There are disconcerting scientific experiments of share their design but also their results. Those of Milgram, of the psychological name American Stanley Milgram form part of it.
Thus of 1960 and 1963, the scientist “sought to measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.”.(wikipedia)
The principle was simple:
– a pupil or guinea-pig charged to learn and answer correctly under penalty of electric shock
– the teacher who gives the lesson and corrects the pupil while pressing on the button of discharge
– the experimenter who typically represents the authority by his posture, his diction and the verbal warnings that it gives to the pupil.
This experiment was recently renewed last April: candidates were invited to take part in a new quizz, entitled “Xtreme Zone”, in order to take part officially in a pilot of play TV.
In fact was, the experiment organized for the needs for documentary “Until where goes the TV? ” in order to determine the powers of television.
The originality lay in the atmosphere of a television studio but the organization remained in conformity with the principles stated by Milgram with:
– the guinea-pig: the candidate having to answer the question resulting from the public
– the questioner: charged with put the questions and to support about the button after request of…
– the presenter, Tania Young who organizes and controls the play
Here, contrary to appearances, the true guinea-pig remains the public, which one tested disobedience or not to an immoral order, i.e. to punish an human by electric torture.
Attractive result as much as surprising: in the experiment of Milgram, 63% of the subjects inflicted electric maltreatment with the guinea-pigs.
50 years later, within the framework of this study on the powers and drifts of the TV (in particular TV reality) with in backdrop, the potential stake of the profits, the charm of Tania Young, the environment of the television studio, decisions in a group of human, they are 82% of the people of the public who agreed to make suffer the candidate with discharges sold for 480V.
Small detail concerning “potential” the stake, insofar as the play were a pilot, if it never had suddenly been diffused, like wants it the rule, the public knew pertinently that the profits would not be versed to the winners!
Thus, 8 people out of 10 agreed without reward in return to inflict sufferings with a human being, which implies that, only 2 people out of 10 opposed the immoral order of the presenter.
Let us forget television vector of communication of the Order, like are also the family, the school, the company, the army, the State. This State, which could and which would like to it to be opposed?
And to think obviously of the resistant ones to the fascistic regime. Thanks to these results resulting from scientific experiments, no astonishment to note the low level of “rebels” to the system.
Whatever the political regime, the majority agrees, follows the Established order, a such sheep of Panurge.
In the cases mentioned above, this majority was however wrong, and its silence, its dumbness has makes it even guilty of the complicity of the cruel acts.
Enormous problem. If the majority seems to be misled in these crucial moments, why make confidence in the majority to choose a leader, a chief, or a president of the Republic?
The concept of democracy thus comprises a large defect . A rather simple experiment, proves that one of the principles most fundamental invented by the Man to live in company is null and void
More exactly, this majority making a blind confidence with the supreme representative of authority, would be potentially brought to accept anything of it.
Whereas without this authority, the majority of the citizens would have found legitimately contemptible the perpetrated or ordered acts, and would have expressed virulent manners their disapproval.
Very logically, the democracy always gives reason in the majority. But it is paradoxical to note that this one is wrong as soon as it is a question of expressing its critical direction.
Is this useful to go up until 1940 thinking of these concepts? The electoral stakes of 2007 and the political events which ran out since are enough to understand, that the democratic principle plays in favor of the first come swindler.
Somebody who would be able to make believe that it is close to people, concerned their daily problems, with his manner of speaking.
Somebody who would be able to make them dream with a better world with his anthology of promises, more beautiful ones than the others.
Somebody who once elected, could then do all and anything: as to maintain and encourage the practices which he had promised himself to stop, to trample the crowned principles of the separation of the powers, to forget the republican values insufflated in the currency of its own country: “Freedom, Equality, Fraternity”.
Then since nothing nor nobody replaced the Democracy by a better system, the enough lucid involved forces to see and understand correctly the current location, must remain mobilized to one by one turn over the arguments and prejudices of the Supreme Authority.
With the older tools, as the press, was added Internet. It thus does not seem astonishing that this Authority, of France or besides, makes thus very to attach, filter and control under false pretexts, the most powerful means of communication and of disobedience to the Order, potentially immoral. (treaty ACTA and laws HADOPI, LOPPSI)
Opponents of all horizons, blogers amateurs or journalists professional, account for these 20% of disobeying, still able to say “NOT”.