A few months ago (summer 2015), I set myself a task: to learn how to communicate with authoritarian individuals. At school we were taught to solve problems in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and no one taught us to solve problems in psychology.
You got authoritarian parents and a boss at work - what to do? Run away into the desert and live as a hermit? And there is nothing to eat there, and there are lions running around and biting. There is a problem - you need to look for a solution. After all, they were created for this purpose, to solve them.
I read a lot of articles, watched a lot of videos on the Internet and finally understood a simple truth: you need to fight not with someone else’s sin, but with your own, and this sin is called lust for power (lust of power).
Let's say someone shouted at me in an authoritative tone, and anger boils in my chest - this is my own lust for power awakening, and a battle for power begins. Two power-hungers are fighting for dominance in a family or team. The struggle is endless and exhausting, in which everyone loses. You need to fight not for power, but against the lust for power, and then many difficulties in communicating with people disappear by themselves. You will not cope with power-hungry spouses until you defeat the love of power in yourself.
You can be in a subordinate position, even a slave on a galley, but maintain a sense of dignity and self-respect.
Compare the two images.
The majordomo in the house of an English lord, calm and unperturbed. The owner screams and swears, and the majordomo slowly climbs the stairs, the owner’s insults are like a mosquito squeak for him.
Or a slave with a bent back spins around the master and obsequiously offers his services.
An obsequious slave is as power-hungry as his master. Swap the places of slave and master, nothing will change.
Lust for power is the desire to subjugate another person to your power, an encroachment on his free will. God created man free, and each of us is free to choose between good and evil. The Lord himself does not encroach on human freedom. Satan, on the contrary, comes up with the most sophisticated methods of enslaving people.
The first thing that catches your eye is the manifestation of lust for power in everyday life. The husband does not twist the tube of toothpaste and scatters dirty socks around the room. Yesterday I cleaned the apartment, today all my things are scattered again. Irritation is growing. And why? Because I want the other person to do what I WANT, dress the way I LIKE, behave in a way that makes ME feel comfortable with him. What about him? Is he comfortable with you? A person is brought up this way, he is used to this kind of life, he lives the way he wants. And until he himself wants to change, no one will change him, he can only be broken as a person. Do you like living with a person whom you crushed and broke? Does he like it?
Wives nag their husbands to force them to perform homework. You can’t imagine how much the voice affects a person’s psyche - he becomes lethargic, apathetic, falls on the sofa and doesn’t want to do anything. And the noisy wife with high probability will get inflammation thyroid gland.
Lust for power also appears under the guise of good wishes: “I’m trying for your sake, I wish you the best. Do as I tell you. Obey me.” Or not so rudely and obviously, for example, a woman walks in simple clothes, I think: “If you dressed her up in beautiful clothes, how good she would look!” I want to intervene in someone else’s life, I want to “improve” it. How do I know what is better and what is worse for this woman? And what does she want?
The man swears, and this disgusts those around him. He grew up in a dysfunctional family, he heard nothing but swearing - what is his fault? And if you try to force him to express himself culturally, you will hear choice curse words in response. And all because it is useless to force, you need to convince.
In men, as a rule, the lust for power manifests itself in ideological terms. Impose your ideology. “Let it not be me who rules the world, but the ideas born of me.” In women, such mania is less common. Women more often become victims of male ideologists, fanatical followers and disseminators of dubious teachings. Christianity is not an ideology, and Jesus Christ did not die for an idea.
Excessive involvement in other people's problems is also a desire to “improve” the world, to make it the way we want. We are trying to “help” someone solve their problems, but we don’t know what kind of help the person really needs. We are blind, deaf and guided by some ridiculous prejudices. There is no need to “make” humanity happy; people already have everything they need to be happy. Whether a person is happy or not depends only on himself.
And so every day, every hour you monitor your thoughts: do you want to impose on another person your way of life, manner of behavior, manner of speech, your worldview, your faith. It is very difficult to constantly look after yourself, but with God's help everything is possible. And when you give in to thoughts: people are not what we want, and judgment begins; the world is not the way we want it to be, and whining and complaints about life begin.
After a couple of months, my back straightened. Without any gymnastics, the stoop disappeared. A pleasant surprise! And that’s not all: I began to feel my body, what is called bodily attentiveness, observation or awareness appeared. I began to notice that when you want to change something that you cannot change, tension arises in your body and head. When you say the wrong thing, do the wrong thing, or write the wrong thing, discomfort, as if it is trying to say: “Stop!” Even the body tries to stop us, but we don’t hear it.
Such interesting things began to happen to me while I was struggling with the thoughts of “bending the world and people to myself.” When the desire to bend other people disappears, you yourself become unbending (my back even straightened).
Fears, worries, and addictions began to disappear. Self-confidence appeared. I stopped worrying about what other people would say or think about me. This is natural: you stopped imposing your opinion on others and stopped depending on other people’s opinions. Communication works both ways. You can learn to respect yourself, and then respect for other people will appear. Or vice versa, learning to respect other people will give you self-respect.
You stop tormenting yourself because you accidentally offended someone. All your life you have been criticized and demanded to be perfect, but you are not perfect. You accept yourself as you are. You try to accept other people as they are, although it is very difficult. What can we do with another person? You can only change yourself.
