Scan barcode
flijn's review
3.0
Well, that was an interesting read.
The format is somewhat curious: a combination of (pop)science and pamphlet, a social-psychological analysis and a call to action.
Altemeyer outlines his research into right-wing authoritarianism and has some profoundly disturbing warnings for the reader. He outlines an analysis of two types of people: those who follow authoritarian leaders, and those who are the leaders. He describes how together, this minority can endanger a democracy where a moderate majority silently watches, seemingly incapable to stop the destruction of basic democratic institutions and values.
He explains their psychological make-up, the reason they act the way they do, the link between these authoritarians, the GOP, and christian fundamentalism, and the direction they will take when not stopped. At the end, there are some tips on how to stop their destruction. I will put these tips in this review because I think they are important.
But first: what is authoritarianism?
It is a personality trait, measured by a survey aptly called the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale. It scores the subject by asking them to rate their agreement with statements on things like leadership, values, diversity, existential threats, religion, and so forth. From it emerges the personality of an authoritarian.
Right wing does not refer, necessarily, to the right wing of the political spectrum (although in practice, in the US, it does). Right-wing authoritarians feel strongly that conventional authorities and their laws should be obeyed (except by the authoritarian leaders themselves - they are above the law). Left-wing authoritarian are also a thing, the difference being that they submit not to the conventional authority like heads-of-state or traditional religious leaders, but to leaders who want to overthrow the establishment.
Right-wing athoritarian followers are people who readily and unquestioningly submit to authority, are ready to hurt others in the name of said authority, see themselves as morally superior to others, and experience the world as being on the brink of moral ruin, which only the strong leader and an united followship can save it from. They are submissive and fearfull, and their sense of self-righteousness allows them to lash out aggressively toward perceived Others.
They are able to compartmentalize conflicting statemenst, values and actions on a frightening level; there is little critical thinking or integration of various beliefs. What is said by the authority to be true, is true. Because he says so, and because they like the sound of it.
This has a high corelation with religious fundamentalism, which informs what the right way to be and live is: no to homosexuality, abortion, feminism, freedom of religion; yes to creationism, traditional social roles, obedience to God's law.
Combine this group with authoritarian leaders, and you have a big problem.
These leaders also value authority greatly, the difference being that they are highly dominant. They don't follow the leader, they are the leader. Followers see the world collapsing and hope for a saviour. Authoritarian leaders see the world as already in jungle-mode and power as something to be grabbed before someone else does it. They do not share the values of the followers (they are decidedly amoral), but will pose as their hero and saviour in any way that will gain their support. Once he has it, he will use it to gather more power and stomp down on the weak (which is everyone else, in his view).
I'm not enough of a social scientist to say whether the conclusions that Altemeyer reaches, are scientifically sound. However, keep in mind that this book is from 2006. Reading it then, it might have sounded hysterical, apocalyptic even. Reading it now, in 2020, a little over a month before Trump's first term hopefully turns out to be his last... and it is chillingly correct in its predictions of the dangers of Authoritatiran leaders and their followers. I will even call it an understatement of how far a 'democracy' can fall.
What's to be done?
This is the title of the last chapter. If divisions between people seem wider than ever and trust in others is at an all-time low, and people are willing to attack the very foundations of democracy, freedom an d equality, how can fences be mended? There are some things you can do:
1. Find common ground and meet on them. Find shared values and goals and work together.
2. Keep speaking up, especially if you are a minority. Rwa's want to conform, and one reason they are prejudiced (but think they are not) is because everyone around them is the same. If they hear from minorities, they can adjust their view of what normal is and become more moderate.
3. Make higher education accesible to everyone. The research suggests that rwa's have a lot of fear and prejudice towards out-groups. But once they get to know people from that out-group, this prejudice lessens. Institutiosn of higher edication are often the first place they encounter people with other backgrounds and ideas than themsleves. Students who scored high on the scale at the beginning of their studies, scores lower afterwards.
4. Rwa's / fundamentalist christians are a minority, but are very organized. A large part of the population is politically moderate but inactive. If the moderates can get organized, they can turn the tide.
