Skip to main content

Stanley Milgram's book Obedience to Authority is experiments directed at understanding the problem of the Nazis, starting on page 5 with Adolf Eichmann and the death camps. We can't avoid it. But we are here to apply his work to a much lesser evil—Republicans—and to ourselves.

Nazis in the concentration and death camps, among others, said

I was just following orders.
Adolf Eichmann, architect of the entire Final Solution against Jews, Gypsies, Communists, gays, and many others, claimed
I was never an anti-Semite…My sensitive nature revolted at the sight of corpses and blood…I personally had nothing to do with this. My job was to observe and report on it.
The Nuremburg Tribunal rejected those excuses. American military commanders also rejected the excuse from many Germans that they didn't know what was going on, and forced locals to tour nearby camps.

In the Milgram experiments, large numbers of people who said in advance that they would not harm others if ordered to do so gave up their personal consciences and went ahead and did it, excusing their behavior and ducking responsibility in many different ways. But by no means everybody. What would your excuses be? Or have you actually stood up to authority and made it stick?

This week we are going to examine the Yale experiments in obedience conducted by Stanley Milgram and their broad application to human affairs, and next week we will examine John Dean's application of the experimental results and the resulting theory to Republicans in Conservatives Without Conscience.

The Problem of Obedience

Obedience is one of the most important issues in human nature and society. Here are just a few seriously troubling examples.

18 “If a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey what his father or mother says, and even after they discipline him he still refuses to pay attention to them; 19 then his father and mother are to take hold of him and bring him out to the leaders of his town, at the gate of that place, 20 and say to the leaders of his town, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he doesn’t pay attention to us, lives wildly, gets drunk.’ 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death; in this way you will put an end to such wickedness among you, and all Isra’el will hear about it and be afraid.
Deuteronomy 21, Complete Jewish Bible translation
The greatest principle of all is that nobody, whether male or female, should be without a leader. Nor should the mind of anybody be habituated to letting him (or her) do anything at all on his (or her) own initiative–to his leader he shall direct his eye and follow him faithfully. And even in the smallest matter he should stand under leadership. For example, he should get up, or move, or wash, or take his meals...only if he has been told to do so. In a word, he should teach his soul, by long habit, never to dream of acting independently, and to become utterly incapable of it.
Plato, Laws
You must fashion [the person], and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than what you wish him to will.
Fichte, Addresses to the German Nation

On the opposite side, many have excoriated Nazis as the ultimate evildoers, but Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem proposed an opposite conclusion: Eichmann was not a sadistic monster but

an uninspired bureaucrat who simply sat at his desk and did his job.
She coined the phrase the banality of evil in this book, which aroused great controversy at the time (1963) but which Milgram wholeheartedly supported.

There are great evildoers in history. But they are only able to do such great evil because they are enabled and supported by many millions who agree, and millions more who just go along. Most people think that they and those they know would not do that. Experiment shows that most people are very wrong.

The Yale studies showed that almost everybody who thinks they would resist an order to harm another person would in fact go ahead and do it under some circumstances, although a fair number would object along the way. And in fact almost everybody allows vast harm to vast multitudes without significant objection.

Yes, I know, you aren't pulling the trigger or doing the paperwork, but many millions suffer in the continuation of Jim Crow or injuries being inflicted on women, immigrants, workers, and so on. We are all complicit in it if we do not act effectively against it. Around the world many millions are dying, and it is generally considered impolite even to discuss the matter in any detail. The biggest exception is among those Republican factions that actually approve of oppression. The other main exception is those who stand up to authority and tradition together, who are well represented at dKos.

The Yale Experiments

There were several Yale experiments over a four-year period, of which 18 are reported in the book, and many other experiments afterwards by other researchers. The original studies would now be considered unethical to recreate exactly, due to the unanticipated psychological effects on subjects. However, recreations within current

Milgram arranged for a laboratory setting with two rooms. One contained a control panel and buttons marked with supposed electrical voltages from 15 to 450 volts in steps of 15, and with legends indicating the severity of the shocks from Mild to XXX. The other contained a chair with restraints and a supposed electrical connection for administering shocks, and an apparatus for responding to questions with one of four possible answers. One person, James McDonough, played the role of the learner, who can be considered the victim, the supposed experimental subject receiving the shocks, throughout, and the role of the experimenter in a lab coat giving orders was played by a high school biology teacher, John Williams.

