Clark 1

Nathaniel E. Clark

Sister Pollard

English 150

10/25/2021

Folktales are often told to impart a moral or a lesson. Classic examples include Little Red

Riding Hood, in which we learn to be wary of strangers, or Cinderella, in which we learn that

kindness will be rewarded. These lessons also indicate values held by the society from which

they come. Modern scientific advances in psychology allow us to further reflect upon and better

understand folktales, society and why people act the way they do. The fairy tale, The Emperor's

New Clothes by Hans Christian Anderson, when examined through a psychological lense shows

these values and helps us gain insights into the tale itself and of society. The purpose of this

essay is to understand the implications and power of physiological pressure and how these

concepts relate to two different psychological experiments; the first, conducted by Dr. Milgram,

looks at the power of obedience to authority, and the second, by Dr. Asch explores group

conformity and mob mentality.

Once upon a time “there lived an Emperor who was so fond of new clothes that he spent

all his money on them... He did not care about his soldiers, he did not care about the theatre; he

only liked to go out walking to show off his new clothes” (Anderson, 21). The Emperor who is

best personified in one word: vanity. This vanity, especially regarding clothes, shapes his world

view in such a way that he believes he is incapable of being wrong.This belief in his own
 Clark 2

infallibility coming from an authority figure, greatly influences the behaviour of his councilors

and others around him. They buy into the worldview of their king.

We are next introduced to the two con men, who pose as weavers that “knew how to

manufacture the most beautiful cloth imaginable. Not only were the texture and pattern

uncommonly beautiful, but the clothes which were made of the stuff possessed this wonderful

property that they were invisible to anyone who was not fit for his office, or who was

unpardonably stupid” (Anderson, 21). These “weavers” present themselves with such authority

and certainty, that the emperor believes their story. They are not only duping the Emperor, but at

the same time they are making a political statement regarding his ineptitude. The entire scam has

delicious situational irony in that by pretending that he can see the clothes, the Emperor proves

that he is not fit for office and is unpardonably stupid. (A side note why would you want

incompetent or stupid people to see you naked anyway?)

As the story continues, the Emperor sends his chief minister to check on the weavers’

progress. This minister is also in a position of authority, and the Emperor believes that “‘He can

judge best what the cloth is like, for he has intellect, and no one understands his office better than

he” (Anderson, 22). Again the Emperor indicates a belief in an infallible authority, though this

time not his own. With the minister’s confirmation of the incredible beauty of the cloth, there

begins to be a general consensus regarding the weavers’ product, that the clothes actually have

the mystic properties attributed to them by the grifters, which strengthens the Emperor’s faith in

its abilities.
 Clark 3

The chief minister’s experience as he views the cloth for the first time can be looked at in

relation to an experiment led by Stanley Milgram. “[The] minister went into the hall where the

two impostors sat working at the empty weaving-looms. ‘Dear me!’ thought the old minister,

opening his eyes wide, ‘I can see nothing!’ But he did not say so...‘Dear, dear!’ thought he, ‘can I

be stupid? I have never thought that, and nobody must know it! Can I not be fit for my office?

No, I must certainly not say that I cannot see the cloth!’” (Anderson, 22).The councillor listens to

the weavers description of the clothes and reports back to the Emperor claiming he can see it and

providing a description. First the minister is presented with a dilemma because he has to follow

his Emperor's orders. He can take the moral route and tell the Emperor that he didn't see

anything, or he can take the path of least resistance and lie.This juxtaposition of two opposing

options, whether to do the moral thing or to follow orders, is something that humans face.

Research suggests that humans are predisposed to make one choice over the other. Stanley

Milgram, an American psychologist is best known for his infamous experiment in which the

participants were ordered to shock a learner when he or she gave a wrong answer with the shock

level increasing to fatal levels. The purpose of the study was to explore which choice people

made when faced with a conflict between their own morals and obedience. In his resulting essay

about the experiment he concludes, “The most important lesson of our study...[is that when

people] are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality,

relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority” (Milgram, 76). In the tale, the

emperor had ordered his minister to check on the progress of the weavers and when he saw

nothing he was faced with a dilemma: should he do the morally correct thing and tell the

Emperor that he could not see the cloth, or should he follow orders and tell the king what he

wants to hear? The ironic thing about this is that by lying to the Emperor about the cloth, he
 Clark 4

corroborates the supposed reason he could not see it. The societal pressure put on the minister by

the authority of his ruler and collective belief pushed him to make the choice he did, and by

doing so inadvertently caused him to conform and put himself in the very box that he feared and

was trying to avoid.

The next councillor sent by the Emperor fared no better. The courtiers were equally

duped. The fantastical description of the clothes was collectively accepted by the people.

“‘Is it not splendid!’ said both the old statesmen who had already been there. ‘See, your Majesty,

what a texture! What colours!’ And then they pointed to the empty loom, for they believed that

the others could see the cloth quite well.

“‘What!’ thought the Emperor, ‘I can see nothing! This is indeed horrible! Am I stupid?

Am I not fit to be Emperor? That were the most dreadful thing that could happen to me. Oh, it is

very beautiful,’ he said. ‘It has my gracious approval.’ And then he nodded pleasantly, and

examined the empty loom, for he would not say that he could see nothing. His whole Court

round him looked and looked, and saw no more than the others; but they said like the Emperor,

‘Oh! it is beautiful!’“ (Anderson, 23). Solomon Asch professor and renowned psychologist did a

series of experiments examining the power of group pressure to conform. In his experiment, he

took a group of people the majority of which were paid actors and asked the group a question

such as “What color is this?” The actors would all answer incorrectly but with consensus. “Over

the twelve critical trials, about 75% of participants conformed at least once” (McLeod). If this

pressure clearly motivated people to respond incorrectly to an obvious question, then how much

more likely are people to conform when there is no obvious wrong answer? The Emperor’s New
 Clark 5

Clothes clearly illustrates that psychological pressure, when combined with the weight of

authority results in universal conformity, especially when backed with consequences that would

occur as a result of defying the Emperor. In the story, the wholesale acceptance snowballs until

a city full of people believe in something they can not see based solely one the words of others.

This power holds up until a small child, unaware of the weight of authority and the

persuasiveness of group pressure, unabashedly reveals the truth, and generally accepted fiction

comes to an abrupt and humiliating end. All due to the wisdom of one child who proves to be

smarter and more fit for his role than all others.

It is interesting that this story clearly teaches the importance of making the moral choice

rather than the easy choice, and shows how easily people fall into the trap of conforming to herd

mentality. The tale was written long before either of these studies were performed or published,

yet Hans Christian Andersen had the keen insight that allowed him to realize what people would

do when presented with such dilemmas. When examined with a psychological lense, the tale

holds up a mirror to society that is still relevant today. It shows how a whole society of people

was fooled by two men and how we must rely on our own understanding and wisdom rather than

blindly following the herd to determine truth because everyone's understanding of the world is

unique and if we lose that and conform we are merely objects to be acted upon, rather than self

deterministic forces.
 Clark 6

Works Cited

Anderson, Hans Christian. “Story of the Emperor's New Clothes.” The Yellow Fairy

Book, edited by Andrew Lang, Longmans, Green, and Co., London and New York, 1894, pp.

21–25.

McLeod, Saul. “Solomon Asch - Conformity Experiment.” Simply Psychology, 28 Dec.

2018, https://www.simplypsychology.org/asch-conformity.html.

Milgram, Stanley. “Perils of Obedience.” Harper's Magazine, Dec. 1973, pp. 62–77.