One reason to be critical of this book is the enormous over-respresentation of American and Canadian students in the test population. This is a common problem in social science research. I don't think it invalidates the findings, but it is sure wise to keep in mind that many of these conclusions are drawn based on a less-than-representative group of people (and their parents).
In later chapters, other research is added to the mix, so we get an interesting insight into the corelation between a group of American politicians and the rwa-scale.
I'm also curious about how this research can shed light on another current trend: that of the lack of trust in other established authorities: science, mainly, experts in general. One the one hand, they are conventional, established authorities. Rwa's should be fond of them, but the opposite is true. Reading this, that can be explained by the hostility of the authoritarian leaders towards these institutions, and the perceived threat to (religious) morals these institutions pose.
Even if these findings are not completely sound, what they do is give a very clear view of these two types of people. I think lay people seeing how the world is currently burning, will have a better understanding of things that have been happening after reading this book. And anyone who is interested in writing characters: this is a goldmine.
Fair warning - Bob Altemeyer writes as if he wants you to think of him as your jovial uncle. He's that professor who makes the same jokes over and over (at his own expense, mostly) and who wink-winks and nudge-nudges you in a friendly, paternalizing way. I did only mind that a bit, but it might get on your nerves. A lot.
The format is somewhat curious: a combination of (pop)science and pamphlet, a social-psychological analysis and a call to action.
Altemeyer outlines his research into right-wing authoritarianism and has some profoundly disturbing warnings for the reader. He outlines an analysis of two types of people: those who follow authoritarian leaders, and those who are the leaders. He describes how together, this minority can endanger a democracy where a moderate majority silently watches, seemingly incapable to stop the destruction of basic democratic institutions and values.
He explains their psychological make-up, the reason they act the way they do, the link between these authoritarians, the GOP, and christian fundamentalism, and the direction they will take when not stopped. At the end, there are some tips on how to stop their destruction. I will put these tips in this review because I think they are important.
But first: what is authoritarianism?
It is a personality trait, measured by a survey aptly called the Right-Wing Authoritarianism scale. It scores the subject by asking them to rate their agreement with statements on things like leadership, values, diversity, existential threats, religion, and so forth. From it emerges the personality of an authoritarian.
Right wing does not refer, necessarily, to the right wing of the political spectrum (although in practice, in the US, it does). Right-wing authoritarians feel strongly that conventional authorities and their laws should be obeyed (except by the authoritarian leaders themselves - they are above the law). Left-wing authoritarian are also a thing, the difference being that they submit not to the conventional authority like heads-of-state or traditional religious leaders, but to leaders who want to overthrow the establishment.
Right-wing athoritarian followers are people who readily and unquestioningly submit to authority, are ready to hurt others in the name of said authority, see themselves as morally superior to others, and experience the world as being on the brink of moral ruin, which only the strong leader and an united followship can save it from. They are submissive and fearfull, and their sense of self-righteousness allows them to lash out aggressively toward perceived Others.
They are able to compartmentalize conflicting statemenst, values and actions on a frightening level; there is little critical thinking or integration of various beliefs. What is said by the authority to be true, is true. Because he says so, and because they like the sound of it.
This has a high corelation with religious fundamentalism, which informs what the right way to be and live is: no to homosexuality, abortion, feminism, freedom of religion; yes to creationism, traditional social roles, obedience to God's law.
Combine this group with authoritarian leaders, and you have a big problem.
These leaders also value authority greatly, the difference being that they are highly dominant. They don't follow the leader, they are the leader. Followers see the world collapsing and hope for a saviour. Authoritarian leaders see the world as already in jungle-mode and power as something to be grabbed before someone else does it. They do not share the values of the followers (they are decidedly amoral), but will pose as their hero and saviour in any way that will gain their support. Once he has it, he will use it to gather more power and stomp down on the weak (which is everyone else, in his view).
