In this essay, I will define authoritarianism and discuss the differences and similarities between Adorno et al.’s and Altemeyer’s approaches towards authoritarianism. Authoritarianism refers to the obedience and strict adherence to rules and figures of authority, as well as this, an authoritarian personality can be characterised by hostility towards groups or individuals who differ from what they perceive as normal (The Open University, 2015, p23). Adorno et al. (1950) believe that authoritarianism stems from a strict, obedience-centred upbringing. He believed that a child who is raised in a household which structures itself upon core values of respect, discipline and obedience will be shaped by these attitudes in adulthood (The Open University, 2015, p28). These attitudes are what shape an individual’s personality, and following the Second World War, Adorno and his colleagues wished to gain a better understanding of the authoritarianism which was at the heart of the Nazi regime, and more specifically, focused on the attitudes towards Jews within Europe. Adorno et al. believed that …show more content…
and Altemeyer’s approaches to authoritarianism share many similarities, such as the more descriptive approach to their work than explanatory route, where neither clearly identify the source of authoritarianism. (Jones, 2002. Cited in The Open University, 2015, p50) Both approaches suffer from potential bias; Adorno el al’s. F-scale may have had confirmatory bias, potentially causing a problem in which the interviewers know the results from the participant’s prior questionnaires, and subconsciously steer the results and findings towards a particular goal, causing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Although Altemeyer’s approach may not have involved interviews, the results could have still been biased, as acquiescence response bias could have occurred if the participants have a tendency to agree with statements presented in scales and succumb to social desirability
Gottfried, Ted, and Stephen Alcorn. Nazi Germany: The Face of Tyranny. Brookfield, CT: Twenty-First Century, 2000. Print.
Authority can only become an issue once the rights of the individual are being impinged, a concept represented in both V for Vendetta and the Stanford Prison Experiment. These two texts, along with the study of the concept of authority and the individual, have expanded my understanding of myself, individuals and the world. It has especially broadened my knowledge on the crossover of the concept, the ability for the individual to have authority and the ability for both sides to be perceived as good or bad and the power of a person’s individuality. “The line between good and evil is permeable and almost anyone can be induced to cross it when pressured by situational forces.”
To hold authority is to possess power, and when one has power over a person or people he or she is generally feared. In t...
"We are presently confronted by fundamental questions concerning the nature of order and authority in a traditional society, and these questions have been given added point by researches into the ideological transformations wrought by adaptation to growth and ex...
The ideologies of the Axis Powers were brief excerpts that gave us a small glimpse into the mind and thought processes of Adolf Hitler as well as the fundamental thinking patterns of the Japanese authoritarian regime. The questions that will be addressed in this essay are: From what concrete conditions did the ideas expressed in these documents arise? Why did they achieve such widespread popularity? To what extent might persons even in the Western democracies find such ideas persuasive in the 1930’s?
In a seminal work, Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) coined the term authoritarian personality and stated that it was characterised by strong adherence to externally imposed conventional norms, as well as submission or obedience to the authorities that promote those norms. According to Adorno and colleagues, these behaviours are attempts to deal with various personal insecurities. Specifically, authoritar- ian individuals displace their own anxieties onto weak minority groups in their culture (e.g., ethnic and/or religious minorities) or onto people who deviate from social norms (e.g., homosexuals). Displacement is often accompanied by associated beliefs that are highly evaluative and rigid. Other characteristics of the authoritarian personality include a cynical view of mankind, cognitive and emotional inflexibility. A belief in the need for power and toughness, the tendency to act harshly towards nonconformists, opposition to subjective or imaginative tendencies, and an exaggerated concern with promiscuity. Adler (1965) re-examined the personality char- acteristics described by Adorno and colleagues and noted that the central trait of the authoritarian personality is the ‘‘will to power over others’’, which results in aggressive overcompensation for feelings of inferiority and insignificance. Contemporary research continues to rely on many of the conceptualisations and measures originated by Adorno and colleagues (Martin, 2001; Stone, Lederer, & Christie, 1993).
