Legitimate authority is when somebody is at the top of a social hierarchy, this shows their ultimate authority over everyone in this certain hierarchy. This also means that other expect these people to exert their power upon them in an appropriate way and if they do so these lower people will willingly give up any power they may possess and follow this person’s every command. This was evident within Hitler’s reign of Germany and the whole 🤬 regime.

Within the 🤬 regime both legitimate authority and agentic state were both present. Legitimate was especially prevalent within how people obeyed Hitler and his commands, this may not however have been through people willingly giving up their power but instead being forced to obey a higher authoritative figure or face severe consequences in turn. Agentic state was present through many SS officers such as Adolf Eichmann who was the man who was in charge of the creation of the concentration camps throughout Europe, This showed agentic state as Eichmann was creating these camps to work alongside Hitler’s ideas of creating an Aryan race and the eradication of anyone who didn't fit into the idea of the perfect German. This meant that Eichmann was forced to come up with an idea which could work well with these views of his superior authoritative figure. However, some could also see an agentic shift take place through this as Eichmann wasn’t actually acting upon any orders of Hitler’s but actually came up with the whole concentration camp from his own initiative without any input from anyone else, so therefore most think that actually Eichmann is to blame for the camps as he didn’t show any of the signs of being in an agentic state but did show signs of being in an autonomous state which shows us that maybe he did want to create the concentration camps in the first place. Also with the fact that he took quite an in depth role within the running's of the camps as well further support this claim.

However, many research findings cannot be explained by the agentic shift. An example of this would apply to Milgram’s experiment. The agentic state does not explain why not every person obeyed the observer. Surely if the agentic state applied to the whole experiment then all of the participants should have obeyed the observer and went up to 450V, but only 65% of participants went up to 450V. This means that the agentic state has a limited explanation and can only be used to explain certain situations of obedience as it cannot be used as a universal explanation for all cases of obedience and only some. This demonstrates a flaw in the explanation of the agentic state.

On the other hand, this can be explained by differences in human personalities. For a person to remain in the agentic state the binding factors must be strong or legitimate enough to make a person not feel responsible for the actions in which they do. For the 65% of participants who went all the way to 450V they may have viewed their observer and surroundings as legitimate enough of the point where they can be trusted to take upon the responsibility of all of the actions which take place during the experiment. But for the remaining 35% they may have had a too large strain on their morals and may not have been able to shift the blame of themselves and onto the observer. This may explain why the agentic state may not explain every situation, as every person is different and experiences different levels of responsibility and moral strain.

One problem with the agentic state is that it makes people follow instructions of those higher than us even if we know they are wrong. When we perceive someone to be higher up the social hierarchy than us we are likely to act as an agent for them, believing that it is not our responsibility but instead we are simply following orders. This is called acting in a mental ‘agentic state.’ We might feel a sense of anxiety or moral strain if what we are doing is wrong, but we are powerless as we are in a lower position in the social hierarchy. For example, in Milgram’s study, even though it was clear the participants weren’t comfortable (nervous laughter, picking at skin etc.) they still followed through with the experiment. This is because an experimenter was demanding that they “must continue”. This can be linked to real life situations where we may follow somebody’s instructions purely on the fact they are higher in the social hierarchy than ourselves. 

 

Legitimacy of authority means people that have legit authority over us ten to find it easier to give us instructions as we are much more likely to oblige. There is research evidence to support the influence of situational variables on obedience. Bickman (1974) also investigated the power of uniform in a field experiment conducted in New York. Bickman used three male actors: one dressed as a milkman; one dressed as a security guard; and one dressed in ordinary clothes. The actors asked members of the public to following one of three instructions: pick up a bag; give someone money for a parking metre; and stand on the other side of a bus stop sign which said ‘no standing’. On average the guard was obeyed on 76% of occasions, the milkman on 47% and the pedestrian on 30%. These results all suggest that people are more likely to obey, when instructed by someone wearing a uniform. This is because the uniform infers a sense of legitimate authority and power. This increases the usefulness of research into situational variables. This can be linked to real life scenarios where somebody could dress up as a police officer and we would follow their instructions purely because of their uniform. 

One strength of the agentic theory is that it has research support. In 1974, Milgram conducted an experiment to see how easily society would obey to an authoritative figure. After conducting the experiment Milgram discovered there were high levels of obedience when directed by an authoritative figure and that 65% of participants obeyed all orders given until the experiment was finished. This is a strength as the findings into obedience Milgram concluded showed that the majority of participants had obeyed instructions given even though they knew that their actions were distressing and immoral. This supports the agentic theory as he observed that participants became agents of the authoritative figure. For example, multiple participants had said they were “only doing as I was told” showing that participants gave up their responsibilities and choice to obey the authority figure. Therefore, the agentic    theory is able to be supported by research support and shows that society will obey an authority figure even if it means they are instructed to carry out distressing actions.

Another strength of the agentic theory is that it can be used to challenge over-powering authoritative figures. For example, there have been numerous obedience experiments that have been carried out such as Meeus & Raaijmakers in 1986, Shanab & Yahya in 1978 and Miranda. These obedience experiments were carried out across the globe in places such as the Middle East, Holland and Spain. All researchers concluded that obedience levels were high. This is a strength as the agentic theory suggests that obedience is natural human impulse and therefore obedience to genocidal orders could happen anywhere. This will result in countries becoming more aware that they must develop democratic institutions in which authority figures are questioned and challenged. Therefore, the agentic theory now enables us to have the knowledge on why people obey so easily and can be used to prevent genocides happening again in the future.

