You can break a monkey very easily if you have the right equipment. Specifically, you need an item called the Pit of Despair. The Pit comes in two sizes — baby and adult — but both share the same basic design, summarised by inventor Harry Harlow like this: “troughs constructed of stainless steel, open at the top, with sides that slope inward to a rounded bottom that forms one-half of a cylinder.” Once your monkey is contained in its Pit, it cannot escape. It is the ultimate in solitary confinement.
The effects of the Pit are profound, and lasting. “You could take a perfectly happy monkey, drop it into the chamber, and bring out a perfectly hopeless animal within half a week,” explained one historian of Harlow’s work. But while you can’t fault the efficiency of the Pit, you might still be wondering about its utility. Why, exactly, would anyone want to go around psychologically destroying monkeys? And Harlow didn’t stop with the Pit of Despair: his creations also include the Tunnel of Terror, the Wire Mother and the Rape Rack.
The primate experiments Harlow did in the mid-twentieth century are painful to read about, and more painful to watch, if you search for the footage on YouTube. His aim, he said, was “to facilitate production of depression or other emotionally abnormal behaviours” in order to study them, but that barely describes the total dysfunction he created: monkeys raised in this kind of deprivation were so socially incompetent, they didn’t even know how to mate (hence the Rape Rack, since this was before artificial insemination was an option). When females had babies, they either neglected or — in some cases — attacked them.
One way to understand Harlow’s work is that he was interested in love. He studied it by removing it entirely from the lives of his monkeys. He forced them to be absolutely individual, entirely alone, and in this condition they ceased to be anything like their natural selves. Without other monkeys, there could effectively be no singular monkey. Even at the remove of all these decades, there’s something shocking about this insight — about what it means for humans, as well as the monstrous way Harlow came to it.
As primates go, humans are bigger and smarter than Harlow’s monkeys, but still primates. We still need other humans more than we need almost anything else. As a species, we can survive in the most inhospitable conditions. We’ve colonised blazing deserts and sub-zero wastelands. We can even live in space, albeit for short stretches. But what we can’t do is live on our own. Isolation is, simply, dehumanising. Even Ayn Rand, empress of individualism, needed to surround herself with acolytes to really feel that she was Ayn Rand.
When it’s done to prisoners, it drives them to self-harm and suicide. Eventually, they experience “social atrophy”, and like Harlow’s monkeys, lose the ability to interact with other people at all. In the considerably less horrific privations of lockdown, people have still felt the lack of casual contact as a debilitating loss — the absence of those seemingly trivial “weak tie” connections with people you know a bit but not all that well, the lack of occasion for smalltalk with a stranger. Those who seek solitude would still prefer someone to share it with: monasteries began when all the hermits in the desert started coming together to pray.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe“Right-wing provocateur Andy Ngo”, really?
I also leapt on that statement and was going to question it!
Me, too. He’s a courageous, fairminded journalist.
Me too. Here we go, I thought, with the preemptive cringe.
Lately being courageous and fair-minded is all it takes to be declared right-wing, a fascist, a Trump apologist (in the American context), or anything else in the long catalogue leftist terms of abuse. And, the turn of the 21st century Left is easily provoked; though uncovering unpleasant truths as courageous journalists usually do is always provocative. Thus, courageous, fair-minded journalists have become a species of right-wing provocateur.
Agreed – I’ve read one of his books, and unless I’m missing something he is neither a provocateur nor particularly right wing.
Everyone not to the left of Jeremy Corbyn is right wing.
It might be added that he’s gay and, as his last name indicates, of SE Asian descent, which qualifies as a minority in the US. I stopped reading much after that, as it indicates that the author is pretty woke herself. She is, in effect, siding with the totalitarian thugs of Antifa. And that’s a bridge too far for me.
He was brutally beaten and his family threatened by Antifa so he dangerously provoked them by relocating to UK.
And “Right-wing” is capitalised as if it were something other than simply holding some unremarkable political opinions, something more akin to an identity perhaps, or membership of a group with a proper noun name…
Insidious to the end.
Indeed. Where did that come from?
The author probably feels that she has to describe him as a “right wing provocateur” out of fear of being cancelled – in much the same way she so eloquently describes in this article.
Quite right, I suspect. Clearly she feels the threat and fears it.
The author doesn’t appear to recognize that this is one of the caricatures that fuels this nonsense.
That one ridiculous, baseless line discredits her whole argument in this article
“Cancel culture is bad, BUT…”
A shame really. Otherwise it was an insightful and interesting article.
Sarah Ditum really is a bit hit & miss, isn’t she.
