Of particular value to this essay are interviews with two participants in that experiment, "teachers", one of whom quickly refused to continue shocking the "student" with current, and the second reached the deadly toggle switches. If I were the publisher, I would place this essay as an appendix to the collection of works by S. Milgram. In any case, I strongly recommend it to anyone who wants not only to study dry statistics and a detached academic description of the experimental methodology and its results, but also to feel what happened to real people there, or try to imagine themselves in their place.
In the era of total visualization and the Internet, one can not only read about scientific discoveries of the depths of the human psyche, but also see documentary video reports about them and artistic reconstructions of these insights in order to achieve the most complete immersion in the virtual world of S. Milgram's life and in his laboratory.
Feature films are not made about every scientist half a century later, but about S. Milgram two years ago (2015) the film "Experimenter" was released, in the center of the plot of which is the famous experiment on obedience to authority, and three years earlier, in 2012, a film was shown on the screens "Experiment 'Obedience'". The latter is based on a true story about how a skilled manipulator, pretending to be a police officer, reproduced Milgram's experiment on unsuspecting people, actually ruining their lives.
There is also a documentary film report about the experiment in submission, "Obedience" (1965), which was voiced into Russian and shown at one time on Soviet television in the popular science program "Under the Sign of Pi". Documentary "Human Behavior. Experiments ”(The Human Behavior Experiments, 2006) contains a short excerpt from an interview with Stanley Milgram and places his work in the context of later socio-psychological experiments and tragic life situations that clearly illustrate them (experiments). Both films are easy to find on the Internet and get a strong boost - emotional and intellectual.
And when you finish reading this book, and the essay I recommended for it, and even watch four films, two documentaries and two feature films, but on a documentary basis, then what will happen to you? Science does not know this - and will never know, which is well explained in the book to which I refer below. And you will almost certainly have a question, what practically useful crystallized out of the experiments of S. Milgram and his colleagues, whom he mentions in many of his works?
If you are a student or have decided for yourself or for some professional purposes to delve deeper into scientific knowledge about the mechanisms of behavior of a “social animal”, then the next book on your desk should be the monograph “Man and Situation. Lessons of Social Psychology” by L. Ross and R. Nisbett, which summarizes the fundamental results of socio-psychological discoveries, including those of Milgram.
Let me remind you that the study of submission was an attempt to answer the question of the reasons for the involvement of millions of seemingly civilized people in the destruction of other millions in the territory of European culture, which gave birth to democracy, humanism, the idea of human rights and a scientific and technological breakthrough with fantastic results.
Has social psychology found a definitive answer on what mechanisms shape human behavior? Yes, I found. Does this answer hold the key to preventing catastrophes like two world wars and dozens of "limited" and now "hybrid" wars? Do we now understand what needs to be done so that people stop succumbing to the tricks of sociopathic manipulators, absorb hate propaganda, obey criminal orders and criminal power? Do we now understand what needs to be done so that people make decisions in any dubious situations as often as possible in a balanced and independent way, without being carried away by the mythical “charisma” of a leader or guru and not mindlessly copying the same thoughtless “normality” “like everyone else” or “like mine favorite band"?
In the twentieth century, many controversial studies and experiments were carried out, but the most striking and well-known to the general public among them are probably psychological ones. And not just like that, because the conduct of such a study affects ethical factors, as a result of which it sooner or later becomes the subject of general discussion. And one of the most famous psychological studies of the 20th century was Stanley Milgram's submission experiment. Concepture will tell about it in its capacious and informative material.
Subordination dilemma
Only the lazy have never heard of Stanley Milgram's experiment. And even if you think you don’t know what it’s about, then with a probability of 80% you once heard about Milgram and simply forgot. The details of the experiment are described by him in the work "Submission: a study of behavior." As the name obviously implies, the American psychologist asked himself how far an ordinary person is ready to go, obeying someone else's will?
The idea came to Stanley as a result of free reflection. He, like many, during the period of the still ongoing war in Vietnam and the two world wars that had died down, was interested in the problem of violence and subjugation of the masses. Milgram understood that submission is one of the factors that binds power and people. Often it is precisely this, promoted as a virtue, that can become a lever of control and lead to horrific consequences. For most people, according to the psychologist, obedience to authority turns out to be a deeply rooted behavioral attitude. And in a borderline situation, this attitude outweighs all the moral principles or value attitudes learned in childhood.
“When you think about the long and dark history of mankind, you realize that many more heinous crimes were committed in the name of submission than in the name of rebellion. If you have doubts about this, read William Shearer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. German officers were brought up in the strictest code of obedience ... and in the name of obedience they became accomplices and assistants in the largest of the atrocities of human history.
Charles Snow 1961
Of course, the issue of moral choice was raised even before Milgram. Even Sophocles in Antigone asked: is it worth breaking an order if it contradicts the voice of conscience? According to conservative authors, disobedience threatens the foundations of society, and even if the act pushed by authority turns into evil, it is better to obey than to encroach on its justification. Hobbes, on the other hand, believed that in such a case it was not the performer who was responsible, but the one who gave the order. Humanists reasoned in a completely different vein, believing that conscience should always be the main guide in terms of moral choice.
Among the works that influenced his reasoning, the psychologist highlights the work of Hannah Arendt "Eichmann in Jerusalem", which made a strong impression on him. In this book, the German researcher formulates her principle of "banal evil". Arendt consistently debunks the myth that there is some "radical" evil. An example is the phenomenon of Adolf Eichmann - an ordinary bureaucrat who did his job by signing papers; which ultimately resulted in the deaths of millions of innocents.
“While I am writing these lines, very civilized people are flying over my head and trying to kill me. They have nothing against me personally, and I have nothing against them personally. As they say, they only "do their duty." Without a doubt, most of them are good-hearted and law-abiding citizens who would never dream of committing murder in their private lives. On the other hand, if one of them drops a bomb that will tear me to pieces, his sleep will not be worsened by this.
George Orwell
It was these, partly philosophical problems that worried Stanley Milgram. In fact, the scientist began his research to clarify the question of how German citizens during the years of Nazi domination could participate in the destruction of millions of innocent people in concentration camps. After fine-tuning his experimental techniques in the United States, Milgram planned to travel with them to Germany, where he believed the people were very obedient. However, at the end of the first experiment he conducted in New Haven (Connecticut), it became clear that there was no need to travel to Germany and that one could continue to engage in scientific research near home. "I found so much obedience," Milgram said, "that I don't see the need to do this experiment in Germany."
"Student" and "Teacher"
The experiment itself was conducted on the basis of Yale University and more than 1000 people took part in it. The original idea was very simple: a person was asked to perform a series of actions that would be more and more at odds with his conscience. And the central question of the study, accordingly, sounded like this: how far is the subject willing to go until obedience to the experimenter becomes unacceptable to him?
“Of all moral principles, the following is most generally recognized: one should not inflict suffering on a helpless person who does not bring harm or threat. This principle will be our counterbalance to submission. A person who comes to the laboratory will be ordered to perform increasingly cruel acts against another individual. Accordingly, there will be more and more grounds for insubordination. At some point, the subject may refuse to follow orders and stop participating in the experiment. Behavior before this refusal is called submission. Refusal is an act of disobedience. It can come earlier or later along the way, this is the desired value.
The psychologist did not consider the very method of causing harm to be fundamentally important, and therefore the experimenter settled on electric shock for several reasons:
The subject clearly sees how the victim is harmed
Electroshock fits well with the aura of a science lab
The base for the experiment was Yale University, but the subjects, oddly enough, were not students, but residents of New Haven. The population at that time was about 300,000 people. This decision also had its reasons. Firstly, students are a very homogeneous group and all are about 20 years old; they are intelligent and familiar with psychological experiments. Secondly, there was a risk that students who had already participated in the experiment would tell others about the details of the procedure. Therefore, it was decided to focus on a wider range of subjects.
