The Authoritarian Personality and its Consequences
If nothing else, the past 6 years of American politics and culture have revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the authoritarian personality. The cult of the personality surrounding Bush's few remaining supporters, and the general concern that his supporters have for national and personal security, shows how much the authoritarian mindset can stick with us, even as we make more progress in technology and culture toward a more tolerant society. As Arbitrista says, there are two kinds of unity. "The unity propagated by the right is one that demands obedience to authority, while the unity of the left calls for civic engagement." In addition, Arbitrista points to the central problem of liberal politics. "The key problem with liberal politics [is that] it doesn't know how to cope with an anti-democratic minority. You can't reason with them, you can't ignore them, and you can't silence them and remain true to your own liberalism."
There is a solution to this problem. The solution depends on an understanding of what makes a person susceptible to anti-democratic ideas. The first step is to understand the two dominant ways of viewing the world. I call these ways the "relational model" and the "information model". The relational model is based on relationships. The most important relationship is between the individual and God. God is viewed as the source of everything because the individual has no other explanation for the workings of the world. If the weather is cold or warm, that's God's doing. If a person is healthy or sick, that is God's doing. Since God is the source of everything, the individual must have a relationship with God in order to do God's will. The strength of this relationship in turn determines the individual's level of happiness in life: the individual is doing what they should do (according to God) and what they want to do (pleasing God) simultaneously. For such an individual, there is no greater source of joy. All other relationships in the individual's life mirror this primary relationship. These include the individual's relationship with family: husband-wife, father-son, mother-daughter, brother-sister, older-sibling-younger sibling. The family is mirrored in society: the leader adopts the role of mother or father; a boss adopts the same role, or the role of older sibling. All of these relationships provide a great deal of structure and certainty for the individuals, so the individual is able to depend on these relationships for everything.
The informational model entails the opposite dynamic. It relies on science, or at least careful study and scholarship of the environment, in order to produce happiness. The information model argues that the individual's understanding of the world through information is the source of everything. This gives the individual much more importance in society. As a result, the individual does not need relationships as much. Indeed, very smart individuals will likely see relationships as suffocating, because relationships may be a hindrance to the acquisition and understanding of information.
Thus, the informational model poses a significant threat to the relationship model - so much of a threat that the relationship model takes measure to limit or eliminate the influence of the information model. Under the relationship model, information serves a useful purpose only if it reinforces and strengthens relationships. Accordingly, the people who provide information are restricted, or censored, so that they provide only that information that reinforces relationships. At the extreme, the relationship model excludes people who consistently provide information that threatens relationships.
The information model leads directly to liberal democracies. The enlightenment thinkers, such as Kant and Mill, argued that absolutely certainty about the physical world is never possible. Thus, everyone has equal claim to Truth because everyone has access to information and the ability to use reason to understand that information. The problem is that it is impossible to know if one person's understanding of information is the best or most complete understanding. Therefore, every individual lives under a constant cloud of doubt - doubt of other people and self-doubt. This doubt is alleviated only by the exchange of information between individuals through conversation; publication of articles and books; performance of plays, operas, movies, television; exchange of information through debate. All of these ways of exchanging information become part of a culture. More important, the state acts to preserve all of these methods by protecting individual rights to self-expression, and by having elections that depend on campaigns to exchange information. This is also why the liberal democracy cannot suppress the intolerant, anti-democratic minority. It is impossible for the liberal state to know for certain that the anti-democratic minority is not saying something important.
The relationship model leads directly to authoritarianism. Relationships exist in a binary world. Either a person is in a relationship or he is not. There is nothing in-between. There are many simplified ways of thinking that are very similar: either you are with us (in the relationship) or you are against us (outside the relationship); you are good (supporting the relationship) or you are evil (threatening the existence of the relationship). These simplified ways of thinking do not provide a supportive environment for the information model because most information does not have an obvious and immediate impact on relationships. Most information is neutral. However, the act of acquiring information poses a threat to relationships because acquisition of information depends on anti-social behavior: reading books, conducting experiments. Reading is the most anti-social behavior because, until we learn to read each other's minds, the relationship between the author and the reader cannot expand to other people. While it is possible to give a speech to millions of people, it is impossible to read more than one book or article at a time. As a result, the relationship model requires that all interactions occur between the higher authority and the lesser authority in order to prevent the information model from destroying the unity between people under the relationship model.
David Brooks argues, for instance, that parents must act under the relationship model, an be an authority figure for their children instead of trying to be buddies with their children. "I mean, don’t today’s much-discussed hipster parents notice that their claims to rebellious individuality are undercut by the fact that they are fascistically turning their children into miniature reproductions of their hipper-than-thou selves?" For Brooks, the authoritarian personality is the only defense against the more violent elements that are part of human nature. The problem, as Frank Rich points out, is that the authoritarian personality, as evidenced by Bush, is simply incapable to responding effectively to changing facts that can be understand properly only with the information model. Thus, while the authoritarian personality tries to promote security through unity at home, the inevitable result is that we become more vulnerable to threats abroad because we simply are not aware of them, or we cannot adapt quickly enough once we do become aware.