And there I was thinking that the act of cancellation is far, far more prevalent amongst the social justice warriors. But wait, that is still my position.
“It’s not a manifestation of Left-wing censoriousness or Right-wing rage”.
The author is half right. It’s not a manifestation of Right-wing rage.
I would have been more sympathetic to the author’s plight if I hadn’t read most of her Unherd articles and, as a consequence, researched a little about her work.
Ms. Ditum has written extensively on women’s rights and the alleged discrimination women face in society. In her brand of feminism, the ultimate cause of women’s problems is almost invariably men, aka the collective patriarchy. Men are all tarred with the same brush as misogynists. The possibility that some (many? perhaps even most?) men are not misogynists is not considered. Those advancing a more positive view of men can expect to be vilified, dismissed or even, dare I say it, cancelled.
Now the author finds herself ostracized for allegedly making an ideologically unsound remark. Her pain is doubtless real and I strongly believe her cancellation was wrong and the action of cowards.
As I watched the clip from the Unherd interview on which this article is based, I was immediately reminded of Freddie Sayers’ interview with Suzanne Moore last year. Ms. Moore is a well-known feminist journalist with a long association with The Guardian (as does Ms. Ditum) until she resigned (or was pushed out) for making remarks deemed transphobic. Her interview with Freddie was full of cloying self-pity. Like the author of the present article she seemed to lack self-awareness. It doesn’t seem to have occurred to either of them that the treatment they have each received at the hands of the ‘progressives’ is not so different to the treatment they so enthusiastically dish out to men. They would happily ‘cancel’ the notion of a decent man, of a man who is not a potential sexual abuser, and the possibility that not all women’s problems can be ascribed to the ‘patriarchy’.
My comment will doubtless seem a bit harsh because Ms. Ditum’s distress is obviously real and I should be more instinctively sympathetic. But her interview also struck me as slightly disingenuous; a moralizer ostracized by more effective moralizers.
I was looking forward to watching the entire Unherd event in which Ms. Ditum participated. I sincerely hope there’s more to it than a bunch of cancelled people sitting in a circle sharing their woes. Whether he, she or they, self pity is unappealing.
The point with which bigots such as Ditum, Bindel, Moore etc will not engage is that this imagined “patriarchy” that supposedly disadvantages women also disadvantages men in equal measure.
In 2020 5% of FTSE 100 CEOs were women, but equally, 32.9 million other UK men and 33.75 other UK women weren’t FTSE CEOs either. 84,000 people are in prison in the UK of whom 80,000 are men, and 142 people were killed at work last year – in both cases, roughly the same men:women proportion as FTSE 100 CEOs.
Ms Ditum and her fellow travellers either know this but won’t acknowledge it, in which case they are too intellectually dishonest to bother with, or they don’t know it, in which case they are too intellectually deficient to bother with. Whichever it comes down to, the appropriate response to their witterings is the same.
Thanks. “And then they came for me”. Sad.
There is something satisfying about feminists getting canceled for their gender critical views – the revolution devours it’s young – but we have to push past that and support their freedom of speech, etc, even though you know they will turn on us at the first opportunity.
I will leave you to your nightmare, I stopped reading a few sentences in….. I have seen enough highly disturbing things in my life that I never can really recover from them – there is no need for a writer to explicitly use sadistic acts and horror to make a point. I am a hard man, and have seen very hard things, so know what it means, and I cannot hear of creatures, or people, to be intentionally tormented so, without it being very painful to me too. Life is hard enough as it is. This made me really sad
Indeed – agree fully and it was wholly unnecessary.
I concur. I managed to reach the end however, and noted this;
It’s a mistake to talk about cancel culture as though it belongs to any particular tribe. It’s not a manifestation of Left-wing censoriousness or Right-wing rage — or not fundamentally, at any rate. It’s what happens when you put several billion monkeys in front of several billion smartphones.
I don’t think the final sentiment negates the first. Thinking back to Jordan Peterson, perhaps the author was thinking of chimpanzees, not monkeys, since they too are fiercely tribal and also have the tools to rip an interloper to shreds through brutal strength or smartphones, to mix metaphors.
In an article about the monstrous cruelty, stupidity, and vacuity of the the modern Holy Crusaders, Miss Sarah refers to Andy Ngo as a Right-wing provocateur. Criticism of Antifa can only come from a “Right-winger”? Sarah, you need to have your brain washed out with soap.
I found this a very strong article and the monkey experiment gave a shocking introduction to psychological abuse.
