Authoritarian personality

Content

This article describes the psychological traits of authoritarianism. For the form of government that bears the same name, see Authoritarianism .

The theory of authoritarian personality was developed by psychologists at the University of California at Berkeley, Elsa Frenkel-Brunswick , Daniel Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford , as well as the German sociologist and philosopher of the Frankfurt School, Theodor Adorno ^[1] . They outlined their views on the phenomenon of an authoritarian personality in a book of 1950 with the same name . The type of personality is determined by nine signs, which, as the authors believe, are connected in a common bundle of personality traits, resulting from psychodynamic children's experience. These are the following signs: conventionalism , authoritarian ideas, authoritarian aggression, anti-terrorism, superstition and stereotypes , power and "hardness", destructiveness and cynicism , projection and exaggerated sexual concern (sexual repression). In short, authoritarian means predisposed to follow the dictates of strong leaders and traditions, generally accepted values.

Authors of the authoritarian personality theory who emigrated from Europe during World War II became interested in studying anti-Semitism. They recruited volunteers for questioning. Among the volunteers selected people with the most and least pronounced anti-Semitic views, the results of those who were in the middle, discarded. Then they contrasted these two groups, creating an F-scale (F means "fascism"), which defined the main features of an authoritarian personality.

Recently, John Dean used the theory (as well as the research of Robert Altemeyer ) to analyze the current political situation in his book “Conservatives without conscience”.

Psychoanalytic Aspects

Adorno and his colleagues considered the theory of an authoritarian personality fundamental from the point of view of Freud's theory of psychoanalysis, relying on the experience of early childhood as the driving force of personality development. Psychoanalytic theory suggests that young children assimilate the values of their parents unconsciously, as a result of traumatic conflicts. As a result, the superego develops. Struggling to prevent deviations, parental authoritarianism leads to the development of a very strong superego. Thus, from early childhood onwards, unconscious desires and needs are suppressed and remain unfulfilled.

Unconscious conflicts manifest themselves when a person projects his “bans” on the needs and aggression of his superego on other people. As a rule, from among the ethnic, political or religious minorities selected as the image for these psychological projections, since this is subjectively less dangerous in terms of consequences. Supporters of authoritarianism often cite socially acceptable prejudices.

Alfred Adler considers, on the other hand, the combination of the “will to power over others” as a central neurotic trait, which manifests itself as aggressive behavior, compensating for the fear of inferiority and insignificance. According to this view, an authoritarian individual needs to maintain control and prove superiority over others, this is the basis of the worldview of the population by the enemies, and simple equality, sympathy and mutual benefit.

Theoretical Significance

Shortly after the publication of the “Authoritarian Personality,” the theory became the subject of numerous criticisms. Theoretical problems related to the psychoanalytic interpretation of the personality and methodological problems related to the shortcomings of the F-scale were criticized. Another criticism was that the Berkeley theory of psychologists implies that authoritarianism exists only on the right side of the political spectrum. As a result, some have argued that this theory is determined by the negative political bias of its authors. The Kremlin revealed that the anti-authoritarian personality had the same personality characteristics as the authoritarian personality.

Milton Rokich in 1960 proposed a model of dogmatic personality as opposed to the classical model of authoritarianism. Dogmatism (or closeness of thinking), as Rokic believed, is the central construct of an authoritarian personality. Dogma, according to Rokich, is a relatively closed cognitive organization of beliefs and ideas about reality, organized around a central belief about absolute authoritarianism, which in turn forms a rigid structure of intolerance and selective tolerance for others. Such a person is not receptive to new ideas, intolerant to ambiguities and reacts defensively when the situation becomes threatening ^[2] .

Hans Eysenck in 1954 built a two-factor model that describes a person as the relationship of ideology and cognitive style. The first factor of the Eysenck model is that the ideological level constitutes a continuum from radicalism to conservatism with an intermediate position of liberalism (R-factor). In the second factor, he distinguishes two styles of thinking: hard-set and soft-set (T-factor). Hard thinking is characterized by the following features: empirical (adherence to facts), sensuality, materialism, pessimism, indifference to religion, fatalism, pluralism, skepticism, and corresponds to the extrovertive orientation of the individual. Soft thinking is distinguished: rationalism (adherence to principles), intellectuality, idealism, optimism, religiosity, willfulness, monistic, dogmatic and characterizes introversion. The hard-wired ideologies of Eysenck are fascism, referring to the conservative pole and communism, referring to radical. Soft-set ideology is liberalism, which occupies an intermediate place between conservatism and radicalism ^[3] .

