A rchive Date
[ 10-04-2002 ]
Category
[ Science ]
sub-Categoy
[ Psychology ]

The Milgram Experiment

by Paul Davis

NOTE ON COLUMN SERIES

Through my experiences and studies, I have come to know two areas especially well. And while these two cities may only be small towns within California, analysis of the conditions faced by these two separate communities lend insight into the degree to which the general system in which we live is working -- or not as the case may be. This column series has three parts that span three weeks. This is part three.

At Yale University in 1960, a psychologist by the name of Stanley Milgram ran an experiment that was destined to result in a greater understanding of human nature. Professor Milgram paid volunteers to help with an experiment intended to test the effects of punishment on learning. Each volunteer was seated in a position to watch another individual take a test. When the test taker answered incorrectly the volunteers were directed to pull a switch that would shock the test taker with an electrical current. With each pull of the switch the volunteers were led to believe that the shock would increase in intensity.

The volunteers knew their role, but not their function in the

Milgram experiment

. The volunteers thought that they were the lab assistants but they were actually the lab rats. For when the volunteer pulled the switch no electrical current was transmitted; rather the test taker, played by an actor, would only pretend to be in pain.

The experiment was run in such a way as to test the actions of people given their proximity to and awareness of the ramifications of their actions. When physically removed from the test takers, only 35% of the volunteers refused to keep pulling the switch. On the other hand when the volunteers were situated right next to the test takers, able to observe and experience the ramifications of their actions, 70% of the volunteers defied authority and refused to pull the switch. In short, proximity to and awareness of the effects of one's decision induced most volunteers to choose the path of least total harm and destruction.

In the past two ER columns, we have taken an in-depth look at the situations faced by two entirely different communities. On the one hand there is Stanford Industrial Park, a beautiful urban environment. SIP is home to an economically profitable industry that generates massive local revenues, and provides a lucrative tax base that is subsequently used to maintain a well-kept infrastructure. Moreover, SIP has been remarkable in its ability to avoid classic urban problems like population growth and pollution generation and disposal. When problems have arisen, this community has been highly successful at diverting them elsewhere.

On the other hand, we have the unfortunate conditions faced by the residents of Barrio Logan. It is home to an excessive amount of polluting industries, and residents of this area face more than their fair share of health hazards. Be it the Methyl Bromide spray or the unpleasant and deadly fumes flowing from the chemical and metal plating companies, the living conditions of these individuals are far from ideal.

The designers of Stanford Industrial Park were successful in part because they realized one of the most fundamental desires of all people, that is: people desire to work and live in a safe, clean and hospitable environment. But the question arises, when does one community's pursuit of a clean and healthy urban environment have adverse and reprehensible effects on the health and cleanliness of another community's environment? More importantly, when do regulations in one community create an unhealthy divide between the cause and effects of people's actions thereby creating a group of individuals who are completely removed and even ignorant of the adverse effects of their decisions.

The communities of Stanford Industrial Park and Barrio Logan are opposite sides of the same coin. The urban problems that landscapes like SIP alleviate through diversion don't just disappear. These problems are merely transferred to towns that are similar in character to Barrio Logan. To a certain extent the creators of Stanford Industrial Park are social activists, in that they tried to provide people with the right to a clean and healthy environment. However, the manner in which SIP has proceeded to preserve their environment has created the unfortunate divide between the cause and effects of their citizenry's actions. For example, SIP companies are encouraged to engage in research and development projects within the confines of SIP, but when that research proceeds to the mass production of a product that creates excessive amounts of toxic waste, SIP no longer desires their business. And so the mass production facilities are shipped elsewhere, thereby creating a divide between inventors and the adverse byproducts of their inventions.

Is such a divide between cause and effect the mark of a healthy system? Probably not, but it is the manner in which our lives operate. Many of us are completely removed from the adverse effects of our actions. For example, the city comes around every week to divide us from our trash. Moreover, we are unaware of the adverse byproducts generated by the products we buy. We are also removed from the Third World land that is cleared to support US meat consumption. From all of this we are removed.

Back in the 60s when Milgram released the results from his experiment, many individuals claimed that it illustrated the innate penchant for violence in human nature. But Milgram came to a different conclusion. He stated that "the fundamental lesson of our study [is that] ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terribly destructive process". In other words, people, when removed from the products of their actions, are more than willing to participate in a destructive processes.

Such is the reality of our urban and natural environmental problems. We are all removed from the negative effects of our destructive actions; thus most of us unknowingly engage in environmentally destructive decisions. Moreover, the environmentally destructive decisions we choose effect the livelihoods of others. And so the question remains: how do we correct this? I think back to the question posed to me at the beginning of this column series. "Is this system working?" Mrs. Helton asked. Like many individuals, I was content to know only the confines of my own universe. I did not know or care about the effects of my actions on others. I was content to just sit at the desk pulling the switch. After all I was only following orders. Many of us fall into this dangerous trap and thus like the volunteers in the Milgram experiment, engage in activities that we would otherwise avoid if we understood the consequences of our decisions.

The goal is now clear. In order to transcend many of the environmental problems we experience today we need only to transcend the "Milgram Effect", the result of isolation between cause and effect. The only question that remains is how do we transform from a society of individuals who blindly pull the switch, to a calculating population who, understanding the effects of their decisions, will refuse to pull the switch of inevitable destruction?

Click here for the column before this one

Front Page