Soldiers=Instruments for harm?

Blog 3 Nicole Saint Paul

Regardless of our age or profession we all have the tendency to obey authority. In childhood we are taught to respect our elders. We are also taught to be obedient to people with visual credibility. What I mean when I say ‘visual credibility’ is when we perceive that a person has credibility by what they are wearing. Doctors wear lab coats, lawyers wear high profiled suits, and police officers wear uniforms. The same cognition occurs when we listen to our superiors. Soldiers are taught to listen to those with a higher rank without question. This is important to realize because authority can be a harmful tool in a society where obeying is important; innocents have died as a result of strict obedience.

The 1968 My Lai Massacre was a result of the obedience to authority theory (Time). Early one morning first Lieutenant William Laws Calley Jr. ordered his men into My Lai, Viet Cong with the orders of destroying the small hamlet (Time). It took them less than 20 minutes to kill approximately 100 men, women and children along with their homes and livestock (Time). Twenty-six soldiers, including Calley (charged with murder), were investigated after the murders (Time).

Social psychology can explain why this happened. Obedience to authority is a strong power over people. Stanley Milgram, a psychologist, said, “It is ironic that the virtues of loyalty, discipline, and self-sacrifice that we value so highly in the individual are the very properties that create destructive organizational engines of war and bind men to malevolent systems of authority,” (Milgram). Milgram describes four specific reasons as to why people willingly obey authority, but admit to little or no responsibility for their negative actions. His reasons include that people obey due to the feeling that it is their duty, they find it to be difficult to disobedient, they feel that their behavior is useful to society, and they remember that they were raised in a society where obedience is important (Milgram).

Milgram conducted an experiment where he tested his theory about the effects of obedience and authority:

His hypothesis: “When an authority figure gives normal people instructions to do something that might hurt another person, some of them will obey.” This hypothesis turned out to be true. His experiment consisted of ‘teachers’- the unknowing subjects and ‘learners’-actors on a tape recorder. The ‘teachers’ were told that the study was exploring the effects of punishment (incorrect responses) on learning behaviors. They were then told that for every incorrect response they should administer an electric shock to the ‘learner’ with increasing intensity (15-450 volts). The ‘learner’/actor would be in another room and pretend he was receiving the shock, thus screaming in agonizing pain. “At 330 volts [the ‘learner’] made no response at all. Still the experiment ordered the teacher to continue asking questions and delivering shocks.” Many people got upset and agitated while administering the shocks, yet they continued. Out of 40 participants 25 went all the way to 450 volts, and anyone who continued above 330 always went to 450. (Kalat) .Sixty-three percent of the "teachers" obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts! (Kalat).

In conclusion even smart, tough soldiers are susceptible to the obedience-authority theory by Milgram. Milgram proves that, “Man feels responsible to the authority directing him but feels no responsibility for the content of his actions that the authority prescribes;” which explains that people feel like instruments for carry out others’ demands (Milgram). Soldiers are taught to obey their superiors and that needs to be limited. Without limits another My Lai Massacre could possible happen. Civilians do not deserve to die because of a social psychological issue. We can save many lives if the military places limits on obedience to authority; soldiers can be obedient without being naïve, unethical or inhumane. Even instruments like computers have limits, its time our soldiers do too!

Work Cited:

Kalat, James W. Introduction to Psychology. Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning,

Inc., 2008. (520-522).

-Has the research on Milgram’s book below in his words.

Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper & Row Publishers, Inc.,

1974.

Nation: The My Lai Massacre. Time Magazine. 28, Nov. 1969. Web. 11 Dec. 2009.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,840403,00.html

Picture: http://comps.fotosearch.com/comp/ARP/ARP108/drill-sergeant_~sergeant.jpg

Racism and American Aggression

(Part 1: The "Inevitability" of War)-(Part 2: Racism)-(Part 3: Implict Association)-(Part 4: National Identity)-(Part 5: Multiculturalism)

Even in our post-Civil Rights era, racism and intolerance play a significant role in determining whether or not the United States goes to war. After the destruction of the World Trade Center, anti-Arab and Muslim sentiment had notably grown leading to discrimination, unconstitutional surveillance, and, ultimately, war. The media, a primary dispenser of such stereotypes, is also responsible for instilling a cynical view of other people within the American masses.

September 11, 2001, marked a drastic change in the attitudes of many Americans towards Arabs and Muslims. In his article, “When You Look Like the Enemy”, sociologist Cliff Akiyama notes the disturbing parallels between the racism of Japanese Americans after the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the racism towards Arabs after the World Trade Center fell (210). And, with the Patriot Act in effect, the US government has little to no restraint when it comes to infringing on the civil rights of Americans that the government deems to be a threat. And, of course, citizens of Arab origin are most likely to be singled out for surveillance. The Patriot Act is significantly harsher on foreign suspects that are not America citizens as it can give way to the use of detention, torture, and deportation if some arbitrarily determined definition of a terrorist threat is met (211). The passage of this act only served to further aggravate the tensions between the US and the Arab community, factoring into the poorly planned assault of Iraq. Furthermore, the Patriot Act allowed for additional civil rights infringements such as the Abu Griab prison scandal and the Guantanamo Bay torture controversy.

A Gallup poll published on August 10, 2006, seems to indicate that a lingering minority of US citizens still hold alarmingly racist sentiments towards their Muslim neighbors. Thirty-four percent of US adults polled made the hasty generalization of assuming that most American Muslims were “sympathetic to the al-Qaeda terrorist organization” (Gallup). Additionally, thirty-nine percent of US adults polled favored requiring “Muslims to carry a special ID” (Gallup). These results, obtained by 1,007 adults selected at random across the nation, would seem to indicate that Islamophobia and racism towards Arabs inspired by the tragic event of 9/11 still linger (Gallup). Addressing this issue is important if America has a true desire to help restore peace and stability to the Middle East.

The extensive coverage of the nationality of the 9/11 terrorists has had a significant effect in promoting American aggression against Arabs. Research conducted by George Gerbner, a communications professor, indicates that the media is a significant source of the stereotypical views of most Americans. After having witnessed countless acts of violence, betrayal, and hate on television, most heavy television watchers naturally view the actions of other people with suspicion (Pratkanis 82). Since conflict and war naturally feed upon such suspicion, the media-addicted masses are much more prone to war propaganda stressing how foreign nations cannot be trusted. And, as Cliff Akiyama’s analysis has shown, this suspicion extends to those who are ethnically similar to the enemy.

Resolving these negative stereotypes is largely dependent upon the intelligence and open-mindedness of the masses, especially in times of crisis. The assumption that other people cannot be trusted, which is heavily promoted by the media, is partially responsible for the belief that war is inevitable. Such a view runs counter to the multicultural solution of effectively dispelling racially charged propaganda and viewing issues with an open and tolerant mind.

Works Cited

Cliff, Akiyama. “When you look like the enemy.” Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention. 8.2 (2008): 209-213. Print.

Saad, Lydia. “Anti-Muslim Sentiments.” Gallup.com. Gallup. 10 Aug. 2006. Web. 5 Oct. 2009.

Pratkanis, Anthonoy and Elliot Aronson. Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion. New York: Henry Holt, 2001.