John R. Patterson and Glenn Wilson in 1973 proposed a scale of conservatism . According to the authors, conservatism is a key factor determining all social attitudes of the individual. The authors closely associate this concept of conservatism with the concepts of “fascism”, “authoritarianism”, “rigidity” and “dogmatism”. The scale of conservatism (C-Scale) was designed to identify the following 9 characteristics: religious fundamentalism , orientation to the right wing of the political spectrum, the conviction of the need to apply strict rules and punishments, intolerance to minorities , the tendency to give preference to the common design in mainstream in art, anti-hedonism, militarism, belief in supernatural and rejection of scientific progress ^[4] .

Robert (Bob) Altemayer in 1981 he proposed his own concept of right-wing authoritarianism ^[5] , where he showed that only three of the original nine alleged components of the model correlated together: authoritarian humility, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism ^[6] .

Despite the methodological shortcomings, the theory of the “Authoritarian Personality” had a great influence on research in political, personal and social psychology. In Germany, authoritarianism was studied by Klauss Rogmenn, Detlef Oesterich and Christelle Opfem. One of the most active researchers in this field today is the Dutch psychologist Ji. D. Meloen. One of the most active critics of the theory was the Australian psychologist John Ray.

Notes

↑ Adorno Th. W. , Frenkel-Brunswik E. , Levinson DJ , Sanford RN (1950). The Authoritarian Personality . Norton: NY.
↑ Rokeach M. The open and closed mind, N.-Y., 1960
↑ Eysenck H. The psychology of politics, L., 1954
↑ Patterson J., Wilson G. Anonymity, occupation and conservatism. // The Journal of Social Psychology , 1969, vol. 78
↑ Altemeyer B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-91.
↑ Altemeyer B. Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Winnipeg, 1981

Literature

in Russian

Bayazitov R. F. The authoritarian stereotype: essence and manifestations in social interactions. - Nizhnekamsk: Publishing House of the NMI, 2006. - 175 p.
Raich V. Psychology of the masses and fascism. - SPb .: University book , 1997.
Fromm E. Escape from Freedom . - M .: Progress , 1990.

in other languages

Adorno Th. W. , Frenkel-Brunswik E. , Levinson DJ , Sanford RN (1950). The Authoritarian Personality . Norton: NY.
Altemeyer B. Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Winnipeg, 1981.
Eysenck H. The Psychology of Psychology, L., 1954;
Eysenck H. Primary social attitudes: A comparison of the attitude patterns in England. // Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1953, vol. 48, pp. 563-568.
Maslow A. The authoritarian character structure // The Journal of Social Psychology , SPSSI Bulletin, 1943, No 18, pp. 401-411.
Patterson J., Wilson G. Anonymity, occupation and conservatism. // The Journal of Social Psychology , 1969, vol. 78
Rokeach M. The open and closed mind, N.-Y., 1960.

Links

Quotes from the classic works of Adler: Predilection for Power
An American on-line book on the Internet, and the United States standing at a 2008 federal election approaches.
John Dean Exposes The Authoritarians - Authorized Scientists Of Conservatives Without Conscience.
Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics by Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler Excerpt.
Bob Altemeyer and Jonathan Shockley: A Discussion on Authoritarianism on WBAI

[1] Adorno Th. W. , Frenkel-Brunswik E. , Levinson DJ , Sanford RN (1950). The Authoritarian Personality . Norton: NY.

[2] Rokeach M. The open and closed mind, N.-Y., 1960

[3] Eysenck H. The psychology of politics, L., 1954

[4] Patterson J., Wilson G. Anonymity, occupation and conservatism. // The Journal of Social Psychology , 1969, vol. 78

[5] Altemeyer B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-91.

[6] Altemeyer B. Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Winnipeg, 1981