The outcomes seemed terrible and unexpected. The surveys done before experiment by Milgram had mistaken. With remarkably similarity, various kinds of people, who asked for probable outcomes of experiment, predicted that no one would obey the experiment. It was of course unpredictable to say that an ordinary person can fully obey to authority although he sees or hears people complaining and screaming with pain. But, the twenty five of forty participants were fully obedient to experimenter and set electro shocks till the end.
“Stark authority was pitted against the subject’ strongest moral imperatives against hurting others and with subject’s ear ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not “(Milgram, p.1). As Milgram indicated above, authority makes people behave against their cognitive and moral concerns about hurting someone. There were basic instincts in all of us to harm something and someone, according to Freudian point of view. Those instincts emerge in our id that contains “a reservoir of unconscious psychic energy that strives to satisfy basic and aggressive drives “(Myers, p.479). As a social animal, we are supposed to not do what it says to do because of our social identities that consist of some norms earned in society. We hide our id’s wishes to not break social norms and take to control. Under authority, id finds a way to realize its wishes. People given order to hurt someone obey without refuse to satisfy their inside drives to act sadistic, to hurt someone. And in that way, the evil in all of us show its face. As Sherman indicates, under authority, a dark side of human nature becomes appeared (p.306).
The way that id finds to show its face, reach its wishes is lack of feeling of responsibility under authority. People who don’t feel themselves responsible for consequences of their actions so what authority commands whether it is morally true or false. This condition of mind that is has lack of responsibility and relatively lack of morality is defined by Milgram as “agentic state” of mind. According to his definition, agentic state is a state of mind in that people “no longer view themselves as responsible for their own actions but define themselves as an instrument for carrying out the wishes of authority” (Russell and Gregory, p.341).
To consider themselves as an instrument of authority make easy do things that are cognitively and morally dissonant. The actions that normally hurt the concept of self, contrast with the beliefs possessed are acted when ordered by an authority figure. The reason for those is that obedient don’t undertake possible bad consequences of their actions under authority. And so, they obey without refusing even the commands contrast with their own ideas and concerns about hurting someone. In the agentic state, when the moral and legal burden of actions is left on the authority, the feelings of responsibility, morality, regret and compunction disappear. Because they think that if I were, I won’t hurt him or her but if authority wants, I can do because it don’t matter me. So, as Russell and Gregory indicates, the agentic state “helps to make morally undoable doable by minimizing the levels of sensory perception, reducing emotional strain and enabling people to deny themselves and others responsibility for their own individual actions” (p.341).
The immoral and evil acts happened with commands of authority are called “crimes of obedience” by Sherman. According to Sherman, crimes of obedience “become possible when individuals abandon personal responsibility for actions taken under superior orders, continuing obey when they ought to be disobeying “(p.287). The criminals of these crimes of obedience are of course authority figure who gives order. Authority figure plays vital role on the conditions that make ordinary people do cognitively and morally dissonant things.
It is important that what authority figure represents to obedient. The knowledge, status, bureaucratic and hierarchic position, personal features of authority affects the obedient level of people who are commanded by it. To provide an example, in the Milgram’s experiment, the experimenter represents a scientific authority. The person who gives orders to hurt an innocent is an experimental scientist in a prestigious institution, in Yale University. As it is mentioned by Erich Fromm, it is common that science is most important and never falling value for an average person and no one in society would believe that science commands something unethical, wrong or illegal (Pigden and Gillet, p.234). Because of the authority figure that makes believe people believe through its scientific knowledge, participants obey certainly without any suspicion in their mind and refuse.
As Sherman mentioned in his essay, Weber classified the authority figures as “traditional”, “charismatic” and “legal or rational-bureaucratic” (p.296). According this classification, Buddha can be considered as traditional authority or Atatürk as charismatic and rational-bureaucratic when he became president. Hitler in Holocaust represents also a charismatic authority figure. He has inherent ability to manipulate people and to give indisputable commands. He caused killing nearly 6 millions of people in Holocaust just by giving orders and making people obey to his authority.
Once people who are expected to give in an authority perceive authority figure as perfect and authenticity, those would not want to “make an open break with authority” (Milgram, p.12). They want to go along with authority whether they think its commands are moral or not. This is one of the behaviors which Sherman took as processes that promoted obedience to authority, “compliance” (p.294). According to his definition, compliance is that “individuals accept influence from another person of…in the hope of achieving a favorable reaction, or avoiding an unfavorable reaction” (p.295). To please the authority, “to be a good a ‘good student’”, people chose to comply with fear of punishment or any violent reaction of authority (Pigden and Gillet, p. 239). They can find a way to deal with disturbing moral concerns but they are afraid of not finding a way deal with reactions of authority.