Experimental subjects were recruited widely in the area around New Haven to get a mix of ages, levels of education, and occupations. They received instructions telling them that they were assisting in an experiment to test the effectiveness of punishment on learning. They would read a set of word pairs into a microphone, and then read sets of words that the learner would respond to. For every wrong answer, subjects were told to push a button to administer a shock, increasing by 15 volts each time up to 450 volts, at which point the experiment session would end. In fact, the learner always responded with the same sequence of answers up to a certain point, and then refused to give any further answers. Subjects were told to continue with the shocks even after that.

If a subject objected to continuing, or refused to continue, the supposed experiment would give a sequence of up to four prods to get them to go on, starting over after each shock given with each new objection.

  1. Please continue, or Please go on.
  2. The experiment requires that you continue.
  3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
  4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

There were other prods to use in response to particular objections, such as an assurance that the shocks would be painful but not damaging. (In fact, ordinary household electricity at 110 volts can kill, but there were no shocks.) If the subject refused to continue after all prods were exhausted, the session was ended.

Milgram conducted many variations of the basic experiment, starting with the kind of feedback subjects got when administering shocks. When there was no feedback at all (Experiment 1), almost all subjects went straight through to 450 without question or objection. This was scientifically uninformative, so Milgram designed ways to increase resistance and sharpen the conflict within subjects to the point were significant refusal to participate appeared. When subjects could hear the learner pounding on the wall (Experiment 2), but nothing else, compliance was somewhat reduced, and there were some questions and objections, and some refusals to continue. When they could hear the learner complain, then shout, then scream, then fall silent as the voltage was supposedly increased, compliance fell further, to about two-thirds (Experiment 3), and objections and refusals increased, and so on with the learner in the same room, up to subjects pushing the learner's hand onto a plate to apply shocks (Experiment 4). But in no version of the experiment did complete compliance fall below 30%, even though no threats of any kind were made toward the subjects.

I cannot go through the rest of the evidence here, but I can give some of the highlights.

5 Move to basement lab, give learner a mild heart condition. No change in results.

6 New experimenter and learner with different personalities. No change in results.

7 Experimenter leaves after start, gives orders by telephone. Much more disobedience.

8 Women as subjects. More stress, but the same outcomes. No experiments were done with women as experimenters or learners.

9 Learner signs consent form only after demanding that the experiment be stopped if he says so. More objections, but no change in level of shocks given.

10 Experiment conducted in Bridgeport CT with no connection made to Yale. Slightly more resistance, but no significant drop in compliance.

11 Subjects choose shock levels. Only a few go to high levels, while some do not even go to the level where the learner expresses discomfort. So previous results are the results of authority, not inherent aggression.

12 Role reversal. Learner demands to go on with shocks, and experimenter says to stop. All subjects stop.

13 An ordinary man gives orders. The subject is one of three in the room, the other two being part of the experiment. He does not get any formal instructions on what shocks to give, but one of the others in the room (the bystander) suggests ramping up the shocks one step at a time. Compliance dropped by two-thirds, demonstrating the importance of perceived authority.

13a The bystander usurps the shock apparatus and systematically applies shocks all the way up the board. Many subjects fought with the former bystander or attempted to disable the electrical apparatus. Subjects who deferred to a scientist/experimenter completely apparently have no problem with confronting a co-worker.

14 Authority receives shocks with ordinary man commanding. The intended learner says that he is not willing to be shocked unless he sees someone else go through it first, and the experimenter volunteers to go first. At 150 volts he demands to be let out. Every subject broke off, with some discussion, at the first complaint of the learner, even though the person replaced demanded that the subject carry on to the end.

15 Two authorities in conflict, both experimenters in lab coats. One gives the usual instruction to continue, and the other orders the subject to stop at 150 volts, as soon as the learner objects verbally. All subjects stopped at that point or one step after, except for one who broke off sooner.

16 Two authorities in different positions, one as learner. There are two experimenters, who receive a planned call telling them that a subject has canceled his appointment. They flip a coin, and one becomes the learner. He demands to be released after a 150 volt shock, but the other experimenter orders the subject to continue to the end. Subjects either break off at that point or continue all the way through. Authority learners get shocked as much as ordinary-man learners.

17 Two peers rebel. Having social support for refusing to continue gave the highest rate of non-compliance of all of the experiments.

