> I don't think you can do anything about it to be honest. That's just how
> people are. The need to obey authority must be hard-wired. The only
> thing you can do is weaken and change who are recognised and thus obeyed
> as the authority figures, because that's one thing that can be
> effective.
No, there's no convincing evidence that obedience to authority is hard-wired; otherwise, in hunting & gathering societies, we'd see chiefs surrounded by curvy babes waving palm fronds, and that isn't what really happens. (I know I do go on about hunting and gathering societies, but they are a nice mental laxative for this "it must be hardwired" shit.)
It seems pretty straightforward to me: in a society with many bureaucratic organizations, there are by definition many people in positions of authority over others. This means that conformity to obedience is necessary for our society to function, and people are effectively socialized into this basic social norm ("obey legitimate authority!"). --Thus the results of the Milgram studies.
I have to admit I share Bill's suspicion about authority, and I try to challenge arbitrary decisions by authority figures whenever possible. However, we need to grapple with the fact that bureaucratic organizations are the life-blood of industrial societies, and without them we can't effectively sustain the educational system, scientific research, and government infrastructure that makes our industrial standard of living possible. --Simple thought experiment: what if all children didn't learn anything or do any homework because they wanted to "challenge the teacher's authority"? We'd just end up with a nation of illiterates! There are, I grudgingly admit, good reasons for hierarchical relations in some social settings; however, there is no reason why these positions of authority must be held by a small, select group of "executives" or "experts".
Miles