To do this, Milgram placed an ad in the local newspaper, inviting "representatives of all professions to take part in the study of memory and learning." 296 people responded, and since the sample in the experiment was assumed to be large, invitations were sent by mail and about 12% of the recipients agreed to participate.
“Typical subjects were postal clerks, school teachers, salespeople, engineers, and laborers. The educational level is very different: from people who have not studied at school, to holders of doctoral and other professional degrees. Several experimental situations were invented (as variations of the main experiment), and from the very beginning I considered it important to involve representatives of different ages and different professions in each of them. Each time, the spread in occupations was as follows: 40% - workers, skilled and unskilled; 40% - white-collar workers, salespeople and businessmen; 20% are people of intellectual labor. The age composition was also selected: 20% - from 20 to 30 years; 40% - from 30 to 40 years; and 40% - from 40 to 50 years.
The staff in the original experiment consisted of two people: the “experimenter” and the “victim/student”. The role of the "experimenter" was played by a thirty-one-year-old school biology teacher. Along the way, he was impassive and looked somewhat stern. He was wearing a gray work coat. The “victim/learner” was a forty-seven-year-old accountant, specially trained for this role, an Irish-American. The venue was Yale University's interactive lab (an important detail, because the study had to look legitimate, from the point of view of the participants).
The procedure was as follows: one participant was a "naive subject" (subject) and the other was a figurehead (experimenter). The pretext for using electric shock was the hypothesis that people learn better if they are punished for mistakes. Then the experimenter (dummy) explained that that is why people of different ages and professions were selected for the study, and some were invited to become “teachers” and others “students” (as you remember, the “student” was a specially trained actor). If none of those present had preferences in choosing a role (this was the case in all cases), then the experimenter suggested that everything be decided by drawing lots.
The draw was rigged in such a way that the subject was always the 'teacher' and the experimenter's accomplice the 'student'. (The word "teacher" was written on both pieces of paper.) Immediately after the draw, the "teacher" and "student" were taken to an adjoining room, where the "student" was strapped into the "electric chair." The experimenter explained: the straps are necessary to avoid unnecessary movements during an electric shock. In fact, it was necessary to create the impression that in this situation he had nowhere to go. An electrode was attached to the "student's" wrist, and "to avoid blisters and burns", an electrode paste was applied. The subject was told that the electrodes were connected to a current generator in the next room. For greater persuasiveness, the experimenter, in response to the doubts of the "student", stated: "Although electric shocks can be very painful, they will not lead to long-term tissue damage."
After the drawing of lots, the "teacher" was briefed and the essence of the task was explained to him. It consisted in memorizing interconnected words. First, the subject read to the “student” a series of word pairs, and then repeated the list, only the first word of the pair was accompanied by four words. And the “student” had to determine which word was a pair. He transmitted his answer by pressing one of the four buttons in front of him, which lit one of the four numbered bulbs located on top of the electric generator.
At that very moment, there was a "teacher" in the next room, and in front of him was an electric generator with 30 switches from 15V to 450V; groups of switches were signed with explanatory phrases: “Weak blow” (English Slight Shock), “Moderate blow” (Moderate Shock), “Strong blow” (Strong Shock), “Very strong blow” (Very Strong Shock), “Intense blow (Intense Shock), Extreme Intensity Shock, Danger: Severe Shock.
If the "student" made a mistake, then the subject gave him an electric shock; with each subsequent error, the “teacher” was obliged to increase the voltage in steps of 15 V. The action continued until the subject used a 450 V discharge three times, after which the experiment was terminated.
In fact, the actor who played the student only pretended to be in pain, and his answers were standardized and out of every four answers, on average, there were three incorrect ones. It turned out that the “teacher”, while reading the first sheet of questions, always gave the “student” a blow of 105 V; then the “teacher” took the second sheet, and the experimenter demanded that he start again at 15 V. In this way, the subject got used to the role of “teacher” and his duties. If the subject showed hesitation, then the experimenter demanded the continuation of one of the predetermined phrases:
- "Please continue" (Please continue / Please go on);
- "The experiment requires that you continue" (Experiment requires that you continue);
- “It is absolutely essential that you continue” (It is absolutely essential that you continue);
- "You have no other choice, you must go on" (You have no other choice, you must go on).
These phrases were spoken in order, beginning with the first, when the "teacher" refused to continue the experiment. If the "teacher" continued to refuse, the next phrase from the list was said. If the "teacher" refused after the 4th phrase, the experiment was interrupted.
In one series of experiments of the main version of the experiment, and there were at least 11 of them, 26 subjects out of 40, instead of taking pity on the victim, continued to increase the voltage (up to 450 V) until the researcher gave the order to end the experiment. Only five subjects (12.5%) stopped at a voltage of 300 V, when the first signs of discontent appeared from the victim (knocking on the wall) and the answers stopped coming. Four more (10%) stopped at 315 volts when the victim knocked on the wall a second time without giving an answer. Two (5%) refused to continue at 330 V when both responses and knocks stopped coming from the victim. One person each - at the next three levels (345, 360 and 375 V). The remaining 26 out of 40 reached the end of the scale.
Criticism
The results of the main experiment were stunning, since no one expected such an outcome. Milgram even conducted preliminary surveys among students and psychiatrists, familiarizing them with the research procedure. Master students claimed that only 1-2% of the subjects would reach the end of the scale. And psychiatrists predicted a figure not exceeding 20% of the total number of subjects. And, as we see, everyone was wrong.
Several explanations were given for such unexpected results:
All subjects were male, so they had a biological propensity for aggressive actions.
The subjects did not understand how much harm, not to mention pain, such powerful electrical discharges could cause to the “students”.
The subjects simply had a sadistic streak and enjoyed the opportunity to inflict suffering.
All those who participated in the experiment were people who were inclined to submit to the authority of the experimenter and cause suffering to the subject, since the rest simply refused to participate in the experiment right away or to learn its details, thus not inflicting a single electric shock on the “student”. Naturally, those who refused to participate in the experiment were not included in the statistics.
In further experiments, none of these assumptions was confirmed.
As I wrote above, after conducting the first series of the experiment, Stanley developed and conducted 10 more variations of the experiment, each of which was aimed at refuting the attacks on the part of his opponents. As it turned out: neither gender, nor the authority of the university, nor a natural tendency to violence (in one of the variations personality tests were used), nor anything else - did not affect the results of the study. All final data fluctuated within the statistically acceptable norms.
The conclusion that Milgram makes is: “With the division of labor, everything went differently. Starting from a certain moment, the fragmentation of society into people performing narrow and very specific tasks depersonalized work and life. Everyone sees not the situation as a whole, but only a small part of it, and therefore is not able to act without guidance. Man submits to authority, but thereby alienates himself from his own actions.
2. Hannah Arendt - "Eichmann in Jerusalem."
Subordination
SUBMISSION - (obedience) The execution by one person of the will of another in the form of following the orders and instructions of the latter. Unquestioning obedience implies a willingness to follow all instructions without exception.
Stanley milgram .
Milgram Experiment (Obedience)
It is a classic experiment in social psychology, first described in 1963 by psychologist Stanley Milgram of Yale University in the article Behavioral Study of Obedience, and later in the book Obedience to Authority: An Experimental Study. Authority: An Experimental View, 1974).
In his experiment, Milgram tried to clarify the question: how much suffering are ordinary people willing to inflict on other, completely innocent people, if such infliction of pain is part of their work duties? It demonstrated the inability of the subjects to openly resist the "boss" (in this case, the researcher, dressed in a lab coat), who ordered them to complete the task, despite the great suffering inflicted on another participant in the experiment (in reality, the decoy actor).
The results of the experiment showed that the need to obey authorities is so deeply rooted in our minds that the subjects continued to follow instructions despite moral suffering and strong internal conflict.