You don’t need to convince yourself that you are better than you really are, otherwise you won’t have the desire to change.
And there is no need to humiliate yourself: man is the image of God, which needs to be cleansed of dirt. Don't let yourself be humiliated. Respect yourself. You not only desecrate the Image of God in your own person, but also corrupt another person with your servility and servility. This is not humility, this is people-pleasing. You don’t have to shout or swear, but calmly and confidently demand respect for yourself: “Excuse me, why are you talking to me so rudely? Don’t be rude.” "There are no servants here. If you want something, ask politely." "Say the magic word 'please'." "You don't ask, you order, and you ask."
People have become so mad that they have forgotten how to ask. "I want you to cook dinner!" "You should cook me dinner." “Go to the kitchen, quickly.”
But pride doesn’t allow you to ask? “My dear, will you prepare dinner for me?”, “My dear, please feed me.”
Sometimes you can hear statements like: “Don’t you see that you need to help,” “Don’t you see that you need to do this and that.” Why should a person see what you point out to him, as if he doesn’t have his own worries? Approach and ask politely. Or soon you’ll start talking like Woland from M. A. Bulgakov’s novel “The Master and Margarita”: “Never ask for anything! Never and nothing, and especially among those who are stronger than you. They will offer and give everything themselves.”
The Bible says: Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you; For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. (Matt. 7:7-8).
Even in a temple you rarely hear the magic word “please”. If you don’t know how to ask people, how then do you ask God? Prayer is a request, or at least a cry for help, and not an order or demand.
Everything turned out to be not simple, but very simple: we cannot change the world and people, only ourselves. "If you want to change the world, start with yourself." Hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see how to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.(Matt. 7:5). We knew this, we read it, but we never tried to put it into practice. We demand from others that they change, but we ourselves are so ideal that we do not need any correction. And you try to change yourself, and such miracles will begin to happen, you’ll simply be amazed.
Perhaps a person’s consciousness changes very quickly, but the body and psyche are rebuilt slowly. The ability to stand up for yourself does not appear immediately, but gradually, and brings great relief. The body has habits, the brain creates stable ones neural connections It takes at least forty days to weaken them.
When you struggle with your sins, your eyes open: you begin to see what you did not see before, understand what you did not understand before. Solving problems and answering questions come naturally.
Why were we given authoritarian parents and bosses? So that we can look inside ourselves and see our own sin. If we gave free rein to our hereditary lust for power, we would turn into despots who torture other people and get a bunch of “power-hungry diseases.” Our parents and bosses were a restraining force for us, now we can become a restraining force for them. To repay good for good, to help “take the speck out of your brother’s eye.” God is wise, He arranged everything very wisely, and when you understand this, anger and resentment disappear, only gratitude remains.
And Goethe wrote well about the love of power (translation by Boris Zakhoder):
That's the problem, that's the problem -
Everyone climbed into the gentlemen.
And at the same time - not a single one
You are not your own master!
According to the theory of Karl Marx, any state is an apparatus of violent suppression ruling class all other layers of society. Ideologically, many of the views of this theorist can be disputed, but such a definition seems quite fair. In a sense, any state is an authoritarian regime.
Until now, no one has really determined what exactly distinguishes an authoritarian regime from a democratic one. Nowadays, it is mainly the US State Department that is responsible for sorting countries into free and totalitarian, but it does this, of course, based on national interests of his homeland. F.D. Roosevelt is credited with defining Somoza Sr. as a scoundrel, but an American one, and therefore a democratic one. Franklin Delano himself was elected to a responsible post four times, and at the most fateful moments for the United States, which became a kind of record. At the same time, during his career, Roosevelt often made unpopular decisions among the population, and he was often reproached for establishing an authoritarian regime in the country.
French President Charles de Gaulle was also criticized by the opposition for being undemocratic. Seeking economic independence from the United States, he stopped colonial war in Algeria, made certain concessions to the USSR, and committed many other actions that irritated his political opponents. The decisions made by Gaulle himself would not have found support from the opposition parties, but, confident in his rightness, he went ahead, as they say, and ultimately proved the correctness of his own policy. Feeling that the majority was not always right, the French president established an authoritarian regime of government.
Any strong government leader in difficult moments for the country is forced to make decisions that are not to the liking of a certain part of the political and economic elite, this happens in almost all countries. As if spontaneously, an opposition appears, financed by oligarchs or foreign opponents of the new course, which immediately begins to convince the population that the leader has established an authoritarian regime. The signs by which it is determined are numerous and often contradictory.
The main one of these signs is very convenient for manipulation. These are free elections. The voting process is always difficult and is not without violations, each of which can be declared flagrant. The next thing in line is usually the fact of suppressing the opposition, more often defined by the word “massacre.” Any embezzled oligarch who ends up behind bars can claim that he is being persecuted for political reasons, as if the very fact of involvement in opposition forces should serve as some kind of safe conduct, guaranteeing the inviolability and complete freedom actions - from embezzlement to banal hooliganism. However, it should be taken into account that those who oppose government policy are not at all cherished by government officials in any country, even in the bastion of democracy, the United States.
