Conquering the Beast Within
Jun 17th, 2011 | By Timothy McGettigan | Category: Lead, Social Psychology, Timothy McGettiganAre humans basically good, or basically bad? Some people, like Freud, Hobbes, and Foucault, say bad. We’ve got a beast within and the only way to control that beast is to beat it down and repress it. You want proof? Just look at how badly the adults in this world act. They are greedy, selfish, violent, and brutish. But is that the result of human nature, or is it simply the result of toxic socialization? Personally, I think its the latter. Take one giggling, innocent, bubbly, effervescent child, subject them to two decades of disregard and abuse (statistically, rates of child abuse are high), and turn them loose damaged, angry, and desperate! It’s no wonder we live in the world we do. But is it human nature, or should we fault our The System and its agents of socialization? It’s up to you to decide. But be careful, the choice you make determines the society we build.
The beast within?
Long ago, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) argued that, in the absence of strict civilizing influences, humans tended to lead lives that were “nasty, brutish, and short.” For Hobbes, human nature was brutal largely because nature is brutal. The law of the jungle is harrowing and, in a state of nature, social niceties generally take a back seat to the grim realities of no-holds-barred struggles for survival.
That humans could flourish in natural environments that were predicated on lethal competition is a complement to the unique array of evolutionary adaptations that comprise modern Homo sapiens. Lacking formidable claws, teeth and body mass, humans have overcome their physiological shortcomings by evolving a matchless intellect. Humans have succeeded in exerting unparalleled dominance over the earth by repeatedly making the point that brawn can always be subjugated by intellect.
For his part, Hobbes was convinced that social control was the key to human progress. No matter how refined any individual may appear, Hobbes was convinced that a primitive beast lurked within. Intellects that have been honed in the pitiless crucible of survival competitions remain indelibly a product of those struggles. Yet, though Hobbes believed that a savage resided within every human heart, he also believed that it was possible to tame those internal beasts. This could be accomplished via the application of social control. In a well-regulated environment where ne’er-do-wells are disciplined swiftly and certainly, Hobbes asserted that individuals can be effectively dissuaded from pursuing purely self-interested, and thus, anti-social activities. The key to civilizing the human animal is to ensure that individuals remain more fearful of disobeying the instruments of centralized authority (i.e., Big Brother) than they are tantalized by the potential benefits of pursuing brazen self-interest. Under such circumstances, “civilized behavior” results from a straightforward cost-benefit calculation: if defying authority bears greater costs than the perceived benefits of seeking self gain, then individuals will elect to pursue loftier, more socially-productive goals.
Though it’s an unflattering view of human nature, nevertheless, Hobbes’ principles still remain the foundational insights upon which many modern criminal justice systems operate. Humans can accomplish great things, but only if we imprison our baser human natures–whether we reside in penitentiaries or not–in rigidly enforced systems of social correction.
Indeed, this was also Michel Foucault’s key insight in Discipline and Punish (1975). Foucault argued that, as societies have become increasingly complex, forms of social control have also evolved to new levels of sophistication. For example, as fast as information technologies evolve, surveillance technologies that are designed to monitor the thoughts and movements of global netizens proliferate. Though IT users understandably chafe under the often onerous intrusiveness of evolving surveillance technologies–and the policies that authorize their use (e.g., USA Patriot Act)–failure to maintain aggressive data-monitoring initiatives invites 9/11-style abuses. Thus, humans being what they are, the more that IT enhances our intellectual capabilities, the more necessary it will be to impose increasingly draconian forms of electronic surveillance.
But that’s not a very pleasant thought, is it? Who the heck wants to believe that Big Brother will (or, worse yet, ought to) inevitably win in the end? Not me. No way.
Still, for every new use that we discover for information technologies, it seems as if digital scallywags invent at least one, if not a thousand, more abuses. Which of the visionary inventors of the Internet imagined that cyberspace would open up boundless opportunities to hawk pornography, sidestep gambling restrictions, pilfer electronic identities, manage shadow banking systems, or coordinate global terror networks?
