At one point or another, we've all read "The Lottery". This short story by Shirley Jackson is set in an unnamed American community; representative of any and all small and isolated towns. While the atmosphere is generally somber, it is most certainly not overly so and the author is careful not to give it a depressive edge. The time period is never mentioned nor is it made evident, and the reader is left to assume this story is timeless. The people lead simple lives; having baroque taste is simply not possibly for most farming families. Their one distinguishable quality is their lack of emotion, and they seem to be preparing to attend a gathering.
At this gathering, the head of each family steps up and picks a piece of paper. The entire event seems to need no imprimatur, and it is widely accepted by everyone. While most men open their papers to reveal blankness, Hutchinson sees a black dot. This is the terrifying anathema, the horrifying black dot that is not frightening until it appears on your paper. However, the tone of the story remains analytical and oddly passive, as if simply viewing these events without any feeling. The Hutchinson family draws again, until Tess Hutchinson gets the black dot. At this point, she is deemed 'the winner'.
Tess slowly walks to the center of the circle as children are told to run quickly to gather 'smooth stones'. At this point, she begins to protest but her cries are largely ignored. Someone comments as to how he hopes this will be over soon, because he is hungry and wants to eat dinner. The townspeople, her husband and children included, then begin to throw stones at her, pummeling her until she dies. This act is seen as a practical necessity, a sacrifice of one in the name of many, in order to have a good harvest.
This story is famous (and infamous) for its savage and bare approach to the classic idea of obediance and tradition. While the reader, an outsider, is able to see this inhumane event for what it is, the people don't view anything unusual about their age old ritual. They blindly follow what they know, either unwilling or unable to question the town they've grown up in. Even though some may view this story as sadistic in its cruelty, this sadism is presented without any inner knowledge of wrongdoing on the part of the townspeople. Because they are so invested within themselves as a community, they have no sense of self awareness nor room for original thought or questioning. This is no place for any parvenus; these are simply people that are looking to live their lives without change.
In case people have not heard of the Milgram experiment, I will sum it up briefly. In 1962, 14 years after this story was first published, a psychologist named Stanley Milgram decided to try an experiment which measured the willingness of people to obey authority. The basic idea is this; random people were selected to be 'teachers', and paid actors were the 'learners'. The supposed job of the 'teachers' was to get the learners to memorize word pairs, and administer punishment when the learners failed. This punishment was in the form of electric shocks, and the 'teacher' was told to increase the voltage after every wrong answer. Even though there was no actual harm being done to the learners, they were told to scream in pain and beg the teachers to stop. The teachers believed they were inflicting harm on these people, but in reality it was a test of obedience.
The results were shocking: only 1 in 40 people refused to continue with the experiment before the 300-volt level. 65% of participants went all the way up to 450, where the learners screamed in pain and claimed they were having a heart attack.
Would Shirley Jackson have been shocked at these numbers, or would she have merely laughed? Without even discussing the Nazi regime, it seems to be a common occurence for people to simply do what is expected of them. Although individualism is often revered in both literature and life, it is surprisingly absent in what we see everyday. In "The Lottery", a horrific society in which there is a terrible absence of individualism, everyday life is simply taken to an extreme violent proportion. And this is why this one particular story stands out in the mind of everyone who has ever read it, and will never be forgotten.
28 comments:
Are you surprised that we "failed" the Milgram experiment again? When I heard about it I wasn't surprised at all--after all, how much do you really expect us to change in 50 years?
This test, and "The Lottery" both raise some interesting questions, as you pointed out. The main thing both of them ask is "what are we?", and the answer they give is not one we would like to accept.
I read that short story in 7th grade! The movie is horrible especially when they stone Tess at the end. It's a creepy movie, Sam you should watch it. That experiment sounds really interesting, gives us something to think about
While I was personally not surprised, (I am after all, a cynic), Milgram asked Yale psychology students and colleagues before the experiment what they believed would happen. They thought most people would insist on stopping the experiment, and only a sadists would inflict 450 volts. (Only 1.2% of those interviewed believed most people would get all the way up to 450.)
Even though most people can't even remember events from yesterday, every single person I spoke to remembered this story from seventh grade. This might not be what we want to hear, but we know it's true and it sticks with us.
You know, this post reminds me of a discussion we once had in Spanish Class about heroes and the choices they make. I'm not sure if it directly relates, but the part about the Milgram experiment where the teachers were supposed to be obedient makes me think about the choices people made. They could have seen the pain that the students were in and stopped, but instead they continued. After immediately reading that I couldn't believe they would ever do that, but once I started thinking it does make sense. I guess in the end it's all about if you are going to make a selfish choice or not. It's completely different if you are speaking hypothetically or in the actual situation at the moment, and in a way it's so sad. However, I personally am a person who has to follow authority, and it just makes me wonder if following authority is always the best choice or just the easiest...
