Analysis Of Rethinking The Classic Obedience By Tom Jacobs

Obedience to people in authority is a deep-rooted trait that we all possess by virtue of our upbringing, and as Milgram put it, “it is only the person dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, with defiance or submission, to the commands of others” (Milgram 1974). This trait is exhibited every day in family circles, workplace and school. People are most likely to obey instructions from people they perceive their authority to be legal or moral. We see people obeying their pastors, leaders in various societies and other people they see as higher to them; and they obey anything they are being told even if it involves killing another human being. They justify their actions, however wrong, on obedience to authority.

In this article, “Just Do What the pilot Tells You” Theodore Dalrymple and “The Genocidal Killer in the Mirror” by Crispin Sartwell express two different viewpoints expressed towards obedience. While both authors are addressing the issue of disobedience, Dalrymple approaches the issue, stating, “Some people think a determined opposition to authority is principled and romantic” (Dalrymple 3) while on the other hand, Sartwell emphasizes that authority, especially hierarchies are the most “evil” thing in our society. Despite the well-executed argument of the two author's, Dalrymple takes a self-centered approach, forcing the reader to agree with his opinion.

“The Perils of Obedience” was written by Stanley Milgram in 1974. In the essay he describes his experiments on obedience to authority. I feel as though this is a great psychology essay and will be used in psychology 101 classes for generations to come. The essay describes how people are willing to do almost anything that they are told no matter how immoral the action is or how much pain it may cause.

Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority for example; the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and

Obedience to authority is an essential part of a functioning society. At times, though, people are put in adverse situations with unkind or unfair leaders, yet there are many cases where these subordinates do not cease to obey their orders. There could be many contributing factors in someone’s persistent obedience, but the most persuasive reason is because people have an innate goal of self-preservation that needs to be met. This predisposition affects both the physical and the mental aspects of their actions. The physical side includes the simple matters of not getting hurt, and trying to keep a job that will provide money for buying food and paying for shelter. The mental portion includes trying to build and keep a reputation, as well as being well liked by fitting in and earning praise. While the movie The Devil Wears Prada focuses on the overbearing and authoritative nature of Miranda, as well as the growth of Andy in her identity, it is very clear that the primary factor of Andy's consistent obedience is her strong sense of self-preservation.

Everyday, people are forced to face with vicious circle of decisions: whether to stick to their morals or obey the authority figure. But it’s a fact that people have a propensity to obey authority, more than to preserve their own morals. A Few Good Men is a film that illustrates the struggle every marine faces-- to follow orders, good or bad. But why would marines follow the orders without hesitation if that order questions the principles they live by? Because the orders in the navy are meant to follow all for the reason of making everyone in Navy into good marines and to be strong enough to defend the nation. It required unquestioning commitment and obedience to orders. The articles, “The Perils of Obedience” by Stanley Milgram and “The

The film A Few Good Men, directed by Rob Reiner, accurately portrayed exactly how much of obedience they must show when becoming Marines, and also how authority works in the navy. It’s an everyday dilemma for people whether to stick to their morals or be submissive to their supervisors. Sometimes, people obey orders because they want to get rewards, and because they want to avoid the negative consequences of disobeying, but they also have the mind of not wanting to bad things and staying principled, all because they are human. But when it comes to Marines, they don’t seems to have options such as obedience or resistance. Inevitably, they are to follow orders from above, with unquestioning commitment. But a question that people are not answered most of the time-- how obedience should a marine be? The articles written by Doris Ann, Steve Banner, Stanley Milgram, and Philip Zimbardo question and present possible explanations on how obedient a man becomes when they are given orders by an authority figure and to what extent they would stay obedient. In the film, Lance Cpl. Harold W. Dawson and Pfc. Louden Downey followed the orders exactly how it was instructed to them although it certainly went against their morals, all because they were given the order.

