Browsed by
Tag: pseudoreligious

Haunted by Buzzer

Haunted by Buzzer

Comments 3 comments

I give up. I can’t get the song “Buzzer” out of my head. It’s been days now, and despite my attempts to put it out of my mind it’s affecting me at a deep emotional level. It’s not unusual for me to have a song running through my head now and again, but this one is a little different. I’m getting noodged (smile-out) to write about it, and it’s clear that I’m going to be haunted by this song until I do.

The song very obviously refers to Stanley Milgram’s famous experiment on authoritarianism, and is written from the perspective of a participant – one of the people who “pressed the buzzer” that appeared to give other people increasingly painful electrical shocks.

Controversy surrounded Stanley Milgram for much of his professional life as a result of a series of experiments on obedience to authority which he conducted at Yale University in 1961-1962. He found, surprisingly, that 65% of his subjects, ordinary residents of New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks-up to 450 volts-to a pitifully protesting victim, simply because a scientific authority commanded them to, and in spite of the fact that the victim did not do anything to deserve such punishment. The victim was, in reality, a good actor who did not actually receive shocks, and this fact was revealed to the subjects at the end of the experiment. But, during the experiment itself, the experience was a powerfully real and gripping one for most participants.

Below you can see a video and the lyrics to the song. A higher-quality version of the song is here at NPR, recorded live in concert from WXPN and Wiggins Park in Philadelphia on July 11, 2008. I would be surprised if Dar Williams doesn’t talk about “Buzzer” in the NPR interview, but I’m resisting listening to it until I’ve worked this through.

[youtube width=”400″ height=”343″]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vwvLzG51EWQ[/youtube]

Dar Williams, “Buzzer” (from “Promised Land”)

Sitting with the number eight platter at the restaurant,
Four twenty-nine for almost anything I want,
Add it up, it’s cheaper than the stuff I make myself,
I get by, I never needed anybody’s help,
And I tore out an ad and they told me that I
Would press the buzzer, press the buzzer,
At the graduate lab, they were doing some tests,
I pressed the buzzer, pressed the buzzer.

Ride the circle off of the highway.
Spiral into the driveway,
In the maze of old prefabs
They’ll be waiting at the lab.

I don’t know how everybody makes it through the daily drill,
Paint their nails, walk a dog, pay every bill,
I’m feeling sorry for this guy that I press to shock,
He gets the answers wrong, I have to up the watts
And he begged me to stop, but they told me to go,
I press the buzzer, I press the buzzer.
So get out of my head, just give me my line.
I press the buzzer, I press the buzzer.

Ride the circle off of the highway,
Spiral into the driveway,
In the maze of old prefabs
They’ll be waiting at the lab.

They called me back to the lab to discuss the test,
I put my earrings on, found my heels, wore a dress.
Right away I knew, it was like I’d failed a quiz
The man said “Do you know what a fascist is?”
I said, “Yeah, it’s when you do things you’re not proud of,
But you’re scraping by, taking orders from above.”
I get it now, I’m the face, I’m the cause of war
We don’t have to blame white-coated men anymore.

When I knew it was wrong, I played it just like a game,
I pressed the buzzer, I pressed the buzzer,
Here’s your seventy bucks, now everything’s changed,
I press the buzzer, I press the buzzer
But tell me where are your stocks, would you do this again?
I press the buzzer,
And tell me who made your clothes, was it children or men?
I press the buzzer.

Ride the circle off of the highway,
Spiral into the driveway,
In the maze of old prefabs
They’ll be waiting at the lab.

The opening of the song evokes the character of the singer, a self-reliant northeastern woman of the early sixties. She’s focused on the details of getting through each day, cutting corners, trying to be a responsible person. Seventy dollars for her participation would have been decent pay.

Right from the first chorus, there is something sinister about the people “waiting at the lab,” especially since they are surrounded by all the spirals and mazes in the chorus. The words are reinforced by the melody and the way the sound slows and expands, and the image of the people waiting in the middle of the maze is the last echoing image of the song.

