Perils of Obedience :: essays research papers

identical to our step experiment, except that the teacher was told that he was free to select any reverse level of any on the trials. (The experimenter took pains to point out that the teacher could use the highest levels on the generator, the net, any in between, or any compounding of levels.) Each subject proceeded for thirty circumstantial trials. The learners confesss were co-ordinated to standard shock levels, his for the frontmost time grunt coming at 75 volts, his first vehement protest at 150 volts. The average shock used during the thirty critical trials was less than 60 volts -- lower than the point at which the victim showed the first signs of discomfort. Three of the forty subjects did not go beyond the very lowest level on the board, twenty-eight went no higher than 75 volts, and xxxviii did not go beyond the first loud protest at 150 volts. Two subjects provided the exception, administering up to 325 and 450 volts, but the overall result was that the neat maj ority of people delivered very low, usually painless, shocks when the choice was explicitly up to them. The condition of the experiment undermines another commonly offered explanation of the subjects behaviour -- that those who surprise the victim at the most severe levels came only from the sadistic periphery of society. If one considers that almost two-thirds of the participants fall into the category of "obedient" subjects, and that they represented commonplace people drawn from working, managerial, and professional classes, the argument becomes very shaky. Indeed, it is highly evocative of the issue that arose in connection with Hannah Arendts 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem. Arendt contended that the prosecutions effort to depict Eichmann as a sadistic monster was fundamentally wrong, that he came closer to beingness an uninspired bureaucrat who simply sat at his desk and did his job. For asserting her views, Arendt became the target of considerable scorn, even c alumny. Somehow, it was felt that the monstrous deeds carried out by Eichmann required a brutal, twisted personality, evil incarnate. After witnessing hundreds of ordinary persons depict to the authority in our own experiments, I must conclude that Arendts conception of the banality of evil comes closer to the truth than one might hold imagine. The ordinary person who shocked the victim did so out of a sense of obligation -- an impression of his duties as a subject -- and not from any peculiarly aggressive tendencies.