Essay Compare And Contrast Altemeyer's Approach To Authoritarianism

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

Autocratic leadership, also known as authoritarian leadership is a leadership style characterized by individual control over all decisions and little input from group members. Autocratic leaders typically make choices based on their own ideas and judgments and rarely accept advice from followers. Autocratic leadership involves absolute, authoritarian control over a group. It can also be derived

Authoritarian leadership style is where a leader has complete control and power over their team. They demonstrate their 'power' and 'control' by dictating policies and procedures, deciding what goals need to be achieved, and directs all activities to be done by the team. An authoritarian is usually most successful when things are going well or when in a crisis and decisions need to be made quickly.

Those who are in power are not accountable to constituencies and public policy does not derive from social consent. Within sociology and political science, particularly within comparative politics, authoritarianism has been understood as a modern type of political regime. Therefore, the concept focuses on the way of accessing, exercising, and organizing power, on the nature of the belief system, and the role of citizens in the political

There is no doubt that Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini shared many similar characteristics. They shared movements that were typical of National Socialism: they adopted a radical nationalism, militaristic hierarchies, violence, the cult of charismatic leadership, contempt for individual liberties and civil rights, an anti-democratic and anti-socialist orientation, and a refusal to socialize industries.

Therefore, the study indicated that individuals with a strict upbringing by pushy parents were most likely to develop an authoritarian personality. It was believed that this was because the individual was not able to express hostility towards their parents (for being strict and critical). Consequently, the person would then displace their hostility to other people, namely those who are in a minority. Adorno et al. concluded that people with authoritarian traits, as identified by the F-Scale, were predisposed to having 'fascistic' characteristics such as ethnocentrism (the tendency to favour one's own ethnic group), respect for authority figures and obsession with power (McAvoy 2010).

There are times where I feel the need to dominate and lead the way such as when working with my dad in his apartment management company. I observe him overruling his tenants and exerting his power to put people in their place and follow the complex rules and regulations, and have somehow manifested those qualities into myself, like in example, if I am at work and he is not there then I do find myself to be quite dominating and exerting my power to get tenants to do what there suppose to do or pay their rent. I also find myself being dominating to people I know are weaker than me or just shy and not outspoken about their feelings. The other style that I was tied with is the conventional scale which measures my tendency to act in a conforming way. These tendencies are characterized by perceiving rules as a source of comfort and security. There is also a preference for staying unseen and unnoticed and a tendency to cover up my mistakes. There is also preoccupation with appearing to be average and just like everyone else. Additionally there is a reduction in originality which is very true for my behavior. These characteristics are also a bit contrary to my power and authoritarian style but somehow I find myself being shy as well as authoritarian in certain situations. I would have to say however that the conventional characteristic is one that I might have to disagree with because

The purpose of this essay is to outline the similarities and differences between Adorno et al.s (1950) and Altemeyers (1981) approach to authoritarianism. In 1981 Bob Altemeyer revamped Adornos study on authoritarianism, focusing on who the followers are, how they got that way, how they think and why they are so submissive and aggressive.

The authoritarian approach is very direct and logical, when delivering the screed it is very to the point with the therapist in complete control of the direction in which the mind is being led, there are very few choices offered to the client and using limited metaphors. Some see this technique as being too harsh and could find themselves resisting but too many it is effective and sometimes necessary for issues such as quitting smoking or weight loss where the therapist has to be assertive to convince the client they are powerful enough to enforce it. The authoritarian approach ties in with direct suggestion where by in stead of giving the client suggestions the therapist will be very direct on where they want the clients mind goes. With direct suggestions the client responds to words rather than images, the suggestion could be one word or a short sentence that will trigger an immediate response. A few examples of the authoritarian/direct approach would be;

Dictatorship throughout the ages has mainly led to oppression and conflict between people and government. Some of the notoriously bad dictators took office around the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were three main dictators in that time period and they all ran different countries in very different ways. Josef Stalin was known as the dictator of the Soviet Union, he was