As sociologists, we should remember that Zimbardo's and Milgram's experiments were done within a psychology paradigm. They were looking for psycholgical explanations for these behavior. Milgram, for example was building on the Authoritarian Personality literature (based on Adorno's work with psychoanalytic roots).
Moreover, the interpretations typically dramwn from these studies are psychological, i.e. what kinds of personalities will do such things, and the answer they give is just about anybody if given a chance or pushed by authority figues to do so, but without developing any structural or cultural explanations. The NY Times review for example cites the "herd mentality" from century old crowd psychology, as the explanation why research subjects did not resist. As such they require reinterpretation in a sociological framework. For one example, not the herd mentality, but rather individuals noticing that others are not acting, so that they would be deviant and therfore vulnerable to retribution. The research create a normative situation. The subject by agreeing to participate in the situation has also agree to accept those temporary norms in an artificial situation (artificiality giving them an excuse for why to not resist). Not surprising to those who study collective behavior, there is no resistance. What conditions that give rise to collective action are present in these situations, that subjects might act to change norms? Richard Butsch Professor of Sociology Rider University --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Teaching Sociology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/teachsoc -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