18 Peer administers shock. Subjects, feeling removed from direct responsibility, cooperate in going through to the end.

Understanding the Experiments

Milgram arranged for all subjects to be interviewed in detail after their sessions, and provided group discussion sessions run by Yale psychiatrists. It is worthwhile to read their accounts, specifically the excuses they give for their behavior, whether in following orders or in refusing to continue. Excuses include

  • I promised to do the experiment, so I had to complete it.
  • It's the responsibility of the experimenters.
  • It's the learner/victim's fault for making mistakes.
  • It would be rude to object or refuse to continue.
  • I have to show that I am competent at doing the experiment.
  • The experimenter will think badly of me if I object or refuse to continue.
  • I need to pay attention to the experimenter, not the learner.
  • If I break off now, I will be admitting that what I was doing was wrong.
  • I always have to obey legitimate orders.

The reason for objecting or refusing to continue is the infliction of pain, and fear for the learner's safety. The experimental situation creates a strain between that motive and the various motives for obedience. In some people, the strain keeps growing, and they object more and more strongly, but continue on anyway. In others, the strain reaches the breaking point and they stop, which relieves most of the strain immediately. None of the subjects did anything to try to stop further experimentation.

Much of the rest of the book attempts to explain some of these results theoretically, in terms of cybernetic, psychoanalytic, and evolutionary models. The most important insight here is the radical shift that people undergo from making their own autonomous moral choices to relinquishing autonomy and morality to those in authority. However, this shift is not complete. Conflicts between orders and moral principles lead to increasing levels of stress in individuals, which may or may not result in non-compliance depending on many factors that are still net well understood. Also, it is essential to ask what the criteria might be for people to accept others as authorities worthy of obedience. It takes a lot of work to inculcate obedience, on the part of societies in general, and especially schools, churches, militaries, and political movements.

Another important insight is how little we understand ourselves, if we have no experience to go on, and simply make suppositions about how we would behave. Try to imagine for a moment being in a Nazi-ruled or Fascist-ruled country, or a severely Communist country, where oppression is enforced by torture and murder at the extremes, and by censorship, propaganda, and social surveillance in daily life. What would you do?

  • Would you try to ignore everything and live an ordinary life, as so many did?
  • Would you try to emigrate, as significant numbers did?
  • Would you join in? What if you were drafted into the military as so many were?
  • Would you risk your life by sheltering Jews, as very few did, and many got caught?
  • Would you join a Resistance movement, as a significant minority did in some countries? That could be active sabotage and murder, such as we associate with the French Resistance, or just national non-cooperation, as in Denmark.

Now try to imagine being brought up by committed Nazis or Fascists or Communists. Could you have rejected the ideology and the oppressions and murders? How about science deniers? Would you have found and understood the evidence yourself?

You don't know. I don't know.

There is a great deal more research on obedience, far more than we can even glance at today. But I thought this, which popped up quite recently, was interesting enough to mention. We will get into obedience by dogs in considering Learned Helplessness, where it turns out that dogs can be taught not to be helpless.

Wolves cooperate but dogs submit, study suggests

For dog lovers, comparative psychologists Friederike Range and Zsófia Virányi have an unsettling conclusion. Many researchers think that as humans domesticated wolves, they selected for a cooperative nature, resulting in animals keen to pitch in on tasks with humans. But when the two scientists at the Messerli Research Institute at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna studied lab-raised dog and wolf packs, they found that wolves were the tolerant, cooperative ones. The dogs, in contrast, formed strict, linear dominance hierarchies that demand obedience from subordinates, Range explained last week at the Animal Behavior Society meeting at Princeton University. As wolves became dogs, she thinks, they were bred for the ability to follow orders and to be dependent on human masters.
Disclosure: At Yale in 1963 I learned about the Milgram experiments from some of Milgram's colleagues in the psych department. The book did not come out until 1974.

Next Time

We get to apply the Milgram results, among others, to Republicans next week, with John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience. Dean wrote that book after Milgram invited him to speak at a conference, and after reading Obedience to Authority and other research on authority and obedience, especially the work of Robert Altemeyer. I should add some of his work to our reading list.

Clearly, the passive sort of obedience Milgram discusses is not enough to explain the overt aggression that we see from a variety of Republicans on a variety of issues, including attacking each other. Nor can it explain the level of delusion and hypocrisy seen among leaders and followers alike, nor the level of psychopathic indifference to others displayed by so many authoritarians.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  When one submits to Authority, the survival and (6+ / 0-)

    the well-being of the Authority is as if it's their own survival and well-being.
       Right and wrong go out the window, as it's the Authority that's right, and anything in conflict with it is wrong.

