Immanuel Kant’s famous call Sapere aude!—“Dare to know! Have the courage to use your own reason”—became the motto of the Enlightenment. This phrase clearly captures the moral and intellectual aim of the Enlightenment. For Kant, enlightenment is humanity’s emergence from its self-incurred immaturity (Kant, 1784/1996). Immaturity refers to a condition in which individuals allow others to think on their behalf instead of exercising their own capacity for independent judgment. Although Kant addressed this problem within a philosophical framework, later developments in social psychology have strongly supported his diagnosis. A vast body of research demonstrates that people frequently hesitate to use their own reason and instead tend to conform to social pressures, authority, and group consensus. In this sense, Kant’s philosophical argument anticipated what social psychology would later document experimentally: in social contexts, the autonomy of reason is fragile.
The Psychology Of Conformity and The Lack Of Courage
Kant argues that immaturity stems not from a lack of reason but from a lack of courage. Individuals prefer the guidance of priests, rulers, experts, or traditions to the anxiety produced by thinking for themselves. Social psychology has repeatedly shown that this preference is not merely cultural or ideological, but rooted in deep social dynamics. One of the earliest and most influential demonstrations of this tendency is found in the conformity experiments conducted by Solomon Asch in the 1950s.
Participants were asked to evaluate the lengths of lines in a simple perceptual task. When alone, they almost always answered correctly. However, when other group members unanimously gave incorrect answers, participants conformed to the wrong judgment in approximately one-third of the trials (Asch, 1951). More importantly, many participants later reported that they knew the group was wrong but did not want to stand out. This finding directly aligns with Kant’s concern: individuals often suspend their own rational judgment not because they doubt it, but because they wish to avoid the social costs of dissent.
Obedience To Authority and The Relinquishing Of Autonomy
Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments further clarify the mechanisms Kant described. Participants were instructed by an authority figure to administer what they believed were painful electric shocks to another person. Despite clear moral discomfort, most participants complied with the experimenter’s instructions and escalated to dangerous levels (Milgram, 1963). From a Kantian perspective, this obedience represents the abandonment of reason and moral autonomy. By transferring responsibility to authority, participants allowed external commands to override their own judgment (Milgram, 1974). Social psychology thus experimentally supports Kant’s claim that people are remarkably willing to relinquish the responsibility of thinking for themselves.
Informational and Normative Influences On Reason
Research has deepened these insights by distinguishing different types of social influence. Informational influence refers to conformity based on the belief that others know better, whereas normative influence refers to conformity motivated by fear of social disapproval (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Kant’s critique applies to both forms. For Kant, enlightenment is not merely about thinking correctly, but about thinking independently. Even if the group is correct, relying on consensus rather than one’s own reasoning still constitutes a state of immaturity (Kant, 1784/1996). Social psychology shows that individuals frequently defer to group judgment even when their own reasoning would be sufficient, reinforcing Kant’s view of enlightenment as a problem of rational autonomy.
Groupthink and The Suppression Of Critical Thought
Research on group dynamics further supports this interpretation. Irving Janis’s concept of groupthink explains how dissent and critical reasoning are suppressed in highly cohesive groups (Janis, 1972). In such environments, individuals silence their doubts, rationalize poor decisions, and pressure dissenters to conform. Kant argued that social institutions and authorities encourage immaturity by rewarding obedience and discouraging independent thought. The phenomenon of groupthink demonstrates that this process operates not only in authoritarian regimes, but also in democratic and highly educated contexts.
The Emotional Cost Of Independent Thinking
More recent studies in social neuroscience and moral psychology have strengthened this picture. Research on social conformity shows that disagreeing with a group activates brain regions associated with emotional distress, whereas conformity is experienced as psychologically rewarding. This indicates that independent thinking is not only socially risky but also emotionally taxing. From a Kantian perspective, this finding explains why enlightenment requires courage: using one’s own reason often involves discomfort, anxiety, and the threat of exclusion.
Conditions For Potential Enlightenment
Nevertheless, social psychology does not merely confirm Kant’s pessimism; it also clarifies the conditions under which enlightenment is possible. Asch demonstrated that the presence of even a single dissenter dramatically reduces conformity (Asch, 1951). This result aligns with Kant’s view that enlightenment progresses not solely through individual geniuses, but through social environments that make free thought possible and safe. Psychological research thus complements Kant’s vision by highlighting the importance of social structures that support rational autonomy, such as pluralism, tolerance of dissent, and reduced authority pressure.
Conclusion: Enlightenment As A Moral And Psychological Task
In conclusion, Kant’s call to enlightenment is not an abstract ideal disconnected from human psychology. On the contrary, social psychology has experimentally documented the very tendencies Kant sought to overcome—conformity, obedience, submission to authority, and avoidance of independent judgment. These findings do not weaken Kant’s project; rather, they vindicate it. They demonstrate that the failure to use one’s own reason is a social and psychological problem. Enlightenment, in the sense Kant articulated, remains a moral task precisely because human beings are so strongly inclined to avoid thinking for themselves.