She’s not without compassion. She’s not a sadist. She feels sorry, in a distant sort of way, for the man that she thinks she is training, or punishing, or torturing. His inability to get the answers right is associated structurally with a failure to meet everyday stresses and challenges; an implied judgment is yoked to a certain kind of empathy.

When he begs her to stop, she is told by an authority figure (one of the white-coated men, no doubt) to go on. And she does, without much further comment except the repetition of “I press the buzzer” throughout the rest of the song.

She would have been one of the majority who continued to press the buzzer (the button, the shocker) up to the limits of the experiment. I wonder if this song drew from the testimony of one of the actual participants. Imagine how horrible it would be to realize that you were capable of doing something like this, and not even under any dire choice or extraordinary sense of necessity, but just because there was an authority figure that told you it was all right and released you from attaching any sense of personal ethics and responsibility to your actions.

What a setup. What a perfect, horrifying setup.

It’s no big surprise that the Milgram experiment was controversial. It was a terrible thing to do to people, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some people were affected by it for the rest of their lives. I would be devastated to learn such an ugly truth about myself. But there were some, later, that were thankful for the experience; they learned a deep-down lesson.

62% wouldn’t refuse to continue? The results shocked the world. For many, it seemed to explain how Hitler could have transformed the “good Germans” into a nation that could condone and participate in the events of World War II.

I have always wondered what I would have done. The experiment itself has a high heuristic function, so once you know about it you can never really be sure what you would have done if you had not known about it. I think I would have protested, and then refused to continue – but I have never been totally and absolutely sure. That faint uncertainty in the background adds to my horror and sadness about the experiment – and probably makes the song more emotionally resonant and powerful. Milgram’s study of obedience to authority brought many insights that have been used for good – and for evil – in the years since.


For me, the song centers on the line “we don’t have to blame white-coated men anymore.” It comes after the realization of what has really happened here. Standing there, having failed the life quiz, dressed up in heels and a dress, to realize… But there is a bit of cognitive dissonance here. Yes, she admits it – “I get it now, I’m the face of war” but that doesn’t let off the “white-coated men” at all. Not at all. Mengele did experiments. The U.S. government has done some fairly awful experiments too. And there is a lot of debate in scientific circles about utilizing the results of experiments when human suffering has been involved. Even when the results are valid, it makes one complicit in what was done to achieve those results.

There is a vague undercurrent of anti-intellectualism in the song, which I understand because it strikes back at judgment. “You think you’re so much better than me? You think you’re so ethical. You’re not any better than me. You’d do the same, you people waiting at the lab.” There is a challenge here. “If I’m the fascist,” she seems to be saying, “then as I ask myself, ask yourself too: In what ways are you doing the same? Tell me about your stock portfolio, tell me about who makes your clothes, children or men! Have you stopped to consider all the many compromises we make in our lives every day, the ones that support human suffering under authoritarian power? I’m guilty, but you won’t even think about how you are part of the same system, how you shunt off the responsibility of it.”

An aspect of the Milgram experiment that has always bothered me is how Milgram staged it. Obviously, he couldn’t have Gestapo-uniformed people as the authority figures. I always thought it was an interesting choice to select scientists, people who looked like doctors, maybe. That’s a comment on the scientific community, and on the medical profession – isn’t it? – that they can be switched out for Nazis so easily.

And a further thing. I’ve never been completely satisfied with the explanations given about why a majority of the people continued to administer the shocks. There may be a very small minority who are sadists. Then there are the people who would start to feel uncomfortable. At what point would each person need to be urged to continue? And WHY would they continue? Really why? In his 1974 article, “The Perils of Obedience,” Milgram said:

The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

The participants were not urged with persuasion. Only these statements were used, and in this order:

  1. Please continue.
  2. The experiment requires that you continue.
  3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
  4. You have no other choice, you must go on.