So, neither the fight against the opposition, nor violations during voting, nor the degree of participation of the broad masses in government are signs that distinguish an authoritarian regime from a totalitarian one. What's the difference then? It is essential, but lies in personal abilities strong leader attract supporters of their policies and maintain power through legal means. Authoritarianism is possible in democratic countries. But it is almost useless under totalitarianism, when a leader is promoted from the ranks of the ruling elite based on how convenient he is to its other members. An authoritarian regime is a necessary measure when the country is going through difficult moments and various threats, from
Authoritarianism- this is a characteristic of a person that reflects his strong desire for the maximum subordination of other individuals to his influence. Authoritarianism is synonymous with such concepts as totalitarianism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, antidemocratism. In the behavior of the individual, this socio-psychological characteristic is expressed in the desire to achieve one’s own, to dominate in the group, to occupy the most high position, in the tendency to manipulate others, to achieve goals, but not so much thanks to own merits, and with the help of other people and the advantage of one’s role position.
Authoritarianism is quite clearly observed in the relationship between the leader and his followers. It is expressed in the pressure of the manager on his subordinates, in the exclusion of colleagues or the team from participation in making important decisions. A leader with an authoritarian management style controls his employees too strictly; He checks privately how they cope with the responsibilities given to them, what decisions they make when performing any task, and too rudely suppresses any initiatives of the group members, since he sees in this willfulness and even an encroachment on his personal authority in this group.
Authoritarianism is a characteristic of thinking that imparts exaggeration and crucial the opinion of certain authorities. Such thinking is characterized by the desire to concretize and strengthen the propositions put forward by finding and combining various sayings and quotes belonging to certain authorities. Also, these authorities become idols, ideals who never make mistakes and guarantee success to those who follow them.
Authoritarianism - what is it?
In the development of authoritarianism, individuals are of great importance not only psychological factors, the external situation, but also the situation in which the development of authoritarianism takes place. A person who has a degree of authoritarianism in his character is unprotected from the influence of negative factors; he perceives the world as dangerous, carrying a potential threat from everywhere. But what happens in the world is that some begin to hide, take a passive position, while others become active because they believe that it is better to attack and defend, so they become leaders who subjugate these passive ones.
Authoritarianism characterizes a person’s desire for strict control over the performance of the tasks of his subordinates, relatives or colleagues. A person who is inherently authoritarian remains like this at home, he supervises how well everyone at home fulfills his duties, in no way, without letting go.
Since authoritarianism is synonymous with totalitarianism, the opposite here is democracy. If we consider authoritarianism in a political sense, as one of the political regimes, then it is worth saying that here power is reduced to a specific person (class, party, elite), with the least participation of society, and characteristic bureaucratic methods of managing society.
Authoritarian politics is distinguished by the fact that all power is actually concentrated on one institution or person, controlled pluralism in actions and political opinions is allowed. Society is required to demonstrate loyalty to those in power, but the possibility of their participation in making decisions that are significant for society is excluded.
Parents who show authoritarianism in raising a child show their love to their children to a rather small extent; they seem to be detached from them and cannot understand their need to praise them for their achievements and successes. Such parents treat their own children as if they were subordinates; they give them orders and instructions, which they must obey unquestioningly. Not paying attention special attention on the needs, desires and opinions of children, not to mention the possibility of compromise with them.
Families that use authoritarianism in their upbringing place a fairly high value on adherence to traditions, respect and obedience. The rules set by parents are not discussed. Parents who are characterized by authoritarianism think that they are always right, that their rules are the best, so disobedience of children is punished, very often physically.
Parents' authoritarianism can make them harsh tyrants. More often they are simply very strict, but do not cross the line into beating children and ill-treating them. They limit the freedom and independence of the child himself, without justifying their demands on him, accompanying instructions with severe prohibitions, physical punishment, strict control and reprimands. Children of such parents, in order to avoid punishment, strive to constantly and unquestioningly obey them, becoming lack of initiative. Authoritarian parents expect their children to become more mature than their peers, that they will be ahead of their age. The activity of such children is low, since this approach to education is focused only on the needs of their parents.
Authoritarianism in upbringing contributes to the development of a number of shortcomings in the child, negative aspects in personal development. When the child reaches adolescence, other problems begin to arise that are generated by the authoritarianism of parents. Frequent misunderstandings, conflicts, and hostility arise. Some teenagers even leave the home in which they lived with their family in order to free themselves from parental reproaches and rules. But only strong and active teenagers who have enough effort to leave can do this. Insecure and timid teenagers cannot do this, because they are more pliable, easily obey authority and learn to listen to adults, and do not try to make any attempts to solve anything on their own.
Also, children of authoritarian parents in adolescence are more easily susceptible to the bad influence of their peers, therefore they subordinate their behavior to their orders and get used to discussing own problems with them, and not with their parents. They falsely think that their parents will not pay any attention, will never understand them, therefore they consider it unnecessary to bother themselves if they equally turn out to be wrong. Disappointed in expectations, they become closer to the company and move away from their parents, protesting their principles, rules and values.
