Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA27418 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 24 May 2002 15:32:12 +0100 Message-ID: <570E2BEE7BC5A34684EE5914FCFC368C10FD03@fillan.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: The Experiment Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:25:03 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
<<But none of the prisoners have tried
> the Ghandhi approach of peaceful non-compliance.>>
>
<They don't need to because they have the upper hand. In Ghandi's
situation I
> think he realised that that they did not have the upper hand and that
> violence would bring violence. The prisoners have the upper hand, violence
> is out anyway, so what need have they of non compliance when they have a
> good idea they won't get punished.>
>
Fair point, well made.
<It would seem to me that the failure of the guards to have a leader
and
> power structure made them vunerable from the start as they could not act
> but
> react after discusion with the others. One of the rules of war is to make
> the other person react, rather than act. I suspect the scouser is well
> aware
> of this and more or less said so at the end of episode 2. Once they are
> forced to react they are not in control.>
>
Yeah, I'd agree here. They should perhaps have worked out a
hierarchy, with someone as head guard, who would perhaps have little direct
contact with the prisoners and made the final decisions about punishment.
<Ghandi's choice was valid for his situation, but it is not for
every
> situation. Ghandi had the moral belief we are all the same under the skin
> and so had moral superiority.>
>
I think in situations of conflict and confrontation it is a good
method, because it's difficult to do anything about aggressively. Sure
there's a real risk of getting assaulted or worse by just sitting
there/standing there, but even the nastiest regimes find it difficult to
keep killing crowds of people who aren't doing anything but standing around
for very long (increasingly so now the international community can get
access to what's going on). It worked for the civil rights movement in the
US, to some extent, and Michael Moore suggests it to Arafat in his latest
book arguing, reasonably I think, that at some point Israeli aggression
against peaceful protest and non-compliance won't be tolerated by the
international community- not even in the US. Wishful thinking? Perhaps, but
the suicide bombers aren't working either.
Vincent
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.=============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 24 2002 - 15:54:05 BST