The experiment was halted if the participant expressed a desire to stop after all 4 statements. Otherwise, it was continued to the maximum of three 450-volt shocks. Other scientists have confirmed the consistency of the results: 61–66 percent, regardless of time or place, will continue.

How is this to be explained? Really?

What we have are theories, and despite the evidence I see – even from the pseudo-religious right and the flag-wavers and all of those groups who hand over their critical faculties to an outside authority, I’m not entirely convinced by either the conformity theory or the agentic state theory.

The theory of conformism comes from the work of Soloman Asch. It says that someone who has neither the ability nor the expertise to make decisions will let their in-group’s hierarchical authorities make the decisions. I call this the theory of the follower. It is everywhere around us, but it runs counter to what I see as America’s attempt to create a society of free individuals.

The agentic state theory is where Milgram went, and it says that under uncritical obedience an individual starts to view him/herself as the instrument for carrying out someone else’s wishes (an authority – a person, a group, an ideology, a god) and therefore no longer sees himself as responsible for his actions. It does make sense to me that once such a fundamental viewpoint change has happened, everything essentially bad about simple obedience to authority follows.

Both of these are descriptive. They don’t provide much on how to counteract some of the negative aspects of complicance with perceived authority. We desperately need some insights on how to break these tendencies. They tried to do it in the late sixties – there were some who really tried. It was a failure, ultimately.

I’ve sometimes wondered if the participants might have been frightened for themselves. In a context where someone was being hurt, the leverage of intimidation might have been under-analyzed. “Better him than me,” right? There is a subtle threatening aspect to certain forms of authority. Could a quick cost-benefit speculation figure into this at all? Did they feel that they could be punished in some way if they did not obey, if they were not compliant? Or are the majority of people really that easily manipulated?

This song can’t help but remind me of the mechanisms of social control at work in America today.

We often assume that there is some kind of ubiquitous “They” who determine what the “right thing to do” might be. “They” are rarely identified…

We’ve already allowed so much, but our fanaticism in various realms of ideology have been, and will continue to be, so very destructive. In college, I thought the theories that talked about “control of the masses” were quaint. That only seemed to apply to crazy places like the USSR. (I was young….)

Preachers of the past might have said that we are losing our souls, but some of the powerful reconstructionists and literalistic bible-thumpers and last-days people and others among the pseudoreligious right are among the most hurtful and powerful authoritarians that we have. They’re no help at all. And we worship Money – the circulation of capital leaving a a slash and burn zone whose results we are just beginning to harvest. And we have dehumanized other citizens of Earth as though they were some demonic Other to ourselves.

Education was my hope. Let’s just say that I’m not as optimistic about that anymore.

We have already nodded to torture and illegal surveillance and oppression and grandiose imperial ambitions and seizure of natural resources and so on and so on and so on. Our crimes are immense. We’re just trying to get through the day. Other people are in control, and it’s up to them. Many of us don’t even bother to find out about the issues. We haven’t thought about the results very much until it hit our pocketbooks. I wonder if anyone will ever describe us as the “good Americans.” What Milgram proved is that the Germans weren’t any worse than us.

We press the buzzer.

(Addendum after the first posting: Dar Williams did talk about “Buzzer” in the NPR interview. She described the experiment, and said that she has thought about it often over the years since she first found out about it in college. Later, she accidentally rear-ended a woman in a traffic accident and, because the woman was from New Haven, it reminded her about the Milgram experiment. Talking to her gave Dar Williams the outline of the character in the song. She felt that she was being responsible by doing what “she was supposed to do.” Then, having realized what that really meant, the woman was sensitized to that dynamic and wouldn’t participate in it again. It was transformative.)