Self-regulation has a tendency to be ineffectual simply because, as Hobbes argued, it is folly to rely upon the better angels of human nature. Left to itself, human nature tends to be dominated more by demons than angels. For example, Alan Greenspan, the former Chair of the Federal Reserve, subscribed to the fanciful conviction that deregulation would inspire a market-based solution to financial fraud. Instead, as one might expect, Greenspan’s philosophy of unchecked deregulation only amplified the scope of financial abuse (a la Bernie Madoff and OTC derivatives) during his term as Fed Chair. The 2008 financial meltdown was largely a consequence of Greenspan’s pollyannaish faith in the magic of deregulation.
Civility is a product of social control, whereas crooks flourish in an environment of deregulation. Further, it is naive to insist otherwise–unless we’re intent upon aiding and abetting crooks. That said, creativity is inspired by unfettered individual inquiry. From Galileo to Julian Assange, the best ideas often transgress the most sacred social boundaries. This is a point that I have made repeatedly in other discussions.* Truth is an outcome of conflict and dissent rather than consensus.
Can we have it both ways? In other words, can information technology be both an instrument of repression as well as a vehicle with which to creatively contravene established rules and regulations? Like it or not, it is both already and must remain so. If we are going to outmaneuver mischief in the rapidly evolving landscape of the information society, then we will need to employ a big, strong, technically-savvy Big Brother to put the kibosh on fast-adapting cyber-deviants. However, the more adept that Big Brother becomes, the greater the chances that he’ll become an overzealous bully.
Family relationships are never ideal. We may need a Big Brother, but we don’t have to like him. In fact, if we are going to derive any real benefits from this sibling relationship, then it will have to remain a rivalry. We can empower Big Brother to be a protector, but only if, simultaneously, we apply ourselves unremittingly to dissuading Big Brother from being a bully. In practice, this means trying to put one over on Big Brother every chance we get. Big Brother may not agree, but hackers and crackers are his best friends. It might sound counterintuitive, but there is no better way to keep Big Brother alert and in line–and also to inspire the individual intellectual bravado that will ensure an enlightened and progressive civilization–than an incessant and ferocious sibling rivalry.
*See Utopia on Wheels (1999) and Good Science (2011).
No related posts.
The image above of kids playing seems to suggest that, if left to their own devices, kids will choose to play, love, share, and enjoy. In other words, it is human nature to be good and nice, and kids only turn mean when their intrinsic nature has been corrupted. I love that idea, and I think for many kids that’s how it is. Kids can be angels.
That said, there are also some pretty mean kids in this world: playground bullies, brats, back-stabbers, lunch money-swindlers, etc. Kids can be angels, but they can also be monsters. E.g., the Columbine shootings.
What turns kids into monsters? The factors that contribute to anti-social behavior are complex: poverty, poor parenting, broken homes, too much TV or fast food, etc.
What enables kids to become angels is TLC and discipline. It is impossible to tell kids that they are loved too often. But kids also need firm, gentle guidance. When kids make mistakes or poor choices (as Hobbes would argue any human being will inevitably do) they need to be corrected. Without discipline, no matter how gently applied, the best within cannot be properly contained.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to disagree with you on several counts. First of all you cannot make claims about human nature by pointing to fully grown adult humans. The reality is we are products of our socialization process and that socialization process is entirely malleable. What counts for “human nature” at any given point in our history depends very much on the society that surrounds us and the socialization we experienced. And even if there is some component of “human nature” in the adult behaviour of our societies, how exactly do you separate that from the effects of socialization. Come up with all the complicated statistical models you like you’ll never be able to convince me that you’ve isolated “human nature.” All you can ever do is point to what human nature looks like as a result of socialization.
