In some social-science project years ago I stumbled upon the books of Bob Altemeyer referenced in the article, and I recall finding an interview with him where he explains that right-wing authoritarianism is the only sort of authoritarianism, and that people like Stalin and Castro who are repressive dictators, really represent right-wing authoritarian leadership.
After reading his seminal book and a bunch of popular-press articles and interviews about his work, his group struck me as people so immersed in their own worldview that the bizarreness of the rationalizations required to make it coherent are completely overlooked.
That said, the article linked to provides at the end a link to the questions on the test for new purported "left-wing authoritarianism" scale, and that strikes me as a bizarro mirror-image that is just as blinkered as its model.
Reason magazine was on this in March 2018: https://reason.com/2018/03/08/tracking-down-the-elusive-leftwing-autho/, which I suppose is only proper given their position on the Nolan-chart/political compass.
I'll hazard a guess that in most social-psychology there is a profound difference between what they claim "authoritarianism" to mean and the common meaning, but they are willing to trade on people perceiving it to be used in the common meaning right up until the point when there is a cogent challenge to what they are saying, at which point the challenger can be safely outed as a rube who doesn't even know the technical meaning of the word under discussion.
I’m completely prepared to believe that the technical findings and definitions are balderdash. Still, it strikes me as a motte and bailey move: “oh, but the definition _includes_ that you have these awful traits ‘in support of traditional values, so by definition that’s a right wing thing.”
That’s the motte. The bailey is where you can be open to challenges like this:
“Using standard personality tests, Costello found that both left and right-wing authoritarians tended to be disagreeable, lacked intellectual humility, were not particular contentious and had a tendency to be mean.”
Although frankly even the motte is weak. The left has been ascendant long enough in some places to have its own traditions and traditional values now. They think they renew these in every individual through acts of pure practical reason — as Kant says, every rational being is himself the legislator of the moral law that binds him, which just happens to be the same for all because the Order of Reason is the same. But just try fielding a practical reason argument against, say, Planned Parenthood or gay marriage on the campus with traditional left wing values, and see how many authoritarians you meet.
I recall finding an interview with him where he explains that right-wing authoritarianism is the only sort of authoritarianism, and that people like Stalin and Castro who are repressive dictators, really represent right-wing authoritarian leadership.
And the self-professed left-wingers supporting the likes of Castro or Stalin were actually right-wingers.
The logic goes: authoritarianism is bad, the right is bad, anyone who is an authoritarian must be on the right, even if he's a leftist. It's simple, really. It works for all kinds of things, like sexual predation, or corruption. Q.E.D.
Really in a place like Minneapolis, the center left are the holders of traditional values. They’ve run that city for half a century. This is their view of power, of the right way for government to exercise control, these are their police forces and their local laws. The challenge posed is a challenge to their way of doing things, not to mine. It was their authoritarian enforcement mechanism that provoked all this.
In some social-science project years ago I stumbled upon the books of Bob Altemeyer referenced in the article, and I recall finding an interview with him where he explains that right-wing authoritarianism is the only sort of authoritarianism, and that people like Stalin and Castro who are repressive dictators, really represent right-wing authoritarian leadership.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading his seminal book and a bunch of popular-press articles and interviews about his work, his group struck me as people so immersed in their own worldview that the bizarreness of the rationalizations required to make it coherent are completely overlooked.
That said, the article linked to provides at the end a link to the questions on the test for new purported "left-wing authoritarianism" scale, and that strikes me as a bizarro mirror-image that is just as blinkered as its model.
Reason magazine was on this in March 2018: https://reason.com/2018/03/08/tracking-down-the-elusive-leftwing-autho/, which I suppose is only proper given their position on the Nolan-chart/political compass.
I'll hazard a guess that in most social-psychology there is a profound difference between what they claim "authoritarianism" to mean and the common meaning, but they are willing to trade on people perceiving it to be used in the common meaning right up until the point when there is a cogent challenge to what they are saying, at which point the challenger can be safely outed as a rube who doesn't even know the technical meaning of the word under discussion.
I’m completely prepared to believe that the technical findings and definitions are balderdash. Still, it strikes me as a motte and bailey move: “oh, but the definition _includes_ that you have these awful traits ‘in support of traditional values, so by definition that’s a right wing thing.”
ReplyDeleteThat’s the motte. The bailey is where you can be open to challenges like this:
“Using standard personality tests, Costello found that both left and right-wing authoritarians tended to be disagreeable, lacked intellectual humility, were not particular contentious and had a tendency to be mean.”
Although frankly even the motte is weak. The left has been ascendant long enough in some places to have its own traditions and traditional values now. They think they renew these in every individual through acts of pure practical reason — as Kant says, every rational being is himself the legislator of the moral law that binds him, which just happens to be the same for all because the Order of Reason is the same. But just try fielding a practical reason argument against, say, Planned Parenthood or gay marriage on the campus with traditional left wing values, and see how many authoritarians you meet.
I recall finding an interview with him where he explains that right-wing authoritarianism is the only sort of authoritarianism, and that people like Stalin and Castro who are repressive dictators, really represent right-wing authoritarian leadership.
ReplyDeleteAnd the self-professed left-wingers supporting the likes of Castro or Stalin were actually right-wingers.
They are still rebelling against Daddy.
ReplyDeleteThe logic goes: authoritarianism is bad, the right is bad, anyone who is an authoritarian must be on the right, even if he's a leftist. It's simple, really. It works for all kinds of things, like sexual predation, or corruption. Q.E.D.
ReplyDeleteRe. Texan's comment. This is why I write novels. Reality is so strange that fiction makes a lot more sense.
ReplyDeleteOr as I've been known to tell students, "This has to be history. No editor would let an author, even Tom Clancy, get away with this."
LittleRed1
Really in a place like Minneapolis, the center left are the holders of traditional values. They’ve run that city for half a century. This is their view of power, of the right way for government to exercise control, these are their police forces and their local laws. The challenge posed is a challenge to their way of doing things, not to mine. It was their authoritarian enforcement mechanism that provoked all this.
ReplyDeleteThere is no Left, there is no Right. There is only the Force. (a joke)
ReplyDelete