Notes on “Feminazi”

Notes on “Feminazi”

Comments 3 comments

Rush Limbaugh defends his use of the term “feminazi” as “right” and “accurate” in response to a June 22 Washington Post article on Sen. Richard J. Durbin’s (D-IL) controversial floor statement that referenced Nazis. The Post article mentioned Limbaugh’s use of the term “feminazi” as well as other examples of recent political debates in which Nazism has been invoked. From the June 22 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

In The Washington Post we get a little story: “Tips for the Democrats, Hint: Next time don’t compare anybody to Hitler.” And by the way, the only reason they’re doing it is because Rush Limbaugh invented the term “feminazi.” That’s the sum total of the Washington Post story — Durbin did it because I popularized it first with “feminazi.” I haven’t used that term on this program in years. But it still gets to ’em, doesn’t it? And you know why? [chuckles] Because it’s right. Because it’s accurate. [laughs] And I’m not going to apologize, but I will apologize if it hurts your feelings. But you know what? I think if you’re offended, it’s your problem. It’s not mine.

Interesting that he claims he hasn’t used that term in years – I have heard him use it on several occasions while trolling across the dial. Media Matters notes that Limbaugh referred to the National Center for Women & Policing and the Feminist Majority Foundation as “feminazis” on his May 27, 2004, broadcast, for example. And here’s another where is is reminscining about an event at New York’s 92nd Street Y also attended by CNN senior analyst Jeff Greenfield:

It was a frosty evening that night. It had to be, what, back in 1992 or ’93? And I’ll tell you what got me in trouble. Greenfield said, “You really used the word ‘feminazi’? Do you not think that’s an upsetting word to Jews?”

I said, “Well, I don’t think it should be. I mean, if you look at what abortion is, it’s almost comparable to what happened in World War II.” Pfft! Man, you could have felt the ice…”

What is a feminazi? Wikipedia defines: A feminazi is a neologism and invective term of the words feminist and Nazi, used predominantly in United States conservative political rhetoric, to characterize women whose ideas they disagree with as misandrous. That is as having a hatred of men. The term was popularized by prominent broadcaster Rush Limbaugh, who credited his friend Tom Hazlett, a professor of economics at the University of California, Davis, with coining the term. In the extreme formulation, feminazis are seen by conservative commentators as women who persecute men. The term “Feminazi” is not self-applied by any feminist movement or group. The term is often used as a derogatory term for feminist.

Trivia: A similar term Femnazi was coined earlier as the name of the male hating female inhabitants of the fictional planet, Femnaz, in a Legion of Super-heroes story from a 1964 issue of Adventure Comics written by Superman co-creator Jerry Siegel.

What is missing from this definition – fine as far as it goes – is that the hard pseudoreligious right attaches the “Nazi” part of the word to condense a framing of abortion as genocide. Feminazis are defined as pro-abortion, although the term seems to be applied to all feminists, regardless of the topic, as well. That’s already a significant spin of rhetoric. It implies moral bankruptcy and invokes the familiar thought-constellation of “baby-killers, destroyers of life, murderers.”

I’m not sure I’ve ever met anyone who was truly pro-abortion. I don’t know anyone who would not prefer that abortions were completely unnecessary in all circumstances. Abortion rates (legal or otherwise – you don’t really think there are no abortions when they are illegal, do you?) go down when there is family-planning, birth control, sex education, and honest discussion – when there is less rape and incest and poverty, and so on. The religious right doesn’t seem much concerned about these issues, in contradiction to their claims of moral superiority. How many of the poor are consigned to death or misery under the grand plan of their pro-rich policies? Who wants to cut social programs? No – it’s not about life. It’s about controlling women. They’ve even got some women on board with this. Sheesh. What a classic projection to accuse women of hating men in order to support attitudes that are intended to control women, their bodies, their sexuality, and their choices.

The “knocked-up” women of the rich have always had the option of abortion at the convenience of their men, but I am more concerned about people whose lives can be destroyed rather than Vanessa missing a semester at Yale or disappointing her soon-to-be hubby Biff or whatever. I’d not like to see a return to the days of backalleys and wire hangers. If this were really about “life,” the children born would be welcomed, healthcare would be provided, and so on – not to mention that such folk would have to be opposed to the death penalty. Some of these folks want to bring back stoning (don’t believe me? do a little research of your own). It’s interesting that there are few vegetarians among the hard right – a cow is much more sentient than an 8-week old fetus that doesn’t even have any brainwaves (i.e no consciousness of any kind).

