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 an individual, this socio-psychological characteristic is expressed in the desire to achieve one’s own, to dominate in a group, to occupy the highest position, in the tendency to manipulate others, to achieve goals, but not so much thanks to one’s own merits, but 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 gives exaggeration and decisive importance to the opinions 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 of an individual, not only psychological factors and the external environment are of great importance, 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. Without paying special attention to 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 a child reaches adolescence, other problems begin to form that are caused by parental authoritarianism. 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 bad influence peers, therefore they subordinate their behavior to their orders, 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 upbringing is a negative factor that influences the fact that the child becomes not inquisitive, cannot act spontaneously, improvise, does not know how to defend his opinion, becomes irresponsible, and therefore 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 to interact with others according to a vertical scheme: “If I speak, you listen, don’t interrupt, don’t discuss, then do it.” Children are easily susceptible to such 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 was 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 a participant, but only one who has 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; clinical interview in which respondents talked about their past and also expressed their opinions on a number of social problems; 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. Afterwards, 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 the individual characteristics of people belonging to two different types.
These studies made it possible to describe a personality prone to outgroup discrimination - 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 it would be decided 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 have shown that authoritarian people demonstrate greater in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination, even when assessing artificial, experimentally constructed groups.
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 in 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 attitudes towards AIDS patients, drug addicts, environmentalists, abortion, and 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, 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 conformism - submission to group norms, and conformity - 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, we identified following conditions, contributing 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 social tension the number of supporters of introducing censorship is growing;
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 other social institutions increases;
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 authoritarian people’s rejection of outgroups to manifest itself in full, a sufficiently temporary feeling of threat, unrelated to the situation in society, is sufficient. 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, students - biologists, chemists and engineers are more authoritarian than students of the humanities (for example, philosophers) and those who study social sciences(sociology, psychology) (Rubinstein, 1997). In addition, authoritarianism is negatively associated with academic performance in the humanities, which require the ability to see different points vision (Peterson and 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. IN otherwise he will be an ardent supporter of equality. Thus, the personality traits, 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 in currently 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 of group cohesion: an authoritarian person has a very strongly developed need for identification with the 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 has shown 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.
Low 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 orchestrated by representatives state power(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 negative attitude towards prisoners (Na, Loftus, 1998).
Assessing the seriousness of a crime: Authoritarians evaluate a crime committed by an authority figure, such as an employee. law enforcement or military, 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).
Focus on the race of litigants: the more authoritarian people are, the more 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 real 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 Attitudes toward Psychologists and Psychiatrists: Authoritarians have negative attitudes toward psychological and psychiatric centers and the professionals who work there (Furr, Usui, Hines-Martin, 2003).
Self-stereotyping, choosing a life path in accordance with gender-role stereotypes. For example, the results of American studies show that after graduating from college, men with high level Authoritarianism tries to build a career, and 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 moral development. According to American data, high levels of authoritarianism are associated with low levels of Kohlberg's moral development, and low levels of authoritarianism are associated with high levels 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 associated with conflict and physical impact of participants on each other, and underestimation of entertainment that involves attention to one’s 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 1950s, the theory of the authoritarian personality has changed significantly, but is still one of the main explanations of 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.
Today in ISKCON there is a lot of talk about leadership principles. Devotees attend seminars and meetings and read books on the art of leadership. However, Srila Prabhupada, as far as we know, did not attend any seminars or read any books on leadership, but was nevertheless a perfect leader. Even nondevotees admit this. One of the main managers of Stephen Covey's organization, after reading Srila Pabhupada Lilamrita, noted that Srila Prabhupada fully embodied the “seven habits.” Why was Srila Prabhupada naturally a good leader?
The leader is influence and the source of influence is Krishna. Because Srila Prabhupada was directly related to the Supreme Lord, Sri Krishna, he was endowed with the potency of devotion, bhakti-sakti. Srila Prabhupada, completely immersed in devotion to Krishna, understood that this devotion awakens. Therefore, he made sure that the spirit of devotion was always present in his society. We must learn to recognize, study and practice these principles, which were something completely natural for Srila Prabhupada.
There is a huge difference between authority and authoritarianism. The following are Webster's Collegiate Dictionary definitions for these words. It is in this sense that these words are used in this book. "Authoritative" means "based on or having authority." An authoritative person (or group of people) deserves recognition and trust.
The word "authoritarian", according to Webster's dictionary, has two meanings. The first indicates blind obedience to authority, and the second indicates the concentration of power in the hands of leaders who bear no constitutional responsibility to the people. In other words, such leaders are in no way responsible for the problems of society and claim respect regardless of their behavior.
