2004-06-14
Editorial
On
The Abuse of Power
Marjorie Cohn's "guest" editorial ["Bush,
The Would-Be Torturer", Guest Editorials, 2004-06-09] provides an
excellent background for what I write below.
When the incident involving U.S. soldiers torturing prisoners
at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq was revealed, there appeared on the Internet
comments from a number of people who recalled a research project that was
carried out in 1971 at Stanford University, the outcome of which they offered
as an explanation for the soldiers' behavior. The project was called The Stanford Prison Experiment.
As we now ponder why some of our all-American boy and
girl soldiers would torture other human beings, it might be helpful to revisit
the Stanford Prison Experiment and other relevant research and ask ourselves
what the real message of that research is.
In the November 9, 2001 issue of the journal Science, there
was a news article entitled "Reality TV Puts Group Behavior to the
Test." The article described a
project planned by British psychologists to take place on live
"reality" TV in order to "recreate a notorious psychology
experiment in which students played the roles of prisoners and
guards." The "re-creation"
was of an experiment by psychologist Philip Zimbardo that had to be terminated
after six days because the students playing the roles of guards became
"brutal" and the students playing the roles of prisoners first became
rebellious and then "utterly compliant." Zimbardo's study was designed to demonstrate the influence
of group pressure on individual behavior. Zimbardo's study was The Stanford
Prison Experiment.
In the Science article referred to above, a
statement was made by a Ben Shouse that "Psychologists may differ on the
potential perils of the study, but they agree on the importance of its
goals."
That statement is untrue. I am a psychologist, a Fellow in the American Association for the
Advancement of Science (publishers of the journal Science) since 1970
and I strongly disagree not only with the importance of the goals, but with the
basic premise of this type of research.
But let us go back further than Zimbardo's Stanford
Prison Experiment.
The prototypes of this kind of research on the influence
of group pressure or situations on the behavior of individuals were the
experiments of Stanley Milgram. The
following description of Milgram's basic study, somewhat abridged by me, was
taken from http://www.newlife.net/milgram.htm.
In the aftermath of the Holocaust and the events leading up to World War
II, the world was stunned with the happenings in Nazi German and their acquired
surrounding territories that came out during the Eichmann Trials. Eichmann, a
high ranking official of the Nazi Party, was on trial for war crimes and crimes
against humanity. The questions is, "Could it be that Eichmann, and his
million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call
them all accomplices?"
Stanley Milgram answered the call to this problem by performing a series
of studies on the Obedience to Authority.
Milgram's work began at Harvard where he was working towards his Ph.D.
The experiments on which his initial research was based were done at Yale from
1961-1962.
In response to a newspaper ad offering $4.50 for one hour's work, an
individual turns up to take part in a Psychology experiment investigating
memory and learning. He is introduced
to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and a rather pleasant and
friendly co-subject. The experimenter
explains that the experiment will look into the role of punishment in learning,
and that one will be the "teacher" and one will be the
"learner." Lots are drawn to
determine roles, and it is decided that the individual who answered the ad will
become the "teacher."
Your co-subject is taken to a room where he is strapped in a chair to
prevent movement and an electrode is placed on his arm. Next, the
"teacher" is taken to an adjoining room which contains a generator.
The "teacher" is instructed to read a list of two word pairs and ask
the "learner" to read them back. If the "learner" gets the
answer correct, then they move on to the next word. If the answer is incorrect, the "teacher" is supposed
to shock the "learner" starting at 15 volts.
The generator has 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each is labeled
with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts. Each switch also has a rating,
ranging from "slight shock" to "danger: severe shock". The final two switches are labeled
"XXX". The "teacher" automatically is supposed to increase
the shock each time the "learner" misses a word in the list. Although the "teacher" thought
that he/she was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" is actually a
student or an actor who is never actually harmed.
(The drawing of lots was rigged, so that the actor would always end up as the
"learner.")
At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter,
asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the
learner at such a high level. Upon
receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility,
teachers seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some
were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.
Today the field of psychology would deem this study highly unethical,
but it revealed some extremely important findings. The theory that only the
most severe monsters on the sadistic fringe of society would submit to such
cruelty is disclaimed. Findings show that, "two-thirds of this studies
participants fall into the category of ‘obedient' subjects, and that they
represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional
classes (Obedience to Authority)."
Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the
"learners" to the maximum 450 volts.
No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!
Milgram went on to do other similar experiments designed to determine
what might change the likelihood of maximum shock delivery. Details of those experiments are not
necessary for this editorial. Milgram's
obedience experiment was replicated by other researchers. The experiments
spanned a 25-year period from 1961 to 1985 and have been repeated in Australia,
South Africa and in several European countries. In one study conducted in
Germany, over 85% of the subjects administered a lethal electric shock to the
learner!
End of quote from website
As an example of the extremity of response of
participants, in one of Milgram's reports, he noted the following:
"I
observed a mature and initially poised businessman
enter the laboratory smiling and
confident. Within 20
minutes he was reduced to a
twitching, stuttering
wreck, who was rapidly approaching
nervous collapse.
He constantly pulled on his ear
lobe, and twisted his hands.
At one point he pushed his fist
into his forehead and
muttered 'Oh God, lets stop
it.' And yet he continued
to respond to every word of the
experimenter, and
obeyed to the end."
The following comments were found on the Internet on http://www.stanleymilgram.com/, the site of Dr. Thomas Blass, biographer and admirer of Dr. Milgram. Text in italics are quotes from Dr. Blass.
..."Controversy surrounded Stanley Milgram for much
of his professional life as a result of a series of experiments on obedience to
authority which he conducted at Yale University in 1961-1962. He found,
surprisingly, that 65% of his subjects, ordinary residents of New Haven, were
willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks-up to 450 volts-to a
pitifully protesting victim, simply because a scientific authority commanded
them to, and in spite of the fact that the victim did not do anything to
deserve such punishment. The victim was, in reality, a good actor who did not
actually receive shocks, and this fact was revealed to the subjects at the end
of the experiment. But, during the experiment itself, the experience was a
powerfully real and gripping one for most participants."
..."In the fall of 1962, a year before
the appearance of his first journal article on his obedience research, the
American Psychological Association (APA) put Milgram’s membership application
“on hold” because of questions raised about the ethics of that research. After an investigation by the APA produced a
favorable result, they admitted him."
Quotes attributed to Stanley Milgram (from Blass website):
- "With numbing regularity good people
were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that
were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent
were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their
perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter's definition
of the situation, into performing harsh acts. …A substantial proportion of
people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and
without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command
comes from a legitimate authority." (1965)
- [From
Milgram's reply to a critic who claimed that most subjects in the obedience
experiments discovered that the shocks were not real but continued anyway
because they didn't want to ruin the experiment] "Orne's suggestion
that the subjects only feigned sweating, trembling, and stuttering to please
the experimenter is pathetically detached from reality, equivalent to the
statement that hemophiliacs bleed to keep their physicians busy."
(1972
- [From Milgram's
reply to Baumrind's ethical critique of the obedience experiments] "I
started with the belief that every person who came to the laboratory was free
to accept or to reject the dictates of authority. This view sustains a
conception of human dignity insofar as it sees in each man a capacity for
choosing his own behavior. And as it
turned out, many subjects did, indeed, choose to reject the experimenter's
commands, providing a powerful affirmation of human ideals." (1964)
- "When an individual wishes to stand
in opposition to authority, he does best to find support for his position from
others in his group. The mutual support provided by men for each other is the
strongest bulwark we have against the excesses of authority." (1974)
- "It may be that we are
puppets-puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are
puppets with perception, with awareness. And perhaps our awareness is the first
step to our liberation." (1974)
- "The social psychology of this
century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a
man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how
he will act." (1974)
End of material from
Blass Website
Upon
reading Milgram's research reports years ago, I became quite concerned about
ethical considerations. The concerns
had little to do with the use of electric shock as a threat, a matter that has
concerned some psychologists, but with Milgram's actions themselves and the, to
me, apparently conflicting positions in his quotes above.
I can
best explain my concern by quoting parts of several letters I wrote to the
editors of both Science and the APA Monitor, the newspaper of the
American Psychological Association.
