Embate, John Mervin L.

SOC130

The findings of Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority experiment are alarming.

Milgram himself discussed “[The results of the study] raise the possibility that human nature
cannot be counted on to insulate men from brutality and inhumane treatment at the direction of
malevolent authority.” People obey authority even if the command means to inflict pain to
others.
On May 2009, Milgram’s experiment was replicated in a documentary “How Violent Are
You?” by BBC. The procedure of this experiment was similar to that of Milgram’s 49 years ago.
Out of the 12 subjects, nine delivered the final punishment of 450 volts, an indicator that
Milgram’s findings are still valid and evident even at the present time.
What does this imply?
In the experiment, some of the subjects showed hesitation when they heard the “learner”
screaming out of pain. They even wondered if they have already killed the person at the other
room when no response was given after the questions were asked and electric volts were
delivered. Yet, despite this they continued to proceed. This behavior can be explained by
cognitive dissonance. There is a conflicting thought in the minds of the subjects. Should he stop
the experiment or must he go on with it? What they tend to do is to justify their actions. They
deferred the experiment to the authority. They tried to suggest to themselves that they were
merely obeying orders and they are not responsible for any consequence that may arise from the
experiment. They also think that they are doing this for the sake of science, which justifies all
action since it benefits the greater population of the world.
There is however a concept of empathy. English poet John Dryden once wrote, “For pity
melts the mind to love.” If the subject is in the same place with the “learner” where he could see
the other person struggling and suffering in pain, perhaps he would be more likely to stop
obeying the orders. Proximity matters. People tend to associate their level of relationship with
one another based on their distance or lack thereof with one another. If the subject were closer to
the “learner” they would suppose having a closer relationship, which in turn would discourage
them to inflict pain even if the authority tells them to do so. But since the subjects were in the
same room with the professor, the perceived closeness of relationship was associated not with
the “leaner” but with the authority.
There is also the fear of punishment. If the subject continues the experiment, he would be
punished by the “learner” for inflicting pain; if he refuses to proceed, he would be punished by
the authority. But since he is closer with the authority, who by the way displays stern looks of a
professional, there is a greater chance of receiving a direct punishment from him than that of the
“learner.” He has no choice but to obey therefore.
The professionalism exhibited by the professor is also a great factor. He is consistent in
pretending that he is a professor who comes from a recognized institution. There are replications
of the experiment wherein instead of a professor the authority is played by a commoner. In these
experiments, obedience is minimized.
Since the subject is having conflicting ideas in his head during the experiment, weighing
which is more beneficial between morality and science, what he tends to do is to adapt to the
situation by becoming less conscious of his behavior and comply to the commands to lessen the
conflict. Complying and conforming definitely give one less trouble and thus liberate him from
worries.
The results of this experiment have always been scary. They reiterate the extent to which
an individual can obey someone with greater position even if it entails causing pain to someone.
However, I still wonder why a lot of people still disobey the rules and the authority nowadays.
What’s with Milgram’s subjects that made them obey that common people who vandalize, jay
walk, cheat, and commit crimes do not have? Perhaps it is because of three things: proximity,
trust gained by the authority, level of conflict and reinforcement. If the person of authority is
near a person and has greater possibility of inflicting punishment once the person disobeys, there
is no other way but to comply with the rules. That is why the presence of a policeman or a traffic
enforcer on the streets is still more authoritative than that of signs and slogans posted
everywhere.
People will also most likely obey if their attitude toward the authority is positive,
meaning the authority has earned their trust well. However, in most societies, most especially in
the Philippines, factors and social institutions like mass media continuously expose the
wrongdoings of most of our political figures and security frontrunners. For this reason, trust
becomes blurry and obedience is minimized.
If the level of conflict is high, people would resort to an escape, which is to comply or
conform. In Milgram’s experiment, the conflict of ideas was extremely high; it is a matter of
morality and science. But if the level of conflict is low, for instance the usual habit of texting
during class despite the reminder of the teacher not to, the person tends to disobey.
The extent to which the rules are reinforced and the commands are given incessantly
affects the behavior of the people on obedience. For instance, citizens would likely obey the
rules of crossing the streets using the pedestrian lane if they are continuously reminded of it
through a lot of posters and signage.
Milgram’s experiment only shows how an authority, like the government, possesses
power that can control and manipulate its subordinates. Authorities should therefore have a clear
state of mind and pristine, unvested interest in order to preserve the integrity of its people.