Stanley Milgram was a man fascinated with the study of behavior. He wanted to investigate why we do what we do. Milgram grew up in the New York city, where he attended high school and college. He then went on to graduate school at Harvard University and earned a Ph.D. He began to show an interest in social issues and eventually created cross-cultural studies in Norway and France about conformity. He worked along side another well known psychologist, Solomon Asch, who was also concerned with studying conformity. In contrast to Asch, Milgram wanted to investigate conformity that happened in the average person’s life. This led him to start questioning bigger picture motives. He was interested in the acts of the Nazi soldiers during World War II. He wondered about obedience to authority. He published his book “Obedience to Authority” in 1974. This book was intended to answer the posed question of “why followers obeyed leaders who ordered them to do something that would almost certainly not have done otherwise.” In a study of a group of average people, Milgram tests their conformity to authority figures.
What motivates the average person to commit horrible acts of inhumanity? This was the question that Milgram tested in his study. He wanted to investigate the possibility that “evil is banal”. In this excerpt, Milgram starts off by addressing that in all communities some form of authority figure(s) must be present in order for it to be a functioning community. In other words, authority is some what of a necessity. He is fascinated with the acts of the Nazi soldiers because he see that all horrible acts committed by them may have been thoughts originated by the leader, yet “they only could have been carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of people obeyed orders.” I find this a fascinating way to look at the Holocaust. Everyone always views Hitler as this evil man who killed millions of Jew, yet the only reason why he has any power was because people let him. Milgram says that “obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose.” He describes it as a glue that binds us to these authority figures. They have the power because by obeying them we have willingly given it to them.
The motives that really intruguied Milgram were the obedience that takes place on a smaller scale- with the average human being. Milgram conducts a study to test his ideas. The basis of the study is that a person was told that the experiment would carry out a series of acts that increasingly came in contact with their conscience. Milgram wanted to know how far these people would go to comply with the authority figure, in this case the experimneter. The participant would be the “teacher” who was told by the experimenter that he would be testing memorization by the effect of punishment in learning. The “learner” was an actor who would be strapped into a chair with electrodes attached to his wrists. He is told that with each wrong answer he would receive a shock that would increase in intensity. The teacher is set up in the room next door with a switch board with volts starting at 15 going until 450. These are accompanied by verbal cues similar to “Danger” or “severe shock”. The point is to see “how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measurable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim.” How far will they go?
As the test goes on, the actor is told to start missing questions, and in turn the voltage increases. The situation becomes uncomfortable as the teacher hears the learner shriek and grunt in pain. Milgram says “each time the subject hesitates to administer shock, the experimenter orders him to continue.” Milgram wants to know how much it will take to push the person to stand up to the authority figure. He reasons that this small scale investigation is nothing compared to situation of Nazi officers, but still shows us how we have been taught to act towards authority. Milgram discovers that “despite the fact that many protest to the experiment, a substantial proportion continue to the last shock on the generator.” When hearing this, some people might think that these people must have been inherently evil, but they were just ordinary people. Milgram concludes that “the ordinary person who shocked the victim did so out of a sense of obligation, and not from any peculiarly aggressive tendencies.” This can lead to the conclusion that some part of our society is teaching us these ideas about authority, or in Milgram’s words “the form and shape of society.” Some part of society teaches us that authority figures are ones that are socially encouraged to obey. This problem still arises today. Why do we listen to our parents, our teachers, celebrities, and political figures. What gives them the power to control us? The answer: we do.
1. What do you think about Milgram’s idea that “obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individuals to political purpose” (pg.105). What role does social obedience play in politics today?
2. Who has power in our society today? How did this power come about and what role does the obedience of this leader’s followers play in their success?
3. In Milgram’s passage he says that says that most would say that they would never administer even the first shocks, but in reality every participant did. What is your reaction to this? Why do you think this happened/ what role did the presence of the experimenter have in this result?
