User:Pvasiliadis/Authoritarianism at Sociology

Moved from the discussion at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses#Authoritarian_.26_authoritarianism.

• Cambridge Dictionary of Sociology (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

p. 27: "authoritarian personality: [...] This authoritarian personality type displayed characteristics of “authoritarian submission” – disliked giving orders but had an uncritical attitude towards idealized moral authorities of the ingroup; “authoritarian aggression” – a tendency to seek out and condemn people who violate conventional attitudes; anti-intraception – opposition to imagination and creativity; superstition and stereotyping – would believe in superstition and think in rigid categories; power and toughness – identification with powerful figures; cynicism – generalized hostility and belief in conspiracies; projectivity – projecting onto stigmatized groups unconscious emotional impulses; and preoccupation with sex and concern with “goings-on.” This personality type will become anxious and insecure when events upset their previously existing worldview. The personality type was associated particularly with (what the authors saw as) the highly sexually repressed lower middle class, a group that felt threatened by both large corporations and socialism and was predisposed to support authoritarian politics."

p. 27: "authoritarianism: The term authoritarianism indicates a political regime in which government is distinguished by high-level state power without legitimate, routine intervention by the populace governed, for example through binding procedures and practices of popular consent-formation, public opinion, free speech, and government accountability. Citizens’ appeal against the decisions of the ruler is discouraged and, eventually, repressed by coercive means. A wide array of nation-state societies have historically been governed by such regimes. Although authoritarian rule is usually deployed as a shorthand for oppressive measures, it can also (but not wholly without coercion at some point) feature as paternalistic benevolence. Authoritarian rulers hold themselves responsible (but not accountable) for the ruled subjects’ well-being and may enforce strict conformity “for the subjects’ own good.” [...] In comparative-historical method and macrosociology, the authoritarian regime-type is commonly differentiated from totalitarian and democratic systems. [...] with authoritarian nations charged with human-rights violations".

p. 125: "individuals who submitted to irrational authority in authoritarian regimes."

p. 173: "Estate domination in Weber’s terms involved an authoritarian, militarized nobility surrounding a monarch or emperor. [...] the political system based on authoritarian “statism” survived much longer".

p. 196: "fascism: Sometimes used as a word of abuse to refer to movements or individuals who are intolerant or authoritarian, fascism is certainly intolerant and authoritarian, but it is more than this. [...] Fascist regimes are highly authoritarian, and use the state as the weapon".

p. 213: "In the twentieth century, these processes culminated in the installation of authoritarian regimes responsible for some of the most grievous atrocities humankind has visited upon itself."

p. 217: "These include, first, authoritarianism, of which the most extreme forms are masochism and sadism, although milder versions are widespread."

p. 244: "The Black Atlantic reveals the authoritarian connection between sovereign territory and national consciousness and the contradictions thereof."

p. 248: "that discourse has wrought in heretofore authoritarian regimes".

p. 260: "a form of democratic state control organized around authoritarian populism".

p. 363: "Soviet Marxism used Marx’s ideas to establish a highly authoritarian form of socialism that replicated itself after World War II in the Communist Party states of eastern Europe."

p. 400: "push historical developments towards parliamentary democracies or authoritarian regimes or communist systems"

p. 402: "morality: [...] Morality is sometimes seen as norms that are imposed from on high. This accounts for the view by youth in liberal societies that morality is inherently hypocritical and corrupt. The word moral is used pejoratively – a bad thing. [...] Authoritarian deformations of morality divorce the objective and subjective in a dualistic way. The norm is imposed from on high – the authority figure knows best – or, as a reaction to this explicit authoritarianism, the norm is not advocated at all on the grounds that each must do as they please even if this destroys the individual concerned or the well-being of others. This holds whether moral norms are being developed in children or adults. Context is crucial, and the way that a moral norm is expressed for a three-year-old obviously differs dramatically from the way in which it would be expressed for a young person of thirteen. Morality is both objective and subjective, since an individual must believe in the rightness of an action and that action needs to contribute to their autonomy and capacity to govern their own lives. The “moral” injunctions associated with authoritarian rule – whether of a personal or institutional kind – undermine rather than further morality."

pp. 441, 2: "Should conflicts be violent, then the case is likely to be made for a strong state able to employ counterforce, so that instead of a plural society we have an authoritarian one in which differences are seen as disloyal and problematic. [...] More recently, critiques of the liberal pluralism of the 1960s have themselves been criticized on the grounds that an emphasis upon underlying structures that unify society generates dogmatism, exclusivity, and authoritarianism. Feminists, for example, argued that society consisted of two sexes, not just one, and that liberal (and left-wing) notions of the individual and humanity viewed the world through the lenses of men. Some feminists (the “radicals”) turned liberalism inside out and argued for the primacy of women and their outlook, and argued that women need to keep aloof from men. But why should plurality “stop” with the acknowledgment that individuals can be either male or female? [...] Traditional concepts like the state and conventional religion, and thought systems like Marxism and liberalism, are challenged since they appear to ascribe primacy to one particular factor over all others. The search for the Truth or the belief in Reason are dogmatic and authoritarian postures that must be challenged and rejected."

