Read on Twitter
Because as everyone knows, if you want to be widely read, the time to post is the day before a major holiday, I want to share some thoughts on this terrific (long) essay be @karen_stenner: https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2020/11/01/authoritarianism/
(And many thanks to @Teri_Kanefield for sharing the link in a thread the other night.)
Stenner is a political psychologist studying authoritarianism, and as such, she provides what not many sources on the subject do: insight into the *why* of authoritariansim.
According to Stenner, about 30% of all people have personalities that are predisposed to authoritarianism. She says that seems to be the case across cultures, and importantly, those traits are found on *both* the right *and* the left.
One of Stenner's studies found that about 14% of left-wingers in the EU have an authoritarian bent, compared to 19% of right-wingers. According to her, it's about the same in the US. We'll come back to this point.
So what are these authoritarian traits? Basically, it's a need for "oneness and sameness." Authoritarians want everyone everywhere to be singing from the same hymnal.
I think this is why so many older church people are so nostalgic for the "good old days" of the 1950's and 60's, when things were much more conformist.
This does indeed play out in racism, but Stenner argues that it's actually bigger than that: it's what she calls "difference-ism," an inability to accept diversity and difference.
If you've ever lived in a small town or a rural area, you know exactly what she's talking about. Some folks don't like *anybody* who's too different from them.
The important point, of course, is that this is exactly the opposite direction of the one global society is moving in. Diversity and difference and the celebration of such are becoming a bigger part of social life.
Stenner says that shift in society has essentially exceeded authoritarians' ability to cope. I don't think she mentions it, but I'm sure the post-2008 financial crisis didn't do wonders on this score, either.
Last point of summary, and then we'll move into some application. Stenner says "authoritarians concern themselves obsessively with...'normative order,'" in other words, the "common authority and shared values" that create a unified society.
This is why authoritarians often rally around religious and nationalistic symbols such as the cross or the flag: they're meant to express a common "us" bringing people together.
But it works in other ways too. If you stop to listen to the way some leftists talk about economic equality, you quickly realize that "the 99%" embodies what are supposed to be shared values of the community over and against the "them" in the 1%.
I should say *often* embodies, not everyone on the left does this, but you catch my drift.
Whoops, sorry, one more thing to understand. Authoritarianism and conservatism are not the same thing. Conservatives want things to change slowly, authoritarians want everyone to be the same.
To give a concrete example, I'm a relatively conservative Democrat in that I don't think it's necessary to burn the party or the government to the ground for the sake of reform. I prefer gradual change. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
But I'm *not* an authoritarian in that it doesn't bother me that my daughter is bi, and I don't mind living in racially diverse neighborhoods. As a matter of fact, where I live now is too damn white.
Stenner is careful to make this distinction first because it helps us understand some of the gradations of the GOP and conservatism: there is in fact a difference between establishment Republicans and Trumpers.
But it also helps explain some of the apparent contradictions of the Trump era. Small-state conservatives dislike government handouts, Stenner says, but authoritarians don't mind them a bit, as long as they go to "us" and not "them."
Likewise, tradcons want to change things slowly, but authoritarians are just fine on fast, even revolutionary, change. The idiots walking around with assault rifles are an extreme example of this feature.
I hope it's starting to become clear how well this framework fits the current moment. Again, according to Stenner, authoritarians are ordinarily quiet, community-minded folks who can be activated by threats to perceived norms and by strong leaders who offer protection from same.
This fits well with my experience. Rural/working-class church folks are some of the most supportive members of their communities. They take care of their own and expect their churches to do the same. Woe betide you though if they get the idea that you're not behind them 110%.
This is why you see the "We back the blue" signs way out in the countryside where the last time anyone challenged the cops, they were hauling moonshine across the county line.
There's not actually a threat to police authority in rural Wisconsin or wherever. But BLM and other protests against police violence is a perceived threat to (racialized) social norms, and therefore must be vigorously contested.
It's also why we see small towns and rural areas turning on their public health leaders: https://www.npr.org/2020/12/28/950861977/toxic-individualism-pandemic-politics-driving-health-care-workers-from-small-tow
Embracing mask mandates is for many stepping out against the community and its norms. Irrational, but there it is.
Embracing mask mandates is for many stepping out against the community and its norms. Irrational, but there it is.
We could on all day with this—it really is a rich framework—but let's focus in on just a few more applications.
One is that because about 1/3 of any given society has these authoritarian tendencies—which again, cut across left/right lines—democracies are under constant threat, and as we've seen America is certainly no exception to that rule.
As Stenner points out, Trump made hay in 2016 with self-described *liberals* who perceived threats to social norms. 49% who saw low or mild threats went for Trump, and *66%* of those who saw high threat.
So it doesn't take much of a coalition to push authoritarianism to the front, especially in a counter-majoritarian system like ours.
Fortunately for us, it doesn't seem to happen that often. It takes the right circumstances and the right strongman. Doesn't mean there's no reason for concern, but typically, it doesn't all come together.
I do see some of the same trends on the left. Not in the same way necessarily, and not to the same violent extent, but it's there. Look again at the "us vs. them" rhetoric, look at the way Bernie Sanders sometimes gets held up as beyond reproach or questioning.
And let's be honest, look at some of the people on the left who would be happy to stuff BLM and racial/social justice movements down a hole in favor of agitating for MFA and income equality.
Last thing: I agree with Stenner that these questions have scrambled American politics. In fact, you could write the history of the US post-1965 as one large reckoning with bringing Black Americans into the polity and the backlash their representation has provoked.
I very much agree with her on this:
Though in general Biden has done a good job of "conveying a reassuring message of oneness and sameness"—it's probably his greatest political strength, in fact—I find myself more and more repelled with the language of "saving the soul of America."
Above and beyond how that language mixes religious and political categories, it implies a shared faith that for the life of me, I can't find in the United States.
Ceremonial deism is dead, people, and so is the broadly-held "golden rule Christianity." They are simply not the uniting threads so many good-hearted religious progressives think they are.
Stenner's right that escaping authoritarianism will require our politics to build more "unifying institutions and rituals." I do have some faith that we'll get there, eventually.
Stenner's also right that we can't get there by demonizing the people with authoritarian leanings. Draw boundaries, sure, oppose politically, absolutely. But they're not enemies, and they don't deserve to be locked out of the political system.
They're just people, and they deserve representation just like anyone else.
I'm uncomfortable with some of Stenner's concrete suggestions for how to do this, though. She thinks we might profit from dialing back some of the celebration of diversity in society, or by better integrating immigrants into American society.
It's wrong on the face of it to suggest that someone give up advocating for themselves, and for people like them, of course, and I don't think that's what Stenner wants.
Beyond that, on a practical level, I'm not sure it's possible to stop the tide of diversity and difference in the US, or agitation for it.
Simply put, there are too many people who have been told for too long to sit down and be quiet, and I don't think they're really willing to do anything like that any longer.
And there are people who are not and will not be happy with the folks who want to celebrate their uniqueness. They're not exactly looking to pipe down, either.
And somehow, we've got to find a way to bring all those people together in a productive way. Maybe Habermas has some ideas on how to do this.
As for me, I'm just predicting a bumpy ride for the next few years.
As for me, I'm just predicting a bumpy ride for the next few years.
And with that, I will stop cluttering up your timelines. The end.
