Finally, there is the much deeper issue regarding Anomie and Alienation. These forces and outcomes of social and political inequity should not be considered just a left-wing (and perhaps even socialist or communist) bias. It is not the elite who receive the attention (and empathic understanding) of the authoritarian researchers. Attention is direct to those members of a society who are ignored or mistreated. These are the people who are feeling helpless and isolated from society. They will look for any expertise that either welcomes them to a “new society” or advocates violence against the old “alienating” society.
It is those social observers from the left-wing, ironically, who best appreciate the predicament and psychological damage done to those on the right-wing who most despise these left-wing critics. Caring attention by the left-wing is viewed as patronizing attention by the right-wing. Another vicious cycle is engaged. The left wing appreciates the anger aroused by the right wing regarding this appreciation by the left wing. Expertise regarding authoritarianism is viewed as being of greatest dishonor to those who exhibit authoritarian tendencies. The lines are drawn. The warfare of words intensifies. Silo walls are reinforced and thickened. No one from outside the silo is allowed in – especially if this person purports to be an expert on authoritarianism—and silos.
Theoretical Additions
The original study by Adorno et al. was deeply influenced and informed by both Psychoanalytic Theory and Marxist theory –which were brought together by a group of analysts who formed the Frankfort School. Theodore Adorno was one of these founders. Major contributions to our understanding of the authoritarian personality have also been made by those who did not blend psychanalysis and Marist theory. We turn briefly to a consideration of both neo-Analytic and neo-Marxist perspectives on authoritarianism. Our attention then is directed to perspectives aligned with Humanistic psychology and social psychology. We conclude this section by considering authoritarianism from a unique perspective offered by the newly expanding field of neuropsychology.
Psychoanalytic Perspective: Carl Jung and Tavistock
While the Adorno group was comprised of researchers and theorists with a strong psychoanalytic viewpoint (especially Nevitt Sanford), there are others from a psychoanalytic tradition who have something to say about authoritarian personalities. First, there are the Jungians, led by Carl Jung who broke away from Sigmund Freud early in the history of psychoanalysis. For the Jungians, the primary source of authoritarianism resides in the confrontation of each of us with powerful unconscious forces that are both frightening and compelling.
We can turn, for instance, to imagery of the Flood. It can be shown that images of floods are to be found in virtually every culture. There is not only Noah’s flood in the Old Testament of the Bible (and the Jewish Torah), but also in Babylonian myth as well as the myths of many Asian cultures. In some ways, these myths can be justified because there really are annual floods in the societies where the myths are told. However, for the Jungians, imagery of the flood arises from a deeper intrapsychic source. They speak of the Ouroboros—which is a pull toward unity and oneness. The flood destroys everything and leaves everything in identical space. Unity requires absolute destruction. The Ouroboros is symbolized by the serpent eating its own tail.
