The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism
Danny Osborne, Thomas H. Costello, John Duckitt & Chris G. Sibley
Nature Reviews Psychology (2023)
Abstract
Over the past two decades, citizens’ political rights and civil liberties have declined globally. Psychological science can play an instrumental role in both explaining and combating the authoritarian impulses that underlie these attacks on personal autonomy. In this Review, we describe the psychological processes and situational factors that foster authoritarianism, as well as the societal consequences of its apparent resurgence within the general population. First, we summarize the dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice, which suggests that viewing the world as a dangerous, but not necessarily competitive, place plants the psychological seeds of authoritarianism. Next, we discuss the evolutionary, genetic, personality and developmental antecedents to authoritarianism and explain how contextual threats to safety and security activate authoritarian predispositions. After examining the harmful consequences of authoritarianism for intergroup relations and broader societal attitudes, we discuss the need to expand the ideological boundaries of authoritarianism and encourage future research to investigate both right-wing and left-wing variants of authoritarianism.
The bias towards 'normalcy' reminds me so much of what you've said about elite panic (I just started reading "A Paradise Built in Hell" at your recommendation, by the way; it's excellent): it's much easier for people to imagine the possible harm that might be done to them by normal people resisting fascism than it is for people to imagine the harm that will be done to them if they allow fascists to gain power. Just like it's easier for people to imagine damage done by 'out of control looters' than the damage done by people trying to violently prevent all property damage, or easier to imagine property damage by BLM protestors than violent quelling of those protests by over-armed and poorly trained police. It's all related: people who have grown up in comfort are more afraid of violence from their fellow citizens than violence from their leaders and armed authorities. Which makes no sense, but as you've written here, it's an easier and more comfortable narrative for media who want to preserve the status quo.
Hey Robert. Really appreciate the topic here, and the historical context. I hadn't read about the Italian media in the 1930s before. But I definitely want to raise the issue that it isn't just legacy media - Substack itself has a pretty neutral-towards-fascism bent, permitting people like Bari Weiss, Alex Berenson, and Glenn Greenwald to monetize their shitposting-cosplay-as-journalism. I've long been at odds with the New York Times' surly attitude towards critics of their type of journalism. Dean Baquet is doing nobody any favors by cultivating a crew of thin-skinned, defensive-when-challenged reporters. If anything, the open letter challenging the NYT publishing that anti-LGBTQ screed - and the paper's response to it - has been a revealing incident that tells me even NYT staff and contributors are sick of this shit. Meanwhile, if Chris Best cared about anything other than his own wallet, he'd drop these blowflies from Substack, and the irony is not lost on me that this article appears here as well.
An interesting read, as it reminds me a lot of what I've grown up with in an NYT liberal household. I'm left wondering now. What are some of the ways to combat this legacy/liberal media refusal to treat the rise of fascism as a serious threat?
Excellent article! I thought the treatment of Weimar Germany was particularly interesting.
This topic reminded me of The Christian Front, a Catholic fascist organization from the 1930s and 40s.
In Rachel Maddow's excellent _Ultra_ podcast (I don't love her show but when she's in investigative reporter mode IMO she's great!) the mainstream press repeatedly comes out in favor of the Front's anti-semitic and ultimately thuggish mission.
Super interesting listen for anyone interested in this stuff:
That last couple of lines from Thompson, that hits really hard. Reminds me a little bit of Bonhoeffer’s theory of the morality of stupidity. If the rise of arbitrary power induces certain individuals to willingly become stupid, in order to take advantage of it, that can be another way of seeing who “goes nazi”.
I find the podcast "conspirituality" completely unlistenable. Absolutely solid journalism - just rung a bell with "“If I’d been a reader at the time, I probably would have quickly stopped reading after a few days, dissuaded by the bludgeoning.”"
So help me out here, are there or have there ever been publications that are relatively free of bias and advertising influences? Are public broadcasters to be trusted? (I ask fully aware of the shitshow going down at the BBC) How do the masses reliably educate themselves? Particularly the "liberals" who do their best to avoid anything that so much as hints at extremism.
(Also, I love BTB and your writing even though they've completely crushed any semblance of trust or faith I've placed in humanity.)
I had a hearty laugh at this article. I'm printing it out so one day I can show my grandchildren the level of ignorance our prognazi """"""journalists"""""" were producing.
Hi Robert, been following you since your Cracked days (we were in touch regarding the neuroscience of torture). Love the BTB pod, btw.
