We're Dealing with 2 Types of Authoritarians
Political psychologists have found that there isn't just one authoritarian political orientation, as once thought. There are two. Witness the Presidential campaigns of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.
The "Authoritarian Personality" was first defined in a 1950 book by that name, written by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford. They theorized that there are "potentially fascistic" individuals in society who have a common personality "structure." To test their theory, they interviewed and gave a value scale questionnaire (the "F-scale") to over 2,000 subjects. They concluded that
There exists something like "the" potentially fascist character, which is by itself a "structural unit." In other words, traits such as conventionality, authoritarian submissiveness and aggressiveness, projectivity, manipulativeness, etc., regularly go together.
The study provoked interest, at first, but fell out of favor due to complaints about its methodology and perceived bias.
However, the concept and measurement scale were later refined by Bob Altemeyer, beginning at least in 1981. His research repeatedly found that there were individuals who had personalities which included:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism.
Altemeyer called these individuals "Right-Wing Authoritarians," or "RWAs." In his 2007 paper titled "The Authoritarians," he explained that he was using the word "Right" in its Old English sense: "lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said." As he noted later, the authorities in question had to be regarded as "legitimate" by the RWAs.
In 1996, Altemeyer studied how RWAs performed on some other personality tests. What he found was that RWAs also got high positive scores on the following scales (in descending order):
"Religious Fundamentalism"
"Self-Righteousness"
"Traditionalism," defined by Shalom Schwartz as:
Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provides...Maintaining cultural and religious traditions
"Dangerous World" (belief that the world is dangerous)
"Conformity," defined by Shalom Schwartz as:
Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms.
and "Need for Structure."
In summary, RWAs tend to be religious fundamentalists who see the world as dangerous and themselves as "righteous." They are conformists who need structure, and they value the maintainance of traditional ideas and norms. I would prefer to say that they have a "Rule-Guided Orientation," but "RWA" is the established label.
Several writers have noted that Donald Trump's Presidential campaign appears to have brought out Authoritarians (for examples, see here and here and here). I think Trump is authoritarian, but he doesn't fit the RWA type. True, he is trying to appeal to RWAs. He went to Liberty University, a self-described Christian institution, and presented himself as a defender of the faith. But Ted Cruz is actually more representative of the RWA. He didn't just appear at Liberty University, he announced his Presidential campaign there. Moreover, his announcement speech specifically noted his father's adoption of Baptist Christianity, his mother being the daughter of missionaries, and his own belief that our rights come from God Almighty. And he advocates a religious test for public office:
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dkVu14Q_bw]
"Any President who doesn't begin every day on his knees isn't fit to be Commander-in-Chief of this country." - Ted Cruz, 6 November 2015, National Religious Liberties Conference [source]
Coincidentally, his surname, "Cruz," is Spanish for "Cross!"
While Altemeyer was refining the definition and scales for RWAs, psychologists Felicia Pratto, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle uncovered another significant political orientation. They theorized that people vary in the extent to which they desire that their in-group "dominate and be superior to out-groups." They believed that Individuals with a high "Social Dominance Orientation" would "favor social practices that maintain or exacerbate inequality among groups and will oppose social practices that reduce group inequality," and their research confirmed it. A battery of personality tests given to almost 2,000 college students between 1990 and 1992 disclosed that Social Dominance Orientation ["SDO"] had significant positive associations with support for capitalism (presumably because capitalism legitimizes inequality based on competition), nationalism, racism, cultural elitism, support for the military and support for wars of dominance (i.e., not for "humanitarian" wars). On the other hand, SDOs were significantly negative on measures of concern for others, altruism and communality.
Altemeyer refers to SDO as "The Other 'Authoritarian Personality.'" In his 1996 study of RWAs, he also subjected SDOs to other popular personality tests. He found SDOs to have their strongest association with the value of "Power," which Shalom Schwartz defines as the value of "Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources."*
As I said earlier, a number of authors have suggested that Donald Trump's supporters are authoritarians. I think it's more accurate to say that Trump and his followers have high Social Dominance Orientations. Consider the fact that Trump announced his campaign at "Trump Tower," a monument to his personal wealth and power. His initial campaign speech expressed his intent to have more victories over other countries, countries which were "beating us" and "killing us," he said. He proclaimed that our enemies were getting stronger while we were getting weaker. And his followers proudly display their racism, nationalism, and cultural elitism during his rallies. All of these fit the SDO profile.