Thanks to its inner spiritual power, the real spiritual leader has authority. He does not rely on blind obedience, title or customs accepted in one or another religious organization. He always tries to improve internally and knows that he will cope with the burden of responsibility of his position only if he is open, pure and selfless. He cares for others because he feels the connection of all beings with Sri Krishna and knows that all souls are part and parcel of the Lord. Such a leader always feels responsible for people. If someone suffers, complains, or perceives a situation incorrectly, they feel personally responsible for it. He makes every effort to understand what is his fault in the occurrence of a particular problem, and how to solve it. People naturally follow such a leader; he earns their sincere respect.
The current ISKCON is being torn apart by great internal conflicts, as for example with the ritvikvadis, who are considered deviant. And the recent mass exodus of devotees to other Gaudiya Vaishnava organizations has been a real shock for many ISKCON members. Some leaders believe that it is necessary to somehow combat these problems, but many of them do not even think about the fact that they often created them themselves.
If the guru is humble, considering himself just a priest and trying simply to help his flock, then both the disciples and other followers will be deeply grateful to him. If he considers himself better than others, proud of his followers and position, then there will be people who will begin to convince everyone that he is just a clergyman, and not a guru in in every sense this word. The highest justice is seen in this, and it is quite possible that the Lord Himself arranges this to teach a lesson to His devotee.
During the time of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, the mahantas, the temple leaders, under the influence of greed, began to spread the jati-gosaya heresy and tried to gain a monopoly on the right to worship the salagrama-sila and give initiation. When Srila Saraswati Thakura challenged these mahantas, they hired goons and attacked his group of pilgrims during the Gaura-mandala parikrama in Navadvipa. As a result, many local residents, seeing their mahantas attacking innocent Vaishnava pilgrims, lost faith in their traditional religion of Gaudiya Vaishnavism, and heretical apasa mpradayas began to spring up like mushrooms after rain.
There is a proverb in Bengal: “A fish rots from the head.” This means that deviations that occur within a religious tradition or organization are often the responsibility of the religious leaders themselves. Some of the causes of the current problems in our communities are self-interest, authoritarianism and pride, which, as the history of Gaudiya Vaishnavism shows, has caused problems before. History often repeats itself.
Excerpt from the book Hidden Obstacles on the Path of Bhakti by Purnachandra Goswami.
In order to understand the meaning of the word “authoritarianism” as accurately as possible, it is easiest to cite a number of synonyms, such as: antidemocratism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism.
Authoritarianism is a style of behavior that is characterized by a strong desire to subordinate, dominate, manage and lead, making absolutely all decisions. An authoritarian person is not inclined to consult, discuss or listen to someone’s opinion; for him there is only his view of reality and his opinion, which he considers the truth.
Authoritarianism as a behavioral style can manifest itself in such areas as leadership, education and communication. However, the characteristics of behavior in all these areas differ little. At work, in the family and in the personal sphere, the authoritarian personality type is manifested in the following factors:
- Increased aggressiveness, rigidity.
- Tendency to coercion, threats, pressure on others (family members or subordinates).
- Strict control, striving for maximum discipline.
- Excessive demands.
- Ignoring the psychological factor, human emotions.
- Focus on results.
- Uncompromising.
This behavior is common, and it has its reasons. The first lies in strict upbringing. A child growing up in a family where authoritarian upbringing reigns is likely to grow into just such a leader. Often an authoritarian leader comes from a person who grew up in dysfunctional family or he was unsuccessful at school, and all his dreams were aimed at achieving success, material well-being, and stability in life.
Sometimes an authoritarian leadership style is a consequence psychological trauma, loneliness, childhood grievances or desire for revenge. Often people choose the authoritarian leadership style consciously, believing that only it leads to real success and achievement of maximum results - in the family, in communication, at work.
In business
Most often, authoritarianism manifests itself precisely as a type of management. Such a leader is characterized by rigidity, the desire for absolute discipline, absolute control. Authoritarian leadership does not involve discussing problems with the team, collective decision-making, voting, brainstorming, listening to other people's ideas or, especially, advice. Such a leader makes decisions exclusively on his own, based on his personal judgments, he has a clear set of ideas and opinions, and he is not inclined to flexibility.
Severe pressure and coercion are often used, the leader is not inclined to make concessions, there are no force majeures for him or family circumstances. He is not interested in the personal problems of his subordinates, and an employee who is late for work for a serious personal reason (for example, due to the illness of a loved one) will be punished without the opportunity to explain the reason.