I'm not enough of a social scientist to say whether the conclusions that Altemeyer reaches, are scientifically sound. However, keep in mind that this book is from 2006. Reading it then, it might have sounded hysterical, apocalyptic even. Reading it now, in 2020, a little over a month before Trump's first term hopefully turns out to be his last... and it is chillingly correct in its predictions of the dangers of Authoritatiran leaders and their followers. I will even call it an understatement of how far a 'democracy' can fall.
What's to be done?
This is the title of the last chapter. If divisions between people seem wider than ever and trust in others is at an all-time low, and people are willing to attack the very foundations of democracy, freedom an d equality, how can fences be mended? There are some things you can do:
1. Find common ground and meet on them. Find shared values and goals and work together.
2. Keep speaking up, especially if you are a minority. Rwa's want to conform, and one reason they are prejudiced (but think they are not) is because everyone around them is the same. If they hear from minorities, they can adjust their view of what normal is and become more moderate.
3. Make higher education accesible to everyone. The research suggests that rwa's have a lot of fear and prejudice towards out-groups. But once they get to know people from that out-group, this prejudice lessens. Institutiosn of higher edication are often the first place they encounter people with other backgrounds and ideas than themsleves. Students who scored high on the scale at the beginning of their studies, scores lower afterwards.
4. Rwa's / fundamentalist christians are a minority, but are very organized. A large part of the population is politically moderate but inactive. If the moderates can get organized, they can turn the tide.
One reason to be critical of this book is the enormous over-respresentation of American and Canadian students in the test population. This is a common problem in social science research. I don't think it invalidates the findings, but it is sure wise to keep in mind that many of these conclusions are drawn based on a less-than-representative group of people (and their parents).
In later chapters, other research is added to the mix, so we get an interesting insight into the corelation between a group of American politicians and the rwa-scale.
I'm also curious about how this research can shed light on another current trend: that of the lack of trust in other established authorities: science, mainly, experts in general. One the one hand, they are conventional, established authorities. Rwa's should be fond of them, but the opposite is true. Reading this, that can be explained by the hostility of the authoritarian leaders towards these institutions, and the perceived threat to (religious) morals these institutions pose.
Even if these findings are not completely sound, what they do is give a very clear view of these two types of people. I think lay people seeing how the world is currently burning, will have a better understanding of things that have been happening after reading this book. And anyone who is interested in writing characters: this is a goldmine.
Fair warning - Bob Altemeyer writes as if he wants you to think of him as your jovial uncle. He's that professor who makes the same jokes over and over (at his own expense, mostly) and who wink-winks and nudge-nudges you in a friendly, paternalizing way. I did only mind that a bit, but it might get on your nerves. A lot.
kalwriteswords's review
5.0
Exceptional work on the psychology behind authoritarianism. The author's notes--showcasing the pitfalls and statistical work behind his conclusions--gives weight to this rather alarming text on the increasingly organized authoritarians in North America. Well worth the read for anyone interested in understanding the psychology behind it all.
skyclad's review
5.0
Necessary but not a pleasurable read. It's important to understand how the political situation we're in now happened.
letzygonsbezygons's review
5.0
The Authoritarians is the summary of a professor of psychology’s years of research into authoritarianism, discussing both authoritarian leaders and authoritarian followers. It gives a framework for this extremely important topic in a readable style, and I can't recommend it enough. (And it's available free online on his website)
curgoth's review
4.0
It took me a long time to read this, not because it was bad, or even difficult. It took me forever because Altemeyer distributes it for free from his website as a PDF, and I do my reading on my Kobo, which will read PDFs, but does so awkwardly. I did eventually get back to it, though, and it's worth the effort.
The Authoritarians looks at what Altemeyer calls "Right Wing Authoritarians". He's got a test that puts people on a scale that he's been giving to people since the 70s. Which means he's had a lot of time to correlate high and low scores on the test with other characteristics.
The name "Right Wing Authoritarian" is, in retrospect, sort of a terrible name, since what it's really testing for is "Authoritarian Submission" - the personality type that thinks the government is always right, no matter how many people it kills, that protesters should have "just stayed home", etc. The flip side to the RWAs are the folks who tell them what to do - the Social Dominators, measured by a different test that another researcher has spent his career working on. These are the folks who go after power, say things like "life is a jungle, eat or be eaten", etc.