In relationships, authoritarianism is synonymous with despotism, not excluding the relationship between parents and child. Authoritarianism in education is a big problem, since it leaves its mark on the formation of the child’s personality. According to statistics, boys suffer more from violence in families where authoritarian parents flourish. Authoritarian parents are more loyal to girls. Such children are not confident in personal success, they have low self-esteem, they are less stress-resistant, unbalanced and indecisive. There are studies that demonstrate that indecisive children do not know how to adapt socially; they rarely initiate any joint activities, it is difficult to make acquaintances.
Authoritarianism in education is negative factor, influencing the fact that the child becomes not inquisitive, cannot act spontaneously, improvise, does not know how to defend his opinion, becomes irresponsible, therefore he often listens to the opinions of his elders. Children raised in authoritarianism develop a mechanism of external control, which is based on feelings of guilt and fear of punishment, and when the threat of external punishment disappears, the child’s behavior becomes antisocial.
Authoritarianism in relationships completely disables spiritual closeness to children; attachment is rarely formed between parents and children, which can lead to hostility, wariness and suspicion towards others.
When one partner is authoritarian in a relationship, the other will suffer greatly. Therefore, there can be no talk of a full-fledged family, where there is mutual respect, sincere love, and communication on equal terms between partners. When one of the partners understands that the other suffers from authoritarianism, he tries to leave the relationship, since this will only poison the lives of both; in the future, he also does not want the children to be raised in tyrannical conditions. Although there are exceptions when a partner takes the position of a victim and lives like this all his life.
People often confuse the concepts of authority and authoritarianism, but there is a significant difference between them. Authority is a form of influence acquired through certain behavior, wisdom, observance certain rules, ethical standards and public morality. Authoritative individuals earn respect regardless of personal opinions about the virtues that this respect ultimately gives. The word authority itself comes from Lat. “Auctoritas” means “influence”, “power”; authoritarian individuals dominate minds precisely because of their reputation.
Authoritarianism is a style of behavior in which the right to power is proclaimed by a person independently. A person who a priori has power is capable of becoming an authoritarian leader if he has not been able to adequately cope with the power that was given to him. Since a person already had a certain part of power, it would be very difficult to prevent its expansion.
If we briefly define the difference between the concepts of authority and authoritarianism, then authority is the power that the people around us give to a person themselves; authoritarianism is the power that a person “knocks out” on his own, forcing those around him to obey. Authoritarianism or simply the presence of power does not always mean authority; it must be earned.
How to develop authoritarianism
It is generally accepted that authoritarianism is a negative characteristic, but there are reasons to believe that positive point also in it. At correct construction behavior, authoritarianism helps the manager cope with the volume of information, with subordinates, and various responsibilities, however, authoritarianism in education is a negative tactic and, as mentioned above, relationships with the child should not be compromised, therefore in this case It's better not to use it. However, a person who is truly authoritarian is such everywhere.
If according to certain reasons a person considers it necessary to develop authoritarianism; this is his right; for this he can use certain recommendations. A person who is endowed with authoritarianism is always confident in himself. After all, if he were insecure, he would not be able to achieve power, so it is necessary to develop self-confidence. It is advisable to practice in front of a mirror, reciting various calls and mottos, in order to immediately see what position is best to take, what look to make. Inner strength increases if a person looks confident outwardly. Those around you immediately notice the gait and gaze of a strong personality, so when entering a room where there are already other people, an authoritarian person behaves in such a way that others feel that the whole room belongs only to him alone.
A person who is characterized by authoritarianism recognizes only the closest environment, consisting of individuals similar to him, but not so strong that they can harm him. He respects these “friends”, but he hates “strangers” (not like him). Failure to meet the “standards” is strongly condemned. Any dissent is aggressively suppressed.
You need to remember that any means to achieve a goal are good. If you have to use others for this, then so be it. Therefore, there is no need to become very attached to people, because they can then become a means to achieve goals.
To behave like an authoritarian person, you need to learn how to interact with others according to vertical diagram: “If I speak, you listen, don’t interrupt, don’t discuss, then do it.” Children are easily susceptible to this influence and often parents are forced to resort to this technique so that the child does what is required on time.
Often conditions force parents to be authoritarian, so their position is forced. So, mothers take on a lot of things on themselves, because of which they are in constant stress, which causes tension to build up and result in pressure on the child. Single mothers become authoritarian “by the will of fate”, no one helps them, therefore, fearing that they cannot cope with raising a child themselves, these women turn into despots.
If a leader wants to be authoritarian in the eyes of his subordinates, he can use some methods. For example, introduce the method of penalties, one of the popular ways to guarantee unquestioning obedience. Thanks to these sanctions, subordinates will develop a fear of punishment, which will become a negative reinforcement for non-compliant behavior.
When communicating with subordinates, any conversation should end with an order. It can be varied - from a request to make coffee, or to put paper in the printer, to an order to go to a meeting, to pick up documents. This should be done so that subordinates do not relax and do not allow themselves to think that they can simply exchange a few phrases with their boss. You need to develop commanding intonations, polish your tones, so that with one tone you can convey the absolute importance of the task. The voice should be strong, confident, with pressure. Formulate orders clearly, concisely and clearly.