Coincidentally, his surname, "Trump," is an English word meaning "to dominate!"
It's important to note that Altemeyer, the Pratto group and others have found somewhat small but statistically significant relationships between RWAs and SDOs. The two political orientations can overlap in some regards. Altemeyer found that both RWAs and SDOs were substantially associated with ethnocentrism and prejudice against homosexuals, Blacks and women. However, they were also significantly distinguishable. For example, Altemeyer found that RWAs were more strongly associated with religious fundamentalism, self-righteousness and traditionalism than SDOs. SDOs, on the other hand, were more strongly associated with value of power than RWAs.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT?
We are all created equal, but we are not all the same. Too often we assume that everyone else is just like us, so our different political views can only be due to ignorance, brainwashing or stupidity. Why do people act against what we see as their "interest?" Because they have a different view of their "interest." It's not that they are "irrational." Their actions are "value-rational," i.e., calculated on the basis of their values. Someone with a high RWA political orientation will place greater value on following established rules, customs and traditions. They will resist change. Someone with a high SDO political orientation will place greater value on ensuring that they and their identity groups dominate socially. They will resist policies of social equalization.
According to Mary Kay Magistad of Public Radio International, "Polling data suggests roughly 18 to 30 percent of Americans fall into [the Authoritarian] camp, and that more can be swayed to support political 'strong men' when they feel under threat." But all is not lost. The good news is, people vary in the degree to which they have an RWA or SDO political orientation. And the vast majority of Americans are not Authoritarians.
*SDOs also scored high on Eysenck & Eysenck's 1976 "Psychoticism" scale, but this scale was found to have some design issues, as acknowledged later by the authors themselves.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee747/ee747ef0eda618b8a90f9e1a7e7f4ccf553b8219" alt="Share"
Comments
I accidentally created this comment...
Still learning the ropes!data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/26598/26598bae1ed39b1816cae59ac139b78cc4dd131b" alt="Smile"
"All Life is Problem Solving" - Karl Popper
I'll treat your comment as a Tip Jar ;->
Very thoughtful and well-written essay. Thanks.
The two types are on display daily here in 'conservative' South Carolina' (where 52% of the population work for the government yet regularly vote for candidates who promise to reduce the size of government) often within the same speciman.
To do the proper thing around here is to work for the government or a big corporation like BP or Boeing and proclaim you are free while simultaneously subjagating others. Southerners are submissive bullies without the ability to grasp the exhibited contradictions. They exhibit submissive fealty all day and then agressive sadism after hours.
They will resist change and policies of social equalization.
Sorry to be getting to this late
but thank you for teaching me something.
"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott
Nice breakdown,
but where does hrc fall in these evaluations? Or does she?
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
The whole point of Clintonism
is submission to the inevitable Clinton machine. At its heart is the cult of personality, and favor-dispensing, reality-denying psychopathy. For the non-cynical Clinton supporters, they don't care if Hillary is one day this, one day that, one day against the TPP, the next day for it.... They will always excuse her. That is textbook cult of personality, power worship.
High degree of aggressiveness on the part of Clinton supporters? Oh hell yes.
To me, the worst authoritarianism is the sort that conceals its own nature, and will not even let you name it as such.
At least in Russia from 1917-1989, they could say "communism" was the ruling ideology (let's not get into particularities of Russian communism for the moment). How many Americans are EVEN ABLE to name the economic ideology, neoliberalism, that governs their lives? The word is practically taboo in most corporate media outlets.
Spot on DM
Let me add this:
Does this not describe Clintonism to its essence?
The anti-thesis of Karl Marx is Ayn Rand
Both Reagan and Thatcher followed Ayn Rand's dystopian ideology. Atlas Shrugged is still quite popular. Others also inspired neoliberalism too, agreed.
