The Authoritarian Mind

In the category of cool, free and fascinating, Bob Altemeyer's recent e-book,  The Authoritarians, ranks near the top of the list.

Dr. Bob, as he is known to his students at the University of Manitoba in Canada, has been engaged in the study of the psychological phenomena of authoritarianism since the early 1970's and his book was widely cited by John Dean in his 2006 book  Conservatives Without Conscience.  Dr. Bob's research also won an American Association for the Advancement of Science competition in 1988 for best research in the behavioral sciences.

I have personally read big chunks of this book and can vouch for the strength of the research and the relevance of the conclusions to the political scene as it exists today, not only in America, but world wide.

While the book may seem to be a partisan "political" book, it is most definitely not.  The concepts and personalities described herein apply in a wide variety of situations and are well worth your time to study.

From Dr. Bob's introduction,

But why should you even bother reading this book? I would offer three reasons. First, if you are concerned about what has happened in America since a radical right-wing segment of the population began taking control of the government about a dozen years ago, I think you'll find a lot in this book that says your fears are well founded. As many have pointed out, the Republic is once again passing through perilous times. The concept of a constitutional democracy has been under attack--and by the American government no less! The mid-term elections of 2006 give hope that the best values and traditions of the country will ultimately prevail. But it could prove a huge mistake to think that the enemies of freedom and equality have lost the war just because they were recently rebuffed at the polls. I'll be very much surprised if their leaders don't frame the setback as a test of the followers' faith, causing them to redouble their efforts.

They came so close to getting what they want, they're not likely to pack up and go away without an all-out drive. But even if their leaders cannot find an acceptable presidential candidate for 2008, even if authoritarians play a much diminished role in the next election, even if they temporarily fade from view, they will still be there, aching for a dictatorship that will force their views on everyone. And they will surely be energized again, as they were in 1994, if a new administration infuriates them while carrying out its mandate. The country is not out of danger yet.

The second reason I can offer for reading what follows is that it is not chock full of opinions, but experimental evidence. Liberals have stereotypes about conservatives, and conservatives have stereotypes about liberals. Moderates have stereotypes about both. Anyone who has watched, or been a liberal arguing with a conservative (or vice versa) knows that personal opinion and rhetoric can be had a penny a pound. But all that arguing never seems to get anywhere. Whereas if you set up a fair and square experiment in which people can act nobly, fairly, and with integrity, and you find that most of one group does, and most of another group does not, that's a fact, not an opinion. And if you keep finding the same thing experiment after experiment, and other people do too, then that's a body of facts that demands attention. Some people,we have seen to our dismay, don't give a hoot what scientific investigation reveals. But most people do. If the data were fairly gathered and we let them do the talking,we should be on a higher plane than the current, "Sez you!"

The last reason why you might be interested in the hereafter is that you might want more than just facts about authoritarians, but understanding and insight into why they act the way they do. Which is often mind-boggling.

How can they revere those who gave their lives defending freedom and then support moves to take that freedom away? How can they go on believing things that have been disconfirmed over and over again, and disbelieve things that are well established?

How can they think they are the best people in the world, when so much of what they do ought to show them they are not? Why do their leaders so often turn out to be crooks and hypocrites? Why do the followers accept the flimsy excuses and even obvious lies that their leaders proclaim, and cling to them so dogmatically?

Why are both the followers and the leaders so aggressive that hostility is practically their trademark? Why are both so unaffected by the evil they do? By the time you have finished this book, I think you will understand the reasons. All of this, and much more, fit into place once you see what research has uncovered going on in authoritarian minds.

Posted by Garth Sullivan.

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/

Comments

[Scott Smith]

Who did Marx says always controls the prevailing ideology? The current "test case" in the senate recently reaffirms this notion, as billionaires are given their tax break.
How do notions of authoritarian minds as a larger picture of social control fit in to Marxist notions around who controls prevailing ideology?

[Garth Sullivan]

Scott,

You are right that the phenomena is not a capitalist/marxist dichotomy, but a leader/follower dichotomy.

The leader may adopt the trappings of either the left or the right. The ideology is less important to the actor than the power of leadership.

I would agree its not a useful lens for anaylzing the influence of money on government.