November 10, 2011

Victimization and Conformity: Just Following Orders?

clip_image001By Janis Prince Inniss

A few years ago, an 18-year-old McDonald’s employee was working the late shift at the fast-food restaurant when her 51-year-old assistant manager received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a police officer, “Officer Scott”. The police officer accused the 18-year-old of stealing and told the manager search the young woman; her pockets were emptied and her car keys and cell phone were confiscated and put into the manager’s car.

Afraid she would lose her job if she protested, she submitted to the strip search that her manager performed – all in a backroom of a McDonald’s restaurant. Finally, when the manager had to go back to work—this took place on a busy Friday night—Officer Scott said that someone else must continue to be with the young worker. When other McDonald’s employees refused to take over for the manager she recruited her 43-year-old fiancé to fill in for her. The fiancé instructed the worker—based on instructions he received from Officer Scott on the telephone—to stand on a chair, jog, and do jumping jacks--all in the nude; this was meant to allow her to shake out/off anything she might have stolen.

The young employee says she complied because her parents told her to obey adults and this she did – sometimes getting orders directly from Officer Scott on the telephone. The manager’s fiancé also slapped the 18-year-old on her buttocks and received oral sex from her -- again, based on the instructions of Officer Scott. This backroom drama went on for over two hours.

As bizarre as this story may be, it is only one of over 70 similar cases that were uncovered. Most of the cases took place in small towns. (Why small towns?) And most of the calls were made to fast food restaurants. (Why fast food restaurants?)

There are many aspects of the case that a student of sociology should find fascinating. Certainly, it should call to mind the Milgram experiment. In that experiment, Milgram documented that people were willing to shock someone when told to do so by someone in authority—a man in a white coat. (No one was actually shocked in the experiment, but the research subjects didn’t know that).

In other words, we are all prone to follow orders, at least when someone who seems to be a legitimate authority is giving the order. Here’s another example: Often, on the first day of my classes, I tell students that we will have our first quiz that day. I have never had a student challenge this idea by countering, for example, that I have taught nothing and that they have read nothing on the subject. Instead, students dutifully get a sheet of paper and record their answers to the questions I pose. (I always apologize for deceiving my students and explain the purpose of this little game.) The idea that we follow directions given to us by someone in authority is applicable here as well.

As you can imagine, when I describe this case to my students they are shocked to hear that it happened. What surprised me, however, was that in a class of about 30 students no one questioned the behavior of anyone but the victim. She was found to be “at fault” because she “should know better at 18”. We discussed possible explanations for the young employee’s behavior:

· She lived a sheltered existence because she lived in a small town.

· She had little or no experience with the police because of her sheltered life.

· She really needed the job to help with her family’s finances and so put up with more than she should have.

· She was young.

· She was young, scared, and following commands of an authority figure.

As each of these ideas was floated, students gave passionate rebuttals for why none were good “excuses” for her to “allow” any of this to occur. What do you think accounts for this “blame the victim mentality? Who do you think is at fault in the case?

The idea that an 18-year-old young woman shoulders all of the blame for this ordeal while the roles of the manager, her fiancé, and the caller are ignored or minimized is reminiscent of blaming a rape victim for her assault. Interestingly, the justice system recognized at least three people as possibly responsible for this ordeal (the manager, the fiancé, the caller) but my students saw no one else as culpable.

What happened to those involved? The woman won a suit against McDonald’s and was awarded $6.1 million. The manager’s now former fiancé received a five year prison sentence for his guilty plea on a charge of unlawful imprisonment, sexual misconduct, and sexual abuse. The manager received one year of probation for her Alford plea of criminal confinement. Former prison guard, David Stewart, who was the suspect in many of these telephone hoax cases, including this one, was acquitted of making the telephone calls.

What else can we learn about conformity and victimization from this event?

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83534ac5b69e2015436a3958e970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Victimization and Conformity: Just Following Orders?:

Comments

That is horrible. It is outrageous that the 18 year old is to blame for her own rap when clearly the manager and fiance did it.

This is an extreme example of conformity but helps other to truely understand how powerful male authority figures can be in modern society.

Even if the 18 year old had a sheltered life or no experience with the police she still shouldn't have done those things and she should have waited for actual authority to show up.

This screams conformity all over it. This short story shows how certain genders behave differently. Men seem to be more dominate than women. I don't think that it's the young girls fault for what had happend. I do think that she should of stood up for herself.

Jessica@"Men seem to be more dominate than women."

that is not the case all the time.

This shows how dangerous conformity can be. If everyone understood how important it is to see different societies in the world then perhaps these kids of actions would not happen. If the 18-year old was not so sheltered then it probably wouldn't happen.
But then there would be a case for her having to much violence in her life.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Become a Fan

The Society Pages Community Blogs

Interested in Submitting a Guest Post?

If you're a sociology instructor or student and would like us to consider your guest post for everydaysociologyblog.com please .

Norton Sociology Books

You May Ask Yourself

Learn More

Essentials of Sociology

Learn More

The Real World

Learn More

Social Problems

Learn More

The Contexts Reader

Learn More

« Everyday Sociology Talk: Nikki Jones and the Meaning of "Ghetto" | Main | Prohibition, Moral Panics, and Social Control »