it anyway. Another con is the endless lines and crowded spaces, which if you are anything like me, you get extremely uncomfortable in crowds. Yet another con, and I am sure you all have heard this one, the fights that break out because of the sales and people not getting what they want because of that. Over materialistic items none-the-less. Another con for Black Friday is because some of the deals are great to some people, the merchandise may not be in as good of condition do to many people touching it and moving it around, dropping it. The cons for Cyber Monday are again deals which may not be as spectacular, stuff being ordered incorrectly because the internet can be a difficult thing for many, and over the past few years, there has been several instances of sites breaking or shutting down because the over usage of the internet. Those of you here at school surely understand what happens when too many people are using the internet at the same time which is that it tends to break for awhile. Well, the same thing can happen outside school too. Another con for Cyber Monday is that for some businesses, employees will not show up to work so they can shop or they will shop during work. Not only that but if they order something, and it is incorrect or damaged, it is more difficult to return by mail and can sometimes get lost during transport. Additionally, you can't test the merchandise before you buy it. With both of these events, it's also easy for people to spend more than they really can because they are in a buying frenzy.
     Now that I've said some of my thoughts about these two events, does anyone else have something to add that I may have missed? Or have another opinion? This is just something that I thought a lot about over break and I tried to get it up during break but some other things came up. At any rate, I hope everyone had a great break and please just take some of what I said into consideration when next year comes around for these events.

White Washing in Hollywood

Hollywood has a streak of what is referred to as whitewashing, which is racist and damaging to more than just the actors. Whitewashing or race bending is defined as “situations where a media content creator (movie studio, publisher, etc.) has changed the race or ethnicity of a character. This is a longstanding Hollywood practice that has been historically used to discriminate against people of color.”
Whitewashing in Hollywood is not a new phenomenon in any sense. Race bending has been around for a while. It seems more noticed now because of the strong fan base that many ethnic roles have. In the past the roles of ethnic parts still went to white actors. They would try sometimes to recreate the character by doing things like “black” or “yellow” face to represent black or Asian character respectively.
        The lead roles in many movies that were originally an ethnic party have gone mainly to white actors or actresses. This is something seen in many different popular movies. To name a few examples, “The Hunger Games” (2012), “Cleopatra” (1963), “The Prince of Persia” (2010), “21”(2008),“West Side Story” (1961), “Argo” (2012) . I could go on and on. The list is extensive and isn't limited by time, genre of movie, or sex.
Many would also say that with a lot of the examples of main characters being whitewashed that I gave that the actors were picked because they are just the right person for the job skin color be damned. This assumption is a huge part of why white washing in Hollywood is so damaging.
I do agree that the a part should go to the best actress or actor to play the part. However blatant lack of cultural representation is damaging to all those watching it. It takes power from those from an ethnic background and empower white privilege.
There is also the argument that casting directors must do what is best for their movies. Therefore if they have a choice of a more well known star who is white rather than an actress or actor of color, who better fits the description. The director will most likely go with more widely known actress or actor even though they do not fit the role. This is still unfair to the actors or actresses of color. They are denied the chance to ever even get the chance to reach the notoriety that more well known stars have.
There are many different reasons why race bending is wrong and damaging. Firstly, the lack of ethnic actors and actresses in mainstream movies, like any media it will affect those who view it. Young viewers of ethnic backgrounds will see the lack of representation of their race and wonder what is wrong with them. Why are they not white like Katniss. When the new “Pan” movie comes out, I am sure many young Native American girls will wonder why the Princess Tiger Lily character is white (Suede).
This is also seen in different cases where the antagonist is kept ethnic while the protagonist is whitened. This can be seen in even Disney movies. The best example is the Disney movie “Aldan”. Jafar, the main antagonist is darker than the rest of the characters and is the only character with an accent.  For a more modern, and not animated example, I have “Avatar; The last Air Bender”. The main cast completely deviates from the original cartoon cast. Except for the antagonist. The cast is all white except for him. Zoku, the main villain is played by an ethnic actor. These are also both movies aimed at a younger audience. The things may seem subtle but they play a huge role on how children especially of ethnicity will develop their sense of self.
Another harmful effect it can have is on  American’s already warped sense of history. There is already studies showing that American’s have a tendency take the history they see in movies as facts. Americans seem to be a tad bit gullible if they see it on television or in movies. So seeing no different ethnicity's than Caucasian in historically based movies can place the wrong impression on those who are not able to watch media critically enough to separate actual history from what is on the screen. An example of this is “Prince of Persia”, they used Jake Gyllenhaal, a white actor to portray a Persian prince. As well as in the movie “Noah”, where the entire cast is Caucasian.  Things like this tend to extenuate stereotypes and racial profiling.