Second, your comments on the evolutionary presence of competition are misplaced. In fact, the blanket assertion that our evolutionary rise from ape hood is characterized exclusively by competition is ideological and anthropologically naive. A good book in this regard is Alfi Kohn’s No Contest.. Kohn provides a painstakingly research rejection of the capitalist worship of competition, a worship that has ideologically penetrated even the “objective” hallways of the academy.
Third, pointing to the greedy buggers on Wall street and saying “look, human nature,” is just bad sociology. They are a special population and do not represent in any way (statistical or otherwise) the wider population of human beings. If you point to the buggers on Wall street the only thing you can conclude is that particular sub-group of humans seems incapable of self regulation. It doesn’t mean we all are. In fact, you might just as easily point to all the individuals who selflessly give of their time to feed and house the homeless as evidence of “human nature.”
Finally, I’d like to point you in the direction of anthropological evidence that clearly undermines Hobbsean/Freudian belief in the “beast within.” This article here, The Natural History of Violence points out quite clearly that type of “bestial” nature that you describe does not exist in a natural world characterized by abundance and space. Primates, it seems, are only violent if they are under environmental stress, or if they are overcrowded. Given an adequate environment and the satisfaction of basic needs, violence is virtually non-existence in “natural” primate societies.
world. Of course, the behaviour of primates in confinement (i.e. Zoos) is another matter. As Russel and Russel point out, put apes in confinement, stress them out, and all of a sudden you get stronger males beating up on women and children beneath them. This is quite different from a chimps natural behaviours where “the most successful chimp” (i.e. the one who gets laid the most, and who gets the best fruit), is the one who makes friends the best. Incidentally the conclusions of Russell and Russell are echoed, more recently, by Dr. David Mech’s recent retraction of his concept of the “Alpha Male,” a type of male that he says simply doesn’t exist in “natural” conditions. So much for the Capitalist apologies for brutish and bullying behaviours.
So where does that leave this argument about the need for Big Brother and social surveillance? On shaky grounds I conclude. If we are to follow the example of the “natural” world then rather than beating the beast within into a psychologically and physically repressed pulp, maybe we should turn the vast wealth and capabilities of our modern societies to improving the satisfaction of needs and the quality of our living spaces.
Tim, are you confusing discipline with structure and guidance? Structure and guidance is one thing, physical, emotional, and verbal abuse, panoptic surveillance with a mind towards total behavioural control, are entirely different. I doubt you will find a single scientific study to support the notion that kids need physical, emotion, or verbal abuse. The old biblical adage, “spare the rod” is nothing but a patriarchal justification for violence against the weakest and most vulnerable members of society.
In any case you said it yourself. We know how bullies are created. “poverty, poor parenting, broken homes, too much TV or fast food, etc.” To that I would add a school system that shames and disgraces and that teaches the worship of competition. We wonder why our teenagers are so viciously hierarchical, clicky, and intolerant of weakness. I even had a vice principle express shock and confusion at how brutal middle school kids can be. “we don’t know why,” he said. “Must be human nature.” “Not at all,” said I. They are just implementing the social structure that you educators have been modelling to them since they entered kindergarten.
Compete, rank, publicly shame, and exclude.
Write tests, get your grade, put the grade on display, and organize into “levels.”
It’s exactly what middle student do. can we fault them if they are clumsy and unsophisticated in their application of “the rules.” They’ll learn. By the time they get to be adults they’ll have the subtle imposition of capitalist ethics down pat.
In any case, it is not human nature, it is what what the people who designed the school system intend, which is to reproduce the Capitalist ethical system in each new generation. But more and more we are finding that what the capitalists say is “natural” (i.e. competition, alpha males, brutish violence, survival of the fittest), is nothing more than an ideological aberration or the result of artificially imposed conditions of scarcity, indoctrination, or stress.
We aren’t going to resolve the nature-nurture debate in this discussion. To be honest, I don’t believe that all humans are basically evil. My feeling is that people have the potential to be both good and evil. Kids need to be nurtured to cultivate their capacity for goodness. At the same time, people both young and old need to be constrained in order to dissuade their inclinations to be ill-behaved. This does not mean that I approve of any form of abuse. I despise the abuse of power and do not believe that anyone (particularly kids) should be exposed to such malice. That said, I do believe that, in the absence of regulatory structure kids (both young and old) are very likely to engage in counter-productive, anti-social behavior.
