Disobedience as a psychological and moral problem
Over centuries, disobedience has been believed to be a vice while obedience has been believed to be a virtue by feudal lords, Priests, parents, managers, and even kings. Thus, disobedience as psychological and moral problem has been related with historical examples. Research indicates that consequent development of a human being would be impractical without a chain of disobedience acts. It is believed that man’s history begins with a step of disobeying. This is in relation with the first act towards freedom and independence by Adam and Eve. They were in a natural world as the fetus in the mother’s womb. Hence, their disobedience step ruined the key union naturally and made them individuals. The origin of their obedience/sin marked the establishment of history where man was forced to disappear from the Garden of Eden for him to learn to depend on his own powers and to turn into a complete human. Another example is Prometheus who stole the fire from the gods. It was until the ancestors took the bravery to deny the authorities on behalf of their own belief and principles, that the spiritual growth became permanent. According to studies, with the support of disobedience, the personality can turn out to be free. One of the situations for freedom is the ability to be disobedient and oppose. Freedom can be revealed as objection; thus, it is very hard for someone to have the guts to disobey if he is scared to be free. This implies that it is quite hard to separate freedom, and the capability to protest since the growth of the personality is not possible without the aspects (Enrich, 1963).
Basing on the psychologists, human being is born to rely on his own rights, possibilities, and faith as well as to be free. However, at the same time man must be able to obey and disobey for him not to be a slave or a rebel. The two must be balanced depending on what and whom to disobey or obey. Obedience has been grouped into two, autonomous and heteronymous. Autonomous obedience is an own judgment, confidence and affirmation which is an element of an individual while heteronomous is obedience to an institute or someone that involves the denial of the structure and approval of other’s determination. There is a dialectical association between disobedience and obedience. This is because; one-step of obedience to a principle gives way to unavoidable step of disobedience. The only human being with the ability to obey is the one that is bold, free, and independent. This is someone who can disobey because he is enhanced, meaning he can feel and think for himself, and he has the guts to deny the authority. On the contrary, disobedience steps enable one to deny the authority and be free. This justifies the fact that aptitude for disobedience and freedom cannot be divided (Enrich, 1970).
Historically, there are reasons why in most of human life, disobedience has been associated vice while obedience with virtue. As a matter of fact, approximately, majority have always been ruled over by minority with the minority having all the good stuff. The minority in power caused the majority to study obedience and feel panic because it required everyone to serve and work for it. Due to this, the minority in power states that obedience is a virtue while disobedience is sin. Therefore, rather than hating themselves for being cowards, the majority can prefer to despise disobedience as it is bad and agree to obedience because it is good (Erich,1941).
Reference
Enrich, F. (1963). Disobedience as a Psychological and Moral Problem. New York: Pearson.
Enrich, F. (1970). “The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness.” New York: Harper and Row.
Erich, F. (1941). “Escape from Freedom.” New York: Rinehart publishers.