Whitewashing in media, like all negative influences will create the wrong perceptions in youth and those who are unable to look at media critically. Whitewashing in Hollywood is racist and should be treated as such.

Past and Present in 12 Years a Slave and Beloved

Kristen O’Connor

ENGL 345

Blog Post #4

11/25/14

Past and Present in 12 Years a Slave and Beloved

I noticed a lot of similarities between 12 Years a Slave and Beloved. They are both present stories intertwined with the past (and sometimes rather confusingly so). The moments of present and past blend together as if they are one—and I suppose they are. The past haunts both Solomon and Sethe, though in very different ways.

With Beloved, the past is preserved in actuality. It is shown through the tree on Sethe’s back, and through the character Beloved. It is a physical being that haunts Sethe and fills the house with ghosts. Morrison tells the story as a flowing narrative that keeps Sethe, though far from her years as a slave, a slave to the past and a slave to what was. The past and the present are essentially one being. They cannot be removed from one another.  Sethe even states, “I was talking about time. It's so hard for me to believe in it. Some things go. Pass on. Some things just stay.”

In 12 Years a Slave, the past is of happiness, family, freedom, etc. And it is not always as inherently present as it is in Beloved. Instead, I noticed small parallels between Solomon the free man and Solomon the slave. These were sometimes closely linked scenes, playing one right after the other, but others were more distant—and I would argue they become more distant later in the film, showing Solomon’s distance between the man he used to be and what he was forced to become as a slave. I think the largest of these parallels were made with the violin—as he once played for a career, and then for entertainment of his master. But this violin is similar the tree-like scar for Sethe. It is the lingering of the past into the present.

Unlike Sethe in Beloved, I’m not sure if the past is a hindrance or an aid to Soloman. Clearly, his past was much brighter than Sethe’s, as he was living life as a free man with a family, but does this past encourage him to continue on as a slave until an opportunity for freedom arises? At first, his adamancy that he was a free man from the North resulted in beatings, so was his silence and conformity learned for simple survival or for a hope he would someday gain what he had already left behind?  I’m not sure of the answer. And, I’m not sure if it’s that black and white.

 Soloman’s past seems to be less an element to the plot than it is a portrayal of character. Morrison’s Beloved takes distinct aim at incorporating the past in all this is the present. Sethe is the way she is because of her past. Yet, Soloman must hide his past—his literacy, his freedom, his reputation. And unlike the scar on Sethe’s back, Soloman smashes his violin, erasing its existence. So, the past plays a very different role in 12 Years a Slave than in Beloved; it is less obtainable and less intense (and even deniable) in the small, short glimpses that it is shown. However, I wouldn’t say the importance is lesser. I’m just still trying to figure out what importance the past has on Solomon as a character. Thoughts?

Thanksgiving and a Particular Problematic Team

The thanksgiving holiday, as with any holiday, comes with certain traditions. The dinner is the main event of course, the Macy’s parade is always on the television, everyone knows that Black Friday is part of the holiday too, and football on thanksgiving is a tradition almost as old as the holiday itself. Of course, that is referring to the commercialized holiday rather than the Pilgrim beginnings.

Every child in the American school system learns of the historic first thanksgiving, where the Pilgrims and Native Americans came together in celebration of their first harvest. As the children of the American school system grow older, we all find out about the Native American genocides, and how awful the treatment of them was. As we learn about the true history, we learn about cultural appropriation, and offensive words. Of course, not everyone learned, and not everything has changed, which brings me to the topic of the American football team, the Washington Redskins.

In recent years there has been a debate about the team’s name, as it is a derogatory and offensive term. However, the owner of the team, Dan Snyder, still refuses to change the name for the sake of ‘tradition’. Anyone can realize how this name is problematic, even extremely dedicated fans such as the person in this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/redskins-and-respect-a-li_b_4178743.html . Unfortunately, the owner denies that the name is a derogatory word, and therefore refuses to change it.

