Hi! My character is an important figure in the rebellion, so I feel like the guards would try to keep him isolated from the other prisoners (some of whom are also rebels) out of fear that he might incite riots/cause trouble (or at least escalate the existing trouble), but I also don't want to deal with the effects of him being in solitary confinement the whole time (about a month). Would frequent interrogations count as human contact in this situation or does he need more positive interactions?
Frequent interrogation could count as human contact but whether it’s enough depends on how frequent they are and the quality of the interactions.
Interrogations don’t have to be terrible, in fact they usually work better if they’re not.
The technical definition of solitary confinement is either less then one hour or less then two hours of human interaction daily (different organisations use different time definitions). The amount of interaction that any particular individual needs is- well highly individual. To the best of my knowledge it can’t be predicted.
But I think you can make a reasonable guess time-wise that would keep most people healthy. I think something in the region of four hours a day is a reasonable minimum. Having more interaction time should be fine as long as it doesn’t interfere with the character’s sleep cycle.
This wouldn’t have to be in one block chunk. Having multiple interviews in one hour, or half hour blocks, would work just as well as one long interview.
So far as I can tell it doesn’t really matter if the people don’t like each other or if they disagree. My impression is that it’s better if the interaction is positive but so long as it isn’t abusive it should still be enough to protect against the effects of isolation.
There isn’t any reason why you can’t make the interviews a positive interaction. Perhaps not at first, but gradually over time.
One of the things I came across a few times reading about conducting interrogations well was having the interrogator approach the situation in a way that gave an impression of neutrality.
Because yes the hostility is directed at the broad group the interrogator is part of (be it national, police, etc-) but we’re designed to connect to other people. To borrow from some of the tumblr sci fi posts that go around we pack bond. And our brains don’t really make exceptions for groups we’ve decided are bad. We see the people interacting with us and when we have no other choice for people to interact with- over time connecting to that person becomes more important.
We want to be seen, acknowledged and understood. A strategy interrogators can use quite successfully is showing that they’ve walked into the room without preconceptions about the person they’re interviewing.
In the most detailed write-up I saw the interrogator did this by showing the terrorist he was talking to an empty note book. ‘I didn’t come in here with a file. I don’t have any idea what you’ll say. Can you explain to me why you wanted to do this?’
This strategy doesn’t start out asking suspects for details. It starts by inviting them to make a sales pitch of their ideology. ‘Why do you believe this? Explain it to me.’
And this is a very good way of getting people whose politics are far away from the mainstream talking. As anyone who has met a conspiracy theorist in a supermarket can tell you (don’t ask them about MSG if you’re in a hurry).
Gleaning information this way is about building up rapport with the suspect over time, but it’s also about going over everything they say with a fine tooth comb in case they slip up.
And- a lot of people do. A lot of people would let little bits of information slip out while talking more broadly about The Cause.
One of the strategies people used to try and counter this was to sit backwards in the chair, so their back was to the interrogator and remain completely silent.
This is incredibly unnerving. It’s a visceral rejection of that natural human connection. And it can be extremely effective as a way to prevent the interrogator getting information.
But it’s also a form of self-imposed isolation. I suspect anyone kept alone in a cell who did this with every interrogator would manifest symptoms of solitary confinement.
This might put you in a different quandary.
Essentially if you’ve got regular interviews, with effective interrogators who are gradually building up rapport- the chances of the rebel leader actually giving up useful information at some point over that month is… reasonably likely.
The most effective resistance strategies against this kind of effective interrogation leave the character vulnerable to the effects of solitary confinement.
My instinct is that the best choice for what you want is to have the rebel character respond to the interrogators and treat it as if it’s a chance to persuade the interrogator round to the rebel’s side. And to give up a few pieces of information in the process.
It doesn’t have to be big things. Confirmation of someone’s allegiance. Confirmation that rebels were involved in particular incidents. Information about who within the rebel group this leader actually gets on with and agrees with, who they argue with. Any potential splinter points within the group.
There’s an article here about the work of the Alisons which should help give you some ideas for how to approach these interviews.
Key to this is understanding that everyone wants to tell their story. Not spill their secrets exactly but- we all want understanding. We all want to see we have the agreement and support of the people around us.
Even when we recognise intellectually that those people are our enemies.
