Nietzsche As Biological Visionary?

meatbag

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,771
all hitherto existing attempts to isolate a testable property known as "authoritarianism" have been miserable failures imo. i would count adorno's test that he developed as one of them. look this is just my opinion. you're welcome to try and pursue this but to me this is just a wrong tree to bark up and a waste of anyone's time. there are various forms of structure and control in various societies, that vary historically and geographically, many of which are effective modes of control and repression but don't involve overt authoritarianism. many of which are compatible with "liberal democracies", many of which are very diffuse in structure. i think debord's "notes on society of the spectacle" or deleuze's "on the societies of control" are relevant texts

Okay, what would a successful attempt look like? It seems there are definable and recognizable aspects like you've alluded to; control, repression, deriving pleasure from persecuting others, etc. I can't argue that its any more or less difficult to test than any other social or psychological phenomena and it is explained (in the book) that the data so far indicates that environment and culture and events than invoke fear measurably increase this property.

It seems like you're focusing a lot on modes of governance but as the author of the book as pointed (who I in no way agree with about everything I'm just interested in the concept) says: "It’s (authoritarianism) an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics". I don't think the author, this seems to be addressed in the book, would deny that dictatorship manifest in different ways. So then why do we observe things like the following;

"High RWAs trusted President Nixon longer and stronger than most people did
during the Watergate crisis.11 Some of them still believed Nixon was innocent of
criminal acts even after he accepted a pardon for them.12 (Similarly the Allies found
many Germans in 1945 refused to believe that Hitler, one of the most evil men in
history, had ordered the murder of millions of Jews and others. “He was busy running
the war,” Hitler’s apologists said. “The concentration camps were built and run by
subordinates without his knowing it.”)"

If you give them moral dilemmas (e.g. should one steal an absurdly
expensive drug to save a life?) they’re more likely to say, “The law is the law and
must be obeyed” than most people are. High RWAs also say they would bow more to
show respect for their fathers, the president of companies where they worked, and so
on, than most people indicate."

In other words authoritarianism isn't incompatible with any kind of government or economic system, it is more of psychological and social property of behavior and conduct that's recognizable in both individuals and groups whether they're capitalists, fascists, democrats, neoliberals, left, right, democrat, etc. that can rise and fall over time given varying circumstances (events in the media, etc.) and has just as much to do with people who are tyrannical as people who submit to others as explained;

"Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism."

There are various forms of structure and control in various societies, that vary historically and geographically, many of which are effective modes of control and repression but don't involve overt authoritarianism.

Such as what? Are you referring to manipulating opinion through advertising? (legitimately curious)
 

meatbag

Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2016
Messages
1,771
all hitherto existing attempts to isolate a testable property known as "authoritarianism" have been miserable failures imo. i would count adorno's test that he developed as one of them. look this is just my opinion. you're welcome to try and pursue this but to me this is just a wrong tree to bark up and a waste of anyone's time. there are various forms of structure and control in various societies, that vary historically and geographically, many of which are effective modes of control and repression but don't involve overt authoritarianism. many of which are compatible with "liberal democracies", many of which are very diffuse in structure. i think debord's "notes on society of the spectacle" or deleuze's "on the societies of control" are relevant texts
I'm reading those sites btw :thumbsup:
 
Joined
Nov 27, 2017
Messages
960
Okay, what would a successful attempt look like? It seems there are definable and recognizable aspects like you've alluded to; control, repression, deriving pleasure from persecuting others, etc. I can't argue that its any more or less difficult to test than any other social or psychological phenomena and it is explained (in the book) that the data so far indicates that environment and culture and events than invoke fear measurably increase this property.

It seems like you're focusing a lot on modes of governance but as the author of the book as pointed (who I in no way agree with about everything I'm just interested in the concept) says: "It’s (authoritarianism) an aspect of his personality, not a description of his politics". I don't think the author, this seems to be addressed in the book, would deny that dictatorship manifest in different ways. So then why do we observe things like the following;

"High RWAs trusted President Nixon longer and stronger than most people did
during the Watergate crisis.11 Some of them still believed Nixon was innocent of
criminal acts even after he accepted a pardon for them.12 (Similarly the Allies found
many Germans in 1945 refused to believe that Hitler, one of the most evil men in
history, had ordered the murder of millions of Jews and others. “He was busy running
the war,” Hitler’s apologists said. “The concentration camps were built and run by
subordinates without his knowing it.”)"

If you give them moral dilemmas (e.g. should one steal an absurdly
expensive drug to save a life?) they’re more likely to say, “The law is the law and
must be obeyed” than most people are. High RWAs also say they would bow more to
show respect for their fathers, the president of companies where they worked, and so
on, than most people indicate."

In other words authoritarianism isn't incompatible with any kind of government or economic system, it is more of psychological and social property of behavior and conduct that's recognizable in both individuals and groups whether they're capitalists, fascists, democrats, neoliberals, left, right, democrat, etc. that can rise and fall over time given varying circumstances (events in the media, etc.) and has just as much to do with people who are tyrannical as people who submit to others as explained;

"Psychologically these followers have personalities featuring:
1) a high degree of submission to the established, legitimate authorities in
their society;
2) high levels of aggression in the name of their authorities; and
3) a high level of conventionalism."



Such as what? Are you referring to manipulating opinion through advertising? (legitimately curious)

as to the bolded question I would just refer to the texts like "postscript on societies of control", "capitalist realism" etc

plenty of people have said it better than I.

I do not think there's a single psychological variable known as authoritarianism. I am not just referring to divergence in structures of "authoritarian" societies but to the wide degree of divergence in psychological attitudes of the people participating in these societies. there have been some interesting books on psychology of fascism like reich's and theweleits (male fantasies)... but to me these only establish partial views. for example the freikorps who were studied by theweleit and were proto-fascists were seen as sexually repressed and scared of dissolution (seen as a female principle) but on the other hand the italian futurists who were proto-fascist were anything BUT sexually repressed, they were incredibly sexually licentious, etc.

I would also think that there would be divergence in psychology between the leaders in a fascist society, the soldiers, the average civilian, etc. I would simply repeat that i don't think a single psychological variable known as "authoritarianism" exists. does authoritarianism refer to the one who wills or the one who submits to that will? does it account for the fact that even in a single person, the will is already split between commanding and obeying?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom