User:AlicerWang/sandbox

command obedience

This article will deal with the topics of order and compliance. It will explore their interplay and role with a brief description, starting with basic definitions. It will later describe and set forth the differences and similarities in points of view on command and submission through historical episodes based on historical events. The paper will also discuss whether an individual is allowed to follow an order to the detriment of their moral obligation. Additionally, it is going to provide an introductory comment on views that reflect upon the drive and control of obedience through the subconscious, where psychology is the main focus. Sociological knowledge and theories from other disciplines will support this discussion.

Introduction

Definition and basic concept

The principles of command and obedience are the very base of political and social setups, which, a priori, split the community into the leaders and their followers among all socio-political levels (such as philosophy and psychology), and across all ideological boundaries. Obedience is widely perceived to mean following the rules or orders, with disobedience explaining the willingness to contradict them (Fattori et al., 2015). The early phase of research into command and obedience, for instance, did so within the framework that obedience is the result of following the orders given by the authorities (Gibson, 2018). The role of the response in the social arena is vital since this lying as the trigger to stability within the society. Thus, the connection which exists among hierarchical authorities and subordinates is not only very important for each organization but also its success and effectiveness.

Military

On the one hand, the significance of command and obedience surpasses the organizational dynamics and even military service and transcends all areas of life, while on the other hand, some of those principles remain particularly valuable on the battlefield. As shown in time-lapse comparative studies, the structure of military organisations’ command and obedience has changed dramatically across the eras (Shklar, 2019). The interplay between obedience and personal responsibility is critical, as evidenced in combat scenarios, where contingencies may need instances of “extraordinary disobedience” (Durieux, 2015). However, it is essential to recognize a distinctive aspect of military obedience, which is conceptualized as multifaceted. This includes both compliance and commitment, with the latter being a more complex, internally driven motivational factor that hinges on the perceived legitimacy of the command or decision (Gal, 1985).

Social and Organisation

In a broader context, society functions as a vast and intricate organization, where stratification enables individuals to perform specific roles, ensuring the effective operation of this complex system. Individuals who experience ostracism within society often develop heightened sensitivity to obedience, making them more likely to accept and comply with directives, even when such orders may be personally discomforting or subconsciousness objectionable (Riva et al., 2014). Research on social hierarchies has indicated that individuals may highly conform to or-ders given by authority figures, even in a context where morality is potentially violated (Milgram, 1963). Recent findings include rethinking the initial conclusions and suggesting that obedience is not solely on articulated commands but also entails conformance to uniform structural forces (Gibson, 2018).

Milgram's results form a basis study in the psychological area of command and obedience, restricting its repertoire to the later studies in this field. In addition to the fact that there is a relation between the degree of obedience to norms and social expectations, personality traits—such as agreeableness and conscientiousness—have also a large effect, which is not insignificant (Hwang, 2023).

Historical Background

The historical development of the concept of command and obedience encompasses a timeline marked by significant milestones, with particular emphasis on its evolution within the domains of philosophy, psychology, and social systems.

Ancient Era

4th Century BCE

The book writting by Plato around 375BC named Republic had examines the concept of justice within the framework of a hierarchical society, emphasizing obedience to rulers as a fundamental mechanism for preserving order. The exploration have significantly influenced contemporary theories of law and civil disobedience within democratic systems, offering nuanced insights into the nature and function of legal frameworks (Marcou, 2020).

The book written by Greek philosopher Aristotle in 4^th-century BC called Politics advocates for obedience to laws as a natural order in huaman society. Simultaneously, Aristotle did not endorse unconditional obedience to authority. While his findings suggest that civil disobedience has the potential to create disorder, his political theory permits justified resistance under specific circumstances (Rosler, 2005).

3ed Century BCE

Feizi Han, a legalist from China, developed theories that emphasized that strict adherence to the law and obedience to authority were essential to social stability.

Medieval Period

5^th-15th century

During this period, the Christian Church emphasized obedience to God and ecclesiastical leaders as both a moral and spiritual obligation, shaping the structure of society in accordance with divine command. Obedience and faith are inherently interconnected, with the emphasis on church authority holding significance and utility solely within the framework of faith (Tyndale & Daniell, 1999).

Obedience held significant importance in feudal societies, where the hierarchical structure necessitated that feudal subjects and peasants adhere to the authority of their lords in exchange for protection and access to resources. The period between the 10th and 15th centuries marked a shift from feudalism to emerging social structures (Tomlinson, 1998). Paradoxically, the Dark Ages witnessed both social disintegration and heightened obedience, fostering a novel interpretation of revolution (Calvert, 1970).

Early Modern Period

16^th -  17^th  Century

According to Hobbes in Leviathan explores the concept of absolute right to obey the sovereign in regards to subjection. Drawing a distinction between advice and orders and diminishing the importance of legal counsel has led to a shift in the focus of political debate (Paul, 2015).

According to Locke, governments are formed through a social contract in which people agree to be governed, but they retain the right to resist when the government breaks their trust or threatens their lives and freedoms (Yakovlev, 2022). This means citizens have a dual responsibility: to disobey immoral laws while accepting the consequences of their actions. Locke also opposed patriarchy and absolute obedience to authority to some extent.

18^th - 19^th Century

In the 18th century more moral considerations were added to command and obedience. Immanuel Kant: In his ethical theory, Kant argued that obedience should be consistent with moral responsibility and reason rather than blind submission to authority (Wit, 1999).

In the 19th century, the impact of the Industrial Revolution brought about the implementation of stricter chains of command within factories to enhance efficiency and productivity. This shift placed renewed strain on the relationship between authority and obedience within society, shaped by the broader industrial environment. Nevertheless, scholars and philosophers, most notably Friedrich Nietzsche, continued to critique the concept of blind obedience.

20 Century

Throughout the 20th century, a growing number of sociologists, logicians, and psychologists began exploring the psychological mechanisms underpinning command and obedience, with World War II serving as a pivotal catalyst. The mass orders for soldiers to commit atrocities (the Holocaust) prompted a reevaluation of the relationship between authority and obedience. Notably, Stanley Milgram’s experiments revealed that ordinary individuals could engage in harmful behaviors under the influence of authority. Similarly, Philip Zimbardo’s prison experiment demonstrated the propensity for obedience and power to be abused within hierarchical systems.

Company Obedience Employee

21^st Century

From the 21st century to the present, command and obedience have been found to be more widely used in the culture of businesses and organizations. Instead, more and more attention is being paid to ethical leadership, whistleblowing (a form of insubordination to orders), and adherence to company policies

Different Perspectives

Psychological Perspective

Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments, originally designed to explore the conditions under which individuals comply with harmful commands (Milgram, 1964), were initially interpreted as evidence of people’s inherent tendency to obey authority. Nevertheless, the interpretation of this subject matter has gradually been changing. Unlike the earlier perspective, participants did not just behave in a robot-like way but interacted intricately with the person giving commands (Gibson, 2020). In addition, these experiments generated ethical controversies but revealed the unexplained experiential differences.

Mikgram Experiment

The 1960s Milgram experiments on obedience had subjects administering higher and higher electric shocks to fellow participants, whom they thought were peers. Albeit there being evident signs of distress, people still obeyed. This was seen in a very high percentage of cases. Initially, these discoveries were interpreted as a human inclination to comply with authority, even at times when this is their moral backbone that is contradicted. More recent analyses, however, highlight the ethical issues raised by the experiments, as well as the complexity of the interactions between the experimenter and participants..

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment  (SPE)

The SPE experiment, which successfully explored the dynamics of authority and obedience (Devonis, 2020), was a landmark study in social psychology and was central to the mentalization of post-war psychology. However, the experiment was eventually terminated due to ethical concerns.

Peer pressure

Research indicates that adolescents experience peer pressure, which influences obedient and disobedient behavior (Gupta, 2022). Social influences, including conformity, obedience, and submission, shape human behaviour.

Authority bias

Recent research proposes a model of “engaged following,” suggesting that obedience arises from identification with an authority figure or their cause (Birney et al.，2024). This cognitive bias toward authority results in unquestioning obedience.

Diffusion of responsibility

In hierarchical structures, the attribution of responsibility becomes complex, as demonstrated by studies on obedience to authority and the chain of command (Hamilton, 1986). Individuals assert responsibility based on personal preference or deny it by deferring to superior orders.