I am also very concerned that fewer doctors are receiving the training to do the basic procedure, which has other uses (as most women know).

Abortion is a complex and ethically-fraught topic. To rhetorically conflate those pro-choicers who are perhaps more familiar with the raw edges of human experience – and who wish to allow women the space for more control over their own bodies and futures without the intervention of patriarchal government structures – with “Nazis” is dishonest, more so than Durbin’s remark. Such women for personal choices in these areas are nothing like Nazis – the ultimate “anti-choice” and “anti-freedom” power structure of the last century. Let’s not forget the men who are for choice either – how many men are forced into shotgun weddings anymore?

Hard-liner anti-choicers consider my ruptured ectopic pregnancy (that nearly killed me and for which there was no hope whatsoever of the survival of the fetus) as an abortion – tell me, what was the alternative?

Roe v Wade was the compromise on a very controversial topic. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. If your sister is raped by your dad, you work it out as best you can using your own decision-making process, with your own network of advisors, and within your own relation to the sacred. And if your child is slated to live three years in horrible pain before dying – and you decide that such a life is better than no life, it is your decision. If your child is born into abject poverty, and that’s ok with you, go for it. If you’ve not raised your children with an understanding about sexuality and their responsibilities because you fear that talking about sex makes it happen, if your boy doesn’t carry a condom because he is in denial that anything will happen, if your daughter enters a fugue state in which she denies she is even pregnant….and you will support and welcome such children to such unprepared parents – that is also your choice. But all the feel-good religious talk in the world isn’t going to matter so much when you and friends and family members are actually confronted with some of the very difficult possibilities surrounding sexuality and reproduction. Talk to your parents and grandparents, look around you. In such cases, there is often no right answer, and the question is who makes the decision? I think that people should be able to make decisions about ethics and religion themselves, especially when it has to do with their own body – and yes, the women has the primary decision-making authority (unless the man wants to carry the pregnancy to term). Besides, in this day and age, education is not only about pregnancy – it’s also about disease. To be uninformed and uneducated and in denial is not only stupid, it’s dangerous.

As a former evangelist and a religion scholar, I know that there is not much in the way of biblical support for being against sex education or birth control. The example of Onan – used against both birth control and masturbation – was an example of someone disobeying God’s weird command (in the circumstances) to have sex and produce a child with his dead brother’s wife. Really read that narrative and then try to justify the arguments! He “spilt his seed upon the ground” (Genesis 38:7-9), but it was the reason and motivation for doing so that was – in the context – wrong. The sin was disobedience – refusing to give his brother’s wife an heir. How many people would accept the surrounding circumstance – that you should marry and have sex with your dead brother’s wife?

In any case, pro-choice views do not imply hating men at all – but only resisting those structures and those men who view women as property, with bodies to be controlled by them. I don’t hate men. I’m a married mom – and my husband values my feminism, and shares my views as part of human rights. There are men-haters, of course (although I suspect not nearly as many as women-haters) but the two groups of “men-haters” and “feminists” are not identical.

Still, “feminazi” is a clever twist of rhetoric. It’s catchy. And it certainly has been effective. Fewer and fewer women self-identify as feminists anymore. Many don’t even realize that there are dozen of kinds of feminisms. All that subtlety and complexity and public discussion – gone. I think that some of the feminists moved on too quickly from real social issues into language politics – and got sidelined at a crucial moment. The messages have not reached popular understanding. I still run into folk who believe it’s all about not shaving or about burning bras!

We are becoming barbaric again – and it isn’t even in the service of any recognizable religious values. The judeo-christian values – caring for the poor, compassion, forgiveness, grace, communion, and so on – are not in evidence – only the ancient controls over the people, and these taken out of context.

All of this for Mammon – money, power, corruption – and supported by the most spectacular examples of repulsive false prophets I could have imagined.