Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem - Article Example

ity “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem” by Erich Fromm The article by Erich Fromm delves into the issue of disobedience and focuses on the importance of disobedience in shaping the contemporary society. Before providing a synopsis of the article, it is important to highlight the import of the argument put forward Fromm. As a student of Sigmund Freud and Marx, Fromm is neither aligned to either of these two, which makes his work defy straightforward depictions. Importantly, Fromm does not have one line of thought and he is both a psychoanalyst and philosopher, and a historian and sociologist at the same time. In effect, his work cuts across these important disciplines; this makes it more balanced and informational than the work of other writers who focused on a specific discipline. Summary Written during the cold war era, and especially during the Cuban missile crisis, this essay focuses on the beguiling comfort that obedience of any form produces on human beings. In this regard, the essay posits that obedience does not contribute to sweeping changes that disobedience can provide. The essay starts with a historical cliche that has been the rallying call for obedience all through humanity. Fromm identifies the phrase “obedience is a virtue, disobedience is a vice” as a phrase that people have used overtime to assert the importance of people following authority, which the essay highlights as obedience in an irrational form. However, Fromm introduces a departure from this common viewpoint by introducing a divergent view that highlights the importance of disobedience among human beings. This article postulates that all the great achievements and strides that human beings have made are a result of disobedience. Hence, the article suggests that “human history started with an act of disobedience, and it is not unlikely that it will be terminated by an act of obedience” (Fromm 683). To support this argument, Fromm advances the Greek and Hebrew mythologies position on the beginning of human history. In the Hebrew mythology, which is also known as the creation theory, Adam and Eve’s act of the “Original Sin” became their step towards gaining freedom and independence after disobeying an order from no lesser a person than God. Consequently, this ushered in the importance of disobedience since it contributed to the advancement of human history. On the other hand, Prometheus stole from the gods in an act of disobedience and consequently laid the foundation for civilization according to Greek mythology. (Fromm 684). These Greek and Hebrew myths set the pace for humanity’s evolution with the two instructively being acts of disobedience. Fromm further highlights other cases that indicate man’s evolution based on disobedience, and suggests that disobedience might destroy civilization in the future. In this case disobedience has resulted to revolutions that have established institutions that govern people. Furthermore, from does not negate obedience as a vice in its entirety. He suggests the importance of ensuring that an individual strikes a balance between obeying some principles and disobeying others in order to subscribe to a cause. This way, Fromm indicates that an individual does not become a rebel with a cause or a slave by obeying the powers that be that purport obedience as a way of achieving success and power. Analysis Based on Fromm’s work, it is evident that human beings’ achievement in terms of civilization would appear implausible without disobedience. In line with this, all the strides that are evident today are due to the great men and women who have made history by disobeying and behaving outside the expected norms in order to achieve their objectives. For example, the freedoms that people experience today are a result of various people going against the grain to agitate for freedom and autonomy from the powers that be, which are for the maintenance of the status quo with courageous people advocating for obedience in order to control their rule. Conversely, disobedience should be practiced in a rational manner while following a cause should be through courageous means. This means that having a clear conscience is fundamental in disobedience, which highlights the importance of obeying some concepts in order to achieve the cause that one wanted to achieve. “The Power of Situations” by Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett While Fromm highlights the importance of an individual’s character in shaping their behavior, Ross and Nisbett approach the issue in a different perspective by highlighting the role of situations, which an individual is exposed to, as crucial in shaping behavior. Consequently, the two authors highlight the connection between different situations and different behaviors that an individual exhibits. Ross, a psychology professor at Stanford University, and his colleague Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, link the inconsistency in human being’s behavior to the different situations that people encounter in life. Summary To set the pace for their discussion, the writers provide a case about an individual who faces a situation that required them to show their altruism. John, whose case was an actual research study, is used by the writers to argue their main point. In this case, John comes across a man who was slumped on a door and consequently asked John for assistance. The authors ask the reader to make a decision on whether John assisted the man. In effect, they propose that an individual will most likely investigate John’s personality and past events that required him to show altruism, which the authors indicate as a wrong premise for an individual to judge John’s offer to assist this man (Ross and Nisbett 690). In this case, the authors relied on a study conducted on students using this particular incident with the results suggesting that an individual will likely help the man slumped on the door depending on the prevailing circumstances. The findings indicate that when students were in a hurry, only 10% assisted the man while 63% of the students in the sample helped the man when they were not in a hurry (Ross and Nisbett 690). Analysis Ross and Nisbett indicate that creation of situational analysis in research studies provide answers to the inconsistent behavior of human beings. Instructively, this is contrary to popular belief that an individual’s current situation contributed little to the behavior that they exhibited. While a majority of people think that personality trait was responsible for people’s behavior, it is evident from these authors work that personality contributed little to an individual’s behavior. In effect, this premise is true since the behavior of human beings is inconsistent, which contradicts the personality traits in an individual that are consistent in nature. In this case, behavior should be consistent if it was determined by the personality traits of an individual. On the other hand, it is important to point out that human beings faced different situations in the course of their lives. Consequently, these different situations