You should not let others make important decisions, do not share information, and do not ask their advice or opinion. It’s better to sit down, think about everything carefully and categorically express your verdict: “I decided - and so it should be. To fulfillment!
Personalities with authoritarianism are adherents of conservatism, they follow traditions. Their speech is formulaic and their behavior is stereotypical, which declares consistency. An authoritarian individual considers himself a winner, so he always sets himself up for victory, not allowing doubts to creep into his thoughts. Since thoughts are material, you should say to yourself: “I am the best,” “I am unique,” “I am confident,” “I am strong,” “I have power, I can do anything,” etc. Of course, all thoughts should be firm, positive and aimed at becoming an independent and powerful person. Confidence and pride should not only exist in one’s head and remain thoughts, they should be manifested in actions.
The idea of individual differences in the manifestation of out-group discrimination formed the basis of the theory of the authoritarian personality, the founder of which is T. Adorno and his colleagues (Berkeley group) (Adorno et al., 2001). They, like Freud, believed that the reason for a negative attitude towards an out-group should be sought in the personality of its bearer. However, their views differed from Freud's. Freud believed that intergroup conflict corresponds to human nature and is therefore obligatory.
In the theory of Adorno and his colleagues, the idea is that intergroup conflict is an anomaly, and not any person can become its participant, but only those who have certain personal characteristics.
In their study, Adorno and his colleagues used whole line methods, among which were questionnaires including questions about the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents and their views; a clinical interview in which respondents talked about their backgrounds and also expressed their opinions on a number of social issues; a thematic-apperceptive test in which participants were shown a series of pictures depicting dramatic events and asked to talk about their actions in each case.
Adorno and his colleagues began their research by creating an anti-Semitism scale that asked respondents to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements about Jews. Members of the Berkeley group believed that anti-Semitism was only part of the ethnocentrism syndrome, to measure which they created another scale (the E-scale), which measured people's attitudes towards various minorities. After this, 80 respondents who completed the ethnocentrism scale and scored very high or very low on it participated in a clinical interview, through which the researchers tried to find out individual characteristics people belonging to two different types.
These studies made it possible to describe a personality prone to discrimination against outgroups - an authoritarian personality, which had the following traits:
conventionalism: supporting the values of the American middle class;
authoritarian subservience: uncritical submission to the idealized authorities of one's own group;
authoritarian aggression: the tendency to seek out people who do not respect conventional values in order to condemn, reject and punish them;
anti-intraception: rejection of everything subjective, imaginative, sensual;
superstitiousness: belief in the mystical destiny of one’s own destiny, a predisposition to thinking in rigid categories;
power thinking and the cult of power: thinking in categories such as dominance-subordination, strong-weak, leader-followers; identifying oneself with images that embody strength; display of strength and strength;
destructiveness and cynicism: general hostility, denigration of everything human;
projectivity: the predisposition to believe in dark and hazardous processes happening in the world; projection of one's unconscious, instinctive impulses onto external world;
sexuality: excessive interest in sexual “happenings.”
To measure the degree of authoritarianism, Adorno and colleagues created the F-scale. Its distinctive feature was the fact that the same statement could be associated with several subscales at once. Examples of statements on the authoritarianism scale are:
conventionalism: “Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues that children should learn”;
authoritarian servility: “Young people sometimes have rebellious ideas; but when they grow up, they must overcome it and calm down”;
authoritarian aggression: “Most of our social problems would be solved if we got rid of asocial elements, swindlers and weak-minded people”;
anti-intraception: “A businessman and a manufacturer are much more important for society than an artist and a professor”;
superstitiousness: “Sciences justify themselves, but there are many important things that the human mind will never understand”;
power thinking: “People can be divided into two classes; weak and strong";
destructiveness and cynicism: “Trust turns into disrespect”;
projectivity: “Today, when so many different people are constantly on the move, and everyone meets everyone, we need to be especially careful in protecting ourselves from infections and diseases”;
sexuality: “Homosexuals are no better than other criminals and should be severely punished.”
The correlation between the F- and E-scales was equal to 0.75, which meant that the degree of authoritarianism of a person was indeed directly related to the negativity of his attitude towards minorities. Subsequent experimental studies showed that authoritarian people demonstrate greater in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination even when assessing artificial groups constructed during the experiment.
Based on Freud's ideas, Adorno and colleagues believed that the reason for the formation of an authoritarian personality is a special situation of family development (an authoritarian father and a punishing mother; formal, strictly regulated relationships in the family; lack of warmth, trust and spontaneity between parents and children).
The authoritarian personality theory, like other concepts, has not escaped criticism. It occurs in the following directions.
1. The definition of an authoritarian personality in the form in which it was formed in the 50s of the 20th century does not correspond to today's realities, since it contains a number of traits specific to adults living at that time. In response to this criticism, the content of the authoritarian personality syndrome was modified.
