>
>It is only in politically or ideologically driven mythology that this human
>agency and the ability to make choices is denied. Dictators and bosses
>often hide behind "historical necessity" or "market forces" to hide their
>role in making decision that others judge less than desirable or atrocious.
>In the famous Stanley Milgram obedience experiments the participants
>believed that they "had no choice" but to go ahead with the procedure, at
>least until one of the participants said that he did have a choice and
>walked out of the room.
>
>
>
On behalf of social psychologists everywhere, I must point out that Woj
is completely missing the point of the Milgram studies. The studies
demonstrate that people do /not/ simply act on the basis of their own
preferences and moral beliefs; rather, obedience norms are strong enough
to compel normal people to apply a 450V shock to an unconscious person.
It's facile and misleading to claim that the participants in the Milgram
studies "had a choice"; the vast majority of the participants obeyed the
researcher and applied the deadly shock! Even Woj can't believe that so
many people chose that behavior on the basis of their own moral
standards and attitudes.
I've noticed in class that many students want to reinterpret the Milgram studies as Woj does above in order to maintain their faith in individualism and choice. When I say, "about 2/3 of the participants applied the 450V shock because the experimenter asked them to continue the study", some students will respond, "Well, that leaves 1/3 who didn't go along, right? That means we can hold the other 2/3 responsible for their actions." --And note how this response in itself reiterates Milgram's point about the power of conformity: we live in a society that valorizes agency and personal freedom, so people resist any evidence like the Milgram studies that challenge the notion of autonomous choice. I love the irony of this: Woj's paean to agency and freedom is--socially determined!
Miles