(sorry for the rambling, ha)
You think you are a cynic? What would you call me, then?
I agree with you--we should not be surprised at the results of the Milgram experiment. Regardless of the exact nature of human nature, the fact of the matter is we do terrible things to each other. Though it could be argued that since we are simply animals this is to be expected, this is not an excuse for such behavior. Here's another example: can you think of a period longer than 10 years in which there was no wars anywhere in the world? I can't. (If you think you've got one, look and see if there were any wars in the more obscure parts of the world; there probably were. I'd be willing to bet that no warless decade ever existed.)
Jess-you make an interesting point. When I first heard of this experiment, I assumed I'd be one of the minority that refused to inflict pain on anyone else. But now I'm not so sure. While the entire experiment sounds awful to me, I don't believe I am morally superior to the majority or my actions rise above common human nature.
Billy-I doubt humans could go ten whole years without some sort of large scale violence, so I'm not even bothering to look it up. We say we've evolved from our gorrilla roots, but our basic instincts remain surprisingly animalistic.
Yeah really, Billy. After all, your picture is the god of cynicism or something haha.
But anyway, I guess this is what makes a hero a hero, right? If everyone made such noble decisions, like refusing to shock the student, then such acts wouldn't be considered heroic; they would be considered normal.
Additionally, I'd like to know what kind of penalty the teacher thought they would be facing if they refused to shock the student. In my eyes, that's really vital to making a true judgment on the experiment.
...because in "The Lottery," failure to comply would result in harsh, harsh punishment (if I recall correctly). If this wasn't the case in the Milgram experiment, then the behavior from the teachers is certainly worse than that of the characters from the story.
...because think about it. If someone told you, "Shock them or you're going to die," then you would definitely do it, and it would be considered acceptable and the right decision (and rightfully so).
If someone told you, "Shock them or you're going to be shocked yourself," then maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't. Either way, you probably wouldn't be chastised for your decision, because all things even, this person is no better nor worse than you.
If someone told you, "Shock them or...well, I said so. You will see no penalty if you choose not to, but again, I'm commanding that you do it," then choosing to shock them would certainly be a worse offense than the previous two situations. My point is, we need to be completely aware of the exact situation that was at hand and know exactly what the terms of the experiment were, and what impression the "teachers" were under.
(sorry I keep doing separate comments, but I keep thinking of more to add, haha)
If I remember correctly there was no threat of punishment in the Milgram experiment. The subjects were simply told what to do by someone in a lab coat (which is supposed to be an unconscious symbol of authority).
Sam, I'm going to ignore the fact that you used the term "morally superior"...on any other day I would go of on a huge argumentative tangent about that, but today I'll be nice and let it slide. But why are you surprised we are so animalistic? After all, all of human history is just the blink of an eye in terms of evolution--we are basically no different from the animals we love to look down on.
And my picture is of the ancient Greek philosopher Pyrrho, who was the inspiration for Pyrrhonism, the philosophical school of extreme skepticism of which I am a follower.
Who knows, though? They probably assumed there was some form of punishment in store for them if they refused. It was never directly said, but it's a factor that weighs heavily and cannot be ignored, in my eyes. Also, they probably assumed that there was some other reason for shocking this person other than just the fact that they had answered questions incorrectly. Perhaps they were a criminal being penalized? The natural reaction from anyone in that situation would be, "This is 20th century America. There's no way that they're just commanding me to shock someone just because of this."
Of course, I am just speculating. That being said, I do want to make sure that everyone keeps in mind that there are other important factors you have to weigh before deeming it pure, animal-like, barbaric behavior.
I see what you mean; circumstances are important. But look at the significance of the first Milgram experiment: at the time, the Nuremberg trials were going on, and many saw the experiment as proof that we (humans) do simply follow orders, no matter what they are. Though circumstances do matter, the main point is that even under weaker circumstances people will still commit atrocities if they are told to do so.
Well let me ask you: are there instances in which people committed such atrocities after being told to do so when they knew they would not be facing any consequences?
Yes. That's what the Nuremberg trials were all about: army officers in Nazi Germany committing atrocities when their superiors told them to. They thought Germany would win the war so I would assume they though there would be no consequences. Beyond that, I'm sure there are countless other examples.
First, I would just like to say I shut my computer for an hour and there are seven more comments posted...
But anyway, to add on the the Billy-Steve-Sam discussion I have a thought, kind of like what I said before. Billy, I understand that the point you are making is that people will do something if they are told even though it is terrible, but that also has to do with the way we were all brought up in a way. I don't know about you, but I know that I was told from a very young age that I had to listen and do what I was told even I don't agree. Maybe that is where people are coming from? The thought of just disregarding what you are told even if there is just a slight chance of consequence can cause some people to listen (for example: me). I'm not saying I would shock people, but hopefully you get the idea. I agree with Steve with the fact that there were more factors to take into consideration other than just the fact that we act like animals (which I do think is true.)