The modern interpretation of the authoritarian personality belongs to B. Altmeyer (Dyakonova, Yurtaykin, 2000; Altemeyer, 1996), who associated it with such human characteristics as complete and unconditional submission to power and authority, adherence to traditional social norms(conventionalism, conformism), and aggressiveness towards those groups whose rejection is encouraged by the authorities. In particular, American studies in the 90s of the 20th century show that authoritarianism is associated with racism (Roets, Van Hiel, Cornells, 2006), with negative attitude to AIDS patients, drug addicts, defenders environment, abortion, the homeless (Peterson, Doty, Winler, 1993), illegal immigrants (Ommundsen, Larsen, 1997), working women (Pek, Leong, 2003), homosexuals (Stones, 2006), as well as representatives of other religious movements , for example, to Muslims (for Christians) (Rowatt, Franklin, Cotton, 2005). Altmeyer subsequently created the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale, which is still used to study authoritarianism.
However, some researchers believe that each of the three parameters of authoritarianism identified by Altmeyer has independent significance. This pattern is clearly evident in children (Rigby, 1998). This means that submission to authorities does not necessarily imply a high level of conformity - submission group norms, and conformism is political intolerance. Conforming people do not necessarily demonstrate negative attitudes towards other groups, but they are more sensitive to threats to ingroup cohesion. It is the presence of such a threat that leads to an increase in out-group discrimination among them (Feldman, 2003).
The independence of various dimensions of authoritarianism has led to the idea of creating new scales to measure it. One of these scales was created by K. Rigby. Its goal is to measure people’s attitudes towards representatives of various social institutions that embody power (police, army, judiciary, education) (Rigby, Metzer, Ray, 1986).
2. Features of the family situation are not the only reason for the emergence of an authoritarian personality. In response to this criticism, proponents of the theory began to look for other factors that influence the degree of authoritarianism. As a result, the following conditions were identified that contribute to the formation of an authoritarian personality.
a) Social situation in society. The degree of authoritarianism depends on people's perception of a threat to their position. For example, the number of authoritarian Americans increased with an increase in the perception of a threat from a large outgroup - the USSR, and the number of authoritarian New Zealanders - with the perception of a future economic recession, social disintegration, and a high crime rate in their country (Doty, Peterson, Winter, 1991; Duckitt, Fisher, 2003; McCann, 1999).
Some authors identify behavioral indicators that can be used to measure the level of authoritarianism without resorting to questionnaires. Among them:
political preferences (conventionalism). During periods social tension the number of supporters of conservatives increases and the number of supporters of liberals decreases;
attitude towards censorship (authoritarian servility). During periods of social tension, the number of supporters of censorship increases;
authoritarian religious movements (authoritarian servility). During periods of instability, the number of supporters of authoritarian religious movements increases;
attitude towards outgroups (authoritarian aggression). During periods of social tension, attitudes towards outgroups worsen;
interest in psychology (anti-intraception). During periods of social tension, the level of sales of books on psychology falls;
occult sciences(superstitiousness). During periods of social tension, the number of people becoming interested in astrology increases;
dog breed (power thinking). During periods of social tension, the number of fighting breed dogs increases;
Comedy characters (power thinking). During periods of social tension, comedy characters become more aggressive;
political cynicism (destructiveness and cynicism). During periods of social tension, the number of people who are distrustful and cynical about the government and others increases. social institutions;
punishments for sexual crimes (sexuality). During periods of social tension, penalties for sexual crimes increase.
It is possible that in this case it is not the social situation itself that is important, but its perception by the person: people who believe that the world around them is dangerous are more authoritarian (Duckitt et.al., 2002).
b) Situational threat. In order for outgroup rejection among authoritarian people to manifest itself in in full, a fairly temporary feeling of threat, not related to the situation in society. The source of such a threat can be a reminder to a person of the inevitability of death. Such a reminder leads to more negative attitudes towards people different from the fearful person. For example, Christians who were reminded of the inevitability of death rated Jews more negatively than those who were not reminded of death. However, this pattern is stronger among authoritarian people (Greenberg et.al., 1990).
c) Education. First, the level of education has some influence on authoritarianism. According to American data, four-year college education leads to a decrease in authoritarianism (Peterson and Lane, 2001). However, the likelihood of a decrease in the level of authoritarianism during education is associated with its type. For example, the results of a study conducted in South Africa and the United States showed that the level of authoritarianism was associated with the level of education only among residents of the United States, but not among residents of South Africa. One explanation for this phenomenon is that the ability of education to reduce authoritarianism is demonstrated to the extent that education is aimed at teaching dialectical thinking and is carried out with the participation of weakly authoritarian teachers (Duckitt, 1992).
Secondly, the level of authoritarianism depends on the nature of education. In particular, biology, chemistry, and engineering students are more authoritarian than humanities students (e.g., philosophers) and those in the social sciences (sociology, psychology) (Rubinstein, 1997). In addition, authoritarianism is negatively associated with academic performance. humanities, which involve the ability to see different points of view (Peterson, Lane, 2001).
d) Profession. For example, the level of authoritarianism among police officers is higher than that of professional soldiers and airport security, and their level of authoritarianism is higher than that of people not associated with security forces(Rubinstein, 2006).
d) Religiosity. One explanation for the difference in the level of authoritarianism between educated South Africans and the United States is that white South Africans are religious and strongly identify with their group, which has a greater influence on the level of authoritarianism than education (Duckitt, 1992).
f) Type of culture. This is indirectly confirmed by the presence of cross-cultural differences in the level of authoritarianism, which is higher among representatives of collectivist cultures (for example, Asian countries and Japan) than for residents of individualist cultures (for example, the United States). Authoritarianism is particularly strongly associated with so-called vertical individualism and collectivism compared to horizontal collectivism (Kemmelmeier et.al., 2003; Larsen et.al., 1990).