In my opinion, Wall Street wastrels are simply overgrown kids who improperly disciplined. The same is true for most criminally-inclined individuals.
Of course, this begs the questions: What is crime? Who gets to decide? Who should be empowered to be the enforcer?
In brief, I answer those questions by asserting that individuals need to maintain a sibling rivalry with power structures. People need freedom. Everyone benefits from being able to exercise individual-level agency. However, there needs to be a balance between power structures and individual freedoms. Too much freedom and we end up with wackos running amock; too much constraint and we end up in 1984.
The trick is to strike the necessary balance.
It sounds odd to generalize about the nature of primates. Are there not significant differences between chimps and benobos?
There are differences among species and differences among individuals. We can’t point to nature or nurture or any of the myriad subsets of nature and nurture as the sole shaper of human nature. But I think we can with assurance rule out the blank slate theory of human nature. The idea that human beings are infinitely malleable at birth has no basis. and so far attempts to create ideal societies based on that theory have proved disastrous. There is surely some innateness packaged with every newborn.
So we can ask, what is the nature of that innateness? How and to what degree does it circumscribe the individual potential? And what kind of nuturing jujitsu can be applied to turn every selfish or destructive impulse into something beneficial or constructive?
I believe one innate drive that explains a lot is the drive to preserve and pass along one’s DNA. The effect of this is that we instinctively tend to see the world as us and them. We defend and cooperate with those we see as like us. The good news is that the converse is not necessarily the case. We defend against and fight the “other” only as we perceive a danger or threat. So, yes, in an unstressed environment we may say, like Abraham, “Let there be no strife between my people and thy people. We’ll take this territory and you take that, or if you prefer, vice versa.”
Even in a stressed environment, the tension between cooperation and aggression can be modulated by how we define the “other.”
The left brain, 98-pound weakling though it be, can whisper to the ever-vigilant amigdala, “Yes, I know he looks different, but under the skin, we’re all brothers and sisters. See how he plays music and sings, see how she care for her children.” If we can just let the National Geographic images and stories seep into our hardened consciences, we’ll see less of the “others” and more of ourselves.
We aren’t going to resolve the nature-nurture debate in this discussion.
I don’t agree with that. I think the weight of proof has shifted. If you want to make claims that we have a “beast within,” you need to dig out the anthropology and archeology to prove it. I think that’s getting much harder to do though since we (and by “we” I mean the intelligentsia) are slowly starting to realize the ideology that has penetrated our thinking on these things.
My feeling is that people have the potential to be both good and evil.
Like this. The notions of good and evil are ideological through and through. I think we as humans have the potential to engage in bad and violent behaviors, but I don’t believe that makes us “evil” in the theological sense. And while you might want to suggest that you don’t mean “evil” in the theological sense (although maybe you do), because it is such an ideologically polluted term we (and by “we” I mean Sociologists) probably shouldn’t be using it in our discourse.
Kids need to be nurtured to cultivate their capacity for goodness. At the same time, people both young and old need to be constrained in order to dissuade their inclinations to be ill-behaved.
I don’t need to be constrained in order to dissuade me from my “inclinations” to be ill-behaved. I have no such inclination, and neither do my children. This idea that we need to be “constrained” is pure ideology of a form that supports and justifies constrain, incarceration, and punishment. Sure my kids can be spoilt and selfish at times, but that behaviour can be reduced by setting boundaries and expectations, by discussing the impact of their spoilt and selfish behaviour, by working with them to create a home life that they are happy and comfortable in, and by modelling the behaviours we expect from them.
This does not mean that I approve of any form of abuse. I despise the abuse of power and do not believe that anyone (particularly kids) should be exposed to such malice. That said, I do believe that, in the absence of regulatory structure kids (both young and old) are very likely to engage in counter-productive, anti-social behavior.
