No man is an island. This quote serves as a reminder that we do not live in isolation. As stated by Aristotle, human beings are social animals who need daily social interaction with other members of the community and that to be self-sufficient and not partake in the society is distinctive of either a beast or a god. Because of this frequent interplay among members of the society, creating laws and empowering legal authorities became a necessity in order to establish order. These laws are meant to impose control and limitations over what individuals can do to avoid interfering with the rights of others. While it is crucial for these laws to be obeyed by members of the society in order to achieve a stable and safe environment, a number of instances show that some individuals defy authority and go against the rules. Albert Einstein, for instance, is famous for being thrown out of school due to his attitude of undermining authority (Isaacson 81). He continued to illustrate this defiance of authority when he alone opposed German militarism during the First World War, and later on the Nazis, Communists, and then McCarthyites by moving to America (Isaacson 81). His dissent on the cases mentioned was attributed to his belief “that people should not be compelled to cater to authority” (Isaacson 81). Studies conducted by Stanley Milgram and Bocchiaro and Zimbardo identified unjust authority or unjustified demands by authority as the primary reason behind people’s disobedience of the law. Obedience of the law prevents chaos in the society; however, people are compelled to defy them when they are perceived to be unjust or when people in authority issue unjust demands.
The number of law enforcers in the society are far more fewer than necessary to force the citizens to obey the law, much less to catch everyone should they all disobey. However, laws were established to be just and legitimate which sways people to honor them despite the absence of enforcers. Having an agent to enforce these laws make them even more dominant because of the same legitimacy ascribed to the agents. However, studies conducted by Milgram and Bocchiaro and Zimbardo proved otherwise. Both studies concluded that the presence of figures of authority does not sway people into obeying unjust demands.
Milgram’s “Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View” study conducted in 1974 was hinged on the conflict arising from obedience to authority and personal conscience as a result of unjust demands by authority. He explored the justifications provided by the people accused of committing genocide during the World War II. According to them, their acts, which resulted to the deaths of a number of Jews, were executed in compliance to the orders given to them by their superiors.
In Milgram’s study, he enlisted the help of “teachers”, the unknowing subjects in the experiment, and a “learner” who was actually an actor and a member of the experiment team. The chosen “teachers” were presented to a strict-looking experimenter who explained the purpose of the experiment, which was to examine the effects of punishment for incorrect responses on learning behavior. The “teachers” were instructed to administer electric wave shocks, which increased by 15 volts, to the “learner” as punishment for every mistake committed in the simple memory task. The “teacher” was made aware of the reaction of the “learner” by poundings on the wall. In reality, however, there were no shock waves delivered to the “learner” except for the weakest one which was 15 volts.
When “teachers” exhibited hesitation over administering increased intensity of shock waves, they were prodded by the experimenter to Please continue or Please go on, The experiment requires that you continue, It is absolutely essential that you continue, or You have no other choice, you must go on. The “teachers” were assured that the experimenter would take full responsibility for the consequences resulting from shocking the “learner” and this gave some of the teachers a certain degree of confidence to continue with the experiment while the others were uncomfortable but still followed the instructions of the experimenter.
Milgram concluded his research by stating that when stark authority was presented against the subject’s moral imperatives against hurting others, authority was found to have won more often than not. This supports the results of Tyler’s empirical study of obedience which concluded that a big 82% of the respondents agreed to the idea that states: “People would obey the law even if it goes against what they think is right” (485).
In a similar study conducted by Bocchiaro and Zimbardo, the participants were instructed to read hostile comments which are increased in 15 levels in place of electric wave shocks for every wrong answers given. This experiment inflicted a more “personal” and direct hurt as the “Coach”, the unknowing participants in the study, offered very hostile comments and rude remarks on the “Performer’s” ability for every mistake committed. In conclusion, the participants enumerated four explanations as to why they decided to stop the experiment: worry about the performer’s health, moral-ethical decision, empathy and situational incongruity.
Both studies illustrated how unjust authority or what the participants perceive as unjustified demands of authority as the primary reason why they refused to continue with the experiments despite the encouragements they received from a person of authority.
This result coincides with the reasons behind some people’s defiance of authority during Nazi Germany. These people chose to help those who were being persecuted by performing small actions which later on escalated to larger and more risky display of assistance (Sanders 280). Sanders explained that the participants in the studies chose to deliberate about the task that they were asked to perform, thus giving them the opportunity to defy the pressures presented by the authority (280).
