Societal Obedience

Societal Obedience

In the last century, scientists have conducted experiments to better understand human behavior. In their studies, more questions have evolved and in turn have become topics of interest for further examination. In Philip G Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, and Stanley Milgram’s The Perils of Obedience, it is apparent that social pressures are prevalent in society. In detail, we will discuss how people’s obedience levels and willingness to comply with authority, even when the results can be detrimental to the self, or others, are products of the individual’s social circumstances.

In 1963, Stanley Milgram conducted a study at Yale University monitoring the obedience of students when told by a person of authority to do something that was morally wrong. Milgram would take two subjects, and assign one, “teacher”, and the other, “student.” The teacher would go through a series of questions, and each time the student would get one wrong or not respond in a timely manner, he would receive an electric shock, each shock stronger than the last, ranging from 15 to 450 volts. What the teacher does not know is that the student is actually an actor, and the electric shocks are not real, merely a means to observe the teachers response to the shocks. The teacher is put under pressure when he or she realizes that the student is ‘expressing discomfort’ (315). “At 75 volts, he grunts; at 120 volts, he complains loudly; at 150, he demands to be released from the experiment. As the voltage increases, his protests become more vehement and emotional. At 285 volts, his response can be described only as an agonized scream. Soon thereafter, he makes no sound at all”(315). The conflict the teacher faces is extremely intense. When the teacher hesitates out of fear and moral judgment, the examiner orders the teacher to continue. Milgram wanted to know at what point people would realize that disobeying was the right thing to do.

Milgram’s results were astounding. In the first experiment, forty Yale students were studied. The students were told the study was investigating the effects of punishment on learning. Twenty-five out of forty subjects, most of whom expressed signs of moral dilemma and nervousness continued the shocks all the way through. These students were later informed of the real grounds of the experiment. Milgram’s colleague later called these results irrelevant stating, “Yale undergraduates are a highly aggressive, competitive bunch who step on each other’s necks on the slightest provocation”(316). This anonymous colleague brought up a valid point. Students at an institution such as Yale may be more inclined to block out moral obligations to themselves in order to get ahead. These student’s obedience levels to authority could very well be a product of the competitive atmosphere that Yale society brings.

Yale is an internationally recognized institution of higher learning. Yale students typically come from parents that are in some position of power or social relevance. There are some students who may have come from nothing and worked hard and put themselves in that position. In either case, both types of students are on the competitive edge. The kid with rich parents might feel an obligation to continue in his parent’s footprints, and may have considerable pressure to do so. These students often feel that they must climb to the social peek. The other kids that worked hard feel that they have to do whatever it takes to become recognized and get ahead. Both examples are likely to do whatever it takes to be successful. These twenty-five out of forty students may very well have thought that doing what the examiner says might go a long way, feeling important for being involved in a study.

Milgram later conducted his experiment again. This time he studied those of different social classifications, from white-collar workers to the unemployed. Though the overall results remained about the same, we gain further knowledge of what role social class plays in people’s obedience level.

Morris Braveman, a thirty-nine year old social worker, had extremely interesting results. When the shocks become more serious, and the experimenter becomes more urging, Braveman is unsure what to do. After briefly asking about the intent and means of the experiment, he feels reassured by the examiner and continues, laughing and giggling uncontrollably out of disbelief after administering the last series of shocks. Braveman later tells of his grief through the process, “There was I. I am a nice person, I think, hurting somebody, and caught up in what seemed a mad situation… and in the interest of science, one goes through with it"(320).

Bruno Batta, a thirty-seven year old welder, showed no such signs of compassion or concern. When the subject does not answer,