p. 444: "At the interest articulation end of this spectrum, populist parties behave in a demagogic way and shape their political discourse and program of governance primarily according to what is popular in the community at any one time. At the interest formation end, by contrast, authoritarian party systems claim that the party’s primary function is to teach the population how to behave in a politically enlightened way."

p. 446: "The inadequacy of absolutist politics and of authoritarianism were highlighted by thinkers like John Locke (1632–1704) in Two Treatises of Government (1690) and Baron Charles de Montesquieu in The Spirit of the Laws (1748 [trans. 1989])."

p. 473: "In the liberal theory of John Locke (1632–1704), the protection of the rights of individuals is held to be essential to guard against the threat of arbitrary rule by authoritarian governments."

p. 478: "Professional civil services have been associated with the rise of capitalism and industrial societies, as well as the transition from monarchical and authoritarian proto-democratic systems of governance."

p. 633: "Totalitarianism is a modern phenomenon. It can be understood as a modern form of authoritarianism where technology and bureaucracy give the state the means to achieve a previously unequalled degree of control and dominance over society. Earlier embodiments of authoritarianism, even in their strongest forms like absolutism, could punctually and locally claim to exercise total control in society, but it is only with the development of the bureaucratic state that such systemic forms of social control became possible. As Hannah Arendt stressed in The Origins of totalitarianism (1958), totalitarian systems seek to eliminate individuality and free choice through the complete politicization of the private sphere. In doing so, they reinforce the atomization of society and make the state the only remaining outlet for public activities. The most common political tools of the totalitarian state fall into three main categories: ideology, surveillance, and repression. [...] In the modern period, most totalitarian states are in fact authoritarian regimes whose claims to organize all the relevant aspects of their usbjects’ life are somewhat overstated."

• Cambridge Handbook Sociocultural Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

p. 350 "Literature and cinema abundantly explore the importance of access to, and use of cultural elements as symbolic resources under authoritarian states."

p. 601 "ingrained psychological defense mechanisms and authoritarian loyalty structures embedded in the collective national imaginary."

• Encyclopedia of Sociology, Vol. 01 (2nd. ed., Macmillan Reference USA, 2000)

p. 100: "some writers have examined how alienation has changed in former authoritarian nations such as Argentina and South Africa and in Eastern Europe".

p. 146: "In contrast to many images projected by the mass media, national surveys show that most Americans still endorse long-standing beliefs and values: self-reliance, independence, freedom, personal responsibility, pride in the country and its political system, voluntary civic action, anti-authoritarianism, and equality within limits".

p. 267: "Although systems similar to these proliferated worldwide and continue to exist in modern-day authoritarian regimes, they are consensually viewed as incompatible with the practice of democracy."

p. 279: "However, new technologies, particularly the Internet, pose serious threats to the control of political information by authoritarian regimes."

p. 317: "Reanalyzing Stouffer’s data, these investigators found relationships between authoritarianism and intolerance of communists and atheists only among the more highly educated. In the 1990 GSS data, they found relationships between authoritarianism and intolerance for blacks and Jews again confined to the educated. The investigators conclude that there is no substantive relationship between class and authoritarianism. Evidence does emerge for a relationship between personality factors and both support for civil liberties for nonconformists and tolerance of minorities. But the roots of these personality factors are unknown and presumably much more complex than classbased socialization."

p. 356: "Authoritarian Communitarians. Authoritarian communitarians (some of whom are often referred to as ‘‘Asian’’ or ‘‘East Asian’’ communitarians) are those who argue that to maintain social order and harmony, individual rights and political liberties must be curtailed. Some believe in the strong arm of the state (such as former Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew and Malaysian head of state Mahathir Bin Mohamad), and some in strong social bonds and the voice of the family and community".

p. 526: "In authoritarian or totalitarian societies the power wielders unify the society by imposing their own values on the population at large."

p. 539: "The rise of fascism and the collapse of effective opposition by workers’ parties, however, prompted them to investigate new sources and forms of authoritarianism in culture, ideology, and personality development and to search for new oppositional forces."

p. 707: "In matters of discipline, single mothers have been found to rely on restrictive (authoritarian as opposed to authoritative) disciplinary methods—restricting children’s freedom and relying on negative sanctions—a pattern psychologists believe reflects a lack of authority on the part of the parent".

