The Perils Of Obedience Summary

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

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

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