The Perils of Obedience

[womanformallyknownaswoman]

In 1961, to test the hypothesis "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?”, Milgram conducted a research experiment that has been repeated many times since, around the globe, with fairly consistent results. In the experiments designed to show how people are obedient to authority, Milgram got astonishing results, that 65% of people will obey authority even when it means severely harming and perhaps killing someone else.

He later said:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.
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 needed to resist authority.

It seems that sex change rights have been combined onto LBG rights, via the Yogyakarta Principles, which then became international law, without anyone seemingly recognising or challenging the impacts upon women’s rights, until recently.

Could the seemingly rapid implementation of sex change rights across the board, ahead of legislative changes, be due to this “obedience” phenomenon? Are we the 35% who refuse to comply with authority and cause harm to others, because we recognise the potential for real harm through the removal of age-old safeguards for women and children?

Yes I would hope we are the 35% , but we must recognise that we will be punished for not obeying.

There has been some useful criticism of Milgram and reinterpretation of the results. E.g., www.cifar.ca/assets/restaging-of-milgram-shock-experiment-finds-blind-obedience-is-a-myth/
"[It] appears that direct orders are not very effective precisely because they undermine identification between participants and the experimenter. “It’s not that people are blind to the consequences of what they’re doing and simply do what they are told. Instead, they are aware of what they are doing but believe that this is justified because it is helping to advance a worthy cause. And that’s a very, very different story,” Haslam says.

The findings have deep societal implications. “Where you see tyranny or genocide, or other forms of oppression around the world, what you find at its core is a very strong sense of shared identification with a set of toxic beliefs,” Haslam says. We are forced to think harder about these shared identities when “just following orders” is no longer an excuse."

In this specific case, I wonder if the general principle that this is perceived as a "worthy cause" would promote conformity and obedience. The non-default/'othering' of women might also make it easier to dismiss any points of conflict or intersection in favour of the 'worthier' cause.

Wow this is so interesting. An amazing theory op and also Aaron! Look forward to reading tomorrow.

Really interesting. I'd love to read more on this. But I do fear for many the real reason is rather more prosaic - they just don't give a sh**. They will go along with the path of least resistance and couldn't give two monkeys either way. I hope i am wrong and within every individual there are complex and strong beliefs that could be stirred to activity if only the circumstances were favourable. Fingers crossed.

The findings have deep societal implications. “Where you see tyranny or genocide, or other forms of oppression around the world, what you find at its core is a very strong sense of shared identification with a set of toxic beliefs,” Haslam says. We are forced to think harder about these shared identities when “just following orders” is no longer an excuse."

In this specific case, I wonder if the general principle that this is perceived as a "worthy cause" would promote conformity and obedience. The non-default/'othering' of women might also make it easier to dismiss any points of conflict or intersection in favour of the 'worthier' cause.

Very interesting

It's a great experiment, though wouldn't get past ethics now. I seem to recall that Milgram et al did another experiment that involved sane people going to insane asylums and asking to be admitted. There was one of the volunteers, all were scientists, who couldn't get out. She spent over 6 months in the asylum, despite letters to the CEO to say she was part of an experiment.

I can't seem to find the study now. But it frightened me reading about it. It was a prime example of how natal born women are dismissed summarily and so easily disbelieved.

placemats wrote: "There was one of the volunteers, all were scientists, who couldn't get out. She spent over 6 months in the asylum, despite letters to the CEO to say she was part of an experiment".

I've always known that experiment as Thud tho' it's aka Rosenhan: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

The history of how straightforward it is for women to be involuntarily detained on mental/moral grounds is deeply unsettling. And, as for the surgery that was done to remove "unnatural urges" (entirely age-appropriate for the most part) or literally body parts that offended others (a woman with CP with an uncontrollable tic in her arm had it removed as it irritated her father)...

I often think of this when I hear how often women struggle to get anything other than a 'mental health' diagnosis from a GP.

Thank you arranfan for clarifying that I knew I had some of the details wrong, well a lot, but have always linked it in my mind with Milgram.