To perceive authority as perfect and authenticity sometimes brings internalization of authority and that increase obedience. Internalization means, according to Sherman, personal acceptance of “influence because the induced behavior is congruent with his value system” (p.295). When obedient interiorize the commands of authority and think that they don’t contrast with his personal, moral beliefs, this make easier to obey authority without any concern in their mind. Anyway, after obeying for a while although disagreement with authority, then they begin to think as the way authority think and begin to internalize authority’s commands, beliefs.
Even if they don’t internalize authority, people can obey if there are “no role models for defiance” (Myers, p. 611). If no one refuses to obey, people even don’t want to refuse although they don’t want to obey. This behavior is caused by feeling of ‘social conformity’. Social conformity is like as compliance, influence resulting from a person’s desire to gain approval or disapproval (Myer, p.609). Social conformity mostly occurs in a group of people who do something together. People choose to conform to be in group. Existence of other people who are ordered adds more pressure to obedient. Because obedient feel necessity of gaining approval of both authority and group. As an example, in the mostly parts of the Milgram’s experiment ,the teacher can’t see other who refuses to deliver higher level of shock and all of them think that everyone obeys and achieves their tasks. So, all they want to do is to gain approval of the group of other teachers by obeying to experimenter and continue to experiment till the end. As reverse, in one variation, three teachers, two of them are actors and one is real participant, were together teaching and delivering shocks. When two actors disobeyed and refused to deliver a higher level of shock, thirty- six of forty subjects joined their disobedient and refused as well (Milgram, p.16). Social conformity has also an affect on authority.
Although Milgram’s experiment’s occurrence in a laboratorial environment is criticized by Pigden and Gillet, it reflects the reality of that authority can have ordinary people do morally and cognitively dissonant things. The Holocaust provides us a more realistic and true-life example of obedience to authority. The people who took role in the killing millions of people have normal, ordinary people who follow the orders and obey the authority as participants in Milgram’s experiment. Adolf Eichmann, the director of Nazi deportation, is mostly known and studied actor of Holocaust. He was considered as a “desk-murderer” who worked as a banal bureaucrat under authority of Hitler (Jackson, p.248). Jackson says that Eichmann was in the belief of that do not obey to his authority is more immoral and criminal than killing people (p.240). The internalization of authority can observe on Eichmann because he became an admirer of Hitler. He was a “neither perverted nor sadistic… (but) terribly and terrifyingly normal” (p.335).He just was doing his job that required obeying his superior and following orders as all the other ordinary criminals in Holocaust. He was most marginal example of power of authority to make people do morally dissonant things.
Even if every authority figure and condition make a different effect on people, even if people has various reason to obey to authority, finally and mostly, they chose to obey the authority as Milgram highlighted. Under any authority, people would act in a way that is morally, cognitively dissonant despite the fact that they are ordinary people in their normal life. Holocaust is most terrible and disturbing event that claims the power of obedience to authority.
Works Cited
Carlson, Helena M. “The Devil Made Them Do It?” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 7.1(2007): 247-49. PsycINFO.EBSCO. SunaKırac Lib., Koc U. 15 March 2008
Helm, Charles and Mario Morelli. “Stanley Milgram and the Obedience Experiment: Authority, Legitimacy and Human Action.” Political Theory 7-3 (1979) JSTOR. SunaKırac Lib., Koc U. 22 March 2008
Jackson,M. W. “Eichman’s Judgement: The Loss of Moral Community.” Bull. Austl. Soc. Lep. Phil. 235 (1985): 235-253 HeinOnline. Law Journal Lib. Suna Kırac Library, Koc U. 10 May 2008
= journals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=srchresults
Milgram,Stanley. “The Perils of Obedience.” Harper’s Magazine. December,1973: 62-77. http://www.harpers.org/archive/1973/12/0021874
Myers, David G. Exploring Psychology: Sixth Edition In Modules. New York: Wort Publishers.2005.610-13.
Pidgen, Charles R., and Grand R. Gillet. “Milgram, Method and Morality.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 13-3(1996):233-250. BlackwellSYNERGY.SunaKırac Lib.,Koc U. 28 March 2008.
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1468-5930.1996.tb00169.x?journalCode=japp
Russel, Nestar and Robert Gregory. “Making the Undoable: Milgram, the Holocaust and Modern Government.” The American Review of Public Administration. 35-4 (2005) Business Source Complete. EBSCO. SunaKırac Lib., Koc U. 21 March 08
Sherman, Edward F. “A Social Psycholgy of Citizens Obligations to Authority: A Review of Crimes of Obedience.” American Journal of Criminal Law 17-287 (1990): 287-305. HeinOnline.Law Journal Lib. Suna Kırac Library, Koc U. 10 May 2008
