The Perils Of Obedience Summary

Stanley Milgram, an American social psychologist, opened many minds as he explored a very common habit that humans exhibit every day. One could infer that it was his curiosity which prompted him to write on this topic provided that he was born into a Jewish family. This topic is the human behavior of obedience. “The Perils of Obedience” was written by Stanley Milgram in 1974. This essay is based upon the findings of his experiment he conducted in 1961 at Yale University. The goal of the experiment was to find out how far an ordinary citizen would inflict pain on another because of his orders given by the experimental scientist.

In theory, he wanted to find out to what extreme measures will an individual go in order to obey authority?

The original design of the experiment was using two random people and have one act as a teacher and the other as the student. The teacher’s job was to read the student a list of simple word pairs and the student had to remember the second word of a pair. The punishment for not remembering the second word of a pair was for the teacher to shock him/her with a shock generator, but each time the student answers incorrectly or refuses to respond the shock intensity would increase. Little does the teacher know that they are the target of the experiment, and the student is actually pretending to receive the shocks. Milgram argues people blindly obey authority because the sense of responsibility shifts, the situation involves displacement or presence of authority, and the desire of approval.
First and foremost, Milgram asserts it is our sense of responsibility that makes us feel accountable for any and everything we do.

He demonstrates this claim to readers through two of his teachers used in the experiment: Gretchen Brandt and Fred Prozi. Gretchen Brandt, a thirty-one year old medical technician, would hesitate to continue on several occasions when the learner would complain of pain. She is informed about the learner’s heart condition and suggests to the experimenter that the experiment should not go on unless the learner agrees. She goes on to tell the experimenter that she does not want to be held responsible if something were to happen to him and discontinues the experiment. Fred Prozi shared similar reactions with Gretchen Brandt by re-presenting the argument of “being held responsible”. The experimenter then tells him that he is responsible for anything that happens to the learner. Although Prozi hesitated a little, he proceeded with the procedure a little more at ease since the responsibility had now been shifted from him to the

experimenter.
Additionally, Milgram implies that when someone is displaced and/or there is a presence of authority it becomes easier for them to obey.

All of the subjects experienced displacement because they were placed in the experiment with no relation to the learner. By not having a relationship with the learner, it makes it a bit easier for them to distribute the shock. In some cases, if you do not know a person, then you are not as emotionally involved which makes it easier to follow out the task given by the authority. Another subject, Mr. Braverman, gave a surprising reaction of laughter which probably stemmed from his “severe inner tension”. This experiment gave him the opportunity to release his tension, but one could infer that he probably would not have reacted the way he did if it was someone he knew. Furthermore, obedience took a downfall when orders were given by telephone. However, when the experimenter came back to the lab, the disobedient learner would then continue. It is something peculiar about the absence of a relation and the presence of authority that tends to make us more obedient and more

compliant.
Moreover, Milgram makes evident that the feedback and approval one receives after completing their duty or task gives a sense of fulfillment. In Mr. Batta’s experiment it states, “[h]e shows appreciation for the help and willingness to do what is required” and this shows that even before the experiment started Mr.Batta sparked an interest in satisfying the experimenter. Indeed, throughout the entire experiment he stayed loyal and obedient to the experimenter. One could infer that he lacks attention outside the experiment so inside the experiment he endows in the opportunity to stick out and gain the experimenter’s approval. In fact, even after the experiment he expressed to the experimenter how honored he was to have helped. Mr. Batta, as well as many of us, feel the need to win over authority because we hope to receive accolades and recognition in return for our obedience.
To put it succinctly, there are many reasons one could come up with for why we obey authority. The main four assertions for why we blindly obey authority is because responsibility is shifted, the situation involves displacement or a presence of authority, and our desire of approval. With this in mind, we all in some way have been manipulated by authority making us, in some cases, like Eichmann. We have become so accustomed to following orders and as a result, we can easily become actors in a “terrible destructive process”. When has authority and our free-willingness to obey gone too far? We must step back and evaluate the information Milgram provides us with and next time think twice before we ignore our instincts.