Comparing Christopher Browning And Stanley Milgram's Analysis
Programmed for Obedience
We humans like to think of ourselves as morally decent creatures. Indeed, our capacity for morality has been a major factor in the sustainability and prosperity of our species. We take pride in the acts of kindness we perform, and more often then not, we express genuine sympathy for those who are suffering. Yet as comforting as this mentality may be, it fails to give consideration to the atrocities human beings have enacted on one other throughout history. Such atrocities are often considered exceptions to the rule of human nature, carried out by a few sadistic and evil individuals that don’t represent mankind’s normal behavior. However, Christopher Browning and Stanley Milgram offer a less comforting explanation; they …show more content…
He notes that throughout human history we have functioned in hierarchal structures (Milgram, Obedience, p.130). Indeed, organizing in this way has been essential to the survival of our race, allowing us to survive and prosper for centuries with some sense of stability. This premise adopted by Milgram stands in contrast to that of Hobbes, who argued that socialization can help suppress man’s animalistic tendencies. Milgram, on the other hand, claims that we are overly socialized, and have been throughout our existence. This offers an explanation as to why the hierarchal structure is a cornerstone of contemporary human life, with families, schools, and governments all relying on a hierarchy of sorts. Yet despite the success of these institutions, Milgram points out a consequence that has resulted from our existence in hierarchies: the instinct for obedience. He notes that, “internal harmony [within the hierarchy] is ensured when all members accept the status assigned to them” (Milgram, Obedience, p. 124). Thus, in order to prosper within a group, humans have been evolutionarily programmed to express deference for those in positions of
We humans like to think of ourselves as morally decent creatures. Indeed, our capacity for morality has been a major factor in the sustainability and prosperity of our species. We take pride in the acts of kindness we perform, and more often then not, we express genuine sympathy for those who are suffering. Yet as comforting as this mentality may be, it fails to give consideration to the atrocities human beings have enacted on one other throughout history. Such atrocities are often considered exceptions to the rule of human nature, carried out by a few sadistic and evil individuals that don’t represent mankind’s normal behavior. However, Christopher Browning and Stanley Milgram offer a less comforting explanation; they …show more content…
He notes that throughout human history we have functioned in hierarchal structures (Milgram, Obedience, p.130). Indeed, organizing in this way has been essential to the survival of our race, allowing us to survive and prosper for centuries with some sense of stability. This premise adopted by Milgram stands in contrast to that of Hobbes, who argued that socialization can help suppress man’s animalistic tendencies. Milgram, on the other hand, claims that we are overly socialized, and have been throughout our existence. This offers an explanation as to why the hierarchal structure is a cornerstone of contemporary human life, with families, schools, and governments all relying on a hierarchy of sorts. Yet despite the success of these institutions, Milgram points out a consequence that has resulted from our existence in hierarchies: the instinct for obedience. He notes that, “internal harmony [within the hierarchy] is ensured when all members accept the status assigned to them” (Milgram, Obedience, p. 124). Thus, in order to prosper within a group, humans have been evolutionarily programmed to express deference for those in positions of