One strength of legitimate authority is that it has research support. In 1966, Hoffling had conducted his own obedience experiment that resulted in him discovering that 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed orders given over the phone to give an overdose of an unknown drug by a senior doctor that Hoffling had claimed to be. This is a strength as the findings into obedience from Hoffling’s research proves that the majority of people will obey to instructions given by an authoritative figure whether they have genuine legitimate authority or not. Therefore, we are able to use legitimate authority as an explanation to why society obeys more to those who appear to be authoritative figures and have legitimate authority over the rest of society.

 

One strength of the agentic theory is that it has research support. In 1974, Milgram conducted an experiment to see how easily society would obey to an authoritative figure. After conducting the experiment Milgram discovered there were high levels of obedience when directed by an authoritative figure and that 65% of participants obeyed all orders given until the experiment was finished. This is a strength as the findings into obedience Milgram concluded showed that the majority of participants had obeyed instructions given even though they knew that their actions were distressing and immoral. This supports the agentic theory as he observed that participants became agents of the authoritative figure. For example, multiple participants had said they were “only doing as I was told” showing that participants gave up their responsibilities and choice to obey the authority figure. Therefore, the agentic    theory is able to be supported by research support and shows that society will obey an authority figure even if it means they are instructed to carry out distressing actions.

Another strength of the agentic theory is that it can be used to challenge over-powering authoritative figures. For example, there have been numerous obedience experiments that have been carried out such as Meeus & Raaijmakers in 1986, Shanab & Yahya in 1978 and Miranda. These obedience experiments were carried out across the globe in places such as the Middle East, Holland and Spain. All researchers concluded that obedience levels were high. This is a strength as the agentic theory suggests that obedience is natural human impulse and therefore obedience to genocidal orders could happen anywhere. This will result in countries becoming more aware that they must develop democratic institutions in which authority figures are questioned and challenged. Therefore, the agentic theory now enables us to have the knowledge on why people obey so easily and can be used to prevent genocides happening again in the future.

One strength of legitimate authority is that it has research support. In 1966, Hoffling had conducted his own obedience experiment that resulted in him discovering that 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed orders given over the phone to give an overdose of an unknown drug by a senior doctor that Hoffling had claimed to be. This is a strength as the findings into obedience from Hoffling’s research proves that the majority of people will obey to instructions given by an authoritative figure whether they have genuine legitimate authority or not. Therefore, we are able to use legitimate authority as an explanation to why society obeys more to those who appear to be authoritative figures and have legitimate authority over the rest of society.

 

 Milgram's interest in obedience was first peaked because of Adolf Eichmann's trials in 1961 for war crimes relating to the concentration camps. 

  Adolf Eichmann had originally been in charge of death camps and had said that he was only following orders as opposed to him being responsible. This led Milgram to theorise the idea that obedience from destructive authority occurs because a person doesn't take responsibility. Instead they believe that they are acting on the behalf of someone else, this being where the term agentic state comes from as they believe that they are almost being like an agent for someone else therefore not feeling the responsibility that they would if they had of thought of it themselves and they have the person that they can later blame and in a sense victimise themselves. 

  However, an ‘agent’ is not unfeeling and in often times they still find themselves struggling and having moral strains when they come to awareness of what they are doing but by that point they feel powerless to disobey and therefore continue to act as an agent. 

 

  An alternative to agentic state is the autonomous state, which is a state which people are in the majority of the time.

  This meaning that a person in the autonomous state have their own free will and they are independent therefore they are likely to have the responsibility if something were to happen. This shift from the autonomous state to the agentic state is called the agentic shift. Milgrim suggested that this shift occurs when a person finds someone else to have a higher authority over them and that this person has a higher power in terms of a social hierarchy. In most cases it can be seen in social groups that when one person is in charge the others in the group follow this person and this is when the shift from autonomous to agentic occurs. 

  In Milgram’s this can link the teacher going through the shift of autonomous to agentic as at first they did it out of their own free will but as the voltage increased they turned to the experimenter and kept asking for the reassurance that they wouldn't be held responsible if anything were to happen the leaner. 

  Milgram's study does not incorporate the idea of the society that we live in as we live in a society where its structured in a hierarchical way, meaning that people in certain positions hold a higher level of authority for example police officers, doctors, judges and etc. 

  Their authority is legitimised as it agreed by the whole of society, the majority of us accept it and know that it is expected from us. A problem of this is that it allows people with power to punish others and we accept that in some cases we have to give our indepence up sometimes to others. However, problems can arise when it becomes destructive. There is evidence in history where leaders legitimate authority has turned to destructive such as the likes of Hitler where he ordered people to do terrible things. 

  It can also be seen in Milgram's study as the experimenter used ‘prods’ to encourage and get the the participant to carry on with the experiment and that went against their morals and views. 

  

 

  During Milgram’s study, the participants were under an agentic state. Throughout the study, the participants repeatedly asked the experimenter if it wasn’t their own responsibility over them shocking the ‘learner’. The participants didn’t want responsibility over the confederate because they knew that they were hurting the learner and even thought that they killed the learner. If the participants were told that it was their own responsibility, the results of this study would most likely be very different and it would be very unlikely that 65% of participants would still go up to 450 v.