Some of the connections Altemeyer talks about seem pretty obvious. Some were surprising. Taken as a whole, the traits and tendencies are pretty terrifying. This isn't about "right vs left" or "conservative vs. liberal", though - not all conservatives are RWAs or Social Dominators. Just the scary ones.
It's a really interesting look at a segment of humanity that seems to be gaining an awful lot of influence in the world lately. And that's pretty worrying.
(edited to add: It's also worth reading because Altemeyer is hilarious while telling you about terrifying things)
The Authoritarians looks at what Altemeyer calls "Right Wing Authoritarians". He's got a test that puts people on a scale that he's been giving to people since the 70s. Which means he's had a lot of time to correlate high and low scores on the test with other characteristics.
The name "Right Wing Authoritarian" is, in retrospect, sort of a terrible name, since what it's really testing for is "Authoritarian Submission" - the personality type that thinks the government is always right, no matter how many people it kills, that protesters should have "just stayed home", etc. The flip side to the RWAs are the folks who tell them what to do - the Social Dominators, measured by a different test that another researcher has spent his career working on. These are the folks who go after power, say things like "life is a jungle, eat or be eaten", etc.
Some of the connections Altemeyer talks about seem pretty obvious. Some were surprising. Taken as a whole, the traits and tendencies are pretty terrifying. This isn't about "right vs left" or "conservative vs. liberal", though - not all conservatives are RWAs or Social Dominators. Just the scary ones.
It's a really interesting look at a segment of humanity that seems to be gaining an awful lot of influence in the world lately. And that's pretty worrying.
(edited to add: It's also worth reading because Altemeyer is hilarious while telling you about terrifying things)
octavia_cade's review
5.0
This is just fascinating. The twentieth century, in particular, had a lot of people willing to follow monstrous dictators without question, and there's apparently a branch of psychology that's interested in what makes individuals so easily swayed by authoritarians. The author, a psychologist involved for decades in experiments with authoritarian followers, discusses them and their characteristics here. What makes this particularly credible is that he goes into the details of each experiment, and while I know very little about psychology the results are both convincing and, frankly, chilling. They also explain a lot of the things happening in politics today, where insular in-groups are completely unswayed by factual evidence, because they prioritise obedience and social cohesion above all else. Also, I have to say that this is particularly well-written. My own background is in science communication, and if all scientists could communicate as clearly and effectively as Altemeyer no-one would need me! His prose is clear and informal and chatty, and it was a pleasure to read.
Seriously, this book is fascinating. And it's free, so go to his website and get a copy. You won't be sorry.
Seriously, this book is fascinating. And it's free, so go to his website and get a copy. You won't be sorry.
jcronk's review
4.0
This is available for free in PDF format and for cheap as an audiobook. It's well worth reading, and it provides some explanations and insight into why some people seem to blindly follow the most forceful leader who says the right things, not to mention why people fear things they don't have experience with, and why they can be so tribal.
bluejayreads's review
informative
slow-paced
4.5
This book came highly recommended by my favorite ex-Christian blogger, plus it was free online. And considering my background, I thought even if it wasn't interesting, it should at least be valuable.
It was interesting, though, and a remarkably easy read despite all the research and science it contains. Bob Altemeyer presents his decades of research on authoritarian followers and leaders and uses that research to interpret high-authoritarian groups (like religious fundamentalists and the politically conservative) and societal phenomena. He is careful to point out that being fundamentalist or conservative doesn't necessarily mean you're authoritarian (leader or follower) and the book isn't a judgement on either group, his research just found a higher concentration of authoritarians in both groups.
This book was interesting to me because I grew up in a religious fundamentalist family and was raised to be a good authoritarian follower, and even though I don't want to be authoritarian I still find a lot of those tendencies lurking in my brain. This isn't really a book to help you get rid of those, but it's very helpful to start to identify them.
Even if you don't come from that kind of background, though, I think this is still a valuable book for understanding the authoritarian mindset and gaining some insight into current events, especially in the aftermath of a Trump presidency.