On this thanksgiving, the problem Washington team name came up again, as all of the National Football League twitter accounts wished their fans a happy thanksgiving. The tweets included each team’s logo, and the Redskins team has a Native American as their mascot. So, this tweet had effectively become offensive by putting ‘happy thanksgiving’, a holiday associated with Native Americans, accompanied by a Native American face. The account was called out by many people in the comments, but there were also people who were offended that people were offended by the tweet.

While I have established the problem and controversy of the team name, and the owner’s ignorance, there is hope. Many high schools have changed their names from the derogatory word to something more acceptable, such as the DRIGGS high school in Idaho http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/teton-redskins-logo_n_3430496.html . Most high schools in the United States derive their names from professional teams. These high schools of course have their own traditions, but they can realize they need to change in response to blatant disregard for an entire race of people.

California has banned the name, and many newspapers, have stopped using the name in publication, such as San Francisco's The Chronicle http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/30/san-francisco-chronicle-redskins_n_4179212.html

As the Washington team’s name is completely derogatory and offensive, I believe its history has roots in colonialism, as it is an exploitation, or at least a reminder of the exploitation of Native Americans. Hopefully, with the growing pressure from football fans, newspapers, and high schools all over the country, Dan Synder will listen and change the name.

Black Friday: Revealed

Black Friday: Revealed

Black Friday is the Friday after Thanksgiving, where people go out, after saying how thankful for the things that they already have, and fight tooth and nail for more things. Many of the name brand stores drop prices lower than half the regular retail price, have door-busters, which if you're not careful, might turn into face busters. There are many different ideas about what gave the name Black Friday to that day of the year that people forget their common decency and fight for the last 55” flat screen television.

One idea that has been in circulation is the thought that it was made up by retail companies that are finally going to be able to go into “the black” after being in the red all year long. This term started being used by consumers in the 1980’s.

Another idea of where the term Black Friday came from is in 1994, with the Philadelphia police department. The term Black was used to describe the awful traffic conditions that occurred when people from all around swarmed into the towns causing terrible traffic jams. No traffic officer was able to take off the day of black Friday and the entirety of the station was put on 12-hour shifts all day. The headline written by a Philadelphia journalist called “Black Friday” was the apparent start of the name, which stuck and caught around the word.

Another conspiracy circling the beginning of Black Friday was the event in September of 1869, when the crash of the Gold Market caused the bankruptcy of the people on Wall Street all the way to Farmers. This was caused by two individuals; Jay Gould and Jim Fisk, who worked as a team to buy as mush gold as they possibly could, raising the price of it to a ridiculous amount, then try to sell it. However the plan fell through and the market went into a downward spiral.

            The Black Friday that had taken place in George Square in Glasgow, earned its name by being one of the most violent days in the cities history. This took place in January 1919. This riot was a result of the need for shorter workdays that was supported by heavy riots and campaigns. This also resulted in several injuries, and also the shortening of the workday.

Another day that might be referred to as Black Friday is in November 1910 when several hundreds of suffragettes peacefully marched onto parliament and were met while violent force from police. These police officers assaulted and arrested several different civilians.

Another way that Black Friday could have gotten its name is from the days of slaves. When African Americans were still in chains it is said that the day after thanksgiving, large amounts of slave families were separated and sold.

It is hard to say exactly where the name Black Friday came from, however it isn’t hard to tell that it is not associated with any of these things for the most recent generations in the United States. It is safe to say that the first thing that would come to the min of anyone 18 to 25 when saying Black Friday is: unbeatable deals.

High School Dress Codes

            Over break I had to go on my high school’s website to get some information about an exam I took years ago. While on the website I decided for some reason to look at the dress code to see what changes they made. My school was kind of known for making really extreme rules about what clothes we could wear. The three finger strap rule was greatly enforced and flip flops were outlawed early into my high school career because of a student falling while wearing a pair. While looking at the new dress code I noticed that a lot hadn’t changed but something sure caught my eye. There were a few pictures showing what was acceptable to wear to school and what wasn’t and in every photo only girls were pictured. There were no pictures of what guys weren’t allowed to wear. There was an X through a picture of a girl wearing yoga pants and a shirt that didn’t quite cover her butt. Everything else about the picture was perfectly “acceptable” she was wearing a loose t-shirt and shoes that I guess were appropriate for school. There were also pictures of girls wearing shorts that weren’t alright and tank tops that were showing just a bit too much shoulder.