I think you need to back up your “belief” here with some evidence. The article I cited clearly demonstrates that, at least in the primate kingdom, “evil” behaviour is entirely situational. Put chimps in an environment of scarcity, overcrowd them and stress them out, and ya you get bad behaviour. But put them in an environment of abundance, give them lots of space, and reduce environmental stresses, and the “inclination” to bad behaviour vanishes completely. Of course, Catholics, protestants, Freemasons, and others who have been indoctrinated into the whole “good and evil” rubric may have a problem with this, because they’ll want to hang onto their ideology from egoic reasons (it’s always the “good” people who are incarcerating the “evil” ones) but that’s not our concern as Sociologists.
In my opinion, Wall Street wastrels are simply overgrown kids who improperly disciplined. The same is true for most criminally-inclined individuals.
An alternative view would be that Wall Street wastrels act as they do because of the environments they are in. On Wall Street, greed is modeled, encouraged, and justified. Couple that with the stress of capitalist existence, the high population density of New York, and possibly abusive childhoods and you have the recipe for wall street “evil” in hand without ever having to rely on ideological notions of good and evilo.
In brief, I answer those questions by asserting that individuals need to maintain a sibling rivalry with power structures. People need freedom. Everyone benefits from being able to exercise individual-level agency. However, there needs to be a balance between power structures and individual freedoms. Too much freedom and we end up with wackos running amock;
I don’t believe this to be the case at all. I believe, based on emerging anthropological evidence, that what we need is more space, less environmental stress, and a fairer distribution of societal resources. Of course I imagine many people reading this are going to want to say, “but we can’t do that because we are ‘violent’ and ‘aggressive’ and ‘greedy’ by nature, and so we need to authority and confinement and surveillance.” But that is either ideological or a mere justification (I’m sure the ultra rich bankers of this world want everybody else to think that their greed is “ok” because it is “natural). I’m a Sociologist and I believe we are aggressive and greedy not by nature but because of the social system created during the Industrial Revolution, which is really just a continuation of the social system that existed prior to the Industrial Revolution). Just like the apes in the study I cited, we are violent not because of some innate tendency but because of social and political world we live in.
I think we need to have a discussion on the ideology of the sciences in this journal, and in particular the social sciences. I’m always surprised to find how much “religion” penetrates into social science research. Not that I have anything against the luminal realms, I personally have some very deep spiritual convictions, but they are not Catholic, or Masonic, or paternal convictions and they do not participate in the “good versus evil,” rubric were we’re all little “souls in training” who need a good slap down every once in a while just so we don’t misbehave.
Um, it is my understanding, Walter, that genetically primates are all pretty equal. WE all share 98 percent of our DNA, blah blah, with our primate ancestors. So I think some generalization might be warranted, but with caveats and cautions always applied. And as for situational specificity, well that is the essence of what I’m saying anyway, its our environments that are the key. how more specific can you get.
as for our our innate desire to pass along DNA, even if that were true (and not just an anthropomorphization of DNA), that doesn’t mean we are innately predisposed to see each other as us or them. Passing on our DNA is better achieved in a cooperative and mutually supportive environment, rather than in an “us or them” environment. As soon as we start hurting and killing others, we are reducing genetic variability and the transmission of DNA.
I really recommend people read that article I cited. it is quite good and locates aggression not in the need to transmit DNA, but in the survival of specific populations of creatures. We start killing each other only when we feel we are threatened. So rather than worrying about the transmission of DNA, maybe we should just stop creating threatening environments.
Sorry. I only have time for a quick message at the moment.
My main concern relates to the kinds of problems that Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo exposed in their work. Regular folks are capable of doing dreadful things if circumstances dictate. There may not be a beast in every heart, but there are a sufficient number of closet beasts to drag behavior to the lowest common denominator.
