Social-Psychological Implications of Gibsons Rhetorical Analysis - Essay Example

? Social Psychological Implications Social Psychological Implications Interpreting the Analysis This analysis requires is a discussion on the implications of social psychological aspects, and social relationships based on the re-analysis of Gibson about Milgram studies of obedience. In the re-analysis, Gibson creates a summary of the power relations as a central factor that controls social psychology expressions. He expresses social psychology attributes as the manifestation of in built emotions and knowledge influenced by the dynamic acquisition of credentials and experience. Empirically, the analysis answers the questions as to whether the power relations can be addressed in the view of its benefits or negative aspects, and the optimal level at which the discussion can focus on power relationship in the study of social psychology. The main interest that Milgram expresses in Power Human Relationship in the re-analysis is in a situation where one person issues command to a second one to hurt a third person. Milgram shows that human beings are ever ready to obey the authorities around them even in hostile, cruel and harmful conditions (Milgram, 1974). By creating this experiment, Milgram showed scientific analogy of illustrating the general knowledge about the phenomenon he referred to as obedience to authority. The results of his experiment were transmitted in form of social psychology. The study by Milgram shows an analysis of different types of power relations and forms of obedience to the authority. In an attempt to strengthen an understanding about the idea of obedience, Milgram uses the analogy of soldiers in military forces in the North American war after the Second World War, where soldiers obeyed the commands from the leaders of different battalions. It further uses the example of German Soldiers who obeyed Hitler’s commands to commit genocide against the Jews and other opponents of Hitler’s motives. Study Questions The principal question that emerges from this study is: Can all forms of hostility in this context be taken to represent the theme and variation on the components of authority? The second fundamental question is: Can the power relation in Milgram’s experiment be used as a clear reflection of a social phenomenon which Milgram intended to explore? One of the instances of the manifestation of obedience in Milgram’s study is where the target groups of the study responded in a manner predestined by phrases that he uses such as the instructions issued to the participants to continue (Silverman, 1977). Even though it is a polite request “Please continue,” ‘it is apparent that the respondent does not have any option but to continue. In essence, obedience in social psychological analysis is a product of both commands and polite requests. In the soldiers’ case, one could easily predict the response since they did not have an alternative action but to respond by following orders issued by the commanders. Very vital to mention is the fact that for obedience to be observed in social psychological analysis, there must be a source of power or authority and a respondent to obey the authorities (Milgram, 1974). Power in this context is explicitly independent from the action of obedience in a social psychological structure. On the other hand, obedience is entirely dependent on and is completely a subject of the power and source of authority. Weaknesses of Rhetorical Approach In the study, Milgram displays the weaknesses and the strengths of using rhetorical strategies in addressing the subject of obedience. It clearly raises criticism from opponents of the social structure or power relation who advocate for democracy and human right. These critics reject the relationship between the authority and the subjects (respondents) in which the respondent is simply manipulated in the system and does not have chances of contributing to the design of the authority (Silverman, 1977). Milgram argues that the social structure and design of power relation fails ethical tests and breaches the principles of human rights. He suggests a logical design of power relations which are expressed in well grounded social structure where even the respondents are provided with chances of influencing the commands according to Orne (1962). The other weakness of the rhetorical approach to the subject of obedience is that it is only structured for totalitarian or tyrannical systems of governance such as that of Adolf Hitler which Milgram uses as an example. Basically, the rhetorical approach regarding the obedience subject only focuses on dictatorial governance systems, because it is actually designed or structured for such systems, hence not diverse in its application or use. Advantages of the Rhetoric approach In spite of all the limitations of the rhetoric approach, it also has critical significance. Principally, the rhetoric approach to the subject of obedience shows the role of authority on the actions of the respondents in response to the authoritative commands. Power relation comes out as an effective and influential driving force for the acts of obedience. Secondly, in Milgram’s case, not a single element of power relation is ignored in the study of obedience. Every element is taken through a critical examination and feedback is easily accessible out of the examination unlike in the ordinary and typical experiments (Orne, 1962). Thirdly, Milgram practically did experiment on the concept of obedience in real life by moving to the basement and to a neighboring town to get rid of any connection with the associations in the university. This made a significant impact in the University by reducing the level of obedience in Bridgeport. Gibson’s Rhetorical Approach Versus Milgram Perspective In a critical comparison between Gibson’s Rhetoric approaches to obedience in social psychology, Gibson’s argument is that social psychologists have to recognize the fact that the accomplishment of social influence