Authority relationships between obedience and disobedience

Recent episodes of public dissent (such as the demonstrations against G8 policies) raise the issue of the psychological processes triggered in obeying and disobeying the authority. Even if obedience to authority is an important aspect of social life and it plays a key role in maintaining social order, the concept of obedience has been studied in social psychology mainly in terms of its destructive aspects. Besides, most of the studies have overlooked the role of disobedience in the authority relationship. Disobedience may be conceived of as a protest that undermines the legitimacy of the authority or it can represent an instrument for controlling the legitimacy of the authority's demands, becoming a factor protecting against authoritarianism. In this article, a new perspective on the study of the relationship between the individual and the authority is put forward, considering obedience and disobedience as parallel concepts, each having constructive and destructive aspects. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

In the name of democracy: Disobedience and value-oriented citizenship

Recently, some scholars have highlighted a paradoxical phenomenon existing in democratic systems:Those people who show the greatest support for democracy are also those most willing to protestagainst the authority and to question it. However, if we consider the tasks of contemporary democraticcitizenship in a social-psychological perspective, this apparent paradox becomes understandable.Obedience to authority may ensure the continuity of social and group life, but disobedience may becrucial in stopping the authority relationship from degenerating into an authoritarian one. FollowingKelman and Hamilton's analysis of legitimacy dynamics, we consider how actions of disobediencemay serve the defence of democracy. In particular, by considering the different ways in which peoplerelate to the political system, the relevance of so-called value-oriented citizens in supportingdemocracy will be considered.

Obedience-disobedience dynamic and the role of responsibility

Obedience has been thoroughly studied in social psychology, both in its positive and negative aspects. Nevertheless, in these empirical studies disobedience has been considered to be the opposite of obedience and indeed its negation. Instead, some recent studies suggest that if obedience to authority is important in ensuring the continuity of social and group life, disobedience is crucial, under some circumstances, in stopping the authority relationship from degenerating into an authoritarian relationship. In this perspective, disobedience may be conceived of as a protest undermining the legitimacy of authority, or else it can represent an instrument of the community for controlling the legitimacy of the authority's demands, becoming a factor safeguarding against authoritarianism. The aim of the present study was to empirically verify the dynamics existing between disobedience and obedience. The results show that people who attach importance to both obedience and disobedience in the relationship between the individual and society recognize the importance of democratic values and consider themselves responsible for the defence of human rights. Instead, people who only recognize the value of obedience and consider disobedience as a threat to the status quo are more authoritarian, individualistic people.

“Dishonourable disobedience” – Why refusal to treat in reproductive healthcare is not conscientious objection

In medicine, the vast majority of conscientious objection (CO) is exercised within the reproductive healthcare field – particularly for abortion and contraception. Current laws and practices in various countries around CO in reproductive healthcare show that it is unworkable and frequently abused, with harmful impacts on women's healthcare and rights. CO in medicine is supposedly analogous to CO in the military, but in fact the two have little in common. This paper argues that CO in reproductive health is not actually Conscientious Objection, but Dishonourable Disobedience (DD) to laws and ethical codes. Healthcare professionals who exercise CO are using their position of trust and authority to impose their personal beliefs on patients, who are completely dependent on them for essential healthcare. Health systems and institutions that prohibit staff from providing abortion or contraception services are being discriminatory by systematically denying healthcare services to a vulnerable population and disregarding conscience rights for abortion providers. CO in reproductive healthcare should be dealt with like any other failure to perform one's professional duty, through enforcement and disciplinary measures. Counteracting institutional CO may require governmental or even international intervention.

Frank and Rufus, or, Obedience and disobedience /

Mode of access: Internet.

Disobedience. A novel ...

Summers, Gothic Bib., p. 297; Blakey, Minerva Press, 1790-1820, p. 180.

To make better provision for the government of the military and naval forces of the United States by the suppression of attempts to incite the members thereof to disobedience. Hearings before the Committee on military affairs and subcommittee no. 10, House of representatives, Seventy-fourth Congress, first session, on H.R. 5845, March 1-19, 1935.

Mode of access: Internet.

Collective action and civil disobedience: the anti-GMO campaign of the Faucheurs volontaires

Civil disobedience has hitherto enjoyed only a relatively marginal place in the repertoires of French social movements, but has recently emerged as a key rallying frame for social mobilization, especially among environmental and counter-globalization movements. This paper examines the theory and practice of civil disobedience in the French context through an analysis of one such movement, the anti-GM Faucheurs Volontaires. Discussing the highly controversial campaign's positioning as 'civic disobedience', the article examines contested discourses of violence surrounding crop destruction, and the state responses to action, before asking what the campaign's claims to Republican civism mean for traditional notions of the relationship between state and challenging groups in France. It argues that framing action as civil disobedience is central to attempts to construct political and popular legitimacy, in terms of the campaign's national, international, and sectoral goals.