This type of leadership has its pros and cons. Moreover, there are quite a lot of advantages, and a conscious leader, competently applying an authoritarian management style at the right stage, will be able to achieve excellent results.
This type of management can be successfully used at the initial stage, when the team (enterprise, firm) is just being formed. With the help of this leadership style, you can develop in employees clear goals, give them an understanding of the structure and form of work, its style, outline the scope of work responsibilities, and establish discipline.
The disadvantages of authoritarian management may not be obvious to the leader himself, who prefers this style, but are obvious to others. The lack of opportunity to express themselves and introduce their ideas completely destroys the initiative of employees, and a tense psycho-emotional atmosphere leads to apathy and reluctance of team members to work and achieve goals.
This leads to “stagnation”, a lack of new ideas and methods, and staff turnover. Workers under such management become secretive, passive, they ingratiate themselves and hide shortcomings in their work, do not strive to do it at the proper level, but, fearing the wrath of their superiors, carefully cover up shortcomings. Of course, this leads to an inevitable decline in the quality of the team’s work.
In the personal sphere
The authoritarian approach is used not only in the business sphere, but also in education, and even in communication. This type of communication and upbringing has the same characteristics as authoritarian pressure in the work environment. Characteristics:
- All decisions are made individually.
- Rejection of the child as a person.
- Rigidity, pressure.
- The “carrot and stick” method.
- Coercion without explanation.
- Severe penalties for disobedience.
- Inability to seek compromise.
- Reluctance to listen.
- Indifference to other people's emotions.
Of course, such a parent, relative, spouse is not just a tyrant who wants those around him to suffer. The authoritarian style of communication has its reasons, which may lie in the fear of loneliness, in childhood traumas, in a painful desire for respect, recognition, in self-doubt. The person is convinced that his methods will lead to good results that he is a fair and strict teacher, and all other methods are connivance, and it will lead to trouble.
As a result, the child’s ability to analyze, think, and intellectual abilities will become dull, he will simply stop asking questions, and his academic success will decline year after year.
Parents who practice authoritarian parenting are extremely demanding of their child, but instead of stimulating him, they use methods of threats, psychological pressure, punishment and coercion. A child must certainly deserve toys or beautiful things hard work and great achievements, but just like that, from parental love, they are not given as a gift.
If the authoritarian style family education and has its advantages, then only in moderation, and only in early childhood, when the child is not yet able to walk, talk, make decisions and express himself independently, in other words, until he reaches the age of four or five. But in this case, the parents, making all decisions for the child, protect him and take care of him, and this is not an authoritarian approach, but a healthy, normal upbringing.
Method results
Alas, the authoritarian method of education always has negative consequences, sometimes quite severe. A child who lives and grows up in fear is deprived of the joys of childhood and is unlikely to become a happy, healthy and fulfilling person in the future.
Often authoritarianism in the family leads to the child becoming despotic and cruel. He takes out his pain, grievances and fears on the weaker. He can mock animals, offend children at school, and become a hooligan.
A child raised in an authoritarian regime does not know what compromises or peaceful resolution of conflicts are, does not know true friendship, is not inclined to love others, and does not know pity (because he did not receive this in the family). Such a child is convinced that the one who is stronger is right, he gets everything by brute force, behaves cynically, rudely and cruelly.
Another option for the development of events is the development weak personality. The child does not have own desires, does not feel the right to get what he wants, he is lacking initiative and only knows how to follow orders. This man is deprived of one's own will, he has extremely low self-esteem and lacks feeling self-esteem, he considers himself weaker than others. Of course, such a person will not be able to achieve real development, success and prosperity in life.
Summary
Extremes are dangerous in everything, and it is worth considering that any approach has both disadvantages and positive sides. Authoritarianism in work, education, marriage can be caused by good intentions, the desire to achieve great goals, but can lead to disastrous consequences.
The art of communication, leadership, education is a complex art. But it can be comprehended without limiting oneself to boundaries and without accepting any methods as the final truth. After all, the goal of education is to raise a harmonious, happy and successful personality, and such a personality will not be formed in an atmosphere of fear and pressure. It’s the same in the business sphere: no brilliant ideas will appear and no rapid success will await the enterprise if fear and negativity reign in the team. Author: Vasilina Serova
During my work as a psychologist, I had the opportunity to talk with hundreds of people who had previously been diagnosed by other specialists with oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, excessive anxiety, and other mental disorders. I was struck by the following: (1) how many of them there are people opposed to authoritarian power, and (2) how few such power-fighters are among those who diagnosed them.
