Milgram framed his “Obedience” experiments as an inquiry into the Holocaust, posing state directed mass murder as a “conflict between conscience and authority.” However, recent research into atrocities suggests that “moral conflict” is often absent; murder is frequently undertaken willingly in a spirit of idealism and “normalcy.” The question is not why do people obey orders they find morally objectionable as Milgram suggested, but rather how does it become “normal” and “ok” to torture or kill defenseless people? I examine this question through a reinterpretation of the Obedience study. Instead of focusing on the confused and entrapped participants, people who were tricked into “immoral” action, I study the scientists themselves—individuals who applied enhanced stress techniques on innocent people repeatedly and enthusiastically, fully aware of what they were doing. Inverting Milgram’s Holocaust analogy, I suggest that recent scholarship on Nazi doctors can provide insights into the various ways that torment became “normalized” for Milgram and his assistants.
AbseD. (1973). The dogs of Pavlov. London, UK: Vallentine, Mitchell.
2.
AlkadryM.WittM. (2009). Abu Ghraib and the normalization of torture. Public Integrity, 11, 135–153.
3.
American Psychological Association. (1959). Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist, 14, 279–282.
4.
BaumrindD. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “behavioral study of obedience”. American Psychologist, 19, 421–423.
5.
BenjaminL.SimpsonJ. (2009). The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram’s obedience studies on personality and social psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 12–19.
6.
BlassT. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York, NY: Basic Books.
7.
BlassT. (2009). From New Haven to Santa Clara: A historical perspective on the Milgram obedience experiments. American Psychologist, 64, 37–45.
8.
BranniganA. (2013). Beyond the banality of evil. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
9.
BranniganA.NicholsonI.CherryF. (Eds.). (2015). Unplugging the Milgram machine [Special issue]. Theory & Psychology, 25(5).
10.
BurgerJ. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11.
11.
BurgerJ. (2011). Alive and well after all these years. The Psychologist, 24(9), 654–657.
12.
DanzigerK. (2000). Making social psychology experimental: A conceptual history. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 36, 329–347.
13.
ElmsA. (1995). Obedience in retrospect. Journal of Social Issues, 51(3), 21–31.
14.
ElmsA. (2009). Obedience lite. American Psychologist, 64, 32–36.
15.
ElmsA. C. (2014). Contra Milgram [Review of the book Behind the shock machine, by G. Perry]. PsycCRITIQUES, 59(11). Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036233
16.
EvansR. (1980). The making of social psychology. New York, NY: Gardner Press.
17.
FenigsteinA. (1998). Were obedience pressures a factor in the Holocaust?Analyse & Kritik, 20, 54–73.
18.
FenigsteinA. (2015). Milgram’s shock experiments and the Nazi perpetrators: A contrarian perspective on the role of obedience pressures during the Holocaust. Theory & Psychology, 25, 581–598. doi:10.1177/0959354315601904
19.
GibsonS. (2013). Milgram’s obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 290–309.
20.
GoldhagenD. (1996). Hitler’s willing executioners. New York, NY: Knopf.
21.
HarringtonA. (1996). Unmasking suffering’s masks: Reflections on old and new memories of Nazi medicine. Daedalus, 125, 181–205.
22.
HelmC.MorelliM. (1979). Stanley Milgram and the obedience experiment. Political Theory, 7(3), 321–345.
23.
HerreraC. (2013). Stanley Milgram and the ethics of social science research. Theoretical and Applied Ethics, 2(2), vii–viii.
24.
HössR. (1992). Death dealer: The memoirs of the SS Kommandant at Auschwitz. New York, NY: Da Capo Press.
25.
KohlbergL. (1974, March24). More authority. New York Times Book Review, 42–43.
26.
KuhneT. (2008). Male bonding and shame culture: Hitler’s soldiers and the moral basis of genocidal warfare. In JensenO.SzejnmannC.-C. (Eds.), Ordinary people as mass murderers (pp. 55–77). New York, NY: Palgrave.
27.
LiftonR. (1986). The Nazi doctors. New York, NY: Basic Books.
28.
MastroianniG. R. (2015). Obedience in perspective: Psychology and the Holocaust. Theory & Psychology, 25, 657–669.
29.
MilgramS. (1961a, June27). Letter to Alan Elms. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series II, Box 43, Folder 127). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
30.