You might find the following a useful complement to this great piece of yours on authoritarianism: https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-023-00161-4 (it's open access, and a good read also):
The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism
Danny Osborne, Thomas H. Costello, John Duckitt & Chris G. Sibley
Nature Reviews Psychology (2023)
Abstract
Over the past two decades, citizens’ political rights and civil liberties have declined globally. Psychological science can play an instrumental role in both explaining and combating the authoritarian impulses that underlie these attacks on personal autonomy. In this Review, we describe the psychological processes and situational factors that foster authoritarianism, as well as the societal consequences of its apparent resurgence within the general population. First, we summarize the dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice, which suggests that viewing the world as a dangerous, but not necessarily competitive, place plants the psychological seeds of authoritarianism. Next, we discuss the evolutionary, genetic, personality and developmental antecedents to authoritarianism and explain how contextual threats to safety and security activate authoritarian predispositions. After examining the harmful consequences of authoritarianism for intergroup relations and broader societal attitudes, we discuss the need to expand the ideological boundaries of authoritarianism and encourage future research to investigate both right-wing and left-wing variants of authoritarianism.
The bias towards 'normalcy' reminds me so much of what you've said about elite panic (I just started reading "A Paradise Built in Hell" at your recommendation, by the way; it's excellent): it's much easier for people to imagine the possible harm that might be done to them by normal people resisting fascism than it is for people to imagine the harm that will be done to them if they allow fascists to gain power. Just like it's easier for people to imagine damage done by 'out of control looters' than the damage done by people trying to violently prevent all property damage, or easier to imagine property damage by BLM protestors than violent quelling of those protests by over-armed and poorly trained police. It's all related: people who have grown up in comfort are more afraid of violence from their fellow citizens than violence from their leaders and armed authorities. Which makes no sense, but as you've written here, it's an easier and more comfortable narrative for media who want to preserve the status quo.
Hey Robert. Really appreciate the topic here, and the historical context. I hadn't read about the Italian media in the 1930s before. But I definitely want to raise the issue that it isn't just legacy media - Substack itself has a pretty neutral-towards-fascism bent, permitting people like Bari Weiss, Alex Berenson, and Glenn Greenwald to monetize their shitposting-cosplay-as-journalism. I've long been at odds with the New York Times' surly attitude towards critics of their type of journalism. Dean Baquet is doing nobody any favors by cultivating a crew of thin-skinned, defensive-when-challenged reporters. If anything, the open letter challenging the NYT publishing that anti-LGBTQ screed - and the paper's response to it - has been a revealing incident that tells me even NYT staff and contributors are sick of this shit. Meanwhile, if Chris Best cared about anything other than his own wallet, he'd drop these blowflies from Substack, and the irony is not lost on me that this article appears here as well.
An interesting read, as it reminds me a lot of what I've grown up with in an NYT liberal household. I'm left wondering now. What are some of the ways to combat this legacy/liberal media refusal to treat the rise of fascism as a serious threat?
Excellent article! I thought the treatment of Weimar Germany was particularly interesting.
This topic reminded me of The Christian Front, a Catholic fascist organization from the 1930s and 40s.
In Rachel Maddow's excellent _Ultra_ podcast (I don't love her show but when she's in investigative reporter mode IMO she's great!) the mainstream press repeatedly comes out in favor of the Front's anti-semitic and ultimately thuggish mission.
Super interesting listen for anyone interested in this stuff:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-presents-ultra
This about you, Bobby??? Pretty dishonest reporting for a so called journalist, eh? LOL Seems like some pretty major lies, not much truth.
You ever write anything that's actually researched or are you just Antifa's lap dog when you're not being Singal's bitch?
https://twitter.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1634958504955117568
Ah, still writing. Nice to compare your writing voice to your pod voice and both are fun in different ways.
That last couple of lines from Thompson, that hits really hard. Reminds me a little bit of Bonhoeffer’s theory of the morality of stupidity. If the rise of arbitrary power induces certain individuals to willingly become stupid, in order to take advantage of it, that can be another way of seeing who “goes nazi”.
What an incredible piece again Robert thank you!
I find the podcast "conspirituality" completely unlistenable. Absolutely solid journalism - just rung a bell with "“If I’d been a reader at the time, I probably would have quickly stopped reading after a few days, dissuaded by the bludgeoning.”"
So help me out here, are there or have there ever been publications that are relatively free of bias and advertising influences? Are public broadcasters to be trusted? (I ask fully aware of the shitshow going down at the BBC) How do the masses reliably educate themselves? Particularly the "liberals" who do their best to avoid anything that so much as hints at extremism.
(Also, I love BTB and your writing even though they've completely crushed any semblance of trust or faith I've placed in humanity.)
All that writing... About absolutely nothing. I can see why Bobby puts off such incel groomer vibes.
I had a hearty laugh at this article. I'm printing it out so one day I can show my grandchildren the level of ignorance our prognazi """"""journalists"""""" were producing.
Exactly what I needed to read right now. Thank you!