Chat

For the vast majority of people currently saying they support authoritarianism, particularly in western countries, it's not because of parent-child relationships or boss-worker relationships or the fact that we elect representatives to make decisions rather than have a referendum on every decision (which is unworkable in countries of millions of people). It's purely because the democratic system in their country isn't working for them.

There was some polling in the UK last year, where a bunch of people were asked about their preferred form of government, and the demographic that had the strongest support for "a strong leader that makes decisions without parliament or courts getting in the way" were the 18-30 age bracket. And it's not because this group inherently think that having some authority figure telling everyone what to do is a good thing, because they're of the age when they should be more independent, not less. But they know the democratic system isn't working, because there are decisions that need to be made on jobs, housing, childcare, healthcare, public transport, climate change, etc, and those decisions aren't being made. So when people answer a question about whether they want a "strong leader", they're not really saying they want authoritarianism (and everything that goes with it). They're saying "the decisions that need to be made aren't being made, so we need stronger leaders".

"Supporting authoritarianism" isn't really support for the horrors of authoritarianism for the majority. It's a symptom of economic inequality and politicians who have been captured by vested interests. I note that in the research you linked to, one of the individual comments from respondents was listed:

They need to listen to the working class and the poorer classes. They should not think about profit first and instead focus more on homeless people and the veterans. We should use the money we pay in taxes for the NHS and emergency services and do more for families – affordable resources for child care, more affordable housing...

An authoritarian leader isn't going to listen to the working class, or do any of the things that person said they wanted (which are all things a lot of people in the UK want). The relationships you described, boss-worker and some parent-child relationships, are not known for the authority figure listening to the subordinate one. The kind of people supporting authoritarianism right now aren't looking at their boss, who refuses to listen to them about the problems the workplace, employees, and customers are facing, and thinking "yeah, we need more of this". They're not looking back fondly at the childhood where their parents refused to listen to them, and just ordered them around.

The only thing they're thinking is that the economic system they live in is rigged against them, and politicians have stopped listening. They think (incorrectly, in my view) that if the leader of the country was strong enough, they could make the right decisions without being influenced by hedge fund managers and fossil fuel executives and all the other people with economic motivation to prevent those decisions being made. I think if the surveys used a followup question of "is a strong leader who doesn't listen to the working class, and just uses their power to benefit themselves and their friends, a good way to run a country?" (which is the reality of what authoritarianism is), support for authoritarianism would drop like a stone.

One overlooked reason was highlighted by the Milgram experiments. Authority doesn't just command, it takes away the responsibility for needing to think about, and live with, the morality of ones actions. The authority can claim to be acting for a higher authority (god, the state, the corporation), and for it to absolve you of your crimes all you have to do is follow orders.

Even if that sin is murder, as long as you follow orders the authority promises to save you from damnation, or at least prison. Sometimes those orders are an old fashioned crusade, sometimes it's fitting substandard aircraft parts.

There's one huge problem with your critique: You are conflating heirarchy with authoritarianism. The structures you described above are all heirarchies, but are not always, and should not be, authoritarian.

I think your insights are cogent; but you need to separate out the two concepts to get to the heart of the discussion.

I've saved this post and will come back to it when I have get off work; thanks for starting an interesting conversation.

I will always recommend the classics...

• Escape from Freedom, Erich Fromm

• The Authoritarian Personality, Theodor Adorno

I read Escape from Freedom 20 years ago when I was trying to understand the Holocaust and then again a few years ago when it was clear we were seeing another rise in fascism and authoritarianism. Thanks for the link, I will read it later, I've only just got up and on my first cup of tea... 😅

The boss/worker relationship is not (supposed to be) authoritarian. In a big company the "boss" works on a different level. The worker works on an operational level, "doing the work". The boss works on a strategical level, "setting the course".

The boss determines the best course for the company, managers determine the best implementations, operational workers put it into practice. (Strategical/tactical/operational)

These layers are there for a reason, because it works. You don't want a boss messing with opertional issues. Operational workers are experts who know best, the boss is not the expert and would make it worse. The boss has good insight into all current issues in the company across all departments and knows which company needs are most important right now. That way you won't get a wild west situation where eveyone does whatever they think or like best and people end up not working towards the common goal.

That's how it's meant to work. Of course there are bad bosses and bad people and there is a matter of economical unfairness. The relationship is not inherently authoritarian.

It's interesting in these comments to see some people who are conflating leadership with authority. Leadership is about directing an effort. Authority is not inherently about directing anything, it's simply a claim to power over something. It is often used to direct efforts, often badly.

A king can sit on a throne and do nothing, and their claim to authority (e.g. 'Divine Right') is not diminished, whereas a project manager who does not actually manage anything will be, by project manager standards, a failure. Of course, many leaders are granted authority, but it is usually contingent on them fulfilling their role as a leader, which is very different than an Authoritarian leader, where this is no one else they must answer to.

A team can select a team lead for a project to direct efforts, without needing to create the kind of structures of authority that exist in a large corporate setting, and this happens every day.

Someone in another comment mentioned watching a 9-person group at a university fail to make progress on a project because they lack a leader, and then suggested that authority was in fact what was missing... but no university group project members actually have authority over each other. The successful groups select a leader, not an authority figure. The group leader they select cannot fail the members, or kick them out of the group, or do anything else without the agreement of the other members or involving the professor (who actually has authority), and yet every day groups of students complete projects just fine, sans authority.

I highly recommend this piece from The Anarchist Library for a decently in-depth discussion of Authority (the piece is a critique of Engel's "On Authority", and dives into authority and hierarchy and the necessities of them for organization of social systems.

Authoritarianism is a fundamentally immature mindset. Every child thinks they could do things best, and should be in charge, and could fix it all if they had absolute power. But don't take my word for it, Trump himself- the ultimate man-baby- has stated a couple times that he wants to be "dictator for a day" because he'd be able to achieve the stuff he keeps promising if he just had the sole authority to force everyone to do so:

I said I want to be a dictator for one day. You know why I wanted to be a dictator? Because I want a wall, and I want to drill, drill, drill.

But as we grow up, we (hopefully) come to understand that mutual agreement/ co-operation is the best way to achieve difficult outcomes. Authority is always based on a threat of some kind, and it inherently creates an antagonistic relationship, which is why most people think of a "good boss" as one that "leads", like a coach, and a "bad boss" as one who "orders", like a dictator. Good leaders build consensus, because consensus is how goals are most effectively achieved, and while authority can impose a false consensus under duress (e.g. the threat of job loss), it can't make you want to achieve a goal.

As an extra tidbit the link I put in the post shows that the USA and Australia are the only place where people who are centrist are more likely to accept authoritarianism than both left and right leaning voters.

Make of that what you will.