Sources: http://muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/milgram.htm
Leadership for Social Change | Saint Louis University 
I think the references to Hitler and the Holocaust relate back to the power of the first follower. Like the dancing man in the video we watched, Hitler had an idea and went with it, but the true momentum or action came from the first person to agree and support his goals. From that follower, people were able to justify going along with the ideas they inherently knew were wrong. This goes to show that after an initial start has been made, the power resides in the followers. Although the followers hold the power, they often times fall victim to blind obedience. Picking a leader is a grueling, long process in which the followers must cypher through all the characteristics of each leader option. After a leader is picked, they stop questioning the actions and opinions of the one that made the cut. This results in obedience without self-thought rom the followers, and a downward spiral for any group.
In response to Gina’s post, I would like to extend what she says about blind obedience. I think it goes farther than blindly following a leader. I think people may be blind even when they choose a leader.
I believe that people have a propensity to favor the candidates who appear strong, tall, and masculine – regardless of whether they’re male or female. This natural attraction to outward strength blinds people when they choose a leader since outward, physical strength may not always indicate strong, inner strength.
Now, the basis of these thoughts assumes that people will not take the time to get to know these leaders personally – that they’ll simply pick the one who seems the strongest – and, for the most part, I believe this assumption has some truth in it. Not everyone chooses to study a candidate’s ideologies, goals, passions, and actions. Some even choose a candidate based on one issue.
The point to be made is that not all people choose to rigorously study who to lead and when they don’t they often follow the one who appears to be stronger.
In my opinion, people say that they would not administer the shocks because they believe that they will not intentionally harm another individual. in reality, Milligram’s study illustrate that ordinary individuals will administer shocks in the presence of an authority figure. In this case, the experimenter was the authority figure. In the experiment, the individuals administered the shocks because they were following the directions of the authority figure. This does not shock me ,because to the ordinary individual the experimenter is responsible. As Freud discussed, the presence of the experimenter acted as reassurance that the shocks were not live threatening. When in Milligram’s experiment there was no presence of an authority figure, the probability of the individuals continuing administering the shocks after signs of discomfort from the “learner” decreased.
I think that social obedience plays a major role in politics today. Without the idea of social obedience where people are expected to adhere to certain thoughts and beliefs, even in a democratic system to an extent, many people would be lost in the world and unable to be an effective and efficient member of society. Social obedience gives guidelines for people to follow that allows their conscience a rest from deciding if something is acceptable or not because they are just following the “orders” of their leader. Social obedience in politics is what keeps politics and governments alive.
I think that often times so much trust in put into leaders and authority figures, people will blindly follow him or her. When someone comes along who shows enthusiasm for a cause and one person begins to follow him/her, momentum builds and soon many others follow as well. I don’t think though that people necessarily hear what is being said so much as they follow the momentum. This is seen all the time in politics. People will blindly elect officials into office based on who has the largest momentum. It is the idea of obedience and blindly following a leader.
I think Milgrim makes a valid argument saying that often we are simply following authority rather than reacting to our own inclinations. We as people give our government power and to a degree this is what allows order to stand. However, at some point people may give to much power to the leadership and find themselves far astray from their moral standings. I have witnessed this with myself even in groups of friends. On person is often the leader and because everyone else listens to him ore her so does the individual. More often than not this seems like a natural reaction than a conscious choice made by the individual. In general, I believe that Milgram was correct in his saying that people will follow authority purely as a natural reaction.
Social obedience has its benefits and its downfalls. Obedience facilitates an environment in which a lot can get done. If everyone did what one person wanted or what society expected of them, the desired goal, whatever goal that is, would be achieved with great rapacity. However, no real evolutionary progress would occur. Without the need to change for the sake of the betterment of society, we would essentially be living in a continuum of normalcy and boredom. We would never evolve because no one stood up and pushed us to change our was of thinking.
Social Obedience is crucial to the success of a society. If we did not follow the laws or pay our taxes, our system of civilized living would crumble. However like all efficient systems, there are certain checks imposed on social obedience and that is free spirit of the people. Like John Locke’s theory, the people must always have the power to revolt if necessary. Obeying your society is good as long as the intentions of the society are just. If they are not or the government no longer serves the people, the people must organize in their disobedience.
