Even in the chapter where the concept of authoritarianism is introduced, Allport first sets the stage by framing his analysis as “functional prejudice” and introducing the concept of “threat orientation” that was first introduced by Theodore Newman (1950) a noted social psychologist. As noted in the quotation we offered above, functional prejudice (and an authoritarian perspective) is engaged when one is threatened. An anxious appraisal of outside forces, filtered through pre-judgmental lens, institutional “truths” and externalization of internal fears, produces prejudice. Allport (1954, p. 381) specifically proposes that prejudice is “not merely a bundle of negative attitudes.” Rather, the prejudiced person “is trying to do something: namely to find an island of institutional safety and security.”
Given this focus outside the domain of personality, we might conclude that Allport is embracing a state perspective regarding authoritarianism. However, on closer inspection, it seems that Allport is siding with those who consider authoritarianism to be a hybrid of state and trait. In his case the state of group dynamics leads some members of a group to take an authoritarian stand. These would be those members who are aligned with an external locus of control—meaning that they are likely to be particularly attuned to and are likely to comply with the perspectives and actions taken by the group.
The interaction between trait and state is also likely to take place among some members of society who are particularly intolerant of ambiguity (and the emerging VUCA-Plus conditions) that Allport identifies. Finally, we find Allport embracing the perspective offered by Erich Fromm, our psychoanalyst who often offers a humanistic view of human nature. Both Allport and Fromm propose that some people are fearful of freedom and seek to escape from freedom by aligning with an authoritarian regime that offers structure and assurance as a substitute for freedom. The “threat orientation” comes not just from specific elements and events in the authoritarian’ world, but from a much less tangible (but perhaps even more powerful and pervasive) sense that the chaos of freedom is awaiting them at their front door.
There is another important feature that distinguishes Allport’s analysis of authoritarian personality from that offered by many other social analysts. Allport places his analysis of authoritarian personality within a specific context—namely the prejudice that is to be found with specific regard to one group: Jews. Antisemitism was the driving force behind the initial study of the authoritarian personality. While prejudice regarding other specifical racial and ethnic groups is a focus for Allport and, by extension, was a focus for the California Study Group, it is important to remember that the original focus was placed on prejudice against Jewish people. With this focus comes a source of fear and contempt that is particularly deep and historical in Western history. It involves not just social, political and cultural differences between Jews and Christians, but also a two millennial theological schism between Christians and “Christ-killing” Jews (based on a profoundly distorted recounting of the Crucifixion)
There is one additional observation made by Allport this is a unique and important contribution to the study of authoritarian personality. This observation is decidedly humanistic in nature and provides a “solution” to the counter-productive tendency of authoritarian personality studies to be saturated in political biases. For Allport, the opposite of authoritarianism is not a politically- liberal point of view. Rather, Allport borrows from two of his humanistic colleagues. He identifies the “productive” personality—making use of a term often used by Erich Fromm (1960). For both Allport and Fromm, a productive person is one who embraces rather than seeks to escape from freedom. Allport also borrows from Abraham Maslow (2014), in suggesting that the other end of the authoritarian spectrum is the top of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs – namely self-realization. Specifically, Allport identifies a pattern of qualities that stands in direct contrast to the authoritarian personality. These qualities: “comprise what is sometimes called a ‘democratic,’ a ‘productive,’ or a ‘se1f—actualizing’ personality pattern.” (Allport, 1958, p. 383) He devotes an entire chapter later in The Nature of Prejudice to an expansion on this description of the opposing personality.