3. The presence of authoritarian traits does not guarantee that their bearer will engage in out-group discrimination. In response to this criticism, proponents of the authoritarian personality theory have put forward the following idea. An authoritarian person is characterized by a desire not to differ from the majority, therefore an authoritarian person is prone to out-group discrimination only in cases where such an attitude towards the out-group is considered acceptable and justified in society. Otherwise, he will be an ardent supporter of equality. Thus, personality traits, the behavior and views of an authoritarian person are a vivid, many times amplified reflection of the processes occurring in society.
In particular, an authoritarian personality has a locus of control that is value-significant in the group to which it belongs. For example, authoritarians in the United States have internal locus control, while for residents of Russia the connection between authoritarianism and locus of control has not been established (Dyakonova, Yurtaikin, 2000). Another example is associated with Russia in the 90s of the 20th century. Russians of the post-Soviet period since high degree Authoritarianism were supporters of the principle of equality cultivated in the Soviet Union and opposed government non-interference in trade relations. However, authoritarian US citizens supported the opposite ideas (McFarland, Ageyev, Abalakina-Paap, 1992).
Therefore, at the moment, when speaking about an authoritarian personality, the emphasis is placed not on the family situation of its development, but on its relationship with the group. For example, J. Duckitt (1989, 2000) believed that authoritarianism is an aspect group cohesion: an authoritarian person has a very strongly developed need for identification with a group; the values of his own group are very important to him, and he rejects the significance of the values of other social groups.
4. Authoritarianism is associated with a person’s attitude not only to outgroups, but also to other aspects of existence. Modern research showed that in addition to the characteristics already listed, an authoritarian personality is characterized by the support of certain attitudes and the presence of personality traits.
Resistance social change. Closely related to authoritarianism is a person’s attitude to social change. For example, a 1991 study in Russia before the presidential election found that authoritarian citizens were conservative in the sense that they resisted any change to the communist governance of the Soviet Union (McFarland, Ageyev, Abalakina-Papp, 1992). Another study conducted in Russia (Goertzel, 1989) indicates the existence of a similar connection, the results of which showed that authoritarianism Russian citizens associated with support for centralization of power (not decentralization), uniformity of opinion (not pluralism), and the greater attractiveness of the dove compared to the hawk. Finally, similar results were found in a recent study conducted in Romania (Krauss, 2002). This study found that authoritarianism was positively associated with support for communist pay-sharing, a planned, regulated economy, and fascist ideology, and negatively associated with support for pro-Western centrist parties. This is happening contrary to the ideology of the government, which is oriented towards capitalism.
Weak interest in political life(Peterson, Smirles, Wentworth, 1997).
Disbelief in conspiracies organized by state representatives. For example, authoritarian Americans believe more that President Kennedy was assassinated by a lone Oswald acting on his own behalf than that the assassination was carried out by government officials (McHoskey, 1995).
Support for one's own country's military intervention in the affairs of other states and a negative assessment of the political leaders of these countries. For example, authoritarian Americans were more supportive of the Gulf War and more likely to rate Saddam Hussein as a terrorist (Crowson, DeBacker, Thoma, 2006).
Strong expression of national identity (Blank, 2003).
A certain understanding of the causes and possibilities of correcting prejudices and stereotypes. Authoritarians are less likely to believe that ignorance is the cause of prejudice and are more likely to blame society for it. In addition, they have less faith that teaching tolerance is a way to solve the problem of interethnic conflicts (Hodson, Esses, 2005).
Rejection of human rights: democratic rights, incl. freedom of speech and freedom to demonstrate, the government's lack of the right to declare war without holding a referendum (Crowson, DeBacker, Thoma, 2006; Duckitt, Farre, 1994), as well as the rights of transgender people (Tee, Hegarty, 2006).
Positive attitude towards the law and negatively towards prisoners (Na, Loftus, 1998).
Assessing the seriousness of a crime: Authoritarians judge a crime committed by an authority figure, such as a law enforcement official or military officer, as less serious than committed by man, opposed to authority (Feather, 1998).
Attribution of responsibility to the criminal: Authoritarianism is positively associated with responsibility attributed to the criminal (Feather, 1998).
Attention to the race of participants trials: the more authoritarian people are, the more attention they focus on the race of the defendant and victim in criminal trials (Landwehr et.al., 2002).
Interest in crime: Authoritarians enjoy crime dramas based on true events (Raney, 2004).
Sexual aggressiveness: The higher the authoritarianism, the higher the willingness of men to commit sexual assault (Walker, Rowe, Quinsey, 1993). However, this relationship is mediated by rape myth acceptance* and hostile sexism: authoritarians accept rape myths and have negative attitudes toward women (Begany & Milburn, 2002).
Negative attitude towards psychologists and psychiatrists: authoritarian people have a negative attitude towards psychological and psychiatric centers and the professionals working in them (Furr, Usui, Hines-Martin, 2003).