Since the authoritarian model has such disastrous consequences, most people turn to the information model because they want to be able to understand and adapt to change. Yet, there will always be anti-democratic minorities that think information is a threat to their relationships. The best way to soothe these minority groups is to make the relationship a natural part of information acquisition and exchange. This means that relationships should be the primary mechanism for communicating information: speeches, town hall meetings, electronic discussion boards, classrooms, campaigns and protests are the best ways to use relationships to exchange information. This means that direct democracy through the referendum process is the best form of government because it relies on personal relationships to work. Signing petitions can work only if a person has enough relationships to get other people to sign.
There is a solution to this problem. The solution depends on an understanding of what makes a person susceptible to anti-democratic ideas. The first step is to understand the two dominant ways of viewing the world. I call these ways the "relational model" and the "information model". The relational model is based on relationships. The most important relationship is between the individual and God. God is viewed as the source of everything because the individual has no other explanation for the workings of the world. If the weather is cold or warm, that's God's doing. If a person is healthy or sick, that is God's doing. Since God is the source of everything, the individual must have a relationship with God in order to do God's will. The strength of this relationship in turn determines the individual's level of happiness in life: the individual is doing what they should do (according to God) and what they want to do (pleasing God) simultaneously. For such an individual, there is no greater source of joy. All other relationships in the individual's life mirror this primary relationship. These include the individual's relationship with family: husband-wife, father-son, mother-daughter, brother-sister, older-sibling-younger sibling. The family is mirrored in society: the leader adopts the role of mother or father; a boss adopts the same role, or the role of older sibling. All of these relationships provide a great deal of structure and certainty for the individuals, so the individual is able to depend on these relationships for everything.
The informational model entails the opposite dynamic. It relies on science, or at least careful study and scholarship of the environment, in order to produce happiness. The information model argues that the individual's understanding of the world through information is the source of everything. This gives the individual much more importance in society. As a result, the individual does not need relationships as much. Indeed, very smart individuals will likely see relationships as suffocating, because relationships may be a hindrance to the acquisition and understanding of information.
Thus, the informational model poses a significant threat to the relationship model - so much of a threat that the relationship model takes measure to limit or eliminate the influence of the information model. Under the relationship model, information serves a useful purpose only if it reinforces and strengthens relationships. Accordingly, the people who provide information are restricted, or censored, so that they provide only that information that reinforces relationships. At the extreme, the relationship model excludes people who consistently provide information that threatens relationships.
The information model leads directly to liberal democracies. The enlightenment thinkers, such as Kant and Mill, argued that absolutely certainty about the physical world is never possible. Thus, everyone has equal claim to Truth because everyone has access to information and the ability to use reason to understand that information. The problem is that it is impossible to know if one person's understanding of information is the best or most complete understanding. Therefore, every individual lives under a constant cloud of doubt - doubt of other people and self-doubt. This doubt is alleviated only by the exchange of information between individuals through conversation; publication of articles and books; performance of plays, operas, movies, television; exchange of information through debate. All of these ways of exchanging information become part of a culture. More important, the state acts to preserve all of these methods by protecting individual rights to self-expression, and by having elections that depend on campaigns to exchange information. This is also why the liberal democracy cannot suppress the intolerant, anti-democratic minority. It is impossible for the liberal state to know for certain that the anti-democratic minority is not saying something important.
The relationship model leads directly to authoritarianism. Relationships exist in a binary world. Either a person is in a relationship or he is not. There is nothing in-between. There are many simplified ways of thinking that are very similar: either you are with us (in the relationship) or you are against us (outside the relationship); you are good (supporting the relationship) or you are evil (threatening the existence of the relationship). These simplified ways of thinking do not provide a supportive environment for the information model because most information does not have an obvious and immediate impact on relationships. Most information is neutral. However, the act of acquiring information poses a threat to relationships because acquisition of information depends on anti-social behavior: reading books, conducting experiments. Reading is the most anti-social behavior because, until we learn to read each other's minds, the relationship between the author and the reader cannot expand to other people. While it is possible to give a speech to millions of people, it is impossible to read more than one book or article at a time. As a result, the relationship model requires that all interactions occur between the higher authority and the lesser authority in order to prevent the information model from destroying the unity between people under the relationship model.
David Brooks argues, for instance, that parents must act under the relationship model, an be an authority figure for their children instead of trying to be buddies with their children. "I mean, don’t today’s much-discussed hipster parents notice that their claims to rebellious individuality are undercut by the fact that they are fascistically turning their children into miniature reproductions of their hipper-than-thou selves?" For Brooks, the authoritarian personality is the only defense against the more violent elements that are part of human nature. The problem, as Frank Rich points out, is that the authoritarian personality, as evidenced by Bush, is simply incapable to responding effectively to changing facts that can be understand properly only with the information model. Thus, while the authoritarian personality tries to promote security through unity at home, the inevitable result is that we become more vulnerable to threats abroad because we simply are not aware of them, or we cannot adapt quickly enough once we do become aware.
Since the authoritarian model has such disastrous consequences, most people turn to the information model because they want to be able to understand and adapt to change. Yet, there will always be anti-democratic minorities that think information is a threat to their relationships. The best way to soothe these minority groups is to make the relationship a natural part of information acquisition and exchange. This means that relationships should be the primary mechanism for communicating information: speeches, town hall meetings, electronic discussion boards, classrooms, campaigns and protests are the best ways to use relationships to exchange information. This means that direct democracy through the referendum process is the best form of government because it relies on personal relationships to work. Signing petitions can work only if a person has enough relationships to get other people to sign.
posted by Marriah @ 2:34 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home