Miguel Benasayag, an Argentine psychologist living in Paris, included in his book Utopie et liberté: Les Droits de l'Homme une ideologie? [Utopism and liberty: the Rights of Man, an ideology?] (Editions La Découverte, París, 1986. Spanish edition: Eudeba, August 1998) a chapter on the problem of obedience to authority, and in it he analyses Milgram's experiment from the psychoanalytic perspective.
The 'torturer' in Milgram's experiment finds himself in no way confronted to the same option as the 'real' Argentine torturer ever was; contrary to this last one, he finds himself in the presence of person who has volunteered to undergo torture and willing to suffer for the greater common good (in this case scientific knowledge) and of an experimenter who reminds him continually that he is doing it for that good. (Eudeba, p.55) For Benasayag, the theoretical conclusions that Milgram extracts from the experiment are founded on an a priori experiment, and the choice of the subject lies on 'renunciation' in favor of scientific
discourse. The case of the Argentine military torturer is very different and would correspond to a different type of obedience to criminal orders. "The other type of obedience is that of the military torturer of the Argentina of the Generals: in this
case there is no renunciation, and the State, by hypothesis, cannot provide the torturer with a discourse that would justify his act. His only justification is the 'law of the strongest', the dual relationship." (page 58).