• The Sage Dictionary of Sociology (SAGE Publications, 2006)

p. 14: "AUTHORITY If people obey a command because they fear the consequences of refusing, they are responding to power. If they obey because they believe they should, they are responding to authority. Authority is that subtype of power that is accepted as legitimate. Max Weber distinguished three different types of authority. Traditional authority involves an appeal to custom and ancient practice. Legal rational authority involves obedience to formal rules, which have been established by proper procedure: civil servants who distribute passports according to the regulations of a bureaucratic organisation can invoke this sort of authority for their actions with charismatic authority, the charismatic leader is obeyed because followers believe he or she possesses an extraordinary character (usually derived from a special relationship with the divine) that trumps existing rules or prevalent customs. An exemplar is the Christ figure in the New Testament who presents his radically innovative teachings in the form ‘It is written … but I say to you …’ and justifies his rejection of the tradition only with the claim to be the Son of God. Very loosely we can understand much about the differences between pre-modern and modern societies by noting that traditional authority is prevalent in the former and legal-rational authority (especially as embodied in bureaucratic organisations) dominates the latter. Charismatic authority may periodically appear in all sorts of societies but it is less common in modern societies."

p. 52: "Corporatism was popular with some right-wing European politicians in the first half of the 20th century and informed some of the more benign authoritarian regimes established in such states as Lithuania and Latvia in the 1930s."

p. 104: "FASCISM Italy gave the world the word (from the Latin ‘fasces’: the bundle of sticks with projecting axe which signified the authority of a Roman consul) and the first example: the movement founded by Benito Mussolini in 1919. Fascism rejected liberal democracy, asserted racial superiority and promoted the cult of the dictator. The term is used for Adolf Hitler’s Nazism in Germany, for the Falange led by General Francisco Franco in Spain and a variety of imitative right-wing authoritarian movements of the 1930s in Europe. The word has come to be widely used as a pejorative term for someone thought to have authoritarian leanings, though this is inaccurate since the criticized person seldom advocates fascistic views."

p. 137: "Hobbes had such an influence on social thought that the student of sociology is likely to come across the adjective ‘Hobbesian’ while Cartesian and Platonic are barely seen. His major work Leviathan (1651) presented a reasoned justification for authoritarian politics derived from assumptions about human nature."

p. 169: "LATIFUNDIA This denotes large agricultural estates in Latin America (originally imperial grants from the Spanish crown to settlers) on which labourers are subject to authoritarian control, which, although less binding than that of the medieval feudal estate, is nonetheless coercive."

p. 172: "LIBERALISM There are two common meanings of liberalism, which unfortunately clash. In the history of political thought, liberalism is a doctrine developed in Europe from the late 17th century onwards (most closely associated with the British philosophers John Stuart Mill, John Locke, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham) which argued against authoritarian and absolutist forms of government and in favour of freedom of speech, association and religion, and the right to private property."

p. 186: "This is something of a perennial theme in sociology and can be found in Emile Durkheim’s concern with changing forms of social solidarity and Ferdinand Tönnies’s loss of Gemeinschaft or ‘community’ thesis but the mass society formulated owed much to attempts to explain the widespread success of fascism and authoritarianism in 1930s Europe."

p. 230: "This class [the petty bourgeoisie] was particularly likely to support fascist and authoritarian movements in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, McCarthyism in the USA in the 1950s and Poujadism in France in the early 1960s."

p. 303: "TOTALITARIANISM This signifies a particularly modern form of political rule in which power is centralised and applied to the control of every aspect of people’s lives. Examples of totalitarianism are Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Four things make it particularly modern. First, there is the reach granted by technology and bureaucratic organisation: only in the 20th century with electrical and electronic communication has it been possible to maintain effective surveillance over a large area and a large number of people. Second, is the interest in ordinary people created by democracy: until the rise of liberal democracy rulers only rarely paid attention to what the masses thought about anything. Third, only in the complex inter-connected societies described by Emile Durkheim’s organic solidarity need dictatorial rulers fear everyone. Monarchs of the 17th century did not need to fear the peasants of any one town or any one craft guild; only if revolt was widespread was it a problem for stability. The circle that needed constant supervision was the court and major nobles. Fourth and here we return to the first point about technical possibilities, it is generally only modern nation-states that promote an ideology of an entire people being enthusiastically united in some glorious common project. Hence it is only in such societies that dissent poses a serious threat to the rulers. The core of what the term signifies is clear enough but its edges are inevitably fuzzy. It is useful to distinguish totalitarian and authoritarian regimes and the usual marks are that authoritarian regimes are not purposefully ideological and do not have an interest in total mobilisation of the efforts of the people. Unlike Stalin, Latin American dictators such as Anastasio Somoza (who ruled Nicaragua from 1936 to 1956) were not engaged in an heroic project and required little from the people other than acquiescence." -- pvasiliadis  17:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)