Milgram's Obedience

Diana Baumrind, a credited psychologist wrote, "Review of Stanley Milgram's Experiments on Obedience," while working at the Institute of Human Development at the University of California. In her review, Baumrind discusses phenomena which occurred in Milgram's Obedience Experiment. She briefly presents a case against Milgram by questioning the ethicality of Milgram's experiment. In addition, Baumrind provides excerpts of Milgram's own observations from which she deducts that Milgram seems unemotionally disturbed by his subjects’ strange reactions (Baumrind 91). She ends her review advising research psychologist to never expose subjects to indignities like those administered in Milgram’s experiment (Baumrind 94). In an article entitled, "Obedience," by Ian Parker, a British writer,
Perhaps able to contend with Baumrind's position that the Germans were unconcerned towards their subjects, is the United States Holocaust Museum article entitled, "Defining the Enemy." The article depicts how the majority of Germans at least passively accepted discrimination against the Jews, being taught from a young age that, "the Jew," was a carrier of lice and typhus, therefore instilling a mindset of unconcern towards the Jewish people (“Defining the Enemy”). Baumrind incorporates subjects reactions during Milgram’s experiment in her review depicting the subject as both trusting of the experimenter and concerned for the victims unlike the German's who carried out Hitler's orders. Parker would accede with Baumrind’s deduction about the relationships between the victims and the people in power during the Holocaust who believed they were acting rightly and perceived their victims as subhuman and unworthy of consideration; however, he would contradict Baumrind’s reasoning as to why it was inapplicable to Milgram’s experiment. By introducing Goldhagen into his article, Parker insinuates that he believes that the people in power involved in Hitler’s Germany were carrying out