Whatever Ms Ditum past sins and bias in her articles, I would still agree with the thrust of her article and how Tech Social media and Big Media is fuelling this bullying and psychological torture.
There are many bystanders who are anxious but often baying for blood themselves.
Where I part company with you is that she’s fine with “bullying and psychological torture” as long as it’s people she hates being subjected to it.
Woke cancellation is just sadism masquerading as virtue, in the Puritan tradition.
Unsurprisingly, since wokeness is in someways a vulgarization of Calvinism by the latter-day idiot children of the Frankfurt School’s Cultural Marxism: there are those predestined to be damned (in wokeness all light-skinned males of European ancestry whose sexual attractions and behavior are likely to propagate the species) and the saints (in wokeness women, “people of color”, people whose sexual attractions and behavior are suboptimal in Darwinian terms, and, unaccountably, Muslims).
I have sympathy with some commenters feeling that cancelling is mostly from the left, since social media is mostly controlled by right-on Californians. But I liked this article for its reasonableness (not entirely, Andy Ngo, but mostly). My comment is deplorably old-fashioned I know – young people will learn that they can depend on family and actual friends. Perhaps schools could start teaching that social media may be fun, but family and actual friends are for life.
Found this a really interesting article until Andy Ngo was described as a ‘right wing provocateur’. Antifa have tried to erase Andy from existence, get his books cancelled, even sent him to hospital. In an article about cancel culture the author displays a staggering level of cognitive dissonance.
Cancel culture has always happened. It used to happen to people who had affairs, were gay, or had babies out of wedlock. Until probably the 1970s divorced people were not allowed to take communion in the Church of England. Literally excommunication. All that has changed is that the targets and reasons are different.
Shunning people who don’t keep the rules is obviously an inherent need in the human psyche.
Very true -as far as i am aware ‘shunning’ has been practiced by humans since pre-history – so all this is just business as usual for the small minded and obsessive angry control freaks (in the true sense of that word). However the difference now is that the shunned can hook up with the many relatively sane people who occupy the planet. SO WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL HERE ??????
Sorry, but this phenomenon is not, even “fundamentally,” ideologically neutral.
Thank you for an interesting discussion of a disturbing phenomenon. It does suggest that more is going on than a self-righteous, even bigoted defence of truth against wicked error. I propose that ‘cancelling’ is a close cousin to ‘scapegoating’. Rene Girard has put the latter high on the agenda and so deserves to be brought into the conversation. Start, he tells us. with a collection of people. fearful, rivalrous, disunited. An individual is fingered as the source of of the trouble. As they come together to expel him, their divisions fade away, unity is restored, rivalry muted. The identification of the scapegoat cured the disorder so confirming that he was the guilty one. The question is what are the factors that generate the need to cancel, find a scapegoat again and again?
Great piece. Pointing out ‘danger element’ thrill of indulging in cancelling so relevant. Cancellers themselves are targets.
Indeed, if you live by cancel culture, expect to die by cancel culture.
Not agreeing with the premise of this thesis. To define yourself at any level in terms of how you are viewed by others is a logical nonsense. If you are lucky enough to be invulnerable to the economic consequences, what others think of you should matter not a jot – and especially not hoards of strangers. Oh, we all participate in the fiction of socialisation to progress the next step in life, but that don’t make the fiction any less of a fiction. It is no different from looking at a low-countries masterpiece where the artist has constructed a fictionalised framework of European lushness complete with waterfall and alpine mountains, while depicting some biblical allegory. The artist doesn’t believe the framework is real any more than they expect their audience to – it is just a backdrop so they can get on with whatever point they are making in the painting.
You stand alone, like it or not.
Andy Ngo is not a “Right-wing provocateur”. He’s a courageous, honest journalist. Can you in all honesty say that about yourself Ditum?
Good post! We will be linking to this particularly great post on our site. Keep up the great writing
Argent en 5 min via INTERAC
Great information shared.. really enjoyed reading this post thank you author for sharing this post .. appreciated
I like the efforts you have put in this, regards for all the great content.
I appreciate you sharing this blog post. Thanks Again. Cool.
I truly appreciate your technique of writing a blog. I added it to my bookmark site list and will
You are at the mark, I help you.
very informative articles or reviews at this time.
It seems people don’t understand what is “right wing” anymore, “conservatism” IS a right wing ideology, I don’t see where she’s wrong. Andy Ngo is much more than his antifa work, you know. And can’t minorities be right wing??? That is a bad look for people who claim to be rational. The fact you don’t call your ideas “right wing” doesn’t make them less so, leave this lack of clarity to the “millions of genders” crowd. Be proud of what you believe and think is right.