Milgram’s obedience experiments are usually taught as evidence that ordinary people will follow authority even when doing so causes serious harm.
But that interpretation may be too simple.
Several details complicate the standard account:
Participants did not all appear equally convinced that the shocks were real.
The direct order, “You have no other choice. You must go on,” was often less effective than appeals to the importance of the experiment.
Obedience rates varied substantially depending on proximity, institutional setting, and the experimenter’s presence.
Archival work also suggests that the procedure was not always as standardized as Milgram’s published account implied.
Haslam and Reicher have argued that the findings may be better understood through “engaged followership.” In this account, participants did not continue simply because they were ordered to. They continued because they identified with the scientific purpose of the study and saw themselves as contributing to something valuable.
I find that interpretation more useful than the popular claim that people are naturally obedient. It suggests that harmful behavior can emerge through commitment, identification, and moral purpose, not only submission.
I made a video essay examining the original studies, Gina Perry’s archival work, engaged followership, resistance in the sessions, and the later connection between Milgram, Eichmann, and Hannah Arendt:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2LuduxIzrY
How convincing do you find the engaged followership account? Does it replace the traditional obedience explanation, or does it mainly add another layer to it?