Research by contemporary political psychologists indicates that there are two types of Authoritarians. The same research suggests that that there could be two types of Anti-Authoritarians, their polar opposites.

I have to admit that this essay involves more speculation than my last one. There are a lot of professional publications concerning the two types of Authoritarians, RWA and SDO, but there are hardly any which specifically address the personalities of people who are at the opposite ends of those scales. In fact, I've found only one such publication by a political scientist: The Anti-Authoritarian Personality, a book published by William P. Kreml in 1977. Kreml was relying on research and theories still dependent on Freudian psychology and the perception of nonconformity as "deviant" and "maladaptive." You can see that in his working definition of "Anti-Authoritarian:" someone who "...uncritically opposes 'standards [and] commands.'"

"Anti-authoritarian" is currently defined as being "opposed to authoritarianism; democratic; characterized by or advocating or based upon the principles of democracy or social equality." To quote psychologist Bruce Levine:

Anti-authoritarians question whether an authority is a legitimate one before taking that authority seriously. Evaluating the legitimacy of authorities includes assessing whether or not authorities actually know what they are talking about, are honest, and care about those people who are respecting their authority. And when anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they challenge and resist that authority—sometimes aggressively and sometimes passive-aggressively, sometimes wisely and sometimes not. [February 26, 2012]

Now that's my definition of "Anti-Authoritarian!"

It was Bob Altemeyer's 1996 study which gave me the idea for the current essay. In that study, he tested "Right-Wing Authoritarian" ("RWA") and "Social Dominance Orientation" ("SDO") individuals on a number of other established personality scales. In my last essay here, I discussed most of the attributes he found to be associated with those political orientations. But there were two values found to have significantly negative associations with RWA and SDO orientations:

"Self-Direction," which Shalom Schwartz defines as "independent, autonomous thought and action;" and

"Universalism," which Shalom Schwartz defines as
"Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature."

Moreover, the negative association with "Self-Direction" was stronger for RWAs than for SDOs, while the negative association with "Universalism" was stronger for SDOs than for RWAs.

It struck me that these results suggested who was at the opposite ends of the RWA and SDO scales. And it made sense.

High RWAs strive to maintain traditional rules as the basis for authority. Who would be their opposites on the RWA scale? People who did not accept and regard traditional rules as authoritative. People who would be willing to entertain new rules and decide for themselves which rules ultimately have legitimate authority. I'll call it a "Self-Guided Orientation," or "SGO," since I haven't seen it proposed elsewhere. These are individuals who decide for themselves what they will believe and do, independent of tradition.

It's my suspicion that Presidential candidate Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party represents this political orientation. Reviewing his issue positions, I note that he emphasizes individual determination and seeks to minimize social rules and controls. While this tacitly accepts inequality, he is not emphasizing the maintenance of social dominance by particular individuals or segments of the population.

High SDOs, on the other hand, strive to establish and maintain superiority for themselves and/or their identity groups as the basis for authority. Who would be their opposites on the SDO scale? People who are oriented toward "understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature." As discussed by Felicia Pratto et al., such individuals are more oriented toward social equality, altruism, tolerance, and empathy toward individuals who are not like them. Since I haven't seen this political orientation named anywhere else, I'll call it a "Holistic Welfare Orientation," or "HWO." If HWOs are oriented politically towards equality and protection for the welfare of all people, I think it's fair to surmise that HWOs perceive legitimate authority as deriving from consensus and common benefit.

Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for the Presidency, appears to be a prime example of this political orientation. On her campaign website, she declares,

“My Power to the People Plan creates deep system change, moving from the greed and exploitation of corporate capitalism to a human-centered economy that puts people, planet and peace over profit...This plan will end unemployment and poverty; avert climate catastrophe; build a sustainable, just economy; and recognize the dignity and human rights of everyone in our society and our world."

The combination of these ideas leads me to propose the following as a map of our socio-political orientations:

I've included the gray squares because real-world observation indicates that there can be an overlap or blending of political orientations. Altemeyer reported that the most prejudiced people he found in his research were those who were both High SDO and High RWA. I believe I have a mix of strong HWO tendencies with an inclination toward SGO, as well. To what degree are these orientations separated or blended in the U.S. population? I have no idea. As I said earlier, there's been hardly any professional research specifically concerning Anti-Authoritarians. Which is a shame, in my opinion.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT
⦁ There will always be political contention. even conflict, within populations. Authoritarians and Anti-Authoritarians have opposing political orientations, with opposing values. C'est la vie.
⦁ Among Progressives, too, there are potential differences in orientations and degrees of orientation. I think these are factors worthy of consideration as we interact with one another. Especially if we want the Movement to grow. People you disparage aren't likely to want to join you in your efforts.