English 101
Critique
Oct 2007
Theodore Dalrymple is a British physician. He attempts to find a reasonable
balance between blind disobedience to authority and blind obedience. Dalrymple says
that some people think determined opposition to authority is principled and romantic in
his July 5, 1999 article in Newstatesman magazine. Dalrymple, ineffectively, tells how
these people are dangerously wrong.
Dalrymple says Milgram’s Obedience and Authority is one of the few books of
academic psychological research that can be read with as much pleasure as a novel and
which suggest almost as much about the human condition as great literature. He also
states, “only someone who had no interest whatever in the genocidal upheavals of our
century could fail to be gripped and horrified by Milgram’s Obedience to Authority.”
Dalrymple takes the egocentric approach that only his opinion on Milgram’s work is
acceptable. He is attempting to force readers to his viewpoint by shaming them if they
do not agree with him.
Dalrymple continues with a conversation he had on a plane with a social worker
in a Dublin hospital. After she states, “I’ve always been against all authority.”
Dalrymple immediately begins with the chain of authority and how she trusted it
implicitly, even blindly, stating it is necessary in a complex, technologically advanced
The Essay on Stanley Milgram obedience experiment
Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiment One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram (1963). Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. He examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg ...
society. Using this approach Dalrymple “proved” the pilot’s authority was necessary for
the social worker to reach her destination. The necessity of the authority that allowed
him to become a pilot was indeed “necessary.” His viewpoint that her initial response to
the question of obedience and authority was far from unusual was conceivable but
once again he had no suggestions or proof to back up his stance.
Dalrymple continues with, “Civilization requires a delicate balance between
stability and change. Neither mulish support nor Bukharinite opposition to what exists
simply because it already exists. Disobedience to authority is not inherently more
glorious than obedience.” He quotes Milgram as saying “Some system of authority is a
requirement of all communal living…” Dalrymple is inconsistent with his point. Is a
system of authority the absolute or is there a balance to be reached. From Dalrymple’s
standpoint people who defy authority altogether think themselves virtuous and don’t
have to deal with the messy compromises of real life. Dalrymple gives no example for
this standpoint. He has neither proved nor disproved his point.
Dalrymple then lumps himself with other young doctors and the problem of
authority in their careers. He speaks of a physician he believes carried her investigation
and treatment of patients too far, “beyond common sense,” he says. He being a young
doctor believed he was more capable of judging what was acceptable than the
experienced physician herself. Dalrymple although opposed to these investigations
carried them out. He states, “I was never sure that she, not I, was right,” but said these
were unnecessary and fruitless hardships inflicted on patients. Dalrymple conflicts his
statements again. Dalrymple says he believed the interests of patients were served by the
existence of a hierarchy among doctors. “Someone had to take ultimate responsibility
for the care of patients.” Clearly a point might be reached where a junior doctor had a
duty to disobey, but no general rule to guide him to where that point was. He stated it
was common sense.” The exercise of judgment was, and will remain, necessary.” But he
The Term Paper on Mrs Jackson Patient Treatment Doctor
The case of Dr. Lowell and Mrs. Jackson revolves around a conflict between the doctor, who advocates the implementation of a particular treatment and the patient who disagrees with the doctor and wishes to do things her own way. The doctor feels that the suggested course of action is disastrous and threatens to have the patient declared mentally incompetent. The question now is whether or not the ...
did not exercise his judgment, he “blindly” followed the orders he was given.
Dalrymple goes into parents reactions to teachers after mentioning their children
misbehaving, sometimes in grotesquely anti-social ways. He says the parents will turn
unpleasant toward the teachers. He does not tell how often this happens. He concludes
this is due to the teacher’s role of authority although the teacher asserts no authority over
the parents themselves. He tells of a stepfather that was sent to prison for assaulting a
teacher. Although cases like this have undeniably happened, I would suspect it is not the
norm as suggested by Dalrymple.
Dalrymple tells of his patients who admit to having always had “a problem with
authority.” He calls it a sign of unbridled egotism. He states they are unable to apply
themselves at school, unable to take orders at work and that their personal relationships
are almost always stormy and violent. He bases this assumption on his patients and does
not have the statistics to apply this to society as a whole. He says for people who have a
problem with authority, “their whim is law and the only thing that moderates their
behavior is the threat of violence by others.” What violence is he speaking of?
Dalrymple goes into assessing people’s upbringing that leads to a problem with
authority. He discerns discipline in the home is without principle or consistency, but is
rather experienced by the child as the arbitrary expression of the brute power of others
over the child. The conduct that on one occasion results in a slap results on another
occasion in a Mars bar. The child therefore learns that discipline is an expression not of
a rule that has social purpose, but of a stronger persons momentary emotional state.
Sociologists believe that nature and nuture are inseparable.
Dalrymple’s views on the psychology of behavior is astounding in the sense he is a
prison psychologist and used his patients there to justify this and not society as a
whole.
Dalrymple finishes his article by briefly mentioning Milgrams deceit during his
experiment. Dalrymple says Milgram proved even decent people might become
The Essay on Is Disobedience a Psychological and Moral Problem?
He states the disobedience and the willpower to say no and doubt are some of things that may prevent human beings form destroying the Earth. While Erich Fromm’s essay is certainly interesting to read, some of his ideas and statements are outrageous. It is because of these claims I have to partially disagree with the general idea with his essay. In the following paragraphs I will be showing, ...
torturers and killers. He justifies it by saying the results could not be accurate had the
subjects known the purpose and design of the experiment. How can the results be
accurate without knowing the purpose and design? The experiment raised ethical issues
as the experimentor did not truthfully tell the people involved what the real test was for.
From Dalrymple’s standpoint, disobedience is caused by a poor upbringing, based
on violence. He believes those who defy authority totally can only be controlled by the
threat of violence. Dalrymple has argued his point, entirely, using only his opinion. He
has not cited any surveys, statistics or studies to back up his point of view. He states that
a balance must be maintained between obedience and disobedience but rarely mention
it or how it could be achieved.
I agree with Dalrymple’s focus that obedience and disobedience must balance to
maintain some form of functional society. His entire article is based solely on hearsay
facts and self thought explanations of why people behave the way they do. He has
absolutely no documentation to support any of his theories. I would have given the
article more credibility had he showed some evidence to support his viewpoints.
The balance between disobedience and obedience must absolutely happen in order
to function as a society. Dalrymple fails to deliver on any aspect of proving this point. I
find Dalrymple’s views and opinions totally bias and frankly shocking. Dalrymple’s
article is entertaining in the sense he has no concept of what he is actually talking about.
Sociologists believe nature and nuture to be inseparable.
Submitted by :