    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

    by elwior on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 10:27:18 AM PDT

  •  Looks like nearly everybody is out doing some (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kbman, sfinx

    Labor Day thing. Well, I'm off to a Peace Corps picnic with people who went to dozens of countries over fifty years. I'll check in when I get back.

    Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

    by Mokurai on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 12:02:10 PM PDT

  •  Wanna shock somebody? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    belinda ridgewood

    That's the weird part.  Why would anyone participate in an experiment where to "test the effectiveness of punishment on learning"?  Doing so shows a willingness to harm others.  I'm not so sure obedience to authority is the issue; that may be built into us community-building hunter-gatherer types.  A willingness to inflict pain suggests a much darker side of the human psyche.

    •  They did not find out about the shocks (2+ / 0-)

      until they got into the laboratory. They were told that the experiment was about learning, but given no further details beforehand.

      One of the experiments allowed subjects to set the shock levels, with no suggestion to increase them. In that situation, subjects used only low shocks. This ruled out aggression and desire to inflict pain as motives.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 12:32:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  shock levels? (0+ / 0-)

        Once the subjects were informed that they would be shocking others mental alarms should have gone off.  Maybe it's me but the idea of harming others for any reason is repugnant.   I can't imagine doing so.

        •  That's what almost everybody says (0+ / 0-)

          but the evidence is that even the mild authority of an experimenter in a lab coat is enough to get most people to go through with it.

          Milgram thought the same thing, in fact. The original experimental design was set up for studying disobedience. Then in the first round they didn't get any, and they had to find out how to create it. It took several tries to get up to even a third of subjects refusing to continue at some point.

          Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

          by Mokurai on Thu Sep 04, 2014 at 10:42:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for your first comment, Astronut. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      What Mokurai said, plus, they were paying $4 plus .50 carfare for one hour, which would have been a much more attractive amount then. It's pretty common (speaking from the vantage point of the 70s) for people in the Yale psych department to advertise for experimental subjects, and for undergrads and locals to pick up a few bucks that way. I'd imagine there wouldn't have been anything unusual about that particular experiment when seen from the front end.

      Welcome to Daily Kos. If you have any questions about how to participate here, you can learn more at the Community Guidelines, the Knowledge Base, and the Site Resource Diaries. Diaries labeled "Open Thread" are also great places to ask. We look forward to your contributions.
      ~~ from the DK Partners & Mentors Team.

      Shop Kos Katalogue ❧ Help Okiciyap at Cheyenne River reservation.

      by belinda ridgewood on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 03:12:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can think of a few Kossacks who would likely (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, NoMoreLies

    be members of the 450 Club ... some with gleeful self-righteousness.

    Free: The Authoritarians - all about those who follow strong leaders.

    by kbman on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 12:33:26 PM PDT

  •  The US had a civil war related to this issue. The (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandino, libera nos, Limelite, NoMoreLies

    Constitution was neutral regarding slavery, freedom was national and slavery was primarily state law until the fugitive slave act and Dred Scott. The long game of abolition was based on lack of civilized tolerance for the peculiar institution which included legalized rape and incest.

    Seward was typical, raised with slaves in the family home. When they ran off, he found out they were not family but rather property, became a visceral abolitionist as a child. His home became a stop on the underground railroad. When he took a family vacation in Virginia, saw a barnful of slave children being raised for the market.

    Those who weren't traumatized by exposure could participate in a culture of violence that approved the slave market in DC, assassination attempts on Sumner and Seward, and the assassination of Lincoln. What Sumner called a culture of barbarism defeated Reconstruction and is integral to US politics. The US has a long history of barbaric experimentation with slaves, wage slaves, Native Americans, Chinese, Irish, prisoners, the mentally ill, women, what have you.

    The difference was that in 1776, the US was the only major nation taking a stand for human rights on the basis of democracy. Now the justifications for barbarism outweigh the religious and philosophical traditions of human rights developed by a JQA, Sumner or Eleanor Roosevelt. The Republican Party has incorporated as its own, the confederate alternative that all people are not created equal, the de facto cornerstone since the days of the middle passage and the Indian wars.  

  •  Stress, rank, and abuse of authority. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Limelite, Sandino

    Check this out for an example of abuse of authority and the creation of rank in another primate species from Prof. Robert Sapolsky. Start at about 00:46:30. The talk is mainly about stress, but he often emphasizes that stresses are transmitted down the ranks.

    If we abandon our allies and their issues, who will defend us and ours?

    by Bryce in Seattle on Mon Sep 01, 2014 at 05:01:29 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site