In fact, Milgram began his research to clarify the question of how German citizens during the years of Nazi domination could participate in the destruction of millions of innocent people in concentration camps. After fine-tuning his experimental techniques in the United States, Milgram planned to travel with them to Germany, where he believed the people were very obedient. However, after the first experiment he conducted in New Haven, Connecticut, it became clear that a trip to Germany was not necessary and that one could continue to engage in scientific research close to home. "I found so much obedience," Milgram said, "that I don't see the need to do this experiment in Germany." Subsequently, Milgram's experiment was nevertheless repeated in Holland, Germany, Spain, Italy, Austria and Jordan, and the results were the same as in America.
Description of the experiment
The participants were presented with this experiment as a study of the effect of pain on memory. The experiment involved an experimenter, a subject, and an actor who played the role of another subject. It was stated that one of the participants ("student") should memorize pairs of words from a long list until he remembered each pair, and the other ("teacher") - check the memory of the first and punish him for each mistake with an increasingly stronger electric discharge.
At the beginning of the experiment, the roles of teacher and student were distributed between the subject and the actor "by lot" using folded sheets of paper with the words "teacher" and "student", and the subject always got the role of teacher. After that, the "student" was tied to a chair with electrodes. Both the “student” and the “teacher” received a “demonstration” shock with a voltage of 45 V.
The "teacher" went into another room, began to give the "student" simple tasks to remember, and with each mistake of the "student" he pressed the button, supposedly punishing the "student" with an electric shock. Starting with 45 V, the "teacher" with each new error had to increase the voltage by 15 V up to 450 V. In reality, the "student" did not receive blows, but only pretended to.
At “150 volts”, the actor-“student” began to demand to stop the experiment, but the experimenter said to the “teacher”: “The experiment must be continued. Please continue." As the tension increased, the actor acted out more and more discomfort, then intense pain, and finally yelled for the experiment to be stopped. If the subject showed hesitation, the experimenter assured him that he took full responsibility for both the experiment and the safety of the "student" and that the experiment should be continued. At the same time, however, the experimenter did not threaten the doubting "teachers" in any way and did not promise any reward for participating in this experiment.
results
The results obtained amazed everyone involved in the experiment, even Milgram himself. In one series of experiments, 26 subjects out of 40, instead of taking pity on the victim, continued to increase the voltage (up to 450 V) until the researcher gave the order to end the experiment. Even more alarming was the fact that almost none of the 40 subjects who participated in the experiment refused to play the role of a teacher when the "student" was just beginning to demand release. They did not do this later, when the victim began to beg for mercy. Moreover, even when the “student” responded to each electric shock with a desperate scream, the “teacher” subjects continued to press the button. One subject stopped at 300 volts, when the victim began to scream in despair: “I can’t answer questions anymore!”, And those who stopped after that were in a clear minority. The overall result was as follows: one subject stopped at 300 V, five refused to obey after this level, four after 315 V, two after 330 V, one after 345 V, one after 360 V and one after 375 V; the remaining 26 out of 40 reached the end of the scale.
Debate and speculation
A few days before the start of his experiment, Milgram asked several of his colleagues (graduate students in psychology at Yale University, where the experiment was conducted) to look at the study design and try to guess how many “teacher” subjects would be, no matter what, increase the discharge voltage until they are stopped (at a voltage of 450 V) by the experimenter. Most of the psychologists interviewed suggested that between one and two percent of all subjects would do so.
39 psychiatrists were also interviewed. They gave an even less accurate prediction, assuming that no more than 20% of the subjects would continue the experiment to half the voltage (225 V) and only one in a thousand would increase the voltage to the limit. Consequently, no one expected the amazing results that were obtained - contrary to all predictions, most of the subjects obeyed the instructions of the scientist who led the experiment and punished the "student" with electric shock even after he stopped screaming and kicking the wall.
Milgram repeated the experiment, renting a building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, under the banner of the Bridgeport Research Association, and disclaiming any reference to Yale. The "Bridgeport Research Association" was a commercial organization. The results did not change much: 48% of the subjects agreed to reach the end of the scale.
The gender of the subject did not affect the results.
Another experiment showed that the gender of the subject is not critical; The female "teachers" behaved exactly like the male teachers in Milgram's first experiment. This dispelled the myth of the soft-heartedness of women.
People were aware of the danger of electric current for the "student"
Another experiment examined the assumption that the subjects underestimated the potential physical harm they caused to the victim. Before starting the additional experiment, the "student" was instructed to declare that he had a sick heart and would not withstand strong electric shocks. During the experiment, the “student” began to shout: “That's it! Let me out of here! I told you that I have a bad heart. My heart is starting to worry me! I refuse to continue! Let me out!" However, the behavior of the "teachers" did not change; 65% of the subjects conscientiously performed their duties, bringing the stress to the maximum.
The subjects were ordinary people
The suggestion that the subjects were mentally disturbed was also rejected as unfounded. The people who responded to Milgram's announcement and expressed a desire to take part in an experiment to study the effect of punishment on memory were average citizens in terms of age, profession and educational level. Moreover, the answers of the subjects to the questions of special tests that allow assessing personality showed that these people were quite normal and had a fairly stable psyche. In fact, they were no different from ordinary people or, as Milgram said, "they are you and me."
The subjects were not sadists
The assumption that the subjects took pleasure in the suffering of the victim was refuted by several experiments. When the experimenter left and his "assistant" remained in the room, only 20% agreed to continue the experiment. When the subject was allowed to choose the voltage himself, 95% remained within 150 volts. When instructions were given over the phone, obedience was greatly reduced (up to 20%). At the same time, many subjects pretended to continue the experiments. If the subject was confronted by two researchers, one of whom ordered to stop and the other insisted on continuing the experiment, the subject stopped the experiment.
Additional experiments
In 2002, Thomas Blass of the University of Maryland published in Psychology Today a summary of the results of all replicas of the Milgram experiment made in the United States and abroad. It turned out that from 61% to 66% reach the end of the scale, regardless of time and place.
If Milgram is right and the participants in the experiment are ordinary people like us, then the question is: “What can make people behave in this way?” - becomes personal: "What can make us act this way?". Milgram is sure that we are deeply ingrained in our awareness of the need to obey authority. In his opinion, what played a decisive role in his experiments was the inability of the subjects to openly resist the "boss" (in this case, the researcher, dressed in a lab coat), who ordered the subjects to complete the task, despite the severe pain caused to the "student".
Milgram gives strong arguments to support his assumption. It was obvious to him that if the researcher did not demand to continue the experiment, the subjects would quickly leave the game. They did not want to complete the task and suffered, seeing the suffering of their victim. The subjects begged the experimenter to let them stop, and when he did not allow them, they continued to ask questions and press buttons. However, at the same time, the subjects perspired, trembled, muttered words of protest and again prayed for the release of the victim, clutched their heads, clenched their fists so hard that their nails dug into their palms, bit their lips until they bled, and some began to laugh nervously. Here is what a person who observed the experiment says.
I saw a respectable businessman enter the laboratory, smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was driven to a nervous breakdown. He trembled, stuttered, constantly tugged at his earlobe and wringed his hands. Once he hit his forehead with his fist and muttered, "Oh God, let's stop this." Nevertheless, he continued to react to every word of the experimenter and obeyed him implicitly.
Milgram conducted several additional experiments and as a result received data that even more convincingly testifies to the correctness of his assumption.
The subject refused to obey a person of his rank
So, in one case, he made significant changes to the script. Now the researcher told the "teacher" to stop, while the victim bravely insisted on continuing the experiment. The result speaks for itself: when only a subject like them demanded to continue, the subjects in 100% of cases refused to give at least one additional electric shock.
In another case, the researcher and the second subject changed roles in such a way that the experimenter was tied to the chair. At the same time, the second subject ordered the “teacher” to continue, while the researcher protested violently. Again, not a single subject touched the button.
