The Myth of Choice_ Personal Responsibility in a World of Limits - Kent Greenfield [50]
4.
Like cultural norms and influences, our tendency to obey rules and respect authority undermines our ability to make genuine choices. Without recognizing it, we tend to follow along in situations when we should not. We obey in times when we should dissent. We remain silent when we should speak up.
But also like culture, the influence of authority is not so great that we are under its spell all the time. Influence is not coercion. We cannot predict with certainty when we will succumb. And we should succumb much of the time. Police officers, teachers, parents, and stop signs, for example, generally deserve respect and obedience.
Having said that, what each of us experiences as an exercise of will is often a product of more than our own atomistic processing of values and analysis. Our will is also partly a product of the influence of authority and rules, along with cultural norms and assumptions, processed within the limitations of our cognitive biology.
I want to make sure I am not misunderstood. I am not saying that the teachers in Milgram’s studies had no choice but to shock the learner, and I am not saying the spiritual warriors in Sedona were coerced by their own psychology into staying in the lethal sweat lodge. What I am saying is that the influence of power on our decision making is significant, and it often acts without our recognizing it, often to the detriment of ourselves or others. We should be wary of the sway authority has on our decision making, so that we are less likely to be manipulated by those who understand its effects and use it for selfish purposes. It also makes sense to institute protections against the influence of authority in contexts where its misuse might be particularly harmful. Protections against sexual harassment in the workplace, bans on teacher-led prayers in school, and Miranda warnings after the arrest of a suspect, to pick just three examples, make eminent sense. The same reasoning points toward greater protections against the use of “consensual” searches by police. At present, there is not even a requirement that the person searched be informed that he or she has the right to refuse.
More importantly, we would be better off if we established more room for dissent in our daily lives. Even though it would create some difficult moments in our schools and families, we should try to engender in our children the insight and strength of character necessary to speak up when something does not sit right with them.
There are models for this kind of behavior. I am thinking of not only famous dissenters and questioners such as Martin Luther King, Jr., or Edward R. Murrow. Role models do not have to be so lofty. They can be people like my friend Pete, whom we met earlier challenging a police officer to do his job.
Or they can be like Jan Rensaleer, an industrial engineer who was one of Milgram’s original subjects more than fifty years ago. Described as “mild mannered and intelligent” by Milgram,17 Rensaleer provides a wonderful counterexample to the teachers who blindly obeyed the researcher and then sought to shift responsibility for their actions to the situation. Rensaleer began the experiment and obeyed the researcher during the early stages. At the 150-volt level, when the victim complained and cried out, Rensaleer paused and asked the experimenter what he should do. The experimenter told him to continue, and he did, with hesitation. He administered several more rounds of shocks, but then at 255 volts, he pushed away from the desk and turned to face the experimenter.