Authority the Notion of Obedience

¶ … Authority

The notion of obedience as it relates to social structure is one that researcher Milgram explored with his famous experiments. These experiments involved participants who think they are giving electric shocks to a stranger as they answer test questions incorrectly. The researcher observed the reactions to the experimenter, or authority figure, as the participants were told to shock a person they had never met, causing that stranger to scream in pain. This experiment did not actually involve electric shock, but the idea that the participant was made to harm another human being, willfully at that, because of the accepted operational authority of the experimenter, yielded interesting and telling results. Many of the participants flat out refused to continue while, interestingly enough, some of the continued to the point where they believed the stranger might have been killed by the electric shock. These varying levels of obedience show that authority, as it relates to social interactions and as an environmental construct, is subjective to the person being placed under it. This is to say that each person develops their own tempered responses to authority base upon their perception of reality and their environment. The experiment conducted by Milgram was strictly regulated so that each participant was given the same tasks, yet each one of them responded in different ways. Milgram himself was led to many different conclusions relative to this study.

Milgram's own responses to the experiment results are interesting. They reveal that certain reactions to obedience and implied authority tend to draw out different responses in different people, depending on their own temperament and life experiences. In "The perils of obedience" (1974) Milgram writes, "One theoretical interpretation of this behavior holds that all people harbor deeply aggressive instincts continually pressing for expression, and that the experiment provides institutional justification for the release of these impulses. According to this view, if a person is placed in a situation in which he has complete power over another individual, whom he may punish as much as he likes, all that is sadistic and bestial in man comes to the fore." This idea helps to explain the reaction of the participants when they are told to give a shock that was certainly lethal to a complete stranger. The concept of sadism and "evil" enter into the picture here as Milgram explores why some participants chose to end the experiment rather forcefully rather than issue to most painful shocks to the stranger. This explanation of authority and obedience seems to offer little in terms of scientific evidence, since the experiment was conducted the same way each time, and it would be ignorant of the human condition to assume that nearly two thirds of the population, as represented by the experiment's results, were sadistic or evil enough to knowingly issue a lethal shock to a stranger in an environment and situation that do not warrant lethal force.

Milgram also offers an alternative, yet possible explanation to the behavior of these seemingly sadistic participants when he writes, "After witnessing hundreds of ordinary persons submit to the authority in our own experiments, I must conclude that Arendt's conception of the banality of evil comes closer to the truth than one might dare imagine. The ordinary person who shocked the victim did so out of a sense of obligation -- an impression of his duties as a subject -- and not from any peculiarly aggressive tendencies." (Milgram, 1974). This conclusion more closely resembles the responses to authority that have historically taken place where atrocities occur and those committing them, objecting, feel obligated to do so due to the power of authority and the need to obey. Much criticism of the Milgram experiments surfaced after their completion, yet Milgram himself was able to show that the participants did not feel out of place or overly stressed by the false outcomes of the experiment.

Baumrind's response to Milgram's experiments, and an exploration of the concept of authority, entitled, "A Review of Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience" also argues that Milgram was conducting an unethical experiment. She writes, "The S. has the right to expect that the psychologist with whom he is interacting has some concern for his welfare, and the personal attributes and professional skill to express his good will effectively. Unfortunately, the S. is not always treated with the respect he deserves. The experimental objectives of the psychologist are seldom incompatible with the S's ongoing state of well being, provided that the E. is willing to take the S's motives and interests into consideration when planning his methods and correctives. From the S's point-of-view procedures which involve loss of dignity, self-esteem and trust in rational authority are probably most harmful in the long run and require the most thoughtfully planned reparations, if engaged in at all." (Baumrind, 1964). Not only is she arguing that Milgram's experiment put undue stress on the participants ("S"), but that the participant's self-esteem and rational trust in authority are also harmed in the long-term. This assertion is revealing in that both Milgram and Baumrind argue for an innate desire within human beings to respond favorably to authority. This suggests that human nature and societal structure exist in formats that involve authority as part of the everyday functioning as a species.

In "Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind," Milgram outlines his response to noted psychologist Diana Baumrind's criticism of the experiment itself. Baumrind argued that Milgram's experiments subjected the participants to unethical levels of stress and that making such decisions involved mental anguish and long-term negative psychological side effects (Milgram, 1964). These assertions, though grounded in the assumption that people were psychologically scarred or affected for life were found to be false after Milgram himself surveyed the participants and found that over 80% of them were "glad to have participated" and only a little over 1% "regretted participating" (Milgram, 1964). This shows an unequivocal need for human beings to exercise authority when they are presented with such opportunities to do so and to feel good about it. If more people regretted taking part in the experiments, it would indicate more of a conscious process of thinking and analyzing the situation regardless of the authority involved. Yet the results of Milgram's response to Baumrind yields fantastic secondary results in that it shows human beings' behavior and attitudes are entrenched by the authority figures surrounding them, and even when they are the authority figures themselves. This also adds to the evidence that a certain innate human desire to structure an individual's perception and environment in a way that authoritatively makes sense to them, regardless of the implications involved for others. This indicates that at both the individual and societal levels, human nature dictates that authority and obedience are deeply ingrained requirements for basic human functionality. But there is another way to look at the results of the Milgram experiments that helps to shed light on them contextually.