The propensity of subjects to unconditional obedience to authorities was confirmed by the results of another version of the main study. This time, the "teacher" was in front of two researchers, one of whom ordered the "teacher" to stop when the victim pleaded for release, and the other insisted on continuing the experiment. Contradictory orders led the subjects into confusion. Confused subjects looked from one researcher to another, asked both leaders to act in concert and give the same commands that could be carried out without hesitation. When the researchers continued to “quarrel” with each other, the “teachers” tried to understand which of the two was more important. Ultimately, not being able to obey exactly the authority, each subject-"teacher" began to act on the basis of his best intentions, and stopped punishing the "student".
As in other experimental variants, such a result would hardly have taken place if the subjects were sadists or neurotic personalities with an increased level of aggressiveness.
Other variants of the experiment
In other variants, one or two additional "teachers" also participated in the experiment. They were also played by actors. In the case where the teacher-actor insisted on continuing, only 3 out of 40 subjects stopped the experiment. In another case, two "teacher" actors refused to continue the experiment - and 36 out of 40 subjects did the same. When instructions were given over the phone, obedience was greatly reduced (up to 20%). At the same time, many subjects pretended to continue the experiments. Obedience also decreased when the "student" was near the "teacher". In the experiment in which the “teacher” held the “student” by the hand, only 30% of the subjects reached the end. When one experimenter was a "student" and demanded to stop the experiment, and another experimenter demanded to continue - 100% stopped. When the subject was required to give orders to the "teacher" and not to press the button himself, only 5% refused to do so.
conclusions
According to Milgram, the findings indicate an interesting phenomenon: "This study showed an extremely strong willingness of normal adults to go who knows how far, following the directions of authority." Now the ability of the government to achieve obedience from ordinary citizens is becoming clear. Authorities put a lot of pressure on us and control our behavior.
Interpreter Gleb Yastrebov
Editor Rosa Piscotina
Project Manager I. Seryogina
Corrector S. Mozaleva
Computer layout M. Potashkin
Cover design Y. Buga
Copyright © 1974 Stanley Milgram
© Foreword. Philip Zimbardo, 2009
© Michael Wallace interview in Chapter 15. The New York Times Company. Reprinted by permission, 1969
Published by arrangement with HarperCollins Publishers.
© Edition in Russian, translation, design. LLC "Alpina non-fiction", 2016
All rights reserved. The work is intended solely for private use. No part of the electronic copy of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, including posting on the Internet and corporate networks, for public or collective use without the written permission of the copyright owner. For copyright infringement, the legislation provides for the payment of compensation to the copyright holder in the amount of up to 5 million rubles (Article 49 of the zoap), as well as criminal liability in the form of imprisonment for up to 6 years (Article 146 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
* * *My mother and the memory of my father
Foreword to Harper Perennial Modern Thought
Two of the most significant stories in Western culture - the descent of Lucifer into hell and the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise - are united by the same idea about the terrible consequences of disobedience to authority. Lucifer, the "luminiferous" and close to God angel - he is also called the "Morning Star" - refuses to fulfill the command of God and honor Adam, his new perfect creation. He has associates among the angels. They say that they existed even before Adam, and indeed Adam is just a mortal, unlike them, the angels. In response, God accuses them of pride and disobedience. No Compromise: The Creator calls on Archangel Michael to punish the apostates with his army. Naturally, Michael wins (after all, God himself is on his side), and Lucifer - now become Satan and the devil - is thrown into hell along with other fallen angels. However, Satan returns to prove that it was right not to honor Adam, because he was not only imperfect, but, even worse, easily succumbed to the temptation of the serpent.
Recall that Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden are not limited in their rights with one small exception: you cannot eat from the tree of knowledge. When Satan, in the form of a serpent, tempts Eve just to try, she in turn persuades her husband. Just one piece of the forbidden fruit, and they are cursed and banished from paradise forever. From now on, they are doomed to work hard, suffer and be witnesses of conflicts between their children, Cain and Abel. In addition, they have lost their innocence. Even worse, their sin of disobedience now and forever extends to future generations. And every Catholic child bears the consequences of original sin for the transgression of Adam and Eve.
It is clear that we have before us myths created by people, moreover, by people invested with power (most likely, priests, clergymen). Myths are in the air, in the outer space of the world, and people catch them and write them down. But they carry, like all parables, an important thought: obey authority/authority at all costs. It is worth not obeying - and blame yourself. Having arisen once, in the future, mythology adapted to the circumstances, and now we can talk about parents, teachers, bosses, politicians, dictators - about everyone who requires unquestioning obedience.
Again and again from the school bench we are hammered into the head: sit still until the teacher allows you to get up and go out; be silent, and if you want to say something, raise your hand and get permission; don't complain or argue with the teacher. All this is learned so deeply that respect for authority remains with us in a variety of circumstances, even when we become adults and mature people. But not every authority is deserved, but power is fair, legal and moral, and no one teaches us to distinguish power fair from unfair. The first deserves respect, and sometimes obedience (possibly almost unconditional), while the second should arouse suspicion, discontent, and ultimately protest and rebellion.
* * *Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority are one of the most important studies in the social sciences on the central driving forces of this side of human nature. Milgram pioneered the study of obedience in the controlled environment of a science lab. In a sense, he continued the tradition of Kurt Lewin, although he is not usually considered a follower of Lewin, such as, say, Leon Festinger, Stanley Schechter, Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett. Nevertheless, laboratory studies of phenomena relevant to real life are the essence of Lewin's ideas about what social psychology should do.
Milgram's initial interest in the topic arose from reflecting on the ease with which the Germans obeyed the Nazi authorities in their discriminatory policies against the Jews, and ultimately allowed Hitler to begin implementing the "final solution to the Jewish problem." As a Jew, young Milgram wondered if the Holocaust might not be repeated in his own country, with all the differences in cultures and eras. Many thought that this was unthinkable in the United States. However, Milgram had his doubts. Believing in human kindness, of course, is good, but the fact remains: how much evil in the world has been done by the most ordinary (even in many ways not bad) people, simply following orders! English writer Charles Snow warns that more crimes against humanity have been committed in the name of obedience than in defiance. Even earlier, Milgram's teacher, Solomon Ash, had demonstrated the power of the group's influence on college students' judgments about false notions of apparent reality. But there the influence was indirect: a discrepancy was created between individual and group perceptions of the same phenomenon. The participants of the experiment overcame the problem of inconsistency of perception by agreeing with the majority, so as not to be left alone with their opinion. And Milgram wanted to see a more direct and immediate effect of an order that makes a person act contrary to conscience and moral principles. He designed his research in such a way that there was a conflict between our ideas about what people could do in such a situation, and how they actually behaved in this terrible test of human nature.
Unfortunately, many psychologists, students and non-specialists who think they are familiar with the "Milgram experiment" are actually familiar with only one version of it (most likely by watching the movie "Subjugation" or reading a short story in a textbook). And what only Milgram was not accused of. It was said that for the experiment he took only men, but this was the case only at first, and then all the experiments were duplicated with women. Or they said that he relied only on students from Yale University (where the first experiments took place). However, Milgram's research includes 19 different modifications of the experiment, they involved about 1000 people aged 20 to 50 years old, and not one was a schoolboy or student! Another harsh rebuke: it is unethical to put a person who plays the role of a teacher and believes that his electric shocks hurt the performer of the role of a student, in a position that causes him such hard feelings. I think the talk about ethics came from the movie, which shows how the subjects suffer and hesitate. Reading his articles and books does not cause a feeling of special stress for the participants, who continued to obey, despite the obvious suffering of innocent victims. But now I say this not to defend or challenge the ethics of the study, but to encourage readers to familiarize themselves with copyright presentation of ideas, methods, results and discussions - and understand what exactly Milgram was doing. This is another merit of the book.