is realized through the daily communication languages and situations. In an attempt to illustrate this perception, Gibson carries out a qualitative analysis of the interactions between authority and their subjects. This is similar to the qualitative approach that Milgram uses. In fact, the analysis is derived from the original studies by Milgram on social psychology. In the styles used, Gibson uses a qualitative whose features are significant in showing that these are Gibson’s talks concerning his own work. Gibson gives a general reflection of Milgram’s contribution on human understanding of social psychology effects on emotions and attitude based influence. Both Gibson and Milgram in their analytical works have displayed the manifestations of popular imagination. Obedience in this context is discussed by Milgram in the song which sings that the respondent do only what they have been instructed to do. The second contrast is that Gibson’s rhetorical approach to obedience illustrates influence of the authority and obedience as the fundamental perspective of power relation. Milgram (1963) argues that there has been serious criticism against Milgram’s experiments and research works as a result of being unethical in its treatment to the respondents (Silverman, 1977). It shows that there are potential real world problems which destabilize the system and discourages the efforts of being obedient to the authority. On the contrary, Gibson’s research continues to be a bleak image of ways in which practical methods can generate evidences to contradict obvious assumptions concerning the behavioral attitudes of human beings. Interpreting Gibson’s and Milgram’s Understanding The interpretation that Gibson gives to human behavior and obedience differs from that of Milgram in the sense that in Gibson research and his article, he attempts to reinterpret the same sentiments of Milgram’s study findings and hence, develops an exclusive optional perspective on ways of studying the dynamics of social influences and the subject of obedience to authorities (Milgram, 1974). Milgram on the contrary shows the ways in which systematic laboratory study and experiments can influence the behavior of human beings and the understanding of how human behavior influences their obedience and response to certain situations. There are certain assumptions that are made on the psychological and social processes which influence obedience. One of the fundamental assumptions is that in the construction of the discursive psychology, it is the right time when social psychologists can break social processes and behavior. The second assumption is about the presence of prejudice and problematic experiences in the process of analyzing the behavioral pattern obedience and power relation structures. There is therefore a dire need for the analysts to make consideration of how to transform the cognitive and as well as the emotional behaviors of individuals. This also includes consideration of the collective application of human behaviors on the contemporary communities to guide the treat given to other people (Baumrind, 1964). These processes can be explained in form of practices that are aimed at generating shared structures of social realities in more complex social structures. The processes do not have the capacities to articulate the feelings and the emotions of individual participants in a laboratory experiment such as that of Gibson. As seen in Milgram’s variation studies, the systematic program of the experiment has the potential to develop an understanding of peoples' actions and how they are influenced by external factors and situations (Silverman, 1977). The methods that Milgram applies in this structural design show the impact that the experiment has on the knowledge of social psychology. Milgram’s experiment was thus used to provide details of the study to represent the position of the social psychological knowledge in the subject of power relations and obedience to the prevalent authority. Here, there emerges an argument that power relations have direct proportionality to the scientific experiment which justifies the use of the methodology and the design of this research finding. This analogy reflects the impossibility to create a barrier between the theme ‘power relations’ and that of “situated knowledges”. The other issue arising from this re-analysis and the assumptions from Gibson's experiment is that it is not possible to do a complete analysis of the power relations since it is a derivative of different systems of authority, ranging from autocratic, to diplomatic, to democratic then to authoritarian (totalitarian) system (Orne, 1962). The different levels affect the kind of knowledge that is realized the time when it emerges and the degree of dominance it gains. The two scholars give accounts of power knowledge and power relations as an invaluable factor to an understanding of the idea of the effects of power relations and obedience in social psychology. By presenting the assumptions and several approaches to obedience and authority, Milgram (1974) states that there is more room for the application of quantitative and qualitative approaches methodologies in order to add value to the experiment by contributing to the proliferation of diversified faces of social psychology together with the knowledges that trigger the contests for power relations whenever any paradigm between authority and obedience is dominant. References Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: after reading Milgram’s behavioral study of obedience. American Psychologist, 19, 42–3. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–8. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. London: Tavistock. Orne, M. T. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychology experiment: with particular reference to demand characteristics and their implications. American Psychologist, 17, 776–83. Silverman, I. (1977). Why social psychology fails. Canadian Psychological Review, 18, 353–8. Read More