Milgram's Obedience Analysis

1127 Words 5 Pages
Comparative Critique on Parker’s “Obedience” and Baumrind’s “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience”
“… The dependent, obedient attitude assumed by most subjects in the experimental setting is appropriate to that situation” states psychologist Diana Baumrind in her article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience” (Baumrind 90). Baumrind cites certain passages from Stanley Milgram’s abstract of his experiment. Baumrind first explains why she thinks the location of the experiment is a hindrance (Baumrind 90). Another point that Baumrind reviews is the permanent harm and emotional disturbance to the subjects from Milgram’s experiment (Baumrind 92). She states that the emotional disturbance will later effect the subject’s
…show more content…
She states that the subjects of Milgram’s experiment may have been in shock from what the experimenter was compelling them to execute to the learner (Baumrind 93). Parker would agree with Baumrind’s thoughts that Milgram’s comparison was overly broad and invalid; however, Parker is more effective in his argument because he incorporates valid points and supports his statements with historical examples such a Daniel Jonah Goldhagen’s study of ordinary German citizens in the Holocaust that disobeyed authority because they thought the orders were morally objectionable (Parker 101). Mat Little, a freelance journalist, would agree with both Baumrind’s and Parker’s standpoints on Milgram’s comparison in his article “The Ordeal of Disobedience”. Little, like Baumrind and Parker, critiques Milgram’s experiment (“The Ordeal…”). Little explains that society can be organized differently into a non-obedient society and that their ability to produce acts should not connect to their desires (“The Ordeal…”). One could interpret that Little believes that obedience can be broken, which would support Parker’s and Baumrind’s standpoints because it nullifies Milgram’s experiment as a whole. The staff at The Atlantic would also agree with both author’s standpoints. In the staff’s article “Rethinking One of Psychology’s Most Infamous Experiments”, they quoted …show more content…
She claims that the permanent harm would traumatize the individual subjects in the future because they may not be able to trust authority figures, and their self-image of themselves would be ruined because they discovered the harm they were capable of producing (Baumrind 92). Even though Milgram tries to justify that after the experiment, measures were taken to ensure that the subjects knew that the learner was not receiving the deathly shock; however, Baumrind still refuted Milgram’s statement because she did not believe that these measures were drastic enough (Baumrind 92). Martyn Shuttleworth, an academic writer and editor, would agree with Baumrind’s statement in his article “Milgram Experiment Ethics”. He stated that follow up research of the experiment indicated that no psychological distress came to the subjects; however, he later wrote that the mortification of knowing they could have caused physical suffering to another human being, could have caused severe emotional suffering (“Milgram Experiment Ethics”). Thus, Shuttleworth indirectly supports Baumrind’s statement. Parker, however, does not blatantly state his standpoint on the ethical issue of Milgram’s experiment like Baumrind. Parker discusses how Milgram was widely attacked from within and outside his profession, and helps the reader

Related Documents