Anti-Authoritarian Personalities

Research by contemporary political psychologists indicates that there are two types of Authoritarians.  The same research suggests that that there could be two types of Anti-Authoritarians, their polar opposites. 

I have to admit that this essay involves more speculation than my last one.  There are a lot of professional publications concerning the two types of Authoritarians, RWA and SDO, but there are hardly any which specifically address the personalities of people who are at the opposite ends of those scales.  In fact, I've found only one such publication by a political scientist: The Anti-Authoritarian Personality, a book published by William P. Kreml in 1977.  Kreml was relying on research and theories still dependent on Freudian psychology and the perception of nonconformity as "deviant" and "maladaptive."  You can see that in his working definition of "Anti-Authoritarian:" someone who "...uncritically opposes 'standards [and] commands.'"  

"Anti-authoritarian" is currently defined as  being "opposed to authoritarianism; democratic; characterized by or advocating or based upon the principles of democracy or social equality."  To quote psychologist Bruce Levine:

Anti-authoritarians question whether an authority is a legitimate one before taking that authority seriously. Evaluating the legitimacy of authorities includes assessing whether or not authorities actually know what they are talking about, are honest, and care about those people who are respecting their authority. And when anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they challenge and resist that authority—sometimes aggressively and sometimes passive-aggressively, sometimes wisely and sometimes not.  [February 26, 2012]

Now that's my definition of "Anti-Authoritarian!"

It was Bob Altemeyer's 1996 study which gave me the idea for the current essay.  In that study, he tested "Right-Wing Authoritarian" ("RWA") and "Social Dominance Orientation" ("SDO") individuals on a number of other established personality scales. In my last essay here, I discussed most of the attributes he found to be associated with those political orientations.  But there were two values found to have significantly negative associations with RWA and SDO orientations:

• "Self-Direction," which Shalom Schwartz defines as "independent, autonomous thought and action;"

and

• "Universalism," which Shalom Schwartz defines as "Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature."

Moreover, the negative association with "Self-Direction" was stronger for RWAs than for SDOs, while the negative association with "Universalism" was stronger for SDOs than for RWAs. 

It struck me that these results suggested who was at the opposite ends of the RWA and SDO scales.  And it made sense. 

High RWAs strive to maintain traditional rules as the basis for authority.  Who would be their opposites on the RWA scale?  People who did not accept and regard traditional rules as authoritative.  People who would be willing to entertain new rules and decide for themselves which rules ultimately have legitimate authority.  I'll call it a "Self-Guided Orientation," or "SGO," since I haven't seen it proposed elsewhere.  These are individuals who decide for themselves what they will believe and do, independent of tradition. 

It's my suspicion that Presidential candidate Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party represents this political orientation.  Reviewing his issue positions, I note that he emphasizes individual determination and seeks to minimize social rules and controls.  While this tacitly accepts inequality, he is not empasizing the maintenance of social dominance by particular individuals or segments of the population.

High SDOs, on the other hand, strive to establish and maintain superiority for themselves and/or their identity groups as the basis for authority.  Who would be their opposites on the SDO scale?  People who are oriented toward "understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature."  As discussed by Felicia Pratto et al., such individuals are more oriented toward social equality, altruism, tolerance, and empathy toward individuals who are not like them.  Since I haven't seen this political orientation named anywhere else, I'll call it a "Holistic Welfare Orientation," or "HWO."  If HWOs are oriented politically towards equality and protection for the welfare of all people, I think it's fair to surmise that HWOs peceive legitimate authority as deriving from consensus and common benefit. 

Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for the Presidency, appears to be a prime example of this political orientation.  On her campaign website, she declares,

“My Power to the People Plan creates deep system change, moving from the greed and exploitation of corporate capitalism to a human-centered economy that puts people, planet and peace over profit...This plan will end unemployment and poverty; avert climate catastrophe; build a sustainable, just economy; and recognize the dignity and human rights of everyone in our society and our world."

The combination of these ideas leads me to propose the following as a map of our socio-political orientations:

I've included the gray squares because real-world observation indicates that there can be an overlap or blending of political orientations.  Altemeyer reported that the most prejudiced people he found in his research were those who were both High SDO and High RWA.  I believe I have a mix of strong HWO tendencies with an inclination toward SGO, as well.  To what degree are these orientations separated or blended in the U.S. population?  I have no idea.  As I said earlier, there's been hardly any professional research specifically concerning Anti-Authoritarians.  Which is a shame, in my opinion.

We're Dealing with 2 Types of Authoritarians

Political psychologists have found that there isn't just one authoritarian political orientation, as once thought.  There are two.  Witness the Presidential campaigns of Ted Cruz and Donald Trump.

The "Authoritarian Personality" was first defined in a 1950 book by that name, written by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford.  They theorized that there are "potentially fascistic" individuals in society who have a common personality "structure." To test their theory, they interviewed and gave a value scale questionnaire (the "F-scale") to over 2,000 subjects.  They concluded that 

There exists something like "the" potentially fascist character, which is by itself a "structural unit." In other words, traits such as conventionality, authoritarian submissiveness and aggressiveness, projectivity, manipulativeness, etc., regularly go together.

The study provoked interest, at first, but fell out of favor due to complaints about its methodology and perceived bias.