Self-stereotyping, choosing a life path in accordance with gender-role stereotypes. For example, the results American Studies show that after graduating from college, men with high levels of authoritarianism try to build a career, while women experience disappointment and expect marriage (Peterson, Lane, 2001). In addition, authoritarian men stereotype themselves by gender, preferring “traditionally masculine” professions and hobbies (Lippa, Martin, Friedman, 2000).
Lack of interest in self: people with high levels of authoritarianism do not engage in introspection and do not strive for self-knowledge (Peterson, Lane, 2001).
Low level of moral development. According to American data, high levels of authoritarianism are associated with low levels of moral development according to Kohlberg, and low level authoritarianism - with a high level of moral development (Van Ijzendoorn, 1989).
Rejection of the idea of multiple systems of moral norms. Thus, according to American data (McHoskey, 1996; Wilson, 2003), authoritarianism is positively associated with the acceptance of the idea of the immutability of moral norms and negatively with support for the idea of their plurality. In addition, authoritarian people are less likely to believe that following moral standards should not harm others (Wilson, 2003).
Punishment-based parenting style (Peterson, Smirles, Wentworth, 1997).
Preference for entertainment related to conflict and physical impact participants at each other, and underestimation of entertainment that involves attention to one’s own inner world and the inner world of other people (Peterson, Pang, 2006).
People often like people who think like them. The higher the degree of authoritarianism, the more pronounced this effect. This pattern is especially strong in relation to a person who is different from others, is a member of a minority (for example, believes that drugs are as safe as alcohol or tobacco, and welcomes piercings) (Smith, Kalin, 2006).
Since authoritarianism is a personality syndrome, it is associated with other personality traits, for example, traits that form “ big five" Thus, authoritarianism is positively associated with extraversion and conscientiousness, and negatively with openness to new experiences (Akrami, Ekehammar, 2006; Butler, 2000; Ekehammar et.al., 2004; Heaven, Greene, 2001; Peterson, Smirles, Wentworth, 1997). In addition, the higher the authoritarianism, the higher the cognitive rigidity (Crowson, Thoma, Hestevold, 2005).
Originating in the early 50s of the 20th century, the theory of the authoritarian personality has changed significantly, but is still one of the main explanations intergroup conflicts. One of the constant features of this explanation remains the ignoring of the specifics of relations between the groups participating in the conflict. This specificity is taken into account in the theory of real conflict, which will be discussed in the next chapter.
According to the theory of Karl Marx, any state is an apparatus for the violent suppression of all other layers of society by the ruling class. Ideologically, many of the views of this theorist can be disputed, but such a definition seems quite fair. In a sense, any state is an authoritarian regime.
Until now, no one has really determined what exactly distinguishes an authoritarian regime from a democratic one. Nowadays, it is mainly the US State Department that is responsible for sorting countries into free and totalitarian, but it does this, understandably, based on the national interests of its homeland. F.D. Roosevelt is credited with defining Somoza Sr. as a scoundrel, but an American one, and therefore a democratic one. Franklin Delano himself was elected to a responsible post four times, and at the most fateful moments for the United States, which became a kind of record. At the same time, during his career, Roosevelt often made unpopular decisions among the population, and he was often reproached for establishing an authoritarian regime in the country.
French President Charles de Gaulle was also criticized by the opposition for being undemocratic. Seeking economic independence from the United States, he stopped the colonial war in Algeria, made certain concessions to the USSR, and committed many other actions that irritated his political opponents. The decisions made by Gaulle himself would not have found support from the opposition parties, but, confident in his rightness, he went ahead, as they say, and ultimately proved the correctness of his own policy. Feeling that the majority was not always right, the French president established an authoritarian regime of government.
Any strong government leader in difficult moments for the country is forced to make decisions that are not to the liking of a certain part of the political and economic elite, this happens in almost all countries. As if spontaneously, an opposition appears, financed by oligarchs or foreign opponents of the new course, which immediately begins to convince the population that the leader has established an authoritarian regime. The signs by which it is determined are numerous and often contradictory.
The main one of these signs is very convenient for manipulation. These are free elections. The voting process is always difficult and is not without violations, each of which can be declared flagrant. The next thing in line is usually the fact of suppressing the opposition, more often defined by the word “massacre.” Any embezzled oligarch who ends up behind bars can claim that he is being persecuted for political reasons, as if the very fact of involvement in opposition forces should serve as some kind of safe-conduct guaranteeing immunity and complete freedom of action - from embezzlement to banal hooliganism. However, it should be taken into account that those who oppose government policy are not at all cherished by government officials in any country, even in the bastion of democracy, the United States.
So, neither the fight against the opposition, nor violations during voting, nor the degree of participation of the broad masses in government are signs that distinguish an authoritarian regime from a totalitarian one. What's the difference then? It is significant, and lies in the personal abilities of a strong leader to attract supporters of his policies and maintain power by legal means. Authoritarianism is possible in democratic countries. But it is almost useless under totalitarianism, when a leader is promoted from the ranks of the ruling elite based on how convenient he is to its other members. An authoritarian regime is a necessary measure when a country is going through difficult times and various threats, from the Great Depression to possible collapse states.