The Authoritarians: Chapter 3 
Welcome to Week 3 of my recently declared, possibly temporary Sunday Night Book Club. I'd been reading Dr. Bob Altemeyer's book, "The Authoritarians", which is published free online at the link above. I thought it would make a great topic for discussion amongst progressives here at The Next Agenda. As a Canadian bonus, Dr. Altemeyer is at the University of Manitoba! Week 1 is the intro and Chapter 1.
Last week, we briefly discussed the two things that work in conjunction to make a Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) follower prone to commit acts of violence against a target of their leader's choosing. The instigator is fear, and the releaser is self-righteousness. We also touched on the fact that experiences are what can change someone from being a blind zombie follower to a somewhat free-thinking person a bit lower on the RWA scale.
This week, in Chapter 3, we will get into the Seven Deadly Shortfalls of Authoritarian Thinking.
**Please keep in mind that we all have these qualities within ourselves. The RWA just has them to a much greater degree.
What is it about the RWA mind? What makes them tick? Dr. Bob Altemeyer gives us the 7 characteristics of authoritarian thought.
1.) Illogical thinking.
Reasoning should justify the conclusion. For authoritarian followers, it's the other way around. If they agree with the conclusion, the reasoning matters not a whit. Altemeyer used this syllogism as an example:
All fish live in the sea..
Sharks live in the sea..
Therefore, sharks are fish.The conclusion does not follow, but high RWAs would be more likely to say the
reasoning is correct than most people would. If you ask them why it seems right, they
would likely tell you, "Because sharks are fish." In other words, they thought the
reasoning was sound because they agreed with the last statement. If the conclusion is
right, they figure, then the reasoning must have been right. Or to put it another way,
they don't "get it" that the reasoning matters--especially on a reasoning test
2.) Highly compartmentalized mind.
Think of the files on your computer. Your computer can store two files that say completely opposite things and not lose a wink of sleep. Think of your crazy ass right winger Uncle in the same way. When he says, "'Merka is the greatest country in the world because of our freedom!" at Christmas dinner, and at dessert says that anyone who criticizes the president is a "damn traitor and should be rounded up with the rest of the libruls and be sent to Gitmo!", he really believes both statements. They lack integration. This is how they can say they believe in a loving, merciful God and that their Saviour is the Prince of Peace, and at the same time cheerlead for war and domestic terrorism. Some of them want a nuclear holocaust so that the Prince of Peace will return and kill the remaining non-believers. Or something.
3.)Double standards.
They hold their leaders and others who agree with them to a different standard than everybody else. This comes up a lot in discussion threads about abortion. Inevitably, someone who used to work in a clinic tells a story about a protester who ends up bringing her young teenage daughter in for an abortion. You see, she's a good girl and she's too young to have a baby. It'll ruin her life. The other women in the waiting room, and those coming and going from the clinic who she harasses on a weekly basis are sluts and sinners. Or take Ted Haggard's defenders. The man made himself a very wealthy and influential figure in the Christian Right by railing against the evils of homosexuality. All the while, he was taking up with a male prostitute, meeting for what we can safely assume were binges of sweaty, crystal meth-fueled hardcore man-on-man action. But it's forgivable - he's one of them. They agree with his message that homosexuality is evil and will bring about the destruction of society, but Haggard was one of their leaders, so he will be forgiven, unlike all of the other godless sodomites who are destined to suffer in hell for eternity. You get the idea.
4.)Hypocrisy.
See above. Also see "IOKIYAR" in the US and "IOKIYAC" in Canada. We could run out of bandwidth listing the hypocrisy of the RWAs.
5.)Blindess to themselves
From Dr. Altemeyer:
If you ask people how much integrity they personally have, guess who pat
themselves most on the back by claiming they have more than anyone else. This one
is easy if you remember the findings on self-righteousness from the last chapter: high
RWAs think they had lots more integrity than others do. Similarly when I asked
students to write down, anonymously, their biggest faults, right-wing authoritarians
wrote down fewer than others did, mainly because a lot of them said they had no big
faults. When I asked students if there was anything they were reluctant to admit about
themselves to themselves, high RWAs led everyone else in saying, no, they were
completely honest with themselves.
So that would be like that Yoshida fellow reading this diary and saying to himself, "Yeah, stupid authoritarians! They suck! We should round them up and drop a bomb on them!" Ahem.
