Custom essays on Obedience as a tool to control masses of people

In such a context, obedience becomes a tool of control over masses conducted by the authority with the help of different institutions and means, including army, law enforcement agencies, laws, legal acts and the existing justice system. In fact, all these institutions and means aim at the maintenance large masses of people under control through obedience. In such a situation, it is quite natural that the authorities use all means to meet the desirable end – to keep masses of people obedient (Milgram et al, 685). In this respect, it is worth mentioning the fact that the authorities use their power granted by the entire society to the authority to maintain the existing social order. At the same time, the authorities establish rules, or legal norms, which regulate relationships within the society as well as relationships between people and the authorities. In such a way, they create the legal basis for obedience because the obedience to the established rules and legal norms is an essential condition of a normal life of an individual, whereas the violation of these norms leads inevitably to the punishment or limitation of individual rights and liberties. In such a way, the authorities are interested to keep people obedient because the more obedient people are the more likely the authorities will stay in power because it is only through disobedience people can overthrow the ruling elite. Therefore, the ideology of obedience has become the milestone of the modern ideology in the American society because since the early childhood Americans learn how important to be a good citizen and to obey to existing legal norms and social standards, whereas the violation of these norms and standards leads to the exclusion of an individual, who steadily slips toward becoming an outcast in the obedient society.
Limits of obedience
At the same time, obedience is not the absolute concept and obedience has never been overwhelming in the American society. What is meant here is the fact that the American society has never been under the total control of the authorities (Blass, 210). In fact, the authorities attempted to control the US society and they have succeeded in this regard but they are still responsible for their action and it is the American society that decides whether to remain the authorities in power or elect a new political force and grant it with the authority to conduct domestic and international politics and define the future development of the US.
At this point, it is possible to speak about limits of obedience. What is meant here is the fact that Americans have never been totally obedient to the authorities. They agreed to stay obedient as long as policies conducted by the authorities coincided with the interests, needs and wants of the majority of the population (Milgram et al, 686). However, Americans did not admit the overwhelming impact and control from the part of the authorities. In fact, when interests and needs of Americans were at stake they ignored obedience as well as the authorities.
Social disobedience as a tool to influence the authorities
In such a context, the logical question arises: what would Americans do if the authorities misuse the power and oppress rights and liberties or interests of Americans. In response to such actions or inaction from the part of the authorities Americans get used to launch acts of civil disobedience. The civil disobedience proved to be particularly effective in the 1960s in the time of the Civil rights movement. Nevertheless, today, this strategy is still applied by Americans to keep the authorities responsible and under the control of the public. In other words, when obedience of Americans comes to the end because the authorities violate rights and liberties of Americans and ignore their interests and needs, Americans, in response, launch the civil disobedience to force the authorities to take into consideration rights, liberties and needs of Americans (Milgram et al, 688). As soon as the interests of Americans are satisfied, they return to their traditional strategy of obedience and, thus, they maintain the established social order. For instance, many Americans opposed to the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The opponents of the war organized manifestations and protests against the war. Eventually, they forced the authorities to retire from Iraq and Afghanistan. At any rate, recently, the US has launched the procedure of withdrawal of its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. As soon as these decisions have been taken by the authorities Americans became obedient again. Now the protests are quite rare while the authorities conduct policies that meet interests and needs of the majority of the population.
Conclusion
Thus, taking into account all above mentioned, it is important to lay emphasis on the fact that obedience to authority is the characteristic of the modern American society. Modern Americans remain obedient to the authority to maintain the existing social order. However, the authorities tend to use the ideology of obedient to authority as a tool to control large masses of people because disobedience implies certain punishment or limitation of rights and liberties (Blass, 188). On the one hand, obedience is a guarantee of the stability of the existing social order. On the other hand, obedience to authority raises the problem of the growing impact of the authorities on the social life to the extent that the US can slip from democracy to an authoritarian state. In this respect, limits of obedience of the American society to the authorities become evident. In fact, Americans are ready to obey to authorities as long as the authorities meet needs and interests of the American society. As soon as policies conducted by the authorities come into clashes with interests and needs of Americans they launch social disobedience to force the authorities to conduct policies supported by the public. As soon as the authorities meet needs and interests of the society, Americans become obedient again.

Works cited
Blass, T. The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram.New York: Random House, 2004.
Milgram, S et al. “Response to intrusion in waiting lines.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51, 1956, 683-9.