On May
8, 1974, I wrote the following (abridged for brevity) to the Editor of Science:
"I
have read ... Riecken's review of Milgram's ... book, "Obedience to
Authority." In my opinion, Riecken
has dismissed the critics and critcism of Milgram's studies far too
easily."
"Milgram,
in a summary of his research (Harper's, Dec., 1973) has stated that
..."The most fundamental lesson of our study ... (is that) ...ordinary
people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their
part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects
of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions
incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have
the resources to resist authority."
"In
my opinion, Milgram has missed the real implications of his work. The basic lesson his research teaches is
that there are persons in power positions who, knowing that there are
individuals who will carry out any kinds of orders irrespective of the moral or
ethical considerations involved, will take advantage of those individuals
to achieve their own ends."
"Assumedly,
before conducting the research, Milgram had reasons to believe that at least some
individuals were 'Eichmann-like.' He
set out to demonstrate this experimentally and in so doing exploited people, at
least some of whom he must have known could be exploited. Possibly, one could justify the research up
until the first subject gave an 'Eichmann-like' response. However, at that point, grave ethical
considerations should have arisen, for, in his own words, Milgram had asked
someone to carry out (an action) 'incompatible with fundamental standards of
morality' ... and they did!
Nevertheless, the research continued, apparently without an insight by
the investigator into his moral responsibility for getting people to commit
what even he defined as immoral acts.
It is difficult to justify this irresponsibility, especially after the
fact, as Millgram has done, in the name of contribution to scientific
knowledge, for the research is essentially descriptive and has given us little
which could help to understand or change the situation. Descriptively, the Nuremburg Trials were far
more effective in demonstrating Milgram's main thesis (than Milgram's
experiment was). It is ironic that his
book has appeared at the same time as the transcripts of the White House tapes
(referring to Nixon and the Watergate incident). The latter demonstrate far more convincingly the points that
Milgram makes and, I believe, substantiate my contention that the greater evil
lies with the exploiter than the expoited."
"As
the social Sciences bear increasingly on sensitive but important areas of our
lives, many scientists and laymen are becoming aware of the need for in-depth
consideration of ethical issues and standards.
We need the wisdom of the sciences and the scientists. But we also need to consider human rights
and human dignity. The latter two are
far more important. Milgram's book
reminds us that there is much yet to be done.
Power must be recognized for what it is and must be used rationally and
with compassion. Given our present
condition, we have a very long and difficult road ahead."
The
letter was not published.
In
January of 1978, I wrote a letter to the Editor of the APA Monitor in
which I responded to a news article that had covered a symposium in which
Milgram had participated. I covered the
details that I had covered in the 1974 letter to Science and went on to
conclude that "the recent coverage afforded Milgram's views in the Monitor,
which indicates that Milgram still hasn't learned that he, not his test
subjects, is the lesson to be learned from his research, makes the road ahead
seem just as long as it did four years ago.
That
letter was not published.
Undaunted,
I wrote another letter to Science in January of 1980, responding to an
article published therein (1979-11-02) that contained the following statement:
"And, in
discussing the ethics of the Milgram research, several participants tried to
belittle its significance, even though it is
one of the most widely known pieces of
social research
of the past couple of decades. (Indeed, Milgram got the AAAS award
for social
psychology in 1964.)
I
remarked that "Somehow this statement, (i.e. the one quoted immediately
above) seems to imply that because of its status, the Milgram study is beyond
belittling."
I
then went on to repeat essentially what was in the two previous letters.
That
letter was not published.
Two of
the quotes attributed to Milgram above are worthy of comment.
First, "I started with the belief that every person who came to the
laboratory was free to accept or to reject the dictates of authority. This view sustains a conception of human
dignity insofar as it sees in each man a capacity for choosing his own behavior. And as it turned out, many subjects did,
indeed, choose to reject the experimenter's commands, providing a powerful
affirmation of human ideals." (1964)
Science
is a difficult enterprise, especially that part of science that deals with
human behavior. In the ideal world of
science, faith and belief are differentiated from fact and idealized scientists
pursue facts and try to keep their faith and their beliefs apart from their
research.
In
reality, beliefs and values enter into much human behavior research, sometimes
explicitly as in the case of Milgram and other times implictly, without the
researcher even being aware of the happening.