One personal experience provided me a concrete example of people’s disobedience of unjust authority. A couple of years ago, I stayed at a cousin’s house for a vacation. My cousin was in high school and that year, he had his first girlfriend. Like most adolescent boys, my cousin wanted to be cool in front of his girlfriend by picking her up from her house and go on a date using his father’s car. He has yet to get his license back then as he was still underage, but he knew how to drive. When his father left for a four-day seminar outside the country, he found an opportunity to carry out his plan. He needed an accomplice who would keep his mother occupied whil he drove out of the garage. Knowing that my aunt and I are very close, he asked me to make his mother listen to music from my iPod using my headphones so that she won’t hear the car leaving. I was extremely hesitant because I didn’t want to lie to my aunt. Also, I was worried for his own safety and my uncle’s car should he get into an accident. He saw my distress and started bribing me with goodies that were really too hard to resist. In addition, he promised to do me favors in exchange for the one he was asking. After we talked, I thought hard about it because I knew that it was wrong and dangerous, but I also did not want my cousin to get mad at me. In the end, I chose to tell my aunt about his plan which got him a good scolding. He was mad at me but only for a while for he also realized his mistake.
This incident gave me a firsthand experience of how people are influenced to disobey people in authority when they make unjust demands. Like the participants in the studies discussed, prods and encouragements in the guise of bribes almost made me forget my hesitation and obey him. However, the idea of the bad things that could happen pushed me to follow what I believe was right. This was also similar to the participants in the studies’ concern for the well-being of the subject being punished.
History talks about political dissenters who courageously opposed the law to fight for the social reform they believe was necessary. Threats of punishments and other consequences of their dissent did not dissuade people such as the millions of African-Americans and their white allies during the American civil rights movement from exposing the injustice of the legal system that discriminated against them. D. Scott Miller wrote of a similar mass movement in Oakland, called the Oakland Occupy movement, in protest of the social and economic inequality that have beset the majority of the locals. Despite the dangers of police raids looming over them as a consequence of the encampments that they put up in the middle of the plaza and the magnitude of the participants, people stood their grounds. This blatant display of disregard of authority by a large number of people was explained by Asch’s study on opinions and social pressure. The said study explored how much group pressure or the desire to conform to the belief of the majority affects an individual’s decision. The study showed that social influences greatly affect an individual’s judgments and beliefs even if they go against his/her sense. Some participants in the Oakland Occupy movement may have shared similar sentiments regarding their social and economic situation at the onset of the protest. However, the growing number of participants as the days passed by could be attributed to the influence of the large number of locals who went against the law in the name of their perceived inequality and injustice.
Looking at the discussion, these factors that embolden people to defy authority are present in people’s daily lives. For one, an educated person who is able to realize the occurrence of abuse of authority is usually the one who would voice out his/her opposition . This expression of discontent will likely be stronger if s/he is able to find someone who shares the same opinion. Having someone to support a stand contributes to someone’s resolve to be stronger. Similarly, when a child sees an older member of the family expressing defiance to an older member’s authority is more likely to copy the same act and exhibit rebellion.
Sammons offered situational factors as contributing agents to disobedience (1). One example was the importance of the victim’s suffering. Seeing the victim suffer or to be able to touch him/her possibly gave the participants greater responsibility for their actions, which in turn forced them to stop administering the punishments. In a situation wherein the authority figure is weakened by encouraging people to look closer to their motives, expertise or judgment, disobedience is more likely to take place (Sammons 2).
People obey the law when their faith in its legitimacy is higher (“The Power of Legitimacy” 4). It is then imperative for the society to have trust in the laws being implemented, as well as the legitimacy of the implementing agents to ensure obedience. However, when figures of authority exhibit abuse of power by issuing unjust demands, people become highly motivated to disobey. Moreover, being aware of the importance of influence, having someone who will disobey with them and witnessing disobedience among people in authority are some factors that could elicit acts of defiance against the law. Situational variables such as witnessing the sufferings that the punishments would bring to the people, as well as exposure to disobedient models. Seeing someone defy the rules may possibly present pressure that could influence an obedient citizen to act defiant against the law. Having concluded that, people with power should legitimize laws by being the first to obey them and making sure that it promotes equality. Furthermore, issuing unjust demands from the citizens will also compel people to be defiant, which stresses out the importance of balance.
Works Cited
Aristotle. Politics. Web.
Asch, Solomon E. “Opinions and Social Pressure.” Scientific American. November 1955:
31-35. Web.
Bocchiaro, Pierre, and Phillip G. Zimbardo. “Defying Unjust Authority: An Exploratory Study”.
2010. Web
Isaac, Leela. “The Cost of Defying Political Authority.” Ground Views: Journalism to Citizens.
22 January 2014. Web.
Isaacson, Walter. American Sketches: Great Leaders, CreativeThinkers and Heroes of a
Hurricane. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2009. Web.
Milgram, Stanley. “Obedience to Authority.” Web.
Miller, D. Scott. “The Hungry Got Food, the Homeless Got Shelter.” California Northern
Magazine. 2012. Web.
Sammons, Aidan. “Disobedience: resisting authority.” Social Psychology. UK. 30 January 2013.
Stewart Macaulay, Lawrence M. Friedman, and John Stookey. New York: W.W. Norton & C ompany, 1995. 474-495. Web. “The Power of Legitimacy In Obedience to the Law.” 6 March 2007. Web.
Tyler, Tom. “Why People Obey the Law.” Law & Society: Readings on the Social Study of Law.