Obedience is when you do something you have been asked or ordered to do by someone in authority. As little kids we are taught to follow the rules of authority, weather it is a positive or negative effect. Stanley Milgram, the author of “The perils of Obedience” writes his experiment about how people follow the direction of an authority figure, and how it could be a threat. On the other hand Diana Baumrind article “Review of Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience,” is about how Milgram’s experiment was inhumane and how it is not valid. While both authors address how people obey an authority figure, Milgram focuses more on how his experiment was successful while Baumrind seems more concerned more with how Milgram’s experiment was flawed and
It was during the 1920’s to the 1940’s that totalitarian control over the state escalated into full dictatorships, with the wills of the people being manipulated into a set of beliefs that would promote the fascist state and “doctrines”.
Ordinary people are willing to go against their own decision of right and wrong to fulfill the request of an authoritative figure, even at the expense of their own moral judgment and sense of what is right and wrong. Using a variety of online resources including The Perils of Obedience by Stanley Milgram this paper attempts to prove this claim.
Soyinka, Wole. “Every Dictator’s Nightmare.” The Arlington Reader: Contexts and Connections. 2nd ed. Ed. Lynn Z. Bloom and Louise Z. Smith. Boston: Bedford, 2008. 475-80. Print.
It is human nature to respect and obey elders or authoritative figures, even when it may result in harm to oneself or others. Stanley Milgram, an American social psychologist, conducted an experiment to test the reasoning behind a person’s obedience. He uses this experiment in hope to gain a better understanding behind the reason Hitler was so successful in manipulating the Germans along with why their obedience continued on such extreme levels. Milgram conducts a strategy similar to Hitler’s in attempt to test ones obedience. Diana Baumrind, a clinical and developmental psychologist, disagreed with Milgram’s experiment in her article, ”Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of obedience”, Baumrind explains
Introduction Individuals often yield to conformity when they are forced to discard their individual freedom in order to benefit the larger group. Despite the fact that it is important to obey the authority, obeying the authority can sometimes be hazardous, especially when morals and autonomous thought are suppressed to an extent that the other person is harmed. Obedience usually involves doing what a rule or a person tells you to, but negative consequences can result from displaying obedience to authority; for example, the people who obeyed the orders of Adolph Hitler ended up killing innocent people during the Holocaust. In the same way, Stanley Milgram noted in his article ‘Perils of Obedience’ of how individuals obeyed authority and neglected their conscience, reflecting how this can be destructive in real life experiences. On the contrary, Diana Baumrind pointed out in her article ‘Review of Stanley Milgram’s Experiments on Obedience’ that the experiments were not valid, hence useless.
Obedience is also seen by many as the path of least resistance; it isn’t as mentally demanding to follow someone’s orders. Assuming authority figures know what is best for everyone, it is simpler to do what we are told than to have to think for ourselves. But once we stop thinking for ourselves and begin following orders bli...
Though effective (and desirable) anarchy may be a rarity thus far though mankind’s history, this does not mean that it must continue to be. Anarchism as an actual way of life may be far off into man’s future, but this writer believes that it is nonetheless there, and that it will be the pinnacle of man’s political evolution. Until then, taking ‘baby steps’ in that direction is an acceptable start; simply understanding that the state is an unjust means of society is already a great beginning. Even if it is impractical in modern society, we should not reject it as a goal on that basis alone. As we are all equals, the Golden Rule demands that we treat others reciprocally and respectfully; how can we as a race hope to achieve this, when the supposed flagship of humanity, the state, cannot do so?
The debate as to whether Hitler was a ‘weak dictator’ or ‘Master of the Third Reich’ is one that has been contested by historians of Nazi Germany for many years and lies at the centre of the Intentionalist – Structuralist debate. On the one hand, historians such as Bullock, Bracher, Jackel and Hildebrand regard Hitler’s personality, ideology and will as the central locomotive in the Third Reich. Others, such as Broszat, Mason and Mommsen argue that the regime evolved out from pressures and circumstances rather than from Hitler’s intentions. They emphasise the institutional anarchy of the regime as being the result of Hitler’s ‘weak’ leadership. The most convincing standpoint is the synthesis of the two schools, which acknowledges both Hitler’s centrality in explaining the essence of Nazi rule but also external forces that influenced Hitler’s decision making. In this sense, Hitler was not a weak dictator as he possessed supreme authority but as Kershaw maintains, neither was he ‘Master of the Third Reich’ because he did not exercise unrestricted power.