Can we talk about authoritarianism?

submitted by dykeotomy from self.censorship

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]quipu 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

Authoritarianism is on the rise for sure. The best way to avoid it is to keep your identity small and make yourself invisible to would-be dictators. Stay anonymous where possible, distance yourself from the so-called "friends" who have embraced authoritarian beliefs, and don't talk politics except with trusted allies (play dumb/uninformed if it comes up).

There is a good book called "The Authoritarians" that explores the topic of authoritarian personalities. Unfortunately it was written back when most obvious authoritarians were on the right, so there is some bias, but if you can get past that then some of the general ideas are interesting. There's a PDF available somewhere if you search for it.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

authoritarian personalities

there is a section of "culture of critique for normies", I think section 6 "pathologizing pride" that talks about how the "authoritarian personality" isn't really a valid psychological concept and it may have come out of an environment where the creators of the concept were motivated to pathologise healthy behavior.

[–]quipu 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

It's anecdotal, but I definitely know of people who seem to have a more authoritarian personality compared to others. They are the ones who always care about following the rules (whether or not they are sensible), are incredibly annoyed at slight deviations from what they consider "normal" or "acceptable", who feel entitled about having things go their way, and will become incredibly vindictive and aggressive if they do not get what they want. Very similar to the so-called "Karen" meme, but it affects men as well.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

yes, this kind of first-hand observation is maybe different from what the book/video series talks about. They have a section about how the scientific methodology in the book actually showed that "authoritarian personality" people (as defined in the book of that title back in the day) were shown to be healthier, happier, had better social relations, etc. It was interesting to me, and I think it's some relevant background when looking at people who are discussing "authoritarianism," at least in contexts related to psychology. Maybe politics "authoritarianism" has a different set of influences, but I'm not sure.

[–]quipu 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

It is also possible that authoritarians (however they are defined) are healthier when their group is in control. This would make sense, as I'd imagine that fellow authoritarians would look out for each other and prioritize each other's needs over the out-group. If they didn't do this, this may lead to their group losing control. In other words, when authoritarians are in control, others suffer while they flourish.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

When I read it it sounded like they were massaging the data to try to look for outcomes they wanted when writing "the authoritarian personality". They were trying to show the opposite of what the data actually showed. I guess it's fine to make theories about what "authoritarians" are like but the point I wanted to add to the discussion is that:

It seems like, in at least one sphere, that concept entered discourse in a dishonest way based on a political objective to smear what may have been normal healthy behavior among a disliked group. I did not know if you were aware of this. I thought you (or other readers) might find it interesting if you were not.

[–]quipu 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Thanks for the clarification. It's been a long time since I read the book, so I'm not really informed enough to have a good discussion on the specifics of it. I do remember feeling that it seemed somewhat politicized, possibly compromising the "science" (social science lol), and that surely there must exist left-wing authoritarians as well.

This is interesting, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality:

The research on ideology, politics, and racist prejudice, by John Duckitt and Chris Sibley, identified two types of authoritarian worldview: (i) that the social world is dangerous, which leads to right-wing authoritarianism; and (ii) that the world is a ruthlessly competitive jungle, which leads to social dominance orientation. In a meta-analysis of the research, Sibley and Duckitt explained that the social-dominance orientation scale helps to measure the generalization of prejudice and other authoritarian attitudes that can exist within social groups. Although both the right-wing authoritarianism scale and the social-dominance orientation scale can accurately measure authoritarian personalities, the scales usually are not correlated.

"Social dominance orientation" sounds similar to the implicit goals of many in the social justice movement. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_orientation:

Individuals who score high in SDO desire to maintain and, in many cases, increase the differences between social statuses of different groups, as well as individual group members. Typically, they are dominant, driven, tough, and seekers of power. People high in SDO also prefer hierarchical group orientations. Often, people who score high in SDO adhere strongly to belief in a "dog-eat-dog" world.

See the "anti-egalitarian" scale specifically. Counter-intuitively, seeking "equality" is a no-no among social justice types. The theory is flawed because once again "authoritarian" is implicitly coupled to "right-wing", but there may be a grain of truth somewhere in there.

It is possible that during the Obama era, many of the "social dominance" authoritarians saw which way the wind was blowing and switched sides to maintain their position on the top of the social pyramid. This would explain why their general behaviors are the same, but the specifics are different. It would also explain why so many who supported Bush and his wars have now aligned themselves with the socjus cult and superficial "woke" progressivism.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

saw which way the wind was blowing and switched sides

Interesting possibility.

I've certainly seen stuff from men talking about how you can get whatever you want if you claim you're trans, suddenly you're back up at the top.

This "non-equality" stuff seems like a recent shift imo. People seemed to talk more about equality earlier. They still chose the name "feminist" not "equalist" or "gender egalitarian". Though I guess "women's liberation" was a bit different. "Liberation" goes back much further, though, much further.

[–]quipu 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I've certainly seen stuff from men talking about how you can get whatever you want if you claim you're trans, suddenly you're back up at the top.

That's completely insane. I'm really glad I avoid those spaces.

This "non-equality" stuff seems like a recent shift imo. People seemed to talk more about equality earlier.

Yeah, I mildly supported the social justice movement back in 2013 or so, back before things were completely insane. They were raising some legitimate issues, but something changed. From the outside it looked like opportunists seized the infrastructure of these groups to use in their own quest for power. The same thing happened in many small hobby/interest groups at around the same time. Outsiders swarmed in and tried to take over, forcing out the old leadership.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm really glad I avoid those spaces.

I think it's nice to go to places like that maybe rarely, just so you can recognize rhetoric from there "in the wild" and know what you're dealing with. Like a vaccine, kinda, helps you recognize it.

The same thing happened in many small hobby/interest groups at around the same time. Outsiders swarmed in and tried to take over, forcing out the old leadership.

Interesting, I was unaware of this.