Opponents of authoritarian power question the legitimacy of any government before taking it seriously. Assessing the legitimacy of a government includes an analysis of whether or not this government knows what it is talking about, whether it is honest, and whether it cares about the people who respect the government. And if these doubters come to the conclusion that the government is illegitimate, they challenge this power and begin to resist it - sometimes actively, and sometimes actively-passively, sometimes smartly, and sometimes not.
Some activists complain about how few such power fighters exist in the United States. One reason may be that many natural opponents of government are now being referred to psychopathologists and prescribed medication before they even develop political awareness and understanding of government oppression over society.
Why do psychologists and psychiatrists diagnose opponents of authoritarian power with a mental disorder?
To get into graduate school, master's or internship, and receive a diploma or academic degree To become a psychologist or psychiatrist, you need to jump through a lot of burning hoops. All this requires compliance with authority in behavior and an attentive attitude towards it - even if you treat it without respect. When selecting and preparing professionals from the field of psychiatry and psychology for work, a lot of power seekers are eliminated. Wandering through the open spaces higher education ten years of my life, I know that diplomas and titles are mainly proof of compliance. Those who study for a long time live for many years in a world of conformity, in which a person gets used to obeying the demands of the authorities or superiors. Therefore, to many doctors, both medical and scientific, people who are unlike them and who do not agree to adapt their behavior seem to be aliens. That is, the diagnosis is obvious, the case is clinical.
I have found that most psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals are not only extremely obedient to authority, but also do not understand how much obedience they have. It also became clear to me that the anti-authoritarian behavior of patients causes great concern and anxiety among these specialists, and from this comes both diagnoses and treatment.
During my studies I discovered the following. All you have to do to get labeled as someone who has “issues with the boss” is simply not cozying up to a clinical director who is a hybrid of Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, and Howard Cosell. When one of the teachers told me that I had “problems with the authorities,” I did not understand why I was given such a stigma. On the one hand, I found it quite funny, because in the environment of working class children in which I grew up, I was considered quite easy-going and obedient. After all, I always did my homework, didn’t skip classes, and got good grades. But while my new branding made me smile widely because I was now considered a "bad boy", I was also very concerned about the profession I had gotten myself into. If a person like me has “problems with management,” then what do they call those guys with whom I grew up and was brought up? They cared about a lot of things, but these guys didn’t give a damn about school and their behavior in it. Well, I found the answer pretty quickly.
Diagnosis of mental disorder for opponents of government
In 2009, the Psychiatric Times website published an article entitled "ADHD & ODD: Confronting the Challenges of Disruptive Behavior." aggressive behavior). It reported that the “disruptive mental disorders” referred to in the title of the article are the most common mental health problems in children and adolescents. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, by definition, is characterized by an inability to concentrate, pathologically increased distractibility, poor self-control, impulsivity and hyperactivity. The article defines oppositional defiant disorder as “a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and demonstrative behavior without serious interference with the fundamental rights of others that manifests itself in behavioral disturbances.” Symptoms of this disease include “frequent defiance or refusal to comply with the requests and rules of adults,” as well as “frequent arguments with adults.”
Psychologist Russell Barkley, one of the leading authorities in mainstream medicine on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, says that people with the disorder have what he calls a deficit in "rule-based behavior." These people are less susceptible to the rules of generally accepted authorities and less sensitive to positive and negative consequences. According to mainstream psychiatric authorities, youth with oppositional defiant disorder also have deficits in “rule-based behavior.” Therefore, quite often in people at a young age these two types of disorders are present simultaneously.
But should everyone with this “rule-based behavior deficit” be given a medical diagnosis and treated with medication?
Albert Einshein in his youth would probably have been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and perhaps oppositional defiant disorder to boot. Albert ignored his teachers, failed college entrance exams twice, and had difficulty holding down a job. However, Einstein biographer Robert Clark (Ronald Clark) in the book "Einstein: The Life and Times" argues that Albert's problems did not arise from a lack of attention, but rather from hatred of the authoritarian Prussian discipline in schools, where he studied. “The teachers in elementary school seemed to me like sergeants, but in the gymnasium the teachers were like lieutenants,” said Einstein. At the age of 13, he read Kant's difficult work Critique pure reason" - because she was interesting to him. Clark also says that Einstein did not want to prepare for college, rebelling against his father's "intolerable" "practical profession." When Einstein finally entered college, one of the teachers told him: "You have one drawback: you can’t say anything.” However, the very qualities of Einstein that greatly upset his superiors allowed him to succeed.