A few words about my assessment of the book. First of all, we have before us the most representative and thorough study in social psychology and the social sciences due to the sample size, systematic variation, the selection of a wide variety of ordinary people from two small towns (New Haven and Bridgeport, Connecticut), as well as a detailed explanation of methodological approaches. Moreover, replication of experiments in many other cultures has shown the reliability of the findings.
As the most significant demonstration of the power of social situations to influence human behavior, Milgram's experiments underlie the situational approach to behavioral determinants. The inability of most people to resist the increasingly senseless orders of an unjust government is shown, when the declared intentions of the authoritative person who began the experiment looked quite reasonable. It would seem that psychological researchers could think about the use of reasonable punishment to improve learning and memory. However, it makes no sense to cause more and more pain to the “student” when he already wants to leave, complains about his heart, and after a blow of 330 volts, he stops responding at all. Is it possible to improve his memory when he is at least unconscious? It would seem that a drop of critical thinking is enough for almost any person to refuse to continue the experiment and obey heartless and unfair instructions. However, most of the participants who reached this stage were, in the words of Milgram, locked in an “agent state”.
What is a good citizen capable of doing in obedience to an order? Thinking about the tens of thousands of people in Nazi Germany who sent their own kind to death, just doing their duty, prompted Stanley Milgram to think about a provocative experiment. The behavior of the subjects during different variations of the experiment invariably confirmed Milgram's terrible guesses: some participants in the tests severely "punished" others, not using their right to refuse. The paradox is that such virtues as loyalty, discipline and self-sacrifice, which we value so much in a person, bind people to the most inhuman systems of power. But since the days of the Nazi death camps, human nature has not changed. That is why the relevance of the concept, which the experiment confirms with terrible persuasiveness, can be disputed, but dangerously underestimated. The famous Milgram experiment, which at first aroused protest and distrust among many, was later recognized as one of the most morally significant studies in psychology.
Milgram's experiment is widely cited. I came across at least 10 links. In particular, Philip Zimbardo. , Tom Butler-Bowdon. , Mikael Krogerus. Luis Ferrante. .
Stanley Milgram. Obedience to authority: A scientific view of power and morality. – M.: Alpina Non-fiction, 2016. – 282 p.
Download abstract (summary) in format or
Chapter 1
Subordination is one of the basic elements in the structure of social life. Certain systems of power are a sine qua non of all human interactions. The genocide of European Jews is an extreme case of murder committed by thousands of people under the slogan of submission. However, on a smaller scale, this happens all the time. The moral question of whether it is possible to disobey an order if it is contrary to conscience was discussed by Plato, depicted in Antigone and comprehended by philosophers of all times. According to conservative authors, disobedience threatens the very foundations of society, and even if the act pushed by authority turns into evil, it is better to obey than to encroach on its prerogatives. And here is the idea of Hobbes: in such a case, it is not the performer who is responsible, but the one who gave the order. However, humanists reasoned differently: personal conscience has priority, and if its voice contradicts the order, it is necessary to proceed from it.
To investigate the act of submission, I set up a simple experiment at Yale University. Two people enter the psychology lab to participate in a memory and learning study. One is called "teacher", the other "student". The experimenter reports that we are talking about the effect of punishment on learning. The “student” is escorted into the room, put in a chair and fastened with belts so that he does not twitch, and an electrode is attached to his wrist. He is told that he must memorize lists of pairs of words, and in case of errors he will receive shocks of increasing strength.
In fact, the experiment is being put on the “teacher”. He is allowed to see how the "student" is fastened to a chair, taken to the main experimental room and put in front of a frightening electric generator. On the front panel of the generator, there are 30 horizontal switches from 15 volts to 450 volts, in increments of 15 volts. Verbal explanations are given next to the switches: from “Weak discharge” to “Dangerous - severe defeat”.
The "teacher" is told that he will be checking the person in the next room. If the "student" answers correctly, the "teacher" moves on to the next item. In case of an incorrect answer, it is necessary to perform an electric shock: start with the smallest (15 volts), then increase by one step every time the “student” makes a mistake (30 volts, 45 volts, etc.).
"Teacher" is an unknowing subject who came to the laboratory to participate in the experiment. The "student" is a figurehead who in reality does not receive electric shocks. The purpose of the experiment is to find out how far a person in a particular situation will go, obediently hurting a protesting victim. At what point will he refuse to obey?
Many obey the experimenter, no matter how desperately the “student” complains, no matter how painful the blows seem and how fervently the “student” begs to be let go. This has been observed over and over again in our studies, and in other universities where the experiment has been repeated. It is the incredible readiness of adults to obey almost to the last that constitutes the main discovery made in the course of our experience. And that is what needs to be explained the most.
Hannah Arendt's book Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963) comes to mind. According to Arendt, the prosecutor's attempts to portray Eichmann as a bloodthirsty monster were deeply mistaken: he was just an ordinary bureaucrat who sat at his desk and worked.
The main lesson of our research is that the most ordinary people, simply doing their job and having no hostile intentions, can become an instrument of terrible destructive power. The influence of moral feeling on actions is less significant than the social myth says. Although commandments like “Thou shalt not kill” occupy a prominent place in the list of moral norms, their position in the structure of the human psyche is not so secure.
So why does a person obey the experimenter? First, there are a number of "binding factors" that prevent you from getting out of the situation. Here and courtesy, and the initial promise to help, and the awkwardness of refusal. Secondly, the subject develops a whole range of adaptive mechanisms that hinder his determination to fight back. These adaptive responses help the subject maintain a relationship with the experimenter while reducing internal conflict. They are typical of the mindset of obedient people when they are told by authority to harm helpless individuals.
Many subjects belittled the victim as a result of acting against her. We often heard: "He was so stupid and stubborn that rightly so."
The problem of submission cannot be considered purely psychological. In many ways, it is connected with the form of society and the way it develops. Perhaps there were times when people were able to humanly respond to any situation, as they were completely absorbed in it. However, with the division of labor things went differently. Starting from a certain moment, the fragmentation of society into people performing narrow and very specific tasks depersonalized work and life. Everyone sees not the situation as a whole, but only a small part of it, and therefore is not able to act without guidance. A person submits to authority, but thereby is alienated from his own actions.
Chapter 3 Expected Behavior
In the social sciences, research is too often downplayed on the pretext that the conclusions are obvious. However, we rarely have accurate information about exactly what kind of behavior is expected from people in certain circumstances. If such information is obtained, then it can be compared with the results of the study. Thus, we will have a criterion that allows us to determine whether we learned a lot during the experiment or little. Moreover, if the result diverges from expectations, it is interesting to think about what causes the discrepancy. After all, if expectations turn out to be illusory, it is appropriate to ask the question: does this illusion speak of ignorance or does it perform some specific function in social life?
Defining expectations is easy. In each case, the respondents are people who came to listen to a lecture on submission to authority. The experiment is described in detail, but the results are not disclosed. The audience is given a schematic representation of the generator with designations for the strength of the electric shock. Each respondent is asked to think about the experiment, then privately report how he himself would behave in the place of the subject. The predictions were made by three groups: psychiatrists, students, and middle-class adults and various professions (Fig. 1).
According to these people, their actions would be dictated by sympathy, compassion and justice. Like, it is clear, after all, how one should behave, and once it is clear, it is easy to implement. However, they are poorly aware of how multifaceted factors are involved in a real social situation. Let us assume that such a statement of the question is incorrect. After all, everyone sees himself in the best light. To eliminate the subjectivity associated with vanity, we came up with another question: how would other people behave? The results were strikingly similar.
What assumptions underlay the forecasts? Humans are generally decent and have a hard time hurting innocent beings. If a person is not physically forced or intimidated, he is usually the master of his behavior. He does certain things because he I decided. When people were asked to think about our submission experiment, they usually started with similar premises. They prioritized the character of the autonomous individual, not the situation in which he finds himself. That is why they thought that almost no one would obey the instructions of the experimenter.
Chapter 4
In contrast to the forecast, in the real experiment, the percentage of obedient subjects was significantly higher (Fig. 2).