Today's libertarians (closest to neoliberal ideals) are abandoning the GOP. So the base that is left is mostly racists and theocrats and they love Trump. These guys are clueless.
The political revolution continues
And the Clintonistas love to exercise power via weakness.
Oh you are hating women! Oh she has been so abused by the Republicans! Oh she has been treated unfairly by the media!
"Just like me!! My failures are really my victimization!"
How does she NOT fit the SDO category?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
Your essay made me think of this,
Review: ‘Bush,’ a Biography as Scathing Indictment in today's NYTimes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/books/review-bush-a-biography-as-scath...
Macho. Heh. I never thought of W as macho.
That little quavery voice? Overcompensating for his inferiority complex, maybe.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
He sure tried to be.
That phony Texas swagger? The pilot suit w/ codpiece, Bring it on?
Like a little boy playing dressup! eom
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
And then he got
a set of paints. LOL
Interesting breakdown, but I think there is more than a little
overlap. I think the two types are authoritarian followers and authoritarian leaders. Wolves will never be sheep and sheep will never be wolves.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Best explanation yet of what many perceive as paradox.
I include myself in the group that failed to understand why people vote against their own self-interest.
Alex, your analysis explains to me why people do such anti-self things. They are authoritarian. Especially in the South where they are mainly RWA's.
One commenter asked, perhaps in snark, what type of authoritarian HRC was. It should be obvious based on what has been elucidated here, that HRC is of the social dominance authoritarian personality.
Honest to FSM, who is she, really?
I'm working now on an essay about the opposites of Authoritarians, the "Anti-Authoritarians." I think Bernie has an Anti-Authoritarian personality. Hillary, however, is a cipher to me.
"All Life is Problem Solving" - Karl Popper
Altemeyer wrote of 'Authoritarian Follower'
personality types. I believe they naturally gathered around the 'Charismatic Sociopath', who functions as Dear Leader. While one can debate HRC's charisma, there can be little doubt that the behavior of her followers is standard authoritarian follower behavior, from violence and exclusion for those deemed to be outside the group, to the extreme hypocrisy. And there is the borderline-like tendency for the gang to see people who were considered saints become satans when they cross a dogma line.
Democracy is the only antidote to authoriarianism
Democracy as a way of life, as prescribed by the great John Dewey in Democracy and Education:
The entire chapter is as relevant today as it was when it was printed 100 years ago. By far the most thorough explanation of our way out. It is more of an unused blueprint of how we should be conducting ourselves in this world.
This segment goes to the heart of the Clinton Elite Authoritarian capture of our (despotically governed) Democratic Party.
A better description of the Neo-Lib/Clintonite DNC I doubt anyone today could have written. That it was written 100 years ago goes to its timelessness and its genius.
Thank you for your wonderful post, AB.
Hold fast, matey!
Hold fast! To your Rum!
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
HRC is simple to understand
As others above have seen, she is essentially a SDO, it's just that she sees herself as a servant of the dominant order who believes that she serves by "leading". She is opposing Trump because she sees him as an incompetent - he will expose the powers that be rather than enrich them. She would have opposed Cruz because he represents an alternate order - plutocrats consider theocrats useful idiots, but ultimately fear and loathe them. HRC fosters a cult of personality not for ego reasons, but because it is a useful tool - she would sincerely be willing to personally lose as long as her loss (and most of her useful idiot followers think they are "liberals" and therefore are actually opposed to her core belief) preserves the status quo. Witness her potentially suicidal anti Bernie strategy - preventing Bernie from winning the presidency is more important to her than winning it herself. Witness also her 1993 health care "plan". It was more important that she prevent single payer than she actually "accomplish" anything,
Pardon the godwin, but Hitler and Mussolini were in it for themselves. (though Hitler talked about a Reich that would outlive him) Hillary is actually dedicated to a "higher power". She would prefer to be the Grand Vizier, but would consider herself fulfilled if she could call herself a martyr. (hence her "right wing conspiracy")
On to Biden since 1973
All good points.
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X