Haditha and the Milgram Experiment

I know I've been fairly quiet on the latest string of revelations of war atrocities in Iraq. It's not that I'm uninterested so much as I'm not at all surprised. I'm sure most of you are familiar with the famous Milgram experiment [1] wherein Stanley Milgram of Yale University proved that, under orders from an authority figure, the majority of ordinary people would administer a lethal dose of electricity to another person. Although prior polling of psychologists revealed a nearly unanimous belief that, at most, less than 1/10th of 1 percent of subjects would succumb to this atrocity, the fact is that the Milgram experiment has been repeated in a variety of settings and derivations, always with the result of nearly two-thirds of participants willing to administer the fatal shock.

The point is that we would all like to believe that we have an immutable system of morals and respect for life. That there is no way that we would succumb to kicking around decapitated Iraqi heads like soccer balls [2] in order to entertain ourselves after a lazy Sunday afternoon killing spree. That these individual soldiers are somehow twisted by nature and must be locked away before they sully America's good name any further. But the Milgram experiment represents empirically solid proof that the mind is a fragile and malleable construct; that under the right circumstances, we can rationalize the most horrific of acts in order to protect our subconscious from the reality of our actions.

Basically, under any circumstances of unjust and elective warfare, our minds are confronted with conflicting notions of our own (dare I say ingrained) morality and the propaganda of authority figures. The only way we can preserve our mental health is to dehumanize the "enemy" so that it is no more difficult than killing an animal. The problem with this kind of mental conditioning is that it leads to all sorts of evil consequences [3] beyond the obvious intended ones.

Should those who commit atrocities be held culpable? Absolutely, lest we send a message that we condone such behavior. But when you train dogs to attack strangers, you should not be surprised when that's exactly what they do. Is it the dog's fault or is it the trainer's fault? The real villains [4] of these atrocities are first and foremost the leaders who have blurred wartime conventions [5] so much so that morality is indistinguishable. Beyond that, we must blame those in the American public [6] who gave their implicit permission for this behavior by electing a group of terrorists to run the country, and finally those who know better but fail to speak out [7].

Comments

antihebe (not verified)Fri, 2006-06-23 15:37

Nothing happens in a vacuum

I certainly believe that human beings can be held more accountable than dogs!

I've always tended to view this experiment as much a critique of society than of basic human nature. Control and deference to authority are integral to our social institutions: and so I'd be interested to hear of similar experiments conducted in other contexts, if anybody knows of them.

There are different kinds of accountability, I think: active (for those who commit the act), and passive (for those who allow the act to be perpetuated). Furthermore, of course, there are those who create the situation in the first place!

Perhaps responsibility can be patterned to fit power structures, as you say. But my own response - certainly more emotional than educated - is that this merely shifts responsibility away from the individual, and on a large scale, I think this dangerous.

(I can't kill an animal either, by the way. But I do believe that a lack of physical empathy for other living creatures is one of the more disturbing aspects of our culture.)

I agree that people tend to adjust their ideas and values when their actions are not in accordance. I think this called 'ideological dissonance,' or something similar. Here, it seems as though entire schemata are being deconstructed and rebuilt... It really worries me that this can happen.