In society, obedience to authority is ingrained in humanity from an early age, causing some individuals to blindly obey orders without contemplating the credibility of the source. In psychoanalyst Erich Fromm’s article “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem,” he explains that throughout human history obedience has been associated with virtue and disobedience with sin (Fromm 127). Fromm suggests that our conscience is an internalized voice of authority (126). Fromm claims individuals need to distinguish the difference between rational and irrational authority because obedience is effective when individuals want to obey, instead of fearing to disobey (127). Two other authors who examine obedience are Herbert C. Kelman and V. Lee

The aims and objectives of this paper is to provide a brief summary of Milgram's seminal research on obedience to authority, and describing Milgram's methodology as well as his results and his interpretation of those results. Additionally, we will be discussing what current research has found regarding conforming to authority. One of the biggest questions we will be asking in this paper, will the moderately of individuals most tend to conform to authority? Lastly, we will be explaining and discussing what current research supports or refutes Milgram's findings and then provide an overall conclusion about the origins of conforming to authority and how Milgram’s research has contributed to the field of social psychology.

There are several factors that can contribute to a person blindly following any type of authority, one of which is routinization. The Asch study was originally intended to be a test on how willing the subjects were to comply with peer pressure, but it also shows how easily routinization will affect a subject’s mind. Milgram’s experiment was to find out how willing a subject was to obey an authority, but it, too, shows that routinization of the authority’s commands affects the way a subject will act. According to both the Milgram experiment and Ash’s study, routinization is the major factor that caused subjects to obey authorities to an extent that they, most likely, never would have before.

The research “Obedience to Authority” was made by psychologist Stanley Milgram in the elegant interaction laboratory of Yale university in 1963. Milgram was eager to understand the behavior of the Nazi, why they killed all those Jews knowing they were innocent. Was is it because they were following orders despite going against their beliefs, or were they just doing inhumanly? He conducted this research because he wanted to know the power of authorities over an individual, and how far are people willing to go obeying orders from higher authority even if it is against their moral believes. In this research, forty random men were voluntarily selected from the age of twenty to the age of fifty.

Authority, in general, is manifested through obedience, if nobody obeys you, you have no authority. There are two main reasons why people obey said authority. Either they trust their authority figure and agree with the commands they are given, or they fear the consequences of disobedience. Most French and British men fought for their country because of the former reason, they believed they were fighting for a just cause; however, in due time, soldiers’ views changed, and they only stayed in light of the consequences of deserting. This juxtaposition between their fear of death and harm and the impossibility of desertion for survival created a dynamic that manifested itself through a plethora of mental illnesses

Authority and followership have been important concepts in Western history for thousands of years, but these concepts have also changed during that time. The most significant change is in how people see authority and how they see value in that authority. In other words, the question becomes how people determine which people are given authority and which are followed based on the values those people have and the value ascribed to those people by others (Samier, 2005). There is a value to being in authority and being followed by others, of course, but there is a responsibility that comes with that. Early in Western history, people simply had to follow whoever was in charge if they wanted to survive. They also often followed religious leaders (Kahn & Kram, 1994). As times changed, though, religious leaders were not followed as zealously by the masses. Instead, a new breed of authority figure emerged, and people began following those who were making money in business.

A person’s obedience can be derived from social pressure and group minds. Most all people live their lives in groups such as with family, work groups, school peers, political groups, etc. Also most people want to belong to a group and can’t stand being unaccompanied. We are group animals and tend to think as the group thinks which makes it hard for an individual to maintain their own opinions. According to Lessing, “People who have experienced a lot of groups, who have observed their own behavior, may agree that the hardest thing in the world is to stand out against one’s group, a group of one’s peers. Many agree that among our most shameful memories is this, how often we said black was white because other people were saying it” (653). A person’s

Among animals and in human societies this has been, is, and always will be the case." Is that a man that chooses nature over convention is the better man and should be in high positions of power to control the base. In animals, it’s the case of the strongest will survive and the animals that stay true to their nature will control their destiny and avoid being caught by their prey. I think it is true what Callicles says here. Those who have a natural bias to their beliefs and never do something against those beliefs because of the pressure from those opposing them have strong quality characteristics of loyalty and integrity and that’s what it takes to be a superior being. That is someone that I believe should be in positions of power to lead and can be trusted by the inferior beings.