Rice. 2. Results of the first series of experiments: exp. 1 - the "teacher" does not see and does not hear the "student"; exp. 2 - "teacher" hears "student"; exp. 3 - "teacher" and "student" are in the same room; exp. 4 - "teacher" holds the hand of the "student".
How to explain the decrease in obedience with the proximity of the victim? Several factors may be at work here: empathy; denial and narrowing of the cognitive field (the condition of isolation allows the narrowing of the cognitive field in such a way that one can not think about the victim. When the victim is close, it is more difficult to forget about her); mutual fields (in close proximity, the subject sees the victim better, but the opposite is also true: it is also easier to follow him).
Chapter 6
In one of the experiments, the leader gave initial instructions, after which he left the laboratory, and then communicated only by phone. When the experimenter was not in the laboratory, subordination fell sharply. This series of experiments showed that the physical presence of authority is an important factor on which obedience or disobedience largely depends. Obedience to inhumane instructions is partly due to direct contact between the authority and the subject. Any theory of submission must take this into account.
In another series of experiments, we used women as subjects. On the one hand, in most compliance tests, women were more compliant than men. Thus, one might expect that in our experiment they would demonstrate greater subordination. On the other hand, women are thought to be less aggressive than men and more prone to empathy. This may have increased their resistance to the order to electrocute the victim. The level of subordination was practically the same as that of men.
Whatever the reasons for causing the subjects to push the shock to the maximum, it is not the initial aggression, but the transformation of behavior due to obedience to orders.
Chapter 8
From previous experiments it is not clear whether the subject reacts mainly to the content of the order or to the status of the orderer? Are the actions of the subject determined to a greater extent by the what says, or who He speaks? So far, the experimenter has always told the subject to continue, and the "student" has objected. In the first role reshuffle, we did the opposite. The "student" will demand an electric shock, and the experimenter will object (Fig. 3). This was done in the following way. Receiving an electric shock, the "student" screamed in pain, but did not object to the experiment. After a discharge of 150 volts, the experimenter declared the experiment over. The “apprentice” shouted that he wanted to continue: they say, his friend went through this, and it would be a shame for him to leave the race. The experimenter replied that it would be useful for science to carry out the experiment in full, but further blows were excluded.
Not a single participant obeyed the requirements of the “student”. Everyone obeyed the experimenter and stopped hitting. The subjects are ready to perform discharges at the request of the experimenter, but not at the request of the “student”. It turns out that the “student” has less rights over himself than authority over him. The "student" is only part of the overall system that is controlled by authority. What is decisive is not the essence of the order, but where it comes from.
In the next experiment, the instruction did not come from the experimenter, but from an ordinary person. There was a sharp decrease in obedience: 16 of the 20 subjects refused to obey the ordinary person, although he insisted on continuing the experiment and strewed with convincing arguments.
When the subject refused to obey the ordinary person, a new situation arose. The accomplice, allegedly dissatisfied with the refusal, stated that since his partner did not dare to strike, he would do it personally. He asked the subject to time the experiment, while he himself sat down at the generator. Thus, the subject got rid of personal responsibility for electric shocks, but became a witness to a difficult scene in which an aggressive partner carried out his plan to consistently increase the level of electric shock. Almost all of the 16 participants objected, and five physically resisted, putting an end to the execution.
This contrasts sharply with the respectful courtesy that subjects showed in those experiments where authority was at the helm. The subjects treated authority with courtesy and respect even when they did not obey.
In another experiment, authority acted as the victim. At the first protest of the experimenter, all the subjects refused to go any further and even to give one additional shock. None acted differently. Moreover, many subjects hurried to the rescue of the experimenter: they ran to the next room to free him. They often expressed sympathy for him, but were cold towards the common man, who was considered insane.
These experiments confirm that the decisive factor is the reaction to authority, and not to the order to use electric shock. Orders that do not come from authority lose all power. Those who try to prove that it's all about the aggressive and sadistic instincts that come to the surface when a person gets the opportunity to hurt their own kind must take into account the categorical refusal of the subjects to continue the experiments. It's not about what the subjects do, but for whom they do it.
So far, the main conflict has been between the common man and the authority. But what if the conflict arises within the government? Perhaps, in a situation where one authority demands one thing, and another - diametrically opposite, a person's own values begin to play a role, and they determine his choice? The result overturned our expectations. The experimenters looked like two bosses, equally convinced that they were right. However, they did not argue with each other, but turned to the subject. Thus, he found himself in the face of mutually exclusive, but equally authoritative, orders (Fig. 4).
The result of the experiment speaks for itself. Of the 20 participants, one refused to participate before the disagreement between scientists, and 18 - at the moment when a contradiction arose between the authorities. Another one went a step further. Obviously, the disagreement between the authorities completely paralyzed the action. None of the subjects took advantage of the command to continue. Not once did individual aggressive motives cause someone to seize on an authoritative sanction given by a malevolent authority. On the contrary, the experience has stalled.
In the next version of the experiment, the subject is dealing with two experimenters who are similar in appearance and have the same authority. However, while the two experimenters and the subject are waiting for the fourth participant, the phone rings. It turns out that the fourth participant will not come. The experimenters are frustrated because they have to finish the experiment this evening. The idea arises to distribute the necessary roles among the three present - not exactly what is needed, but the minimum number of participants is provided. The second experimenter becomes a "student". He behaves like an ordinary victim: after being hit by 150 volts, he screams that he has had enough and wants to get out. Surprisingly, the experimenter, tied to the "electric chair", is valued no more than the usual victim, who does not have any authority at all. 13 out of 20 subjects reached 450 volts.
Why does one of the experimenters completely lose credibility? Subjects tend to perceive clear hierarchies devoid of contradictions and incompatible elements. Therefore, they try in every possible way to identify the highest authority and respond specifically to it. For our case:
- One of the experimenters volunteered to take on the role of the victim. Thus, he temporarily lost his commanding status, leaving it to another experimenter.
- Authority is not just a rank, but the possession of a certain place in a socially defined situation. The king, once in a dungeon, finds that he has ceased to obey. The ex-experimenter finds himself in the physical situation of the victim and confronts the authority that sits on the throne of the commander-in-chief.
Chapter 9
It is difficult to resist authority alone. However, the group has power. Here it is necessary to draw a line between the concepts subordination and conformity. Conformity can be understood very broadly, but here it is advisable to talk about the actions of the subject when he agrees with his peers, with people of his status, who do not have a special right to guide his behavior. By subordination, we will call the actions of the subject when he follows the lead of authority. Take, for example, a recruit in the army. He carefully follows all the orders of his superiors. At the same time, he perceives the habits, routines, and language of other recruits. In the first case, there is submission, in the second, conformity.
Solomon Asch conducted a series of brilliant experiments on conformity (1951). A group of six people, in which all but one were figureheads, were shown a line of a certain length and then asked which of the other three lines corresponded to it in length. The nominees were trained every time (or in a specified number of cases) to give the wrong answers. The naive subject was positioned in such a way that he heard the answers of most of the group members before voicing his own answer. Asch found that under such social pressure, a large percentage of subjects would rather agree with the group than believe their own eyes.
Asch's subjects showed conformity to the group. In our study, the subjects showed submission to the experimenter. In both cases, the initiative was abandoned in favor of an external source. Conformity makes behavior homogeneous: the person under the influence perceives the behavior of the group. With conformity, a person insists that the group did not make him less independent, then with submission, he says that he did not have autonomy at all, and everything depended on authority.
What explains this? The fact is that conformity is a reaction to implicit pressure (internal, implicit): the subject considers his behavior voluntary. He cannot give a sound reason why it would be worthwhile to go along with the members of the group, therefore he denies that conformity took place at all. He does not want to admit this not only to the experimenter, but even to himself. In the case of submission, the opposite is true. The situation is publicly defined as involuntary: it is explicitly stated (openly, explicitly) that the subject is expected to submit. Explaining his actions, the subject refers to this public definition of the situation.