            I’ve had conversations with many people about dress codes in high school especially in the beginning of the school year when it’s still warm and kids are wearing shorts so they are more comfortable in school. I think it’s completely unfair that young girls can’t wear a simple tank top in school because somehow showing shoulders and arms is sexualized in a high school setting. I think that if young boys can’t control themselves around a tank top that’s another problem. I remember being on the bus in ninth grade wearing a tank top and an older boy thought it would be funny to grab my bra strap and snap it against my skin. When I confronted him about it he said that if I didn’t want him to snap it my bra shouldn’t have been showing. Even at fourteen I knew that something was wrong in that logic. There was no reason for him to grab my bra at seven in the morning other than the fact that he thought it would be funny. I think it was more distracting in school being shooed down to the office to change call parents for a change of clothes or go to your gym locker to put on sweaty clothes just so you could return to English class.

            I think in high school making girls change just because their shorts are half an inch above their fingertips or because their (gasp) bra straps are showing is ridiculous. I think it makes girls feels ashamed of their bodies because they are constantly being told to cover up because they are making it so that their male peers can’t concentrate on Algebra. I think the excuse, which I have heard from males I have talked about this with, that young boys are raging with hormones and can’t control themselves is complete crap. The only experience that I’ve had with a guy being distracted with what I was wearing in high school was that one moment on the bus and he could have completely controlled himself but chose not to and instead made me feel uncomfortable just because I was wearing a bra. In college we can wear pretty much whatever we want to class and I have never once seen a guy get so distracted by a shoulder or some exposed toe in a sandal that he can no longer pay attention. 

The Stanford Prison Experiment

The Stanford Prison Experiment is an example of what Foucault was talking about in chapter 4. Specifically on pages 554 and 555 because it’s talking about how soon constant surveillance was not needed because the effects had taken permanency, just how the people in Stanford's experiment so forgot that they were just acting and soon became the thing they were pretending to be.

This shows just how much an environment can impact the mind and how people perceive themselves. This study shows just how malleable people are when it comes down to it. Surveillance is a high factor when it comes to people and how they act, and in the Stanford's experiment when see this happening. The people that were chosen to play guards soon forgot that this was an experiment and they began displaying abusive qualities that guards display. The people that played prisoners soon feel into line of real prisoners because this surveillance and treatment that the guards displayed were reinforcing how they acted and how they perceived themselves. This experiment shows just how far people are influenced by what they see and how they are surveyed.  “In October, 1971, soon after the study’s completion—and before a single methodologically and analytically rigorous result had been published—Zimbardo was asked to testify before Congress about prison reform. His dramatic testimony, even as it clearly explained how the experiment worked, also allowed listeners to overlook how coercive the environment really was. He described the study as an attempt to understand just what it means psychologically to be a prisoner or a prison guard.” But he also emphasized that the students in the study had been “the cream of the crop of this generation, and said that the guards were given no specific instructions, and left free to make up their own rules for maintaining law, order, and respect. In explaining the results, he said that the “majority” of participants found themselves no longer able to clearly differentiate between role-playing and self, and that, in the six days the study took to unfold, “the experience of imprisonment undid, although temporarily, a lifetime of learning; human values were suspended, self-concepts were challenged, and the ugliest, most base, pathological side of human nature surfaced” ( Konnikova). This brings up how the effects of constant surveillance leads people to fall into certain roles and these roles are hard to distinguish from what you really and the one of what people believe you to be. The power of surveillance leads there to be a compromise of identity.

One thing I find very interesting is how fast the effects of the experiment started. The experiment was to last for two weeks but it only lasted six days. The fact that the power of surveillance happened so quickly was shocking to me, and it goes to show how much people are influenced in how people view them. So in our society if the government is constantly surveying us it makes us think that we are doing something wrong and we fall into a Stanford experiment ourselves.