For example, lots of level-headed investors know that they were making really bad decisions in advance of the 2008 financial meltdown. The problem is that there were no regulators around (Big Brother was asleep at the switch) to tell them to behave properly.
More soon.
Mike:
I admire your criticisms in several ways. First, I’ve never met anyone else who thought that they could resolve the nature-nurture debate. Second, I am sympathetic to your observation that the social environment we have inherited is screwed-up. And, because society is screwed-up, people have a tendency to behave poorly–including criminals of every stripe and collar color. In a better world, we might be able to rely upon people to behave better. Unfortunately, as Machiavelli noted a long time ago, we don’t live in an ideal world, rather, we live in a reality that falls short of the ideal.
In this less-than-ideal reality, I don’t trust people to make good decisions entirely on their own. Everyone needs guidance, including good-hearted folks and those who are more criminally inclined. By the way, the parameters that you employ to encourage positive personal personal growth in your loved ones sound remarkably similar to my own techniques. When we talk about discipline vs. modeling, I think we are discussing opposite sides of the same coin. That’s why I mentioned Foucault in the commentary. Information-age discipline does not punish, it observes.
Miscreants often take advantage of hard-won freedoms to perpetrate misdeeds. Terrorists (or, if you are on the opposite side of the fence, “freedom fighters”) make use of the internet to coordinate their global anti-authority struggles/attacks. Or, Wall Street wastrels capitalize on a deregulated financial environment to advance their greedy self interest to the point of ruination.
How do we make an imperfect world a better, safe place for one an all? We’ve got to balance the freedoms that trustworthy people need and deserve — but that trouble-makers would use as weapons — against an environment that cultivates discipline through regulated observation.
I do not want to live in 1984. Big Brother needs a poke in the eye on a daily basis. At the same time, in he absence of Big Brother, I can think of no practical way to get low-ballers (e.g., Wall Streeters and their ilk, terrorists, run of the mill trouble-makers, etc) to play fair.
I’m going to raise some points here, most of which aren’t related to your article Tim. So don’t feel this is a criticism of your position.
The nature nurture debate is a philosophical debate, and from what I have seen philosophers can’t resolve anything. They like to argue and they’ll keep an argument going long after its been resolved. It is also an ideological debate or rather, the nature-nurture debate is a prop for ideological actions in the world. Its central in just about very JUSTIFICATION for bad behaviour that exists. You are using because you think it justifies surveillance and “guidance,” but that’s not the case. What your “we have a beast inside” argument does is justify war, violence, crime, and everything else that’s bad in this world. If we have a beast inside then hey, there is nothing we can do about the world as it is, is there? It is the way it is naturally. People are criminals because they are “naturally” criminals. People engage in war because they are “naturally” violent. People steal because they are “naturally” inclined to do so. But jeez, what exactly does saying somebody is “naturally inclined” to something explain? Not a fracking thing. It’s as magical an explanation as saying people are “naturally evil.” As a sociologist I don’t buy that superstition. I know there are reasons that we engage in war, and that people steal, and that they hurt each other, and these reasons have nothing to do with our “nature” and everything to do with ideological justification for violence, war, inequality, hierarchy, and so on. As long as we buy into the “beast within” argument we accept all the bad things on this world because, well, ‘that’s just the way we are.’
Imagine though if we rejected two century old ideas about human nature (Hobbes, Machiavelli) and instead adopted a more modern and empirically sound position that war and violence is not natural but an aberration, caused by (as the article I originally included suggested), overcrowding, resource scarcity, hierarchy, inequality, competition, improper socialization, etc (all sociological explanations!). I mean serious, is it a surprise we behave poorly towards each other when the teachers in our schools teach us that the only way we get the rewards (gold stars, trophies, good jobs), is by beating others down in competition? Our “guides” (our teachers) teach us, from day one, that we are to engage in violence against another. Is it a surprise that so many people in the Middle East hate us. We have destroyed entire countries on nothing more than a the flimsily constructed lie of WMD. Is it a surprise that we have so much domestic violence, or so much crime, or so much hate? I’m not surprised by any of it and I know why it exists, or at least I know many of the factors that contribute to it, and its’ not because we have a “beast within,” it is because we’ve been hurt, stolen from, liked to, beat up, oppressed, suppressed, and murdered.