MilgramS. (1961b, September21). Letter to Henry Riecken. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series II, Box 43, Folder 127). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
31.
MilgramS. (1962a). Extending the field of observation. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series II, Box 163, Folder 46). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
32.
MilgramS. (1962b, August). Note on methods. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series II, Box 46, Folder 174). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
33.
MilgramS. (1962c, August). Note to self – Ethics of experimentation. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series II, Box 46, Folder 173). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
34.
MilgramS. (1962d). Obedience notebook. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series II, Box 46, Folder 163). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
35.
MilgramS. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
36.
MilgramS. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57–76.
37.
MilgramS. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. London, UK: Tavistock.
38.
MilgramS. (1992). The individual in a social world: Essays and experiments (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
39.
MilgramS. (n.d.a). An experimenter’s dilemma, unpublished note. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series III, Box 62, Folder 126). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
40.
MilgramS. (n.d.b) Report to memory project subjects. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series II, Box 163, Folder 46). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
41.
MilgramS. (n.d.c) Unpublished note. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series III, Box 59, Folder 81). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
42.
MillerA. G. (1986). The obedience experiments: A case study of controversy in social science. New York, NY: Praeger.
43.
MillerA. (2004). What can the Milgram obedience experiments tell us about the Holocaust? In MillerA. (Ed.), Social psychology of good and evil (pp. 193–239). New York, NY: Guilford.
44.
MillerA. (2009). Reflections on “Replicating Milgram”. American Psychologist, 64, 20–27.
45.
MillerA.CollinsB.BriefD. (1995). Perspectives on Obedience to Authority: The legacy of the Milgram experiments. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 1–19.
46.
MixonD. (1972). Instead of deception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 2, 145–174.
47.
NicholsonI. (2007). Baring the soul: Paul Bindrim, Abraham Maslow, and “nude psychotherapy”. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 43(4), 337–359.
48.
NicholsonI. (2011a). “Shocking” masculinity: Stanley Milgram, “Obedience to Authority,” and the crisis of manhood in Cold War America. ISIS, 102, 238–268.
49.
NicholsonI. (2011b). “Torture at Yale”: Experimental subjects, laboratory torment, and the “rehabilitation” of Milgram’s “obedience to authority”. Theory & Psychology, 21, 737–761. doi:10.1177/0959354311420199
50.
NobileP. (1974, March10). Uncommon conversations: You and your Auschwitz quotient [Radio interview with Stanley Milgram]. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series II, Box 43, Folder 128). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
51.
PaashausJ. (1974, July7). Letter to Stanley Milgram. Stanley Milgram Papers (Series III, Box 61, Folder 113). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
52.
PattenS. (1977a). The case that Milgram makes. Philosophical Review, 86, 350–364.
PerryG. (2013). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. New York, NY: The New Press.
55.
ProctorR. (2000). Nazi science and Nazi medical ethics: Some myths and misconceptions. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 43, 335–346.
56.
RazM. (2013). Alone again: John Zubek and the troubled history of sensory deprivation research. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 49, 379–395.
57.
Reaction of subjects. (1962). Stanley Milgram Papers. (Series II, Box 44). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
58.
ReicherS.HaslamA. (2011). The shock of the old. The Psychologist, 24(9), 650–652.
59.
ReicherS.HaslamA.MillerA. (2014). What makes a person a perpetrator? The intellectual, moral, and methodological arguments for revisiting Milgram’s research on the influence of authority. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 393–408.
60.
RussellN. (2010). Milgram’s obedience to authority experiments: Origins and early evolution. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 1–23.
61.
RussellN. (2014). Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority “relationship condition”: Some methodological and theoretical implications. Social Sciences, 3, 194–214.
62.
SchullerH. (1982). Ethical problems in psychological research. New York, NY: Academic Press.
63.
StamH.LubekI.RadtkeH. L. (1998). Repopulating social psychology texts: Disembodied “subjects” and embodied subjectivity. In BayerB.ShotterJ. (Eds.), Reconstructing the psychological subject: Bodies, practices and technologies (pp. 153–186). London, UK: Sage.
64.
StarkL. (2010). The sciences of ethics: Deception, the resilient self, and the APA Code of Ethics, 1966–1973. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 46, 337–370.
65.
Subjects’ conversation. (1963, February28). Stanley Milgram Papers (Series LL, Box 44). Yale University Archives, New Haven, CT.
