The election of Donald Trump has elevated awareness of the resurgence of authoritarianism in the United States and the threat of growing fascism. The interview with Henry Giroux, an outspoken critic of neoliberalism, illustrates the ways in which it fosters authoritarianism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SZT0A_gX04). These connections were observed decades ago by members of the Frankfurt School again demonstrating its continuing relevance to our times. This led to the study of the “authoritarian personality” and what factors accounted for the rise of fascism and its attaining large scale support in certain countries, such as Italy and Germany, in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Lest one think that the increase of fascism was localized, it should be noted that an upsurge in fascist movements could also be found in the United States and Britain. The principal theorists at the Frankfurt School were of Jewish descent and in 1933 with the Nazis assuming power, the founders moved first to Geneva, Switzerland and later to the United States, principally settling on the east and west coast.

The roots of their work go back to an interest in re-thinking the theories of Freud and the work of Marx and explore ways in which they could be integrated in order to provide a clearer link between ideological forces associated with socio-economic and historical contexts and the formation of individual’s personality. Theodor Adorno and a number of colleagues in response to the rise of the Nazis and the holocaust launched an ambitious and in-depth study of authoritarianism. This culminated in the publication of The Authoritarian Personality in 1950. This work was influential in the fields of psychology and sociology for many decades, although in time it also became the subject of a number of criticisms.

Although Adorno and others sought to describe authoritarianism as a form of personality, they avoided looking at this solely from an individualistic perspective. They situated persons inclined to develop this personality within a broader framework and, in keeping with Critical Theory, examined the role of ideology. Ideology is described as “…an organization of opinions, attitudes and values” or a way of thinking about human beings and society that exists independent of individuals. Ideologies are shaped by historical processes and contemporary social events. Different ideologies have different degrees of appeal and value for individuals based upon the extent to which it meets their needs. Thus, the question was how to understand individuals’ susceptibility to ideological factors that led them to adopt and display anti-democratic and authoritarian attitudes and behaviors. Understanding these links, it was hoped, would help to prevent individuals becoming authoritarian and adopting fascism.

While it is true that individuals’ personality plays a significant role in determining what ideologies they prefer and adopt, it was recognized as not the ultimate determinant. This is because each person’s personality develops based on the impact of the social environment in which he or she is born and lives. The psychoanalytic thinkers Wilhelm Reich and Erich Fromm both called this the formation of social character. This is the internalization of beliefs, values and attitudes of the dominant ideology which is so thorough that by and large people are unconscious of where these beliefs came from and so assume that they represent the way things really are. This uncritical acceptance of ideological assumptions maintains the status quo and serves the interests of the powerful.

What actually provides the fertile ground for values, beliefs and attitudes conductive to authoritarianism and fascism is the hegemonic ideology of neoliberalism. This is because, as observed by Henry Giroux in the video, Noam Chomsky and others, neoliberalism in many respects is antithetical to democracy and to the development of truly autonomous, secure, critically thinking persons who are less inclined to adopt authoritarian attitudes and behaviors. The promise made by capitalism that free competition in the market would enable persons to achieve the liberal ideal of being self-governing and capable of independent thought and free choice has been proven to be utterly false. Instead the lack of freedom for the majority in the work they perform has transformed them into machine-like cogs within corporations that exploit them. They are expected to be compliant and subservient to authority in order not to jeopardize their jobs and the meager means they are provided to live. Elections likewise give citizens the illusion of choice and representation as they have evolved into meaningless rituals. The role of the parties in deciding who runs, the diminished difference between the parties with respect to representing the interests of their constituents and the role of money in deciding who is elected have all undermined democracy. The weakening of democracy fosters fascism. Further, neoliberalism predisposes individuals to authoritarianism by rendering citizens incapable of engaging autonomously in participatory decision making and dialogue central to democracy. The neoliberal exaggeration of personal responsibility diverts attention away from the prominent role played by the social order for a range of societal ills and instead places the burden on its victims who are castigated for failing to follow social rules and norms.