I think that the presence of an authority figure can greatly alter people’s behavior. It can force people to be more well behaved if they fear being reprimanded and it can also pressure the individuals to conform to the authority figure’s expectations. In the shock experiment, the individual perceived that the experimenter expected them to administer the shocks and, not wanting to disappoint the authority figure, they did something they would not have done on their own. Authority figures can cause people to do things they typically would not do on their own, no matter if those things are good or bad.
I found Milgram’s experiment to be very interesting. The idea of causing harm to another human simply because you are told to seems absurd. However, as seen in the experiment, the presence of an authority figure warps a person’s morals. When you look at the situation, it is easy to say you would never administer the shock. But, similar to peer pressure, when someone is watching your every move, encouraging you to continue, it would be hard to resist. When someone is given authority over another person, they are often seen as having a greater power. In a way, that is true. They do, to an extent, hold certain power over you. However, no one can truly have power over your decisions. When someone is given that power though, it causes people to forget their individual choices and assume they must obey. They go in to a sort of “survival” mode and begin thinking about helping themselves instead of others.
I think that in many predicaments, we don’t truly know what we would do until we are presented with the problem. Much of our decision-making process is situation based and it is difficult to say for sure what I would have done in this context. The way the “experimenter” was dressed would probably have played a large part in my decision. If the person looked official, then I probably would have naively assumed that the experiment was legitimate and it only seemed terrible to me because i didn’t have all of the information involved. Whenever I feel like I don’t have all the information necessary to make an educated decision, I usually just go along with what the person in charge says. As much as I would like to say that I would stop administering shocks, that is probably not true.
Stanley Milgram has sparked a lot of my thinking relating to influences of authority figures. It’s interesting how Nazis obediently followed Hitler’s rule. Similarly, it’s the reason why we follow our teachers, parents, and peers. Humans are innately naïve. We constantly learn and live off of our elders and people who can give us a sense of direction and a passion to live by. We give them our obedience. In politics today, social obedience plays a major role. If we give our obedience to an authority figure, that figure essentially “owns” us. That figure is our mother, someone that gives us what we need in order to survive in the world of politics and climb up through the business world. It’s shocking how much prevalent social obedience is in our world.
I think in most cases, we wouldn’t know what we would do until the situation arises. For example, I would like to think that I would never administer even the first shock, but the more I thought about it, I think I would actually do it. I feel that most people have been raised in a world where power and authority are key. We have always been taught to obey our parents, teachers, and any other authority figure. Too often are people willing to blindly follow authority.
Jess made a really good point when she said people will sometimes blindly follow and may not even actually know what they are following. A good example of this is our own presidential elections. You can watch youtube videos of voters being asked basic questions about a candidate and getting them completely wrong, yet they know exactly who they’re voting for. Having followers isn’t always a positive thing, it is people like that who can inhibit a cause.
I agree that a lot of the time today people tend to follow leaders and causes simply because that is what is expected of them. It’s much more rare to come across someone that truly knows a lot about the cause for which they are supporting. This is especially prevalent with regards to politics today. Being on a college campus, it is quite easy to decipher who is truly passionate about the candidate that they are voting for versus the people that vote for the party, or because their parents voted for them. It’s hard in today’s society with the television commercials, and radio adds to get lost in the “who” we are following and forget about the “why”.
Obedience is huge in politics today. When we vote for politicians, we have little to no idea of what or who we are voting for. We are obedient because we listen to authority. In this case, authority is parents, teachers, informed students, and unfortunately, the media. Obedience has become an increasingly modern concept through the outlet of the media and it is interesting to see the level of trust instilled in a non-personal relation.
I agree with Varun on the fact that we are obedient to the rules that society sets up for us. The media in our part of the country makes us feel like we have to vote a certain way or we are going against what we believe. This, in my opinion, only elicits our obedience if we are ignorant to what we really believe and are willing to let someone else tell us how we should think or vote.