While a torturer might be a result of a social construction, studies were made into the willingness of people to inflict pain upon others. It is common for torturers to justify their actions as merely the carrying out of orders (O’Byrne 2003 p.182). An Example of this would be the torturing of the Iraqi soldiers by American soldiers in the Iraq war. One sociological explanation that sought to explain the understanding of a torturer is that although the subject performs the action, he/she allows authority to define its meaning (Milgram 1974a, p.48). This is justified by an experiment that Milgram undertook in the 1970’s to justify this problem. Milgram answered the call to this issue by performing a series of studies on obedience to authority. Typically, two individuals show up for a study and are taken to a room where one is strapped in a chair to prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next, the other person who is called the "teacher" is taken to another joint room where he is told to read a list of two word pairs and ask the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets the answer right, then they move on to the next word. If the answer is wrong, the "teacher" is supposed to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts and going up to 450 volts, in 15 volt differences. The "teacher" automatically is supposed to increase the shock each time the "learner" misses a word in the list. Although the "teachers" thought that they were administering shocks to the "learners", the "learners" were actually accomplices of the scientists who were never actually harmed. The theory that only those on the lower class of society would submit to such cruelty is discharged. Findings show that, "two-thirds of this study participants fall into the category of ‘obedient' subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, and professional classes". Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts. (Milgram, 1974). Milgram suggested that the people who shocked the victim did so out of obligation and not because of their aggressive tendencies and such (Milgram 1974 cited O’Byrne 2003, p.183). This theory of behavior explains how a torturer is brought about and the obligations of which are felt and the excuse to continue on with the act, therefore a torturer is made by this conception of duties as a subject.
The Theory Of cognitive dissonance suggests that there is a tendency in individuals to seek consistency in their thoughts and beliefs or their cognition (Jones 1999, p.15). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (Dissonance) something must change to eliminate those inconsistencies. In terms of adjusting our thoughts and beliefs with our actions, our thoughts or attitudes usually change to accommodate our actions and behavior. In a torturer’s case, he/she will distant themselves from their action in discrepancy between the cruelty and immorality of torture and their own sense of moral decencies and moral standards. (O’Byrne 2003, p.183)
Another theory that could explains the making of a torturer in a way through devaluing, derogation and dehumanisation of the victim (O’Byrne 2003, p.183). This is the method in which the victims of torture are made to be sub-human and torturing them would be no worse than torturing an animal, this was used by the Nazi’s against Jews, homosexuals and gypsies and also by the British against the Indians a long time ago.
There are countless numbers of factors which could contribute to the making of a torturer but these theories are somewhat thought to be the most common and logical of the rest, these theories try to explain how anyone is put in the situation of torturing and the theories behind the torturer’s abilities to go on with their actions.
Bibliography
Jones E.H. (1999). Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology (Science Conference Series), U.SA: American Psychological Association
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority, Harper and Row.
O’Byrne D.J. (2003). Human Rights: An Introduction
Riehm R (2000). Race and Ethnicity, U.S.A, Available From:
