As we explore the topic of obedience in greater depth, I thought I would post about an oustanding experiment preformed by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s.
"In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating memory and learning. He is introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject. The experimenter explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning, and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the "learner." Lots are drawn to determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will become the "teacher."
Your co-subject is taken to a room where he is strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next, the "teacher" is taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator. The "teacher" is instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets the answer correct, then they move on to the next word. If the answer is incorrect, the "teacher" is supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating, ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled "XXX". The "teacher" automatically is supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" misses a word in the list. Although the "teacher" thought that he/she was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" is actually a student or an actor who is never actually harmed."
(The Milgram experiment, http://www.new-life.net/milgram.htm)
In the end, 65% of the "teachers" "shocked" participants up to 450 volts and none stopped before 300.
To get a sense of the actual experimental conditions, follow this link and it will take you to an audio recording of the experiment. http://learningat.ke7.org.uk/socialsciences/Psychology/PsyAudio/thirdguy.wav
While this experiment is morally incorrect, it showed a lot about how far people are willing to go to obey. The question is, why?
So to relate this back to genocide: Today in class Ms. Finn mentioned the Eichmann Trials. Eichmann was put on trial after the Holocaust for "crimes against humanity." While Eichmann did commit a crime, can it be said that he was 'just following orders'? As we know, many people in Nazi germany obeyed Hitler's commands, even if they didn't agree with them. My class (F Block) had a very interesting discussion around the idea of obedience and I wanted to open this up to anything lingering from today.
Some questions:
-What are your initial thoughts about Milgram's experiment? Do you find the results surprising?
-What do people fear if they resist and don't obey?
-Who is the most susceptible to obeying irrational demands? Why? (we touched on this briefly in class today)
-How can we teach people to not obey authority if what authority is promoting is sincerely wrong?
I know this is somewhat a broad topic, so anyone feel free to add anything and pose more questions!
7 comments:
having learned about the Milgram experiment last year in B+B, what I found most surprising was that the experimenters themselves expected less people to reach the highest level of shock, when in reality almost everyone did.
To touch on the subject of how an individual can be educated about when to follow orders is hard, I thank that it is a necessary thing to learn but challenging. For exmaple, as we also mentioned in class, Hitler focused on the youth and their education. If a dictator effects education is there anyway to stop the next generation from being blindly obedient?
in terms of why people fear disobeying, Katie mentioned in class that if a person's life was in danger if they disobeyed than it was ok to blindly obey orders. My only problem with this idea is what is considered putting ones life in danger? If a person disobeys the most obvious consequence will be a loss of their job. this job may not directly place their life in danger but if they are unable to find another they may have no money and end up starving... so when is obeying orders ok? is there a clear line that can be drawn?
We read about this experiment at the very beginning of B+B and I found the results to be shocking, but at the same time understandable. As I try to picture myself in the experiment as one of the individuals who had to administer the shocks, I would like to think that I would listen to my own morals and not do it, but I am then convinced that for me the presence of authority is so powerful that I could definitely, but sadly, see myself administering shocks (or whatever was demanded of me since this experiment is considered inhumane and I don't think could be done in today's society). For reasons that I cannot explain, there is some intrinsic quality of an authority figure that makes them "all-knowing" and "all-controlling" that causes subjects to obey what they demand for fear of the authority harming them or speaking poorly of them. I think that even when one knows that such responses are unlikely, there is a human nature(for lack of a more specific idea) to believe that any response is possible no matter how outrageous it may be.
In response to the question of how we can teach individuals to not obey when they know what is being asked of them is wrong, I don't know if it could ever be taught. I think that those who resist authority are individuals who are naturally inclined to be rebellious or unafraid of the consequences. I also think that it has to do with the situation that an individual is in at the moment something is demanded of them.
Also, to reiterate a question we briefly discussed today in class: who holds responsibility in actions taken during genocide? How much responsibility do those who say they were "just following orders" hold, if any?
In response to the post, and why people tend to obey, i think that what also affected the experiment and why the subjects went to such a great extent in the experiment was because they had no personal connection with the person they were harming, nor could they see them. I think the distance definitely affected why the subjects of the experiemnt went so far. In terms of the Nazis, i feel that the Germans obeyed because maybe they could not see what harm they were doing to the Jews, and definitely not right away. Everything was so gradual, like the author mentioned in the reading in class. Perhaps propaganda from the Nazis affected the way the Germans thought about what they were doing, that perhaps it wasn't that bad, or they don't physically see what they are doing at the moment by obeying the Nazis.
i think people generally obey when they think the person in command is an authority figure... this reminds me of a story i saw on the news a while ago... (i can't find any links to this story... but it was on dateline or something like that.)
there was a girl who worked at a mcdonalds in kentucky. she was called into the back room when the manager of the mcdonalds said there was a policeman on the phone.
the man on the phone claimed that the girl had robbed someone. he instructed the manager to have the girl strip-searched.
the girl was then sexually harassed by the manager's fiancee, all coming from the orders of the mysterious man on the phone. none of them had any proof that he was a real police officer.
is the manager to blame? the fiancee? could the blame also be placed on the victim?
-coe
Another part of the Milgram experiment I see mirrored in Nazi Germany is the gradual steps leading to acceptance. As the German professor whose account we read described, one of the reasons that the situation got so terrible in Germany was that, instead of telling the Germans initially about his plan to exterminate all the Jews in the country, he implemented it in gradual steps so that Germans accepted it. The Milgram experiment is similar: it didn't immediately ask the subject to shock the other subject at 450 volts, it instead went in 25 volt steps. I can imagine participants who never would have though that they would have done something like that at the onset of the experiment thinking, "I've already done 150 volts/250 volts/350 volts, why stop now?"
I really like that connection you made Diego! :)
Do you think this is a tactic/stategy that most dictators enact? Is it possible to teach people to anticipate a large massacre (or something harmful) coming by making them look at the "small steps"? How?
In response to Aileen's question, I think it is extremely difficult to get people to anticipate a large massacre because there is never definitive proof that the worst is going to happen. I think that is why studying history is important - because parallels can be draw between different events and situations, and a result can be anticipiated to some extent. However, those who have the power to change and affect the course of a nation often do not want to risk their jobs or positions to fight for something that is not 100% certain to happen. A lack of certainty about the course of history provides the perfect excuse for those in power. This also relates to the little steps that lead towards a massacre/genocide and the uncertainty that prevents people from acting.
Post a Comment