In the original work done by Adorno and others the family played an important role in the development of authoritarianism. This is not surprising in light of the central role played by the family in socializing children to adopt the dominant ideology. They found that as children authoritarians experienced excessively harsh and punitive parenting that led to anger but also a fear of disapproval. Thus, they tended to identify with the aggressor and idealize authority figures while assuming a submissive posture in order to avoid punishment. The anger they harbored for authority figures was sometimes directed inward, but more often projected outward on members of groups considered different, inferior and potentially dangerous (scapegoating). Authoritarian individuals also tended to develop a very rigid form of thinking due to an inability to deal with doubt and intolerance for situations which were ambiguous or ill-defined. Thus they feel contempt for the type of open-ended, give-and-take participatory dialogue required for a true democracy. Instead to allay their fear of uncertainty, they look for clear-cut, black-or-white answers from people they regard as unquestionable authorities. This same type of black-or-white thinking is utilized in their relations with others such that they adopt an us-versus-them stance, particularly when experiencing threat from those they see as failing to conform to unquestionable social norms.

It is interesting to note the high degree of overlap between what was described in this early research and what was subsequently found in later research done by the cognitive psychologist, George Lakoff on mental frames that shape the way we see the world. He found that different understandings of the government and political beliefs can be associated with two distinctive ways of understanding the family. The model pertinent here is the one associated with a conservative view. Lakoff calls it the strict father model. In this model the world is a dangerous place because of the presence of evil. Competition is inevitable and there will always be winners and losers. Children are born bad because they are motivated solely by doing what feels good. As a result, a strong and strict father must assume the position of unchallenged authority in order to teach children the difference between right and wrong and use painful punishment if necessary. The goal is to make children obedient and to internalize the discipline imposed by the father. If children fail to learn this and engage in immoral actions, they must suffer the consequences for which they alone are held responsible. Lakoff makes a convincing case that this model of the family is aligned with neoliberal ideology, just as in the case of the development of an authoritarian personality.

The work done on the authoritarian personality found that the characteristics associated with it tended to be found more frequently among individuals on the conservative or right-wing end of the political spectrum. This does not mean that there are not people on the left who demonstrate extreme positions. However, the finding of authoritarianism being associated with right-wing ideology has been generally validated in on-going research. Though there were a number of critiques of the original work done by Adorno and others in subsequent years, there was a resurgence of interest in authoritarianism in the 1980s by Dr. Bob Altemeyer, a retired Professor at the University of Manitoba. Altemeyer investigated Right-Wing Authoritarianism. Of the nine traits originally found to be associated with authoritarianism, he found that actually only three described Right-Wing Authoritarianism: authoritarian submission (the tendency to acquiesce to and obey those they consider authorities), authoritarian aggression (being hostile and punitive toward those they see as disobeying authorities), and conventionalism (adhering strictly to traditions and established social norms). Altemeyer confirmed that these individuals tended to engage in either/or and highly compartmentalized thinking, have a high need for structure and order, are more reactive to threats to order and their sense of security, display an exaggerated value to their own ethnicity and culture while demeaning others, and tend to be highly competitive even if it is to their own disadvantage.

One other aspect of Altemeyer’s research bears mentioning. He found a segment of those who could be classified as Right-Wing Authoritarian were also what he called dominating authoritarians. These are persons who score highly on a measure of Social Dominance Orientation. Such individuals scorn the notion of equality and conceive of society in highly hierarchical terms. They espouse a Social Darwinist belief system that some people by nature are superior and some are inferior. Thus, those who by nature are weak and inferior do not deserve any form of assistance or compassion and eventually are best left to their fate. While prejudice and hatred of members of outgroups among authoritarians is motivated by fear, among social dominators it is based on actual contempt and having absolutely no regard for them. Thus, while those who are also socially dominant may share some characteristics with Right-Wing Authoritarians, according to Altemeyer they combine the worst qualities of both and manifest those qualities to a greater extreme. They lack compassion, are power hungry and manipulative, prefer an unjust social system because it favors them, and are willing to strive for power and supremacy without moral restraint. Altemeyer warns that such individuals pose a danger because they are likely to have a significant impact on society and to become leaders of highly prejudiced right-wing movements.

Regrettably the dangers posed by authoritarianism and fascism continue and have grown stronger in recent times. The ideological force that fuels both has not only continued unabated, but has grown even more virulent. The work of Critical Theory and others in elucidating the causes of these two dangers remains as valuable today as it was prior to World War II. But we would do well to heed the insistence of Critical Theory that it does not suffice to simply understand the problem. We must use that understanding to oppose it and instead do all in our power to promote human emancipation.