I've been learning in Intro to Psych about obedience and the change of behavior due to commands from authority. The studies are striking and shocking even, especially that of the Milgram experiment. In this experiment, participants were asked by the experimenter/expert to administer progressively strong shocks to another person of the experiment (whom the subject did not know was an actor); about 65% of the participants obeyed the experimenter to the end, administering the strongest level of shock to the other person despite the yells, screams, and hysterical pleas. This experiment found that it took only a command from an authority figure to thrust people into blind obedience.
Blind obedience is attributed to the feeling of decreased personal responsibility by seeing another (the experimenter) as the one in control and therefore to blame/responsible. Also, participants may dehumanize the victim to decrease the sense of responsible by seeing the the victim as inferior to humans and deserving of the action. Finally there is the progressive escalation of requests; by not having the first act of obedience be mild, the next step after can increase in extremity, easing the participant to gradually change/accept the changes resulting in a slippery slope.
I may be jumping ahead, but I just had to share this knowledge, because this information resonates with the behavior of Nazis, as, for example, progressive escalation of requests was used in the indoctrination of concentration camp guards in Nazi Germany. Many Nazis did not the see the fault in their obedience; they were simply following orders.
Relevant to the mass Nazi movement as a whole is this idea of conformity. Studies by Asch in the 1950s used an experiment in which the correct answer was clear and obvious. However when confederates gave incorrect responses that contradicted what the participant knew to be true, the results showed that chances were less than one in four that the participant would act independently and disagree with the group. As with the Nazi movement, maybe people preferred to be "normal" rather than correct. A outspoken minority would have perhaps greatly reduced the extraordinary influence of the Nazis, as when a group's unanimity is broken, social conformity is greatly decreased or eliminated. Then there would be those who feel that they can speak up without fear of persecution. However, dissension would not have been very popular because of fear of the ubiquity of tattle-tale Nazis, death sentences, and imprisonment. Given that dissent to the Nazi regime was stifled through fear and the drive for self-preservation, the minority was silent, allowing the Nazis to speak and act for the whole.
If you're as intrigued by the Milgram experiment as me, check out this video:
The connection you make between the Milgram study and the Nazi movement is really interesting. The information it provides about one's willingness to obey authority without feeling personal responsibility may help us understand why Hitler and the Nazis were able to come into power so quickly. The Nazis, local authorities or concentration camp guards, were willing to obey Hitler, a figure of great authority, because they were doing what was asked of them.
ReplyDeleteAnother social psychology experiment that seems particularly relevant to the Third Reich and the Holocaust is the Stanford Prison Experiment. Twenty-four male college students were chosen randomly from a group of 75, and half were assigned the role of guards while the other half played prisoner. The experiment, which lasted only 6 days instead of the intended 14, resulted in the young men taking their roles too seriously. The guards became authoritarian and abusive, while prisoners either rebelled or became submissive to that abuse. This controversial experiment reveals information about people's impressionability and obedience when provided a legitimate ideology and institutional support, much like the one the Nazi regime provided for the masses. The experiment also illustrates the power of authority and theories of cognitive dissonance.
The results of these two experiments may help us understand how the Nazi regime held power and the Holocaust was able to take place, but they do not remove blame or responsibility from those in power and those who supported the regime and its actions.
As I started reading Outcast by Inge Deutschkron, I was also watching the movie The Pianist. Both the movie and the book depicted the lives of a Jewish person trying to avoid being sent to concentration camps and survive while hiding in different cities. In both cases they had to break the law to survive and to do what they felt was right. In their case it was more unconformity to the laws that threatened their freedom and lives.
ReplyDeleteThroughout Outcast we see Inge, her mother, and those around her breaking the laws to continue hiding, work, and live their life. Inge often changed her coat with the Yellow Star on it to one without it before she went to work so as not to be pointed out by other people. She also had to change her registration papers. Early on in the book, she even goes to the theater by hiding her Jewish identity, trying to live her life as a young girl. This shows that people will often go against laws and orders to do what they believe is right. There are many cases of other people helping Inge and her mother hide even though they were risking their freedom. People like Mrs. Gruger and some of Inge’s employers helped them hide from the Gestapo for as long as they could without being caught. Sometimes one has to break the law and/or not conform to regulations and authority for what they know is right.
Inge Deutschkron's book, Outcast, portrays the Jewish people as a defenseless, helpless race swept in the dominating Nazi movement. Jewish children could no longer partake in German schools, and Jewish teachers were fired. The distinction between "us" and "them" was becoming more and more prominent, both sides considering separation as a "safety" issue. As we discussed that Germans would turn on their own neighbors and family members to report any "traitors" to the regime, the Jewish people began to do the same. "We knew that people were being arrested, and when a girl was absent froms chool for a few days, we would whisper among ourselves that someone in her family had probably been arrested. Then one of us would go to that girls' house to find out what was wrong, and when she returned to school we would instinctively shun her, as though she were marked" (27).
ReplyDeletePerhaps obedience extends from more than just blindness and the finger-pointing mentality of having someone to blame. Maybe conformity was due to fear of being an outcast, maybe obedience came from the need and desire to be safe and recognized by a greater group. Perhaps it is just animal instincts that there will always be safety in numbers.