I'm also reminded of the actress Frances Farmer. Tragic life.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Farmer

Jessica Lange portrayed her in the film 'Frances'. Harrowing.

The non-default/'othering' of women might also make it easier to dismiss any points of conflict or intersection in favour of the 'worthier' cause.

this reminds me of an article i read ages ago (sorry i can't find it or remember where it was) about why the sentences for motorists who kill cyclists are so lenient. the hypothesis was that judges and juries had more empathy for the motorists because most of them were motorists themselves. they thought "that could easily be me there" when they looked at the drivers who had caused the deaths. whereas the number of people who are cyclists is far far lower so very few of them could identify with the dead cyclist. cyclists are effectively othered in the courts.

i think it is easy for women to be othered because so many of the people in charge are men and they really cannot imagine being us.

That is such a great point you make stillathing I had never thought about it like this before.

especially this:

i think it is easy for women to be othered because so many of the people in charge are men and they really cannot imagine being us.

i think it is easy for women to be othered because so many of the people in charge are men and they really cannot imagine being us.

I don't think they even get as far as trying to imagine the impact on us - they assume that their perspective is the only perspective and never bother asking us to check.

I feel pretty uncomfortable about the Nazis reference. I mean I get the point and that it led to the experiement and so on but still, it's a pretty strong link being made.

On the rest, I wonder if it's about distance.

One of the PP notes about being part of a process - where your bit is small so you can excuse yourself from the consequences of the thing across the piece when all parts of the process are completed.

The other thing about distance is that we all do it to a greater or a lesser extent. Most people buy goods that could well be the product of exploitation but they don't see it with their own eyes directly so can minimise / ignore it.

I think a lot of this is about it not affecting people directly and so they don't care (the empathy point). They can't empathise and so they aren't interested. It's the "famous person has female baby and suddenly understands that women are people" thing. Seems empathy only comes when it's personal / nearest and dearest.

The same could be said for GC feminists not empathising with trans people I suppose. Well apart from lots of GC feminists being gender non conforming etc. Maybe in fact it's to do with too much empathy and "why don't you deal with it like I did" + the stuff about teen girls being so unhappy with their bodies etc

dunno just some thoughts.

literally body parts that offended others (a woman with CP with an uncontrollable tic in her arm had it removed as it irritated her father)

Hang on - am I really reading that a woman had her arm amputated because she had a tic that annoyed her dad?

On a thread the other day there was someone whos grandmother (I think it was) ended up havign all her teeth removed and dentures, because one was wonky and it annoyed her husband and her went on and on at her until she did it (and she never really forgave him).

Girls used to be locked up for their whole lives if they didn't toe the line, didn't they,as well.

DisturbinglyOrangeScrambledEgg wrote: "Hang on - am I really reading that a woman had her arm amputated because she had a tic that annoyed her dad?"

Horribly, yes.

placemats - I was interested to see that this account of Rosemary Kennedy's lobotomy (effectively for sneaking out to see boys) and the post-surgical complications mentions Frances Farmer: allthatsinteresting.com/rosemary-kennedy-lobotomy

The Kennedy family was incredibly abusive despite what his-story says - the father was a notorious womaniser and bulky - his wife the dutiful catholic wife. Rosemary was lobotomised for being "wilful" - awful awful family. Look at the ethics of Ted Kennedy the cove up of the murder of a young woman. JFK took after his father. Bobby is portrayed at the saint but who knows.

Anyway this is way off the topic I started with which is about people in hierarchies obeying authority despite the impact on other people, because they either don't care, are too frightened to speak out or just want an easy life. It seems like there's a lack of critical thinking and failure of duty of care at play in the wholesale adoption of the change sex group's terms without anybody carrying out an impact assessment, at any level, on the impact on women and girls

The failure to carry out impact assessments is what is gnawing away at me.

There has to be substantial dissonance in play there because the institutions involved pretty much mandate risk assessments for playdates in any creche they provide so it defies belief that there are no impact assessments for matters with substantial and far-reaching consequences in so many areas (social, employment, facilities management, EA compliance, etc. etc.).