By today's standards, legendary organizer Saul Alinsky, who wrote "Reveille for Radicals" and "Rules for Radicals," would likely have received one or more diagnoses of destructive mental illness. disorders. Recalling his childhood, Alinsky said: “I never thought about walking on grass until I saw a sign that said, 'Don't walk on grass.' After that, I just started trampling on them.” Alinsky also recalled being taught Hebrew by a rabbi at age ten or eleven:
One day I read three pages in a row without a single mistake in pronunciation, and then suddenly one cent fell on the book. … The next day the rabbi came again and told me to start reading. I refused. I just sat there in silence, refusing to read. He asked why I was silent and I replied, “It’s a nickel or nothing this time.” He swung and slapped me so hard that I flew across the room.
Many people who suffer from increased anxiety and/or depression are also opponents of authority. Often, the main worry in their lives that fuels anxiety and/or depression is the fear that disrespect for illegitimate authority will lead them to financial or social marginalization. At the same time, they are afraid that compliance with such an illegitimate government will simply kill them.
I have spent a lot of time with people who, at some point in their lives, had such strange and extravagant thoughts and behavior that they became terribly afraid for their families and themselves. They were diagnosed with schizophrenia or psychosis, but then fully recovered and led long and productive lives. Among these people I did not meet a single person who could not be called a power fighter. After recovery, these people channeled their anti-authoritarian impulses into more creative political goals, including reforming mental health treatment.
Many opponents of authoritarianism who have previously lived with a diagnosis of mental illness have told me that upon receiving such a diagnosis they were faced with a dilemma. Authoritarian people, by definition, require unconditional obedience. Therefore, any resistance to diagnosis and treatment caused great concern among authoritarian psychiatrists and psychologists. They felt that patients were getting out of control, they labeled them as “untreatable,” they passed down increasingly harsh diagnoses and sentences and prescribed ever stronger drugs. This caused rage among anti-authoritarians, sometimes such that their behavior frightened even their loved ones.
There are opponents of authoritarianism who take psychiatric drugs to help them live and work, but often reject psychiatrists' explanations of why they find it difficult to function without drugs. For example, they take Adderall (an amphetamine prescribed for ADHD sufferers) but know that their attention problems are not the result of a biochemical imbalance in the brain, but Boring job. Similarly, many opponents of authoritarianism in a situation severe stress occasionally take prescribed benzodiazepines such as Xanax, but feel they would be safer smoking marijuana occasionally, which they cannot do because they are drug tested at work.
From experience, I know that many power seekers who have received a diagnosis from a psychiatrist usually do not reject all power, but only that which they consider illegitimate. But it turns out that this is usually the power in society.
Maintaining the social status quo
Americans are increasingly convinced that inattention, anger, anxiety and paralyzing despair are illnesses that need to be treated, rather than the result of social problems that need to be corrected politically. Just impossible to find The best way to maintain the status quo in society, rather than seeing inattention, anger, anxiety and depression as a biochemical problem of a person who is sick, rather than a normal reaction to an increasingly authoritarian society.
But in reality, depression is closely linked to social and financial ills. People are much more likely to become depressed when they are unemployed, underemployed, on benefits, or in debt. And children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder always pay attention when they are paid, or when this or that job or activity is new to them, when it is interesting to them, or when they chose it themselves.
In previous dark times, authoritarian monarchies formed alliances with authoritarian religious institutions. As the world emerged from the dark ages and entered the Age of Enlightenment, there was a powerful surge of energy. To a large extent, this revival was associated with a skeptical attitude towards authoritarian and immoral institutions and with the return of confidence in one's own strength and intelligence. Today we are entering another dark Middle Ages, only the institutions in it are different. Americans desperately need anti-authoritarian leaders who will question, challenge, and resist new illegitimate authorities and restore faith in their own common sense.
There will be supporters and opponents of authoritarianism in every generation. IN American history There is no such tradition when those in power take effective action, inspiring other people to successfully rebel and revolt. But every now and then, rebels like Thomas Paine, Crazy Horse or Malcolm X appear who challenge the system. Therefore, authoritarian forces marginalize those who fight the system, depriving them of funds, criminalize anti-authoritarianism, and diagnose opponents of authoritarianism with mental disorder, and sell them drugs for the purpose of “treating” their illness.