However, the concept and measurement scale were later refined by Bob Altemeyer, beginning at least in 1981.  His research  repeatedly found that there were individuals who had personalities which included: 

1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in    
    their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism. 

Altemeyer called these individuals "Right-Wing Authoritarians," or "RWAs."  In his 2007 paper titled "The Authoritarians," he explained that he was using the word "Right" in its Old English sense: "lawful, proper, correct, doing what the authorities said."  As he noted later, the authorities in question had to be regarded as "legitimate" by the RWAs.

In 1996, Altemeyer studied how RWAs performed on some other personality tests.
What he found was that RWAs also got high positive scores on the following scales (in descending order): 
"Religious Fundamentalism"
"Self-Righteousness" 
"Traditionalism," defined by Shalom Schwartz as:

Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provides...Maintaining cultural and religious traditions      

"Dangerous World" (belief that the world is dangerous)
"Conformity," defined by Shalom Schwartz as:

Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms.

and "Need for Structure."

In summary, RWAs tend to be religious fundamentalists who see the world as dangerous and themselves as "righteous."  They are conformists who need structure, and they value the maintainance of traditional ideas and norms.  I would prefer to say that they have a "Rule-Guided Orientation," but "RWA" is the established label.

Several writers have noted that Donald Trump's Presidential campaign appears to have brought out Authoritarians (for examples, see here and here and here).  I think Trump is authoritarian, but he doesn't fit the RWA type.  True, he is trying to appeal to RWAs.  He went to Liberty University, a self-described Christian institution, and presented himself as a defender of the faith.  But Ted Cruz is actually more representative of the RWA.  He didn't just appear at Liberty University, he announced his Presidential campaign there.
Moreover, his announcement speech specifically noted his father's adoption of Baptist Christianity, his mother being the daughter of missionaries, and his own belief that our rights come from God Almighty.  And he advocates a religious test for public office:
 

[source]

Coincidentally, his surname, "Cruz," is  Spanish for "Cross!" 

While Altemeyer was refining the definition and scales for RWAs, psychologists Felicia Pratto, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle uncovered another significant political orientation.  They theorized that people vary in the extent to which they desire that their in-group "dominate and be superior to out-groups." They believed that Individuals with a high "Social Dominance Orientation" would "favor social practices that maintain or exacerbate inequality among groups and will oppose social practices that reduce group inequality," and their research confirmed it.   A battery of personality tests given to almost 2,000 college students between 1990 and 1992 disclosed that Social Dominance Orientation ["SDO"] had significant positive associations with support for capitalism (presumably because capitalism legitimizes inequality based on competition), nationalism, racism, cultural elitism, support for the military and support for wars of dominance (i.e., not for "humanitarian" wars).  On the other hand, SDOs were significantly negative on measures of concern for others, altruism and communality. 

Altemeyer refers to SDO as "The Other 'Authoritarian Personality.'"  In his 1996 study of RWAs, he also subjected SDOs to other popular personality tests.  He found SDOs to have their strongest association with the value of Power, which Shalom Schwartz defines as the value of "Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources."* 

As I said earlier, a number of authors have suggested that Donald Trump's supporters are authoritarians.  I think it's more accurate to say that Trump and his followers have high Social Dominance Orientations.  Consider the fact that Trump announced his campaign at "Trump Tower," a monument to his personal wealth and power.  His initial campaign speech
expressed his intent to have more victories over other countries, countries which were "beating us" and "killing us," he said.  He proclaimed that our enemies were getting stronger while we were getting weaker.  And his followers proudly display their racism, nationalism, and cultural elitism during his rallies.  All of these fit the SDO profile.  Coincidentally, his surname, "Trump," is an English word meaning  "to dominate!" 

It's important to note that Altemeyer, the Pratto group and others have found somewhat small but statistically significant relationships between RWAs and SDOs.  The two political orientations can overlap in some regards.  Altemeyer found that both RWAs and SDOs were substantially associated with ethnocentrism and prejudice against homosexuals, Blacks and women.  However, they were also significantly distinguishable.  For example, Altemeyer found that RWAs were more strongly associated with religious fundamentalism, self-righteousness and traditionalism than SDOs. SDOs, on the other hand, were more strongly associated with value of power than RWAs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT?
We are all created equal, but we are not all the same.  Too often we assume that everyone else is just like us, so our different political views can only be due to ignorance, brainwashing or stupidity.  Why do people act against what we see as their "interest?"  Because they have a different view of their "interest."  It's not that they are "irrational."  Their actions are "value-rational," i.e., calculated on the basis of their values.  Someone with a high RWA political orientation will place greater value on following established rules, customs and traditions.  They will resist change.  Someone with a high SDO political orientation will place greater value on ensuring that they and their identity groups dominate socially.  They will resist policies of social equalization. 

According to Mary Kay Magistad of Public Radio International, "Polling data suggests roughly 18 to 30 percent of Americans fall into [the Authoritarian] camp, and that more can be swayed to support political 'strong men' when they feel under threat."  But all is not lost.  The good news is, people vary in the degree to which they have an RWA or SDO political orientation.  And the vast majority of Americans are not Authoritarians.


*SDOs also scored high on Eysenck & Eysenck's 1976 "Psychoticism" scale, but this scale was found to have some design issues, as acknowledged later by the authors themselves.