The very real danger is that, in general, there's a tendency for the public at large to assume that policy changes etc. have been done with impact assessments in place, so it's all been thought through. In several areas, people are quite shocked to discover that just because something has been through the "XXX process" doesn't actually mean anything.

The very real danger is that, in general, there's a tendency for the public at large to assume that policy changes etc. have been done with impact assessments in place, so it's all been thought through. In several areas, people are quite shocked to discover that just because something has been through the "XXX process" doesn't actually mean anything.

YY and I think most people would be thinking, like me, exactly what are these organisations and people doing if not impact assessments re safeguarding - I mean what is more important than that on their agenda and why hasn't anyone recognised the huge potential risks?

womanformallyknownasman - did you see Unforgotten Series 2 (currently available on itv.com)?

If you haven't I don't want to give spoilers for some of the more harrowing moments around the issues of safeguarding. But, plaudits to the writers, directors, the players - it confronted the notion that safeguarding is now so firmly established that abuse should largely now be considered as a matter of historical interest rather than a live issue.

Many moments stand out but one in particular - when the character is being asked if she never suspected. And she trails off into how at the time rockstars were on TV being interviewed about their underage girlfriends and how it was all fine, rock and roll, and... Effectively, this was normalised if not actually glamorised.

There is a very disturbing tendency for people to disparage safeguarding as political correctness because they don't understand or acknowledge its roots. I wonder if there is a risk that normalisation can lead us into unthinking compliance - particularly when we trust authorities to have done the assessment and thinking for us?

arranfan yes I have seen that

Effectively, this was normalised if not actually glamorised.

Yes I agree whole -heartedly - things got prudish in the 80s & 90s compared with the 60s and 70s - but now we seem to have descended into some hell where porn and deviancy are normalised through social media - a kind of deviant norm.

There is a very disturbing tendency for people to disparage safeguarding as political correctness because they don't understand or acknowledge its roots. I wonder if there is a risk that normalisation can lead us into unthinking compliance - particularly when we trust authorities to have done the assessment and thinking for us?

YY - I think it's always it's been an issue trying to educate the general public about deviancy and abuse and how paedophiles etc hide their true nature - but now they seem to have developed some additional covers than "celebrity" like Savile plus priest and teachers.

Especially so these days as the Millenials seem to have been brainwashed through SM - the extraordinary aggressive pushback is very concerning against criticism of non-standard behaviour norms like "changing sex" and "sex work is empowering" plus the risks of having no impact assessments around losing single-sex spaces for women and girls plus how porn has morphed normal sex into demeaning and abusive for girls and women- even more so these days.

Also the extreme intolerance of hearing different perspectives and also the disrespect and disdain for older, wiser, more experienced viewpoints is very concerning. The syndrome of the young know best plus their narcissism, all encouraged by SM, is a very destructive force as well as a great cover for deviants.

arranfan yes I have seen that

Effectively, this was normalised if not actually glamorised.

Yes I agree whole -heartedly - things got prudish in the 80s & 90s compared with the 60s and 70s - but now we seem to have descended into some hell where porn and deviancy are normalised through social media - a kind of deviant norm.

There is a very disturbing tendency for people to disparage safeguarding as political correctness because they don't understand or acknowledge its roots. I wonder if there is a risk that normalisation can lead us into unthinking compliance - particularly when we trust authorities to have done the assessment and thinking for us?

YY - I think it's always it's been an issue trying to educate the general public about deviancy and abuse and how paedophiles etc hide their true nature - but now they seem to have developed some additional covers than "celebrity" like Savile plus priest and teachers.

Especially so these days as the Millenials seem to have been brainwashed through SM - the extraordinary aggressive pushback is very concerning against criticism of non-standard behaviour norms like "changing sex" and "sex work is empowering" plus the risks of having no impact assessments around losing single-sex spaces for women and girls plus how porn has morphed normal sex into demeaning and abusive for girls and women- even more so these days.

