As my quote from C.P. Snow suggests, I’m interested in the human drive to obey. Over the decades, many psychologists have also been interested in this, as part of another human drive; to understand why.
Indeed, the most infamous experiments into obedience were conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1961 and 1962, in order to explain the actions of Nazi concentration camp guards during the horrors of the Holocaust who used the argument that they were only following orders’.
Armed with little more than a fake newspaper advertisement, lab coat and imperatives as verification of his authority figure, Milgram’s researcher was able to convince 100% of his participants to deliver potentially fatal electric shocks to a complete stranger, who they had been informed, had a heart condition. Indeed, some 65% proceeded to shock this man (who was in fact a confederate-an actor- who remained safe and unharmed) up to a level of 450 volts, when he appeared to all intents and purposes to have died where he sat.
The results of this laboratory experiment caused unease amongst many, as cultural factors such as the strict fascist mind set in Nazi Germany as opposed to the more liberal U.S seemed to have no bearing on whether or not people obeyed figures of authority. This raised the truly sobering thought that any normal man or woman may be capable of acts of genocide, regardless of race, culture or ethnicity, just because they are told to.
This view is supported by the findings of Meeus and Raajmakers in 1986, conducting an experiment into the obedience of the Dutch people in insulting and verbally abusing potential job applicants. Despite the Netherlands being specifically selected as a study for cross-cultural verification due to its liberal nature, the results were depressingly familiar; 22 of the 24 participants concluded the experiment by delivering all 15 abusive comments.
These experiments are taken in different cultures with different levels of liberal thought permeating their society, across a period of two decades, and demonstrate very similar findings. One of the only variables which remained the same is the fact that the participants were human, which raises the question, are we genetically predisposed to be obedient to authority figures?
Certain aspects of Milgram’s study may support this theory; though many of his participants cried, suffered bouts of nervous laughter and in some cases even had seizures due to the ‘moral strain’ they were under, they continued to obey orders, suggesting a strong compulsion, almost need to continue, even against their own better judgement. Once more, this raises disturbing ideas about automatons, brainwashing, and other dark imagery of the worst that humanity is capable of.
The truth of the matter is far less melodramatic, and can probably be traced back to the age of early man. At this stage, leaders of small social groups influenced day to day decisions which impacted upon the lives of their groups, and the decisions of good leaders were thus followed without question or cognitive reasoning as to why they should be followed; they simply kept you full/happy/alive. The gift of hindsight allows us to identify this as a strong possibility, with those that followed orders surviving to pass on this trait, whilst the more rebellious members of primitive man met an early demise (if only they’d listened).
This genetic code can be seen to have become formalised, with the belief in the Great Chain of Being placing authority figures as being of greater moral, spiritual and physical worth than their followers, as well as through divides in class and gender; people obeyed these fairly meaningless cultural distinctions due to a biological instinct to obey authority figures, through an unconscious belief that they would provide what was required by the masses.
This explains issues such as the slaughter of innocents by soldiers at war, racial and sexual discrimination in all walks of life, as well as the feudal system in general. Indeed, the genetic urge to obey is so strong that it takes truly momentous events to break the ingrained need to follow figures of authority. For example, it took the death tolls of the First World War to show us that following the aristocracy because they were authority figures did not end well for those concerned. The German Reformation demonstrated changing attitudes towards the clergy, with acceptance of their limitations and encouraging their removal as secular authorities. Disobedience, we therefore learn, is a painful and unsavoury experience bought only through intense struggle.
But of what of those who disobey? The ‘2 in 24’ as found by Meeus and Raajmakers, what does their behaviour demonstrate? Are they the results of centuries of disobedience, a particular personality type, perhaps a genetic divergence which highlights the survivalist aspects of the individual over the blind obedience to a pack leader? They could be either one of these things or all. It is my personal belief that the rise of education, the development of moral codes and methods of cognition that has caused the rise of disobedience in culture. If obedience is genetic, encoded and unconscious in many cases, disobedience demonstrates the conscious evaluation of an order and the decision to ignore, contradict or contravene it. By that I don’t mean that those who obey don’t evaluate what they’re being asked to obey, I merely make the point that disobedience requires this evaluation in every case; if you are given one option, to obey, you are likely to do so without cognitively assessing that option. If given the choice to obey or disobey, you MUST evaluate the two and choose from this the best option.
Thank you all for reading my maiden blog, I hope this wasn’t too long winded or boring. The above issue is far from exhausted, there is still much more to come, but I hope that was informative. As previously stated, any comments or suggestions are more than welcome, and, on the above note, I order you to read my next article.
Happy blogging.
No comments:
Post a Comment