Sources of sadism
Was it conditions at Abu Ghraib or perverse human nature that led to these atrocities?
Those hoping to see a flicker of anger or remorse or conscience on the faces of the American soldiers photographed tormenting Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib are likely to be disappointed. Evidence of how these young recruits apparently became gleeful sadists can be found in neither their faces nor their biographies.
While many theories have been advanced about the forces that tragically came together at Abu Ghraib--inadequate training, overzealous intelligence gathering, failure of leadership--none can adequately account for the hardening of heart necessary for such sadism. So the question is: Are there particular conditions in Iraq today that might shed light on why these soldiers committed these unconscionable acts?
The usual points of reference in psychology are two classic studies that attempted to explore the capacity for evil residing in "normal" people. In 1971, Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo created a simulated prison and randomly assigned students to be either guards or prisoners. With astonishing speed, the "guards" indulged in forms of torture and humiliation not unlike those horrifying us today. This followed on earlier experiments by Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram on obedience to authority. Milgram recruited volunteers to participate in what he described as a study on learning. An actor sat in a chair that students believed was wired with electricity. Each time this actor would give an incorrect answer, the students would be directed by Milgram to deliver a larger shock. As the subject in the electric chair seemed to suffer more and more, 2 out of 3 of the unwitting students administered shocks that would have been lethal in real life.
Every soldier? These experiments demonstrate that Everyman is a potential torturer. But what relevance does that have to Baghdad today? Robert Okin, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California-San Francisco who has worked with victims of torture, says that while there are lessons to be learned from these studies, the particulars of the soldiers' life in Abu Ghraib also need to be taken into account. In Iraq, Okin says, the abuse became "an inexcusable way of working off their rage, anxiety about their own safety, and their sense of helplessness."
The anxiety and helplessness are exacerbated by difficult living conditions and constant danger--including the unfavorable odds of 450 military guards overseeing 7,000 often hostile prisoners. Then there is the issue of sex: One of the least discussed aspects of the occupation in Iraq has been the lack of a reliable local brothel where male soldiers are able to unwind. Experts have long appreciated the fact that sexual activity can often be a way of relieving the anxiety of war.
Abu Ghraib also has three traits that psychologist Herbert Kelman has described as necessary for torture: authorization, routinization, and dehumanization. To translate the jargon, authorization means that someone with power needs to say that extreme measures are acceptable. (Pfc. Lynndie England said in an interview last week that her superiors said, "Hey, you're doing great; keep it up." )
Authorization leads to routinization, a kind of division of labor. In Nazi Germany, for example, one person had responsibility for writing the orders to deport the Jews, someone else for shaving their heads, and so on. The guards at Abu Ghraib were told they were merely "softening up" the prisoners for interrogation. Such parceling out of responsibility, says Boston psychiatrist Jonathan Shay, "seems to tantalize someone's moral compass, making it possible to do things that might be personally distasteful."
Dehumanization follows. In Vietnam the enemy became "slopes," and in Iraq they're "towel heads." Covering prisoners' faces with hoods, Okin adds, makes it possible for the soldiers "to sever any empathic human connection with them."
The protected walls of Abu Ghraib made it an island where conventional morality no longer applied. When these soldiers testify at court-martial, perhaps their testimony will contribute to the psychological theories on blind obedience to authority. However, Okin says, "The ethical questions just don't go away; horror doesn't go away by being able to explain it." And indeed, as the explanations always fall short, the horror continues to loom large.
This story appears in the May 24, 2004 print edition of U.S. News & World Report.
advertisement