And no, we don’t live in an ideal world. But creating an “ideal” world is not rocket science Tim. The first step is to stop accepting and justifying the world as it is. Put aside the Christian, Masonic, Scientific, ideology and look for the social, political, and explanations. When you found the reasons, then work to change them.
Of course, as soon as you do that you run into the real problem which is that those who have work very hard to keep those who have not, without, to the point where they will every violent method available to them to maintain the status quo.
anyway, you say that terrorists use the Internet to organize their attacks. I very much doubt that. Only an idiot would use the Internet to plan illegal activities. The Internet is easily the single most monitored form of communication in human history. I can see a propagandist telling us that the Internet is used to plan terrorism, but then the propagandist has an agenda and that agenda is to increase our openness to surveillance.
Anyway, if we really want to protect ourselves from all the violence and bad behaviour in the world, then we need to change the world. If you respond to bad behaviour with bad behaviour, you only repeat the bad behaviour. It would take resources of course. If someone is violent in the home they are going to need therapy, and lots of it. A soldier coming back from Iraq will be deep in the throes of PTSD, and will require lots of therapy. People from the lumpen will have experience serious psychological trauma, and they will need guidance repairing. What they don’t though is more control, more surveillance, and more paternal authority justified in the name of centuries old philosophical dogma.
Sorry, I guess I am continuing to take issues with some of your claims.
i’m enjoying this though. I don’t think I’ve had this much fun since, well, I don’t think I’ve ever had this much fun in an academic setting before.
My main concern relates to the kinds of problems that Stanley Milgram and Philip Zimbardo exposed in their work. Regular folks are capable of doing dreadful things if circumstances dictate. There may not be a beast in every heart, but there are a sufficient number of closet beasts to drag behavior to the lowest common denominator.
The only thing Milgram taught us was that when you isolate people from social supports, surround them with the symbols of authority, and tell them to obey, they will. Milgram’s experiment say absolutely NOTHING about human nature and everything about the how easy it is to misinterpret social research, and how much power “authority” has in our society.
Does this say we naturally follow authority. Once again no. We are socialized to obey. As children we are taught from day one to respect and follow authority no matter what, and so it is no surprise that when authority is emphasized, we tend to obey.
and ya you are right, “regular folks are capable of doing dreadful things if circumstances dictate.” So acting on the implications of Zimbardo we have to work hard to ensure that “circumstances” are never created that dictate dreadful things. Prisons should obviously be abolished and replaced with therapy (probably a lot cheaper in the long run) because if Zimbardo taught us anything its’ that prisons do horrible things to minds of both prisoners AND guards. We should also revisit our educational system and we really need to question the amount of effort we put into training children to do what they are told because when we raise children to do what they are told, then anybody with a white jacket can get them to do just about anything..
For example, lots of level-headed investors know that they were making really bad decisions in advance of the 2008 financial meltdown. The problem is that there were no regulators around (Big Brother was asleep at the switch) to tell them to behave properly.
Oh I don’t think the problem is lack of regulation, I think the problem is The System itself. “Investment” these days is really about nothing more than greed these days and the stock market is nothing more than a bunch of people trying to line their pockets. Like you say, “circumstances dictate.” It’s not that we need more regulation of those who play with the money system of this world, its that we need to remove the ability to play with the money system of this world.
Also I should note that criticisms of Zimbardo’s experiment have pointed out that he did in fact give quite a bit of “direction” to prison guards, telling them how they should behave and setting expectations. Once again, are we looking at the impact of authority (ZImbardo clearly an authority figure for the students involved in the experiment) or what? There’s also suggestions of selection bias and a whole host of other factors that make the use of Zimbardo, or Milgram, to point to “human nature” problematic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment