[Company name]
PYC4803
Assignment 2
2024 (785738) -
DUE 26 July 2024
QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE ANSWERS
,PYC4803 Assignment 2 2024 (785738) - DUE 26 July 2024
(A) Give your own example of destructive obedience that occurred in your
society and explain possible reasons as to the underlying reasons why people
comply with this form of social influence. (20 marks)
Example of Destructive Obedience: The Marikana Massacre
Context: One of the most tragic examples of destructive obedience in South
African history is the Marikana Massacre that occurred on August 16, 2012. This
incident involved the South African Police Service (SAPS) opening fire on a group
of striking mineworkers at the Lonmin platinum mine in Marikana, resulting in the
death of 34 miners and injuries to many others.
Possible Reasons for Compliance with Destructive Obedience
1. Authority and Legitimacy:
o Perception of Authority: The police officers involved were acting
under the orders of higher-ranking officials. The hierarchical structure
within the police force often means that lower-ranking officers feel
compelled to obey commands from their superiors, even if they
personally disagree with the orders.
o Legitimacy of Orders: The orders to use force were perceived as
legitimate due to the legal authority and the mandate given to the
police to maintain law and order. This perception can lead individuals
to comply without questioning the morality or potential consequences
of their actions.
2. Deindividuation:
o Group Dynamics: In a large group setting, individual police officers
may feel less personally responsible for their actions. This
phenomenon, known as deindividuation, can lead to a loss of self-
awareness and a diminished sense of personal accountability.
o Uniform and Anonymity: Wearing uniforms can further enhance this
effect, as it reinforces the collective identity over individual identity,
making it easier for officers to follow orders without considering the
personal moral implications.
, 3. Social and Institutional Pressure:
o Conformity to Group Norms: Within the police force, there may be
strong norms and expectations regarding obedience and loyalty to the
group. Officers may fear ostracism, disciplinary action, or loss of
status if they do not comply with orders.
o Institutional Culture: The culture within the police force can
emphasize the importance of following orders and maintaining
discipline, often at the expense of individual moral judgment. This
institutional pressure can compel officers to act in ways they might
not otherwise consider.
4. Moral Disengagement:
o Justification of Actions: The process of moral disengagement
involves rationalizing or justifying one's actions to avoid feelings of
guilt or shame. Officers might convince themselves that their actions
were necessary to restore order or that the miners were a legitimate
threat.
o Euphemistic Labeling: Using sanitized language to describe their
actions (e.g., "dispersing a crowd" instead of "shooting unarmed
miners") can help individuals distance themselves from the moral
implications of their behavior.
5. Fear and Self-Preservation:
o Fear of Reprisal: Officers might comply with destructive orders out
of fear of personal consequences, such as losing their jobs, facing
legal action, or being harmed by the miners.
o Perceived Threat: In high-stress situations, the perception of a threat
can be heightened. The miners were armed with traditional weapons,
and the police might have believed that they were acting in self-
defense or to prevent greater violence.
6. Situational Factors:
o High-Stress Environment: The chaotic and volatile environment of
the strike could have created a high-stress situation where rational
PYC4803
Assignment 2
2024 (785738) -
DUE 26 July 2024
QUESTIONS WITH COMPLETE ANSWERS
,PYC4803 Assignment 2 2024 (785738) - DUE 26 July 2024
(A) Give your own example of destructive obedience that occurred in your
society and explain possible reasons as to the underlying reasons why people
comply with this form of social influence. (20 marks)
Example of Destructive Obedience: The Marikana Massacre
Context: One of the most tragic examples of destructive obedience in South
African history is the Marikana Massacre that occurred on August 16, 2012. This
incident involved the South African Police Service (SAPS) opening fire on a group
of striking mineworkers at the Lonmin platinum mine in Marikana, resulting in the
death of 34 miners and injuries to many others.
Possible Reasons for Compliance with Destructive Obedience
1. Authority and Legitimacy:
o Perception of Authority: The police officers involved were acting
under the orders of higher-ranking officials. The hierarchical structure
within the police force often means that lower-ranking officers feel
compelled to obey commands from their superiors, even if they
personally disagree with the orders.
o Legitimacy of Orders: The orders to use force were perceived as
legitimate due to the legal authority and the mandate given to the
police to maintain law and order. This perception can lead individuals
to comply without questioning the morality or potential consequences
of their actions.
2. Deindividuation:
o Group Dynamics: In a large group setting, individual police officers
may feel less personally responsible for their actions. This
phenomenon, known as deindividuation, can lead to a loss of self-
awareness and a diminished sense of personal accountability.
o Uniform and Anonymity: Wearing uniforms can further enhance this
effect, as it reinforces the collective identity over individual identity,
making it easier for officers to follow orders without considering the
personal moral implications.
, 3. Social and Institutional Pressure:
o Conformity to Group Norms: Within the police force, there may be
strong norms and expectations regarding obedience and loyalty to the
group. Officers may fear ostracism, disciplinary action, or loss of
status if they do not comply with orders.
o Institutional Culture: The culture within the police force can
emphasize the importance of following orders and maintaining
discipline, often at the expense of individual moral judgment. This
institutional pressure can compel officers to act in ways they might
not otherwise consider.
4. Moral Disengagement:
o Justification of Actions: The process of moral disengagement
involves rationalizing or justifying one's actions to avoid feelings of
guilt or shame. Officers might convince themselves that their actions
were necessary to restore order or that the miners were a legitimate
threat.
o Euphemistic Labeling: Using sanitized language to describe their
actions (e.g., "dispersing a crowd" instead of "shooting unarmed
miners") can help individuals distance themselves from the moral
implications of their behavior.
5. Fear and Self-Preservation:
o Fear of Reprisal: Officers might comply with destructive orders out
of fear of personal consequences, such as losing their jobs, facing
legal action, or being harmed by the miners.
o Perceived Threat: In high-stress situations, the perception of a threat
can be heightened. The miners were armed with traditional weapons,
and the police might have believed that they were acting in self-
defense or to prevent greater violence.
6. Situational Factors:
o High-Stress Environment: The chaotic and volatile environment of
the strike could have created a high-stress situation where rational