Let us consider to what extent the influence of the group is able to free the subject from authoritarian control and allow him to follow his own values and life guidelines. To do this, we modify the basic experiment: we put the subject between two similar ones, who will rebuff the experimenter and refuse to punish the victim against his will (Fig. 5). To what extent will the pressure created by their actions change the actions of the naive subject?
The lab includes four people who are ready to participate in an experiment to study the "impact of collective learning and punishment on memory and learning." Three of them are figureheads, and one is a naive test subject. Through a rigged lot, the naive subject receives the role of "teacher-3". In the role of "teacher-1", "teacher-2" and "student" are dummies. The "student" is fastened to the "electric chair", and three "teachers" sit down at the current generator. "Teacher-1" should read out a pair of words, "teacher-2" - to report whether the answer is correct, and "teacher-3" (naive subject) - to give punishment.
The figureheads obey the orders of the experimenter until the first heated protests of the victim (after being hit by 150 volts). At this point "teacher-1" informs the experimenter that he does not wish to participate anymore, as the victim is complaining. The experimenter replies that it is necessary to continue. However, "teacher-1" does not obey the order, gets up from his chair and moves to another part of the room. Since the experimenter's attempts to return the subject to the generator remain futile, the experimenter orders the remaining two participants to continue the experiment. "Teacher-3" (naive subject) must now not only inflict electric shocks on the "student", but also read out the words.
After level 14 (210 volts) "teacher-2", expresses concern for the "student" and refuses to participate. With this alignment of forces, 36 out of 40 subjects said "no" to the experimenter (whereas the corresponding figure in the absence of group pressure is 14). It turns out that the resistance of the group very successfully undermines the authority of the experimenter. Moreover, of all the experimental variations we studied, in no case did the experimenter receive such a decisive rebuff as with this manipulation. Mutual support is the strongest bulwark against the abuse of power.
Authority bearers are well aware of the meaning of groups and often use them to establish subordination. This ability is proved by a simple modification of our experiment. Here it is necessary to take into account the following. As soon as some force or something happens between the subject and the consequences of electric shocks, any factor that contributes to the distance between the subject and the victim reduces the pressure on the participant, and therefore reduces insubordination.
In order to investigate this phenomenon in the laboratory, we came up with a variation of the experiment in which electric shocks are delivered not by a naive subject, but by his partner (front man). The naive subject performs auxiliary actions, which, although they advance the experiment, are not connected with the direct switching of the switch on the generator. The new role of the test subject turned out to be easy. Only three out of 40 refused to participate in the experiment to the end. The rest played a decorative role in striking and were not psychologically involved to the extent that internal conflict led to insubordination.
In a destructive bureaucratic system, a smart manager is able to select personnel in such a way that only the most heartless and stupid people commit violence as such. The main part of the staff may be men and women, who, due to the distance from acts of cruelty, almost do not feel the internal conflict, performing their auxiliary work. They are relieved of a sense of responsibility for two reasons. First, they carry out the orders of a legitimate authority. Secondly, they do not make any physical impacts.
Chapter 10 Analysis
Obedience to authority is a very powerful and predominant state in man. Why? Hierarchically organized groups allow their members to better reflect the dangers of the physical environment and threats from competing species, as well as to prevent destructive processes within the group.
This is a view from the standpoint of evolutionary theory: behavior, like other human characteristics, has been shaped by the need for survival for thousands of years. Social organization gives advantages in the implementation of not only external, but also internal goals. It provides stability and harmony in the relationships between group members. A clear definition of the status of each reduces disagreement to a minimum. Conversely, protests against hierarchy often provoke violence. Thus, a stable social organization both enhances the group's ability to deal with the environment and, by regulating group relationships, reduces internal violence.
In social organization, subordination is indispensable. And since organization is essential to the survival of any species, human beings have developed an ability to do so through long evolutionary processes. Now scientists believe that the situation is more complicated: we are born with the potential for submission, which then interacts with the influence of society, creating an obedient person. In this sense, the ability to obey is akin to the ability to speak: for the ability to speak, the brain must be arranged in a certain way; however, in order for a person to talk, the influence of the social environment is necessary. In explaining the reasons for submission, we must consider both innate structures and social influences that arise after birth. To what extent each of these factors influences is debatable. From the point of view of evolutionary survival, the only thing that matters is that the end result is organisms that function in hierarchies.
Evolution has made it so that when the individual acts on his own, conscience plays a big role. But when it acts as part of a general structure, directives coming from a higher level are not subject to internal moral criticism.
Variation, as evolutionary theorists have long told us, is of tremendous biological significance. And it is very typical for people. People are not similar to each other, therefore, in order to benefit from hierarchical structuring, mechanisms are needed to effectively suppress local control at the level of entry into the hierarchy. Then the least efficient unit will not block the performance of the system as a whole.
When individuals enter a situation of hierarchical control, the mechanism that normally regulates individual impulses is suppressed and replaced by a higher level component. Why is this happening? The main reason is not related to individual, but to organizational needs. Hierarchical structures can only function if they have the quality of coherence. And coherence is achieved only by suppressing control at the local level.
This analysis helps us understand what changes occur when an independent unit becomes part of the system. Such a transformation is absolutely consistent with the central dilemma of our experiment: how is it that a decent and polite person begins to behave cruelly towards another in the course of the experiment? But the point is that conscience, which regulates impulsive aggressive actions, is forced to decrease at the moment of inclusion in a hierarchical structure.
A person who enters into a system based on authority no longer believes that his actions are due to his own goals: he begins to consider himself as an instrument of another person's desires. A changed approach creates a different state in a person. I call it the agent state.
Chapter 11
What factors have shaped a person's basic orientation in the social world and laid the foundation for submission? A family. The subject grew up among structures of authority. institutional context. As soon as the child emerges from the cocoon of the family, he moves into the institutional system built on authority, the school. Rewards. When dealing with authority, a person is faced with a reward system: obedience is usually encouraged, and disobedience is most often punished. Perception of authority or the perception of the legitimacy of power. The test subject in the laboratory gets into a situation with the expectation that someone will be responsible for it. And as soon as he meets the experimenter, the latter fills this niche. The second condition that provokes the transition to the agent state is that a person must consider himself a part of the system. An even more important fact: the subjects entered into the domain of authority voluntarily. Psychologically, voluntariness creates a sense of duty and responsibility, which then prevents the subject from interrupting their participation. There must also be a reasonable connection between the function of the leader and the nature of his orders. Once in the agent state, a person ceases to be himself. He acquires qualities that are not usually characteristic of him.
The most serious consequence of the agent state is that a person feels responsible to authority, but does not feel responsible for the nature of actions performed on instructions from above. Morality does not disappear, but only takes on a different direction: the subordinate feels shame or pride, depending on how accurately he followed the orders of authority.
This type of morality is denoted by different words: loyalty, duty, discipline ... All of them are saturated with moral meaning and indicate the degree to which a person fulfills his duties to authority. These concepts do not speak about how “good” a person is, but about how successfully he, as a subordinate, plays his socially assigned role.
What psychological obstacles must the subject break through in order to leave his place behind the generator and stand in a pose of insubordination?
In order to opt out, the subject must violate a series of implicit agreements that are part of the situation. After all, initially he promised to help the experimenter and thereby assumed a certain responsibility. Once the situation is defined and agreed upon with the participants, further objections are inappropriate. Moreover, violation of the accepted definition by one of the participants has the character of a moral offense. The subject is afraid that if he does not obey, his behavior will seem arrogant, inappropriate and rude.
The fears experienced by the subject are usually related to the future: the person is afraid of the unknown. Such vague fears are called anxiety. What is the source of the anxiety? It stems from a long history of individual socialization. Transforming from a biological being into a civilized person, a person learned the basic norms of social life. The most basic of norms is respect for authority. The emotional manifestations that we observed in the laboratory - trembling, anxious laughter, intense embarrassment - evidence of a violation of the rules. When the subject is aware of this conflict, anxiety arises in him, signaling to him the need to refrain from the forbidden action.
