Agency theory as an explanation of human obedience
Obedience plays a big role within everyday lives. For instance, children going to school are expected to be obedient towards the teachers; employees are expected to be obedient towards their bosses. Obedience is expected from most people one way or another, but what is obedience? Obedience is when an individual is expected to obey the rules set by a recognised authority figure (teachers, parents, bosses etc.) When obedience occurs the individual is handing over their free will to the authority figure as they are doing what the authority figure is telling them to do, even if the individual believes what they are doing is incorrect. This can lead to disobedience, if the individual decides not to follow orders. Relatively, orders and rules are in our best interests for example road signs prevent accidents happening. However, obedience can lead to destructive obedience this means obeying orders which leads to the harming of other people.
Milgram did many theories on obedience; one of his theories was the agency theory of obedience (1973). Milgram believed that we tend to obey recognised authority figures; this is to maintain a stable society. Within society there are social rules and we have to give up some of our free will to follow these rules. Milgram proposed that to keep a stable society we have evolved two states: the agentic state and the autonomous state.
The agentic state is when you feel you have no control or choice. You are giving up your own free will to the authority figure and doing as you are told. For example Milgram’s participants said, “I was only doing as I was told” this showing that participants gave up their responsibility and choice to obey the authority figure.
The autonomous state (the opposite of the agentic state) is when you are in control of your own responsibility and actions, and ignore the orders of others. This gives you the power to make your own decisions. For example, Gretchen Brandt was a participant in one of Milgram’s later experiments. She refused to complete the experiment, when she was asked why she responded, “I had been in Germany during the holocaust and have seen enough suffering already.”
The strengths of Milgram’s agency theory are as follows, this study can help us understand the awful behaviour that happened in the time during the holocaust. The use of this is that we could stop anything like it happening again. Another strength is that it supports Milgram’s original study, and shows that when an authority figure gives orders, individuals will obey but with the result of suffering from stress.
However, Milgram does have his weaknesses. Milgram’s study did not support the findings of the obedience in nurse’s study by Hofling et al. As the nurses did not suffer from moral strain. Another weakness is that is that not all obedience is because of the orders of an authority figure. The charismatic leadership theory showed that some people are particularly skilled at gaining obedience, regardless of their authority position. Also the agency theory does not elucidate individual differences in obedience. Milgram also ignored the people that did disobey him.
The agency theory does explain some ideas on obedience, and may be able to help explain some of the actions and behaviours of the horrific Nazi officers, who claimed they were doing as they were told. This may also come in useful to help prevent anything of this sort happening again. Adding to this it gives people in general a better idea of how obedience has a huge impact on everyday lives, showing that to be obedient is not always a good and moral action. As proved of the events of the holocaust. Overall the agency theory is a good explanation of the states of obedience of some people and may well come in useful in the future.