6.)Profound ethnocentrism.
There is little to no neutrality in ethnocentrism. It's where the "you're either with us or against us" meme comes from. RWAs basically look solely to their 'in group' for ideas and opinions. They get constant reinforcement in their bubble. That's where those influencing experiences come in. If you can get them away from their insular groups, there is a chance that they will experience something that may pry open that rigidness a bit. Maybe even a lot. But good luck with that:
Most of us associate with people who agree with us on many issues. Birds of
a feather do, empirically, tend to flock together. But this is especially important to
authoritarians, who have not usually thought things out, explored possibilities,
considered alternate points of view, and so on, but acquired their beliefs from the
authorities in their lives. They then maintain their beliefs against new threats by
seeking out those authorities, and by rubbing elbows as much as possible with people
who have the same beliefs.
Loyalty to the group or the movement is tantamount, and dissent is not tolerated. Don't believe me? Visit the blog Redstate some time, register, and try to make a comment that says something other than "I'd sell my mother into slavery for George W Bush. God bless our president".
Of course, this is not just a problem on the right side of the political spectrum. I was reminded of Frank Frink's recent comment:
Truth be told, I used to be quite active in the old Greenpeace etc... environmental advocacy movement and that was actually part of the reason I relocated to Vancouver. The seal hunt was the issue that made me turn my back on them, hard.Without going into a whole lot of detail... it was on that issue that I discovered that volunteers were being lied to and being coached in repeating those lies in order to raise funds. I'm not saying that specific to Greenpeace, they are only one example. Sea Shepherd is far, far worse. That was also around the time that I witnessed the full-on bullying force of Paul Watson. He's a very ugly man - I don't mean that in the physical sense.
'They' lost me when they lied, got caught in the lie, refused to acknowledge the lie, and instead of admitting the lie my 'true values' and 'committment to the planet' were questioned (inquisitioned?).. that sort of stuff. (Where else have we heard those types of things, eh?).
Luckily for us, Frank Frink is no authoritarian follower. His response?
I told them to go piss up a rope. I haven't donated to or volunteered for any of those organizations in over 25 years.
7.)Dogmatism
From Dr. Altemeyer:
It's easy to see why authoritarian followers would be dogmatic, isn't it? When
you haven't figured out your beliefs, but instead absorbed them from other people,
you're really in no position to defend them from attack. Simply put, you don't know
why the things you believe are true. Somebody else decided they were, and you're
taking their word for it. So what do you do when challenged?Well first of all you avoid challenges by sticking with your own kind as much
as possible, because they're hardly likely to ask pointed questions about your beliefs.
But if you meet someone who does, you'll probably defend your ideas as best you can,
parrying thrusts with whatever answers your authorities have pre-loaded into your
head. If these defenses crumble, you may go back to the trusted sources. They
probably don't have to give you a convincing refutation of the anxiety-producing
argument that breached your defenses, just the assurance that you nonetheless are
right. But if the arguments against you become overwhelming and persistent, you
either concede the point--which may put the whole lot at risk--or you simply insist you
are right and walk away, clutching your beliefs more tightly than ever.
Of course, this has been a basic outline of the thought process, or lack thereof, of the RWA, meant to spark discussion. The chapter goes into the subject more indepth and I encourage you to read it for yourself. Also, remember that Dr. Altemeyer is a serious researcher. He has written The Authoritarians, and published it for free online, so that this profile of the authoritarian mindset is more accessible than the more dry, scholarly research that he does at the University of Manitoba.
Learning what we have in the first three chapters of The Authoritarians, it's easier to see how so many people can be turned into monsters, willing to stab, slice, chop, rape, and shoot other humans for the glory of their ideological authorities. They are easy targets for unscrupulous leaders who will exploit their lack of critical thinking and their willingness to overlook blatant and malicious lies if they are given a conclusion that they can agree with. Their insulated environment and constant reinforcement can render them impervious to logical thinking. Their ability to believe in two things that are in direct opposition means that 'thou shall not kill' and 'slaughter my enemies' are taken in together without the least bit of irony. It's how the Inquisition happened. It's how the Nazis, Fascists and Communists happened. It's how Rwanda and Darfur is happening. It's how the invasion of Iraq happened and the occupation continues. What's next? Shudder to think.