Also the extreme intolerance of hearing different perspectives and also the disrespect and disdain for older, wiser, more experienced viewpoints is very concerning. The syndrome of the young know best plus their narcissism, all encouraged by SM, is a very destructive force as well as a great cover for deviants.

Also the extreme intolerance of hearing different perspectives and also the disrespect and disdain for older, wiser, more experienced viewpoints is very concerning. The syndrome of the young know best plus their narcissism, all encouraged by SM, is a very destructive force as well as a great cover for deviants.

Does all of this brings us back to the hiding in plain sight that so many people report that they felt about Savile and other notable figures?

Added in to the concerns about social media and the commented-upon notional association with harmful narcissism, plus identity politics, I have a nagging feeling that we're seeing Hannah Arendt's patterns of history play out again, with different -isms. We still have isolation, loneliness, power in nebulous groups, and the stripping of rights because no government will support particular groups. (This would be much easier to discuss using Arendt's examples.)

Arendt added a section to the 2nd edition of The Origins of Totalitarianism. She had a fascinating and persuasive argument that individual isolation and loneliness are part of the essential preconditions for totalitarian domination. I don't have a note to hand of which edition or section this is from but I find that the following gives me much to think about:
“Each society demands of its members a certain amount of acting, the ability to present, represent, and act what one actually is. When society disintegrates into cliques such demands are no longer made of the individual but of members of cliques. Behavior then is controlled by silent demands and not by individual capacities, exactly as an actor’s performance must fit into the ensemble of all other roles in the play.”

That last part makes me think of obedience and compliance.

Arendt added a section to the 2nd edition of The Origins of Totalitarianism. She had a fascinating and persuasive argument that individual isolation and loneliness are part of the essential preconditions for totalitarian domination. I don't have a note to hand of which edition or section this is from but I find that the following gives me much to think about:
“Each society demands of its members a certain amount of acting, the ability to present, represent, and act what one actually is. When society disintegrates into cliques such demands are no longer made of the individual but of members of cliques. Behavior then is controlled by silent demands and not by individual capacities, exactly as an actor’s performance must fit into the ensemble of all other roles in the play.”

That last part makes me think of obedience and compliance.

Ah very interesting - I recently watched the movie about Arendt and wanted to read her book but it's reference only in the library system where I am, unfortunately. It sounds like I need to get a copy. I have also read others that understand totalitarianism and how it's formed.

She had a fascinating and persuasive argument that individual isolation and loneliness are part of the essential preconditions for totalitarian domination.

This really resonated with me - abusive guys always use isolation and divide and conquer tactics within whatever environment they operate in. They abuse their power to target someone or some people and scapegoat them. And the disappointing reality is many compy and obey rather than challenge authority (goes back to the Milgram experiment).

I've observed this same phenomenon in families, in societies and in the workplace. And the willful blindness of many to the targeting and abuse of women particularly is shocking. They want to keep their head down and fall in with the new regime - look after their own so to speak - and are afraid of speaking out. Women tend to be more outspoken often but their courage makes them a target - as we have seen and experienced. Men just comply mostly. One guy told me men are pack animals and follow their leader. With the immoral state of most leaders that doesn't bode well.

Social media is now weaponised exactly like an abuser so divides and conquers plus silences women. It also serves to brainwash the young into the self centred and perverse, even deviant celebrity culture.

And yes it does lead to hiding in plain sight - I mean anywhere there's vulnerable children and adults, the predators' cluster and target - so any safeguarding agencies for example as well as schools and now SM as that's where kids turn if they are having problems of any sort - making them ripe for the sophisticated grooming of the disordered and those who benefit - the 10%.

But so many don't understand Cluster Bs and their mentality and it's hard to get that message out to the younger girls especially, who need it. Women are getting more educated via collectives on SM but often too late - but at least they are more forearmed.

So it seems to me those same agencies tasked with safeguarding become the "poacher turned gamekeeper" - ready to harvest vulnerable women and girls in huge numbers.