The Mortality of Authority
A few days ago, I was sitting in my office when a co-worker came in. We began a conversation when he noticed a copy of Christopher Browning’s Ordinary Men sitting on my desk. He looked at the book, picked it up, and asked, “What is this about?” For a moment, I found myself voiceless. I recalled every piece of information contained, and yet it was as if I could not formulate a narrative. After a brief moment or so, I found myself humbled with definition. With silence I replied, “mortality.”
Browning’s book is can be summarized by the title. It questions how ordinary men became such ruthless killers of war. Throughout this course, we have learned a great deal of information into the depths of behavioral psychology and trauma. In order to look to studies on behavior and authority, many scholars look to Stanley Milgram and Phillip Zimbardo and the experiments that they conducted. Milgram and Zimbaro’s experiments have allowed us to see scientific approaches to human behavior and their compliance within authority. In summary, both these experiments reflect one single word, conformity.
Stanley Milgram’s experiment demonstrated the human desire to conform to authority. In short, he tricked test subjects into pressing a button that they believed was causing another person pain. Even though they believed the person was suffering at their hands, they proceeded to press the button when told to do so. Phillip Zimbardo’s experiment at Stanford University demonstrated the human desire for authority. He placed college students into roles of prisoners and correctional officers. In a mock prison setting, Zimbardo filmed most of the interactions with the guards and inmates.
While each experiment was vastly different, they are closely correlated. Milgram demonstrated that once a person acquires a role or a position, they believe they must carry out what is expected of them. Even if they are being made to do something that has consequences. The same goes with Zimbardo’s experiment of the prison guards. This directly relates to Browning’s understanding of the role of Reserve Battalion 101 during the Holocaust. Within the battalion, these men were trained to believe that they must follow orders at all costs. As Browning discusses, these men received detailed and clear instructions. The amount of structure provided a sense of purpose or mission to be achieved. “Mass killing on such a scale required planning and preparation” (Browning, 1992:137). It is important to note that the men of Battalion 101 did no go out and randomly commit acts of mass murder. This was a well thought out and successfully planned mission. In order to achieve this result, a person must be made to separate themselves from their own person. They must identify themselves within their role, as an officer in this case. Forget everything they know about themselves. Every feeling, everything they have ever learned as a person and immerse themselves within their role.
Zimbardo’s experiment is one of the most famous behavioral scientific studies. Although heavily scrutinized, It demonstrated how if you take perfectly normal human beings and provide them with roles, they are going to act within that role. He explained how a person carries out their mission. In his book, Browning discusses how the guards were classified within the experiment. In a sample of eleven guards, about one-third was classified as cruel and tough. They went above and beyond the mission in order to harass and enjoy their newfound power (Browning, 1992:168). The next group was classified as tough but fair. They played by the rules and carried out the mission as needed (Browning, 1992:168). The last and least populated category was those described as good guards, or those who chose not to punish the prisoners (Browning, 1992:168).
Browning goes on to compare Zimbardo’s classifications within the ranks of Reserve Battalion 101. He describes the enthusiastic killers who went out of their way for murder, the next and larger group of those who simply did as they had to, and then those few who refused and attempted to evade (Browning, 1992:168). From Browning and Zimbardo’s work, you see that the person identifies within the role and carries out the mission in direct reflection of their personality.
You have to respect what Zimbardo, Milgram, and Browning have done here. Within their own ways they have provided a scientific approach for human behavior within atrocity. It is easy to reflect on actions of those from hundreds or even thousands of miles away, but when a person is indoctrinated with beliefs, or simply provided to perform within a certain role, how can they be judged? Is it fair to judge the actions of the prison guards any differently than those of Battalion 101? This area of study directly separates the human factor from argued learned behavior. Is the person acting within their role or as themselves?
What we see here and what I propose for discussion is why do you believe humans have a desire for authority? Why as people are we willing to lose ourselves or risk so much just to be able to have control? If this is the case, if this is fact, then do we really ever have control at all?
Browning, C. R. (1992). Ordinary Men. New York: Harper Perennial.