Sociological and Culture Perspective

Sociological perspectives on command and obedience examine the relationship between authority, individual behavior, and social structures, as seen in the Milgram experiment. When obedience mechanisms align individual actions with political objectives, they can enable mass atrocities. Bauman’s research integrates these findings within modernity, analysing how social structures and rationalisation foster extreme obedience and moral disengagement, with the Holocaust as a key example（Bauman，1989）.

Obedience in hierarchical structures such as governments, religious organizations, and workplaces can also be influenced by social norms, cultural expectations, or power dynamics

Military Obedience

Specific Context

Obedience in particular contexts such as the military and law enforcement. In military contexts people need to obey the orders of their commanders to the best of their ability in order to ensure their own safety in an emergency, and there are also certain considerations for the authority of organizational discipline.

This kind of obedience is due to people's power of faith and the social structure. The basis for compliance to religion comes from both internal and external conditions such as trust level and the social context.

Criticism and Counterarguments

Moral obedience brings certain virtues as well. Socially, it aids individuals in following the laws and rules, helping in upholding order and a disciplined environment. In workplaces or organizations, obedience promotes efficiency and teamwork, helping groups to accomplish their aims. And although following the rules is sometimes done blindly, rules that correspond with moral endeavors act as the foundation for a better and more progressive future for the whole society.

Such evils shall not be overlooked. Blind obedience ultimately poses a danger to humanity and may end up causing many to lose their lives. The hierarchy of a totalitarian regime aggravates the strife between those in power and those below, which often leads to armed conflict. Striking the right balance is the way forward.

Gaps and Improvement

While there are several realities between command, many of these issues also affect research in the field of obedience:

• Long-Term Effects: Research remains largely empty regarding community trauma and the resulting long-term psychological and social effects of obedience, with little in-depth examination of their impact on society.
• Cultural Variations: More research needs to be conducted to determine how obedience is shaped differently in diverse cultures, as well as how it is affected by norms and values from such cultures.
• Influence of Technology: Technology, including social media as well as surveillance, does increase our ability to follow the orders of authority. However, this technology has never been investigated in depth.
• Obedience in Non-Dictatorial Regimes: The most studied systems obey authoritarian regimes, but the leadership aspect in democracies and hybrid settings has been little dwelled on.
• The Role of Emotion and Identity: The question of how emotional pain, imperfect sense of self, and group pressure combine to facilitate moral disengagement has not been given due importance in literature.
• Obedience and Resistance: Research on the factors that foster both obedience and resistance is limited, particularly in situations where individuals confront immoral or harmful directives.

Future research should address these identified gaps by synthesizing findings from various disciplines to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of obedience, incorporating both individual and societal factors. Additionally, future studies could extend to exploring practical applications and ethical considerations. Furthermore, the rapid development of digital media as an emerging influencing factor warrants further investigation and should be integrated into experimental frameworks.

Reference

"Friedrich Nietzsche", Wikipedia, 2024-12-06, retrieved 2024-12-11

"Han Feizi", Wikipedia, 2024-11-27, retrieved 2024-12-11

"Milgram experiment", Wikipedia, 2024-12-06, retrieved 2024-12-11

"Modernity and the Holocaust". Choice Reviews Online. 27: 27–6043–27-6043. 1990-06-01. doi:10.5860/CHOICE.27-6043.

"Politics (Aristotle)", Wikipedia, 2024-08-17, retrieved 2024-12-11

"Republic (Plato)", Wikipedia, 2024-12-03, retrieved 2024-12-11

"Stanford prison experiment", Wikipedia, 2024-12-05, retrieved 2024-12-11

Birney, Megan E.; Reicher, Stephen D.; Haslam, S. Alexander (2024-06-02). "Obedience as "Engaged Followership": A Review and Research Agenda". Philosophia Scientiæ. Travaux d'histoire et de philosophie des sciences (28–2): 91–105. doi:10.4000/11ptx. ISSN 1281-2463.

Calvert, Peter (1970), Calvert, Peter (ed.), "The Effects of Obedience", Revolution, London: Macmillan Education UK, pp. 49–62, doi:10.1007/978-1-349-00918-3_3, ISBN 978-1-349-00918-3, retrieved 2024-12-11

Devonis, David C. (2020-08-26), "Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE): Icon and Controversy", Psychology, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0269, ISBN 978-0-19-982834-0, retrieved 2024-12-11

Fattori, Francesco; Curly, Simone; Jörchel, Amrei C.; Pozzi, Maura; Mihalits, Dominik; Alfieri, Sara (2015-05-29). "Authority Relationship From a Societal Perspective: Social Representations of Obedience and Disobedience in Austrian Young Adults". Europe’s Journal of Psychology. 11 (2): 197–213. doi:10.5964/ejop.v11i2.883. ISSN 1841-0413.

Gal, Reuven (1985-07-01). "Commitment and Obedience in the Military: An Israeli Case Study". Armed Forces & Society. 11 (4): 553–564. doi:10.1177/0095327X8501100405. ISSN 0095-327X.

Gibson, Stephen (2018). "Obedience without orders: Expanding social psychology's conception of 'obedience'". British Journal of Social Psychology. 58 (1): 241–259. doi:10.1111/bjso.12272. ISSN 0144-6665.

Gibson, Stephen (2019-01). "Obedience without orders: Expanding social psychology's conception of 'obedience'". The British Journal of Social Psychology. 58 (1): 241–259. doi:10.1111/bjso.12272. ISSN 2044-8309. PMID 30156301. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Gibson, Stephen (2020-06-30), "Milgram's Experiments on Obedience to Authority", Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.511, ISBN 978-0-19-023655-7, retrieved 2024-12-11

Gupta, Dr Shipra (2022). "A Study Of Effect Of Peer Pressure On Obedience/Disobedience Behavior Of Adolescents". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Hamilton, V. Lee (1986). "Chains of Command: Responsibility Attribution in Hierarchies". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 16 (2): 118–138. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb02283.x. ISSN 1559-1816.

Hwang, Jacky JoonHyung (2023-02-07). "The Impact of Individual Differences and Personality on Obedience". Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences. 8: 1384–1389. doi:10.54097/ehss.v8i.4491. ISSN 2771-2907.

Independent researcher; Yakovlev, Anatoly A. (2022). "Locke and Revolution". Voprosy Filosofii: 93–104. doi:10.21146/0042-8744-2022-4-93-104.

Independent researcher; Yakovlev, Anatoly A. (2022). "Locke and Revolution". Voprosy Filosofii: 93–104. doi:10.21146/0042-8744-2022-4-93-104.

Marcou, Andreas (2021-09-01). "Obedience and Disobedience in Plato's Crito and the Apology: Anticipating the Democratic Turn of Civil Disobedience". The Journal of Ethics. 25 (3): 339–359. doi:10.1007/s10892-020-09346-y. ISSN 1572-8609.

Milgram, Stanley (1963-10). "Behavioral Study of obedience". The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67(4): 371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525. ISSN 0096-851X. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Milgram, Stanley (1964-11). "Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind". American Psychologist. 19(11): 848–852. doi:10.1037/h0044954. ISSN 1935-990X. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Riva, Paolo; Williams, Kipling D.; Torstrick, Alex M.; Montali, Lorenzo (2014-05-04). doi:10.1080/00224545.2014.883354. ISSN 0022-4545https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224545.2014.883354. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

Rosler, Andres (2005-03-03). Political Authority and Obligation in Aristotle. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199251509.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-925150-6.

semanticscholar.org https://semanticscholar.org/paper/a305e3dbd3dc0629a4481d0653a900fc874c5f95. Retrieved 2024-12-11. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Shklar, Judith N. (2019-03-26). Ashenden, Samantha; Hess, Andreas (eds.). On Political Obligation. Yale University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvd1c9vd.18. ISBN 978-0-300-24541-7.

Tomlinson, Alan (1998-08). "POWER: Domination, Negotiation, and Resistance in Sports Cultures". Journal of Sport and Social Issues. 22 (3): 235–240. doi:10.1177/019372398022003001. ISSN 0193-7235. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Tyndale, William d; Daniell, D. (1999-06-01). "The Obedience of a Christian Man". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

Wit, Ernst-Jan C. (1999-01-01). "Kant and the Limits of Civil Obedience" (in German). 90 (3): 285–305. doi:10.1515/kant.1999.90.3.285. ISSN 1613-1134. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)