Chapter 12
Tension can arise whenever a unit capable of functioning autonomously is built into a hierarchy. Any complex entity that can function both autonomously and within hierarchical systems must have mechanisms to relieve stress: otherwise, a rapid collapse is inevitable. The presence of tension in y draws our attention to one of the most important aspects of the experiment: in some subjects, the transition to the agent state is partial.
If the incorporation of the individual into the system of authority were complete, he would carry out commands, even the most cruel ones, without the slightest strain. Each sign of internal conflict is evidence of the inability of authority to fully bring the subject into an agentic state.
Everything that psychologically weakens the feeling of connection between the actions of the subjects and the consequences of these actions, reduces the level of tension, is a buffer. Technology has provided man with the means of long-range destruction, but evolution has not been able to create inhibitors against these distant forms of aggression to match the numerous and powerful inhibitors that operate in face-to-face confrontations.
Disobedience is an extreme measure with which you can relieve tension. However, she is not for everyone. As soon as tension appears, psychological mechanisms begin to operate that reduce its strength. This is not surprising given the intellectual flexibility of the human brain and its ability to reduce stress through cognitive adaptations.
Avoidance- the most primitive of such mechanisms: the subject is fenced off from the sensory consequences of his actions. Negation reduces internal conflict through a different intellectual mechanism: facts are rejected in the name of a more comforting interpretation of events. Potentially more important tricks, with the help of which the subjects sometimes try to alleviate the position of the "student": for example, they hint at the correct answer, highlighting the desired word with intonation.
If the tension is great enough, it leads to disobedience, but first breeds disagreement. However, disagreement performs a dual and contradictory function. On the one hand, it may be the first step in a growing divergence between subject and experimenter. On the other hand, paradoxically, it can relieve tension, allowing the subject to "let off steam" without changing the general direction. All of these mechanisms serve a common purpose: by reducing internal conflict to a tolerable level, they keep the relationship between subject and authority intact..
Internal doubt, externalization of doubt, disagreement, threat, disobedience: this is not an easy path, which only a minority of subjects are able to go through. And this is not a negative conclusion, but a positive action, a conscious swim against the current. But compliance has a passive connotation. The act of defiance requires the mobilization of internal resources and the willingness to move from doubt and polite objections to action. However, the psychological cost is enormous.
Chapter 13
My explanation of the behavior observed in the laboratory seems to me the most convincing. An alternative concept says that the whole point is aggression: the subjects had the opportunity to give vent to their destructive inclinations. In my opinion, she is wrong.
We call aggression an impulse or action aimed at causing harm to another organism. The experiment creates a situation in which harming another person is socially acceptable. Thus, at the level of consciousness, the individual believes that he is doing a thing that is useful for society. The real motive is different: by inflicting electric shocks on the “student”, a person realizes the destructive inclinations that live in him at the level of instincts.
However, the behavior of the participants in our experiment has nothing to do with it. Recall that when the subjects were given the opportunity to independently choose the level of electrical voltage, and the scientist emphasized in every possible way that any level could be chosen. Thus, the subjects' hands were untied. Nevertheless, almost all of them limited themselves to the weakest discharges. If the destructive impulses really were looking for an outlet, and the subjects were able to justify the sadism in the interests of science, why did they not cause the victim suffering?
Chapter 14
Some authors try to prove that a psychological experiment is a unique event and that global conclusions should not be drawn from it. But after all, any social situation is unique in its own way, and the task of a scientist is to find principles that unite such different phenomena. A psychological experiment has the same structural features as other situations where there is a subordinate and a leader. In all these situations, a person reacts not so much to the content of requirements as proceeds from the relationship with their source. Moreover, if the source of the command is a legitimate authority, the relationship outweighs the content. This is what we mean by the importance of social structure, and this is what our experiment demonstrates.
Chapter 15
The dilemma arising from the conflict between conscience and authority is rooted in the very nature of society, and it would be with us even if Nazi Germany never existed. And to treat this problem as if it were only about the Nazis is to lose sight of its relevance.
Democracies have general elections. But being elected, people have no less authority than those who have taken office in other ways. And as we have seen, the demands of a democratically elected government can also conflict with conscience. The importation and enslavement of millions of Africans, the extermination of Indians, the internment of the Japanese, the use of napalm against civilians in Vietnam - all these cruelties were obediently committed by order of the democratic authorities. Of course, in each case there were people who protested, but most of the ordinary citizens carried out the commands.
But how can a decent person in a few months go so far as to kill their own kind without a twinge of conscience? First of all, from a position outside the system, a person moves into a position within it. Hours spent on the parade ground are not needed at all in order to give drill training. The goal is completely different: to discipline the individual and give a visible form to his inclusion in the structure. Columns and platoons march as one man, obeying the commands of the sergeant. Such formations do not consist of people, but of automata. Army training is aimed at bringing the infantryman into just such a state, destroying all traces of ego and gradually internalizing him to the military authorities.
Before sending soldiers to the military zone, the authorities are trying in every possible way to correlate military operations with the ideals and values of society. The recruits are informed that they will be opposed in battle by the enemies of the people, who must be killed, otherwise the country is in danger. The situation is presented in such a way that cruel and inhuman acts seem justified (for behavior during the Vietnam War, see).
In his article The Perils of Submission, Harold Lasky wrote: “Unless we want to lead a completely meaningless life, we must not accept anything contrary to our basic experience on the sole basis that tradition, custom, or authority dictates so. We may well be wrong, but we will no longer be quite us if we take for granted what is at odds with our experience. That is why the condition of freedom in any state is a broad and consistent skepticism in relation to the canons on which the authorities insist.
Appendix I. Ethical Issues in Research
Professional psychologists actually fell into two camps: some experiments were highly praised, others severely criticized. During our experiments, I did not see any signs of mental trauma in the subjects. And since they themselves vigorously supported the experiment, I decided that research should not be stopped. Is the criticism caused more by the unexpectedness of the results than by the method itself? Some subjects behaved in ways that seemed shockingly immoral. But if they all limited themselves to a “weak discharge” or refused to participate at the first sign of discomfort in the “student” and the results of the experiment were pleasant and inspiring, who would protest?
After the experiment, special work was carried out with all participants. We informed them that the victim had not received dangerous electric shocks. All subjects had a friendly meeting with an unharmed "student" and a long conversation with the experimenter. To the disobedient subjects, we explained the experiment in such a way as to support their sense of rightness. The obedient were assured that their behavior was absolutely normal, and the internal conflict took place among all participants.
Because the idea of electrocuting victims is abhorrent, when outsiders hear about the idea, they are sure: "The subjects will refuse to obey." And when the results are known, the old belief is replaced by another: "They can't live with it." However, both forms of denial of results are equally fallacious. Many participants not only obey to the very end, but also do not receive mental trauma. The main moral justification for the procedure used in my experiment was that the participants found it acceptable. Moreover, it became the main moral basis for the continuation of experiments.
The fact that our experiment inspired some of its participants with disobedience to the authorities, in my opinion, is its great merit. Let me take the testimony of a young man as an example. “Participating in the ‘electroshock experience’… had a profound effect on my life. And then there is the military conscription. Realizing that, being drafted into the army, I thereby agree to do everything that the command orders me, I am afraid of myself. I want to become a conscientious objector, and if I am not given this status, I am ready to go to prison. I don't see any other way out for myself. I only hope that the members of the draft board will also act in accordance with their conscience…”
inhibitor (lat. inhibere- delay) - the general name of substances that suppress or delay the course of physiological and physico-chemical (mainly enzymatic) processes. This means that in the process of evolution, inhibitors were created in the human body that prevent aggression during personal contact.