that individuals are exposed to contribute to variations in the behavior of an individual. In conclusion, situations are a more powerful determinant of an individual’s behavior than the individual’s personality traits. “The Perils of Obedience” by Stanley Milgram A Yale psychologist, Stanley Milgram was influential in investigating the limit of people’s obedience in situations that caused harm on other people. In this case, Milgram designed an experiment that evaluated the level that individuals can go on obeying orders from powerful people despite the behavior from these orders bearing dangerous. In one of the most imperative experiments that investigate the extent of an individual’s obedience, only a few people disobeyed the orders given to them by these powerful people. Consequently, the results highlight important aspects of people’s obedience and submission. Summary of the Article In the first part of the article, Milgram highlights the significance that people portrayed while respecting authoritative figures. In this case, the author emphasizes the importance of obedience in constructing the society. While obedience is ingrained in the society and its people, there exists a conflict between submission to authoritative figures and the extent to which individual conscience should play a role in determining the choice for an individual’s behavior. In this regard, this dilemma has existed in history with various definitions and arguments favoring different sides. In his experiment to test obedience to authority in his lab, which has come to be known as the “Shock Generator,” Milgram designated one subject as a learner with the other one being the teacher. In this case, the experimenter would exert pressure on the teacher to punish the learner by electric shock until the point whereby the teacher opted out of the experiment or reached the maximum level of shock set at 450 Volts. It is instructive to point out that the “Shock Generator” was not authentic at all and the experiment did not mean any harm to the subjects who were involved in the study, which implies that the machine did not generate any shock. Before conducting the experiment, Milgram sought the advice of his colleagues with some claiming that only a measly 1% would exert shock to the level of 450 Volts. Interestingly, the results suggested a different outcome since 25 out of 40 people obeyed the order to the end of the experiment while exerting pain to the subjects. While the first set of subjects involved Yale students as a pilot study, Milgram incorporated all sets of people in his final research work with the results being similar to the results in the pilot study. To further support his argument, similar studies conducted in South Africa, Princeton, Rome, Australia, and Munich provided regularly higher levels of obedience than Milgram’s initial experiment with Munich recording 85% of obedience amongst subjects (Milgram 696). From the experiment, the biggest conclusion by Milgram is that obedience from ordinary people can result to processes that were both terrible and destructive under orders given to them by the authority. In this case, only a few people can behave inconsistently with the authority’s demands on them, which imply that only a small number of people can behave according to their moral conscience when ordered by people in authority to cause harm on other people. In effect, submission to authority is dominant among people with Milgram observing that teachers behaved with indifference against the learners they were punishing to a point whereby they ignored their calls to stop the process. However, the same teachers were submissive and courteous to the experimenter owing to the position of the experimenter as the person in authority. Analysis Based on Milgram’s work, it is evident that, in its entirety, obedience is not an issue that relies on psychology. In this case, the societal attributes that define the outlook of the society are crucial in defining the issue of obedience. In line with this, people progressively yield and submit to those in authority since the contemporary society relies on observance of the norms, rules, and regulations that govern the behavior of people. Hence, behavior in humans is according to the instructions directed to them from authoritative figures without using rationale to judge the moral uprightness of the consequences of their behavior. For this reason, human beings will engage in negative behavior when given orders by those in authority without assuming responsibility for their actions, which effectively makes obedience to authority one of the main socially constructed evil in the contemporary society. Synthesis of the three Articles The contemporary society witnesses a situation whereby people’s behavior is a result of various reasons. While a majority of people argue that people act according to their personality traits, it is crucial to point out that people behave in different ways due to the situations that they find themselves. For this reason, people’s response from orders given to other people in position of authority is proof that personality traits are not the only maxim that people should use to define behavior. In this regard, it is evident that people submit to the will of those in authority in disregard of whether their behavior will cause harm or injury to another person (Milgram 693). In this case, the personality of an individual might not contribute to their behavior whereby they behave in a submissive manner by harming others based on orders that they receive from their authority. Hence, the situation an individual finds themselves in directs their behavior despite the behavior being morally upright or wrong. Consequently, people will behave according to the orders from people in authority without considering their responsibility in their behavior. While obedience from leaders is submission to the orders given by the leaders, it is crucial to point out that disobedience from orders takes courage and a clear conscience (Fromm 686). However it is evident that saying no to powers is highly unlikely in most people since obedience has been touted as the most important fabric that holds the society together. In fact, the ruling class has always taught obedience to those they ruled in order to ensure that their power was not subverted due to disobedience. However, most of the achievements that human beings have made in the contemporary society are a result of disobeying common practices, norms, and rules that are set by the ruling class. In fact, human civilization is a result of human being’s disobedience and repudiation to conform. Works Cited Fromm, Erich. “Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem.” Title of Collection. Ed. Editor's Name(s). City of Publication: Publisher, Year. 683-687. Medium of Publication. Milgram, Stanley. “The Perils of Obedience.” Title of Collection. Ed. Editor's Name(s). City of Publication: Publisher, Year. 692-704. Medium of Publication. Ross, Lee, and Richard E. Nisbett. “The Power of Situations.” Title of Collection. Ed. Editor's Name(s). City of Publication: Publisher, Year. 688-691. Medium of Publication. Read More