That's quite a stretch to make that assumption. I'd have to think that those German officers knew that if they didn't follow through, they would face consequences.
"but that also has to do with the way we were all brought up in a way. I don't know about you, but I know that I was told from a very young age that I had to listen and do what I was told even I don't agree."
That's a very good point. The attitude of "I'm older and more experienced so listen to me" is certainly imbued upon us as children. So when people see a man in a white jacket, they probably figure that he's smarter and there's some reason for this; he isn't telling me to do this just for fun.
Jess, I wanted to avoid that part of the discussion since I figured Sam wouldn't appreciate my philosophical rants on her blog. But now that you bring it up I will address it. I am of the opinion that human beings are animalistic and thus have no inherent aversion to violence. But I also think that human nature is very mutable and thus very dependent on conditioning like you said. But that isn't much of an issue here because we all share relatively similar conditioning. So the question remains: the way we are now (whether that is a product of our upbringing or not), are we that savage that we will commit atrocities with little motivation?
Steve, I see what you are getting at. But what exactly are you trying to prove? I would agree that human beings always need motivation, but are yo trying to suggest that we are inherently good and that we need lots of motivation to make us do bad things?
Just that there are many factors to be taken into account. I don't really believe we are inherently good, but I don't really subscribe to the school of thought that we are inherently bad. I just thought that the beginning of the conversation was a little too one-sided ("this is horrible, we all suck, we're selfish, we're barbaric"), so while I certainly see the point you are making, I just wanted to keep things in perspective.
Jeez! I can't keep up with you two!
I guess I would have to say that the majority of people are in fact that savage. It's a sad thing to say, but I'm afraid it's the truth. Can't think of much else to say about that...
Well, it does depend on the definition of good and bad but I won't get into that because I know what you mean by it.
And what, I wonder, are you saying about the nature of personal responsibility?
Here's something of a compromise: try to take the argument out of the context of good and bad for a moment. We humans act a certain way, which some moral systems call "good" and others call "bad." How we act depends on some combination of our genes and our upbringing, but mostly our upbringing. We do need motivation but it differs for different people. (Do you see what I mean? Looking at it this way, it is both the same and different.)
I understand what you are saying in your last comment, but I'm not too sure what you are trying to get at? Sorry, I can be slow sometimes...
Alright. I have to say, while Steve does bring an interesting perspective, I tend to agree more with Billy. It was not punishment the teachers feared in the Milgram experiment, it was completely voluntary and in reality they could chose to leave at any time. A man in a white coat stood next to the teacher, representing authority, and every so often he gave commands such as "Please continue with the experiment." However, there was no mention of consequence if he chose to refuse. I suppose you can call this motivation (like Billy said) but I believe it is more commanding than anything else.
Jess, your personal take on it is interesting, because you have been brought up to respect authority whether good or bad (I use those terms loosely). And your question is, If authority is bad, would I still follow it?
While there are often mitigating circumstances in many cases, Dr. Milgram was very careful to make sure there were none. Billy, when you say human nature is mutable...to what exactly? Do you mean conditioned against violence? We spoke a lot about animalistic instincts vs upbringing, and we all agree that both come into play in this situation. So maybe the question is...Are the results of the Milgram experiment largely a result having been told constantly to obey authority, or do they go much deeper than that? I know we all answered this, mostly choosing a combination of the two, but I just wanted to sum it up a little.
Btw Billy: your philosophical rants are always welcome, expecially on my word choice (which I have to admit, was not too thought out when I used the words 'morally superior')
Estoy de acuerdo! I like rants!
I'm glad.
My point about mutability is that human nature is very depended on our upbringing. This viewpoint is not incompatible with the idea that we are animalistic; our "instinct" is occasionally impulsive but mostly it is simply our adaptability to any culture or society (hence our nature is mutable). Jess, your personal example is profound proof of thus.
To answer your question, Sam: Yes, it goes deeper, but only because we follow authority because our conditioning tells us to (and we follow conditioning because our human nature is mutable. See what I mean?
First of all Jess...I never want to to use the spanish dictionary on this blog again lol. And Billy, I do see what you mean now.
Btw...I learned about the Milgram experiment and psychology, and I think you guys would all do really well in that class. It's very basic, but it's interesting and you woudl bring different perspectives.
I only use Spanish to help you out, Sam! Come on.
Secondly, I am considering psychology, but I don't want to make that video, ha.
Agreed, no spanish.
Post a Comment