Here we see Milgram stating a belief; an assumption that people have the
capacity for choosing their own behavior, for accepting or rejecting the
dictates of authority. Yet, after
finding that nearly 2/3 of his participants did not apparently have that
capacity, he still came to a positive conclusion:"as it turned out, many subjects did, indeed, choose to
reject the experimenter's commands, providing a powerful affirmation of human
ideals." (1964)
This
statement seems to me a somewhat over-reaching attempt to justify the
research. However, Milgram died
prematurely some years ago and cannot inform us.
Second,
and of greater importance, he said: ""The social psychology of this century reveals a major
lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of
situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act." (1974).
In
addition to contradicting his quote of ten years earlier that expressed his
belief that people are free to choose their own behavior, in this quote, in
which he emphasizes the power of the situation, he utterly failed to realize
that he, as experimenter, was part of the situation, and that, in his own
words, it is "the kind of situation in which he finds himself that
determines how he will act."
Applying his own words to his own situation, his use of
power in the very situation that he had created caused himself to carry out actions incompatible
with fundamental standards of morality.
By dint of the design of his experiment, he had caused people to at
least think that they were seriously harming others and he had persisted in
doing that, over and over again, in his own words reducing another human being
"to a twitching, stuttering wreck who was rapidly approaching nervous
collapse."
Stated
yet another way, Milgram had become the victim of his own research. He had denied his own freedom of choice that
he so eloquently preached about and he had become an Eichman of sorts. One will never know, but, either because of
some macabre fascination with the process of his experiment which compelled him
to continue it or because of an appalling lack of insight, he had become his
own victim, denied his ownfreedom of choice and caused himself to commit a
series of immoral acts.
On the other hand, note that the Stanford Prison Experiment, as I understand it, was terminated after six days because of what the situation was doing to the participants.
It is important to understand that neither Milgram's studies nor the Stanford study explains what happened at Abu Ghraib.
Those studies were descriptive. They demonstrate that situations and groups can affect individual behavior. But didn't we know that already? Think of the millions of Jews and others exterminated in concentration camps and the kind of infrastructure the Nazis must have had to carry that out, from Hitler down to the lowest soldier "carrying out orders." Why must we attempt to validate a real life happening of such massive proportions as The Holocaust in a one-hour study with college students? What, precisely, is the point? What, precisely, is the point of, as noted earlier, creating a "live" reality show in which people will torture others to demonstrate what we already know? It is as if we are all acting in some theater of the absurd where we are at once the observers and the observed who have lost sight of what is real and what isn't and have to wallow in the irreality of reality or, perhaps, the reality of irreality.
The basic lesson for anyone who has any power over others in any situation: Be aware that no matter how high or low in the chain of command that you are, you are always in a position to make others commit immoral acts simply by virtue of your having power over them, whether or not you directly order them to commit those acts. People have been doing immoral things to please their bosses since the world began. I'm not sure whether this is inherent in "the human condition," but as we wallow at present in the muck of such things as Abu Ghraib, corporate and other cheating, massive destruction of lives in the pursuit of personal aggrandizement and wealth, political conniving, government lying and deception, environmental destruction, and innumerable other categories of dubious acts, the outcome of our future is in grave doubt. There has to be a better way. But if only one in three people resist performing immoral acts, as Milgram's research suggests, then how does each one of us moral beings take on the other two?
We can start by looking at our educational systems, our child-rearing systems, our own family behavior and begin to see what is happening there and how it might affect our behavior as a nation.
I've written in a previous editorial about the "This is what you get when you lose" attitude as being a fundamental problem in our culture. We might ponder a companion cultural problem that is more widespread than we think and that is directly related to the subject matter of this editorial. It can best be described by the following progression of statements: "Johnny, don't ask questions. When I tell you to do something, you do it." "Dammit, Timmy, get outside and empty the rubbish and don't give me any backtalk." "Sally, obey your mother." "Smith, forget your ideas and do it my way, or you're out." "Woman, you do what I say or I'll break your face." "Corporal, I want these prisoners treated so that they will be more willing to answer questions when we ask them (wink, wink)." "Now listen up you no-good sons of bitches. You're in the Army now and you're going to forget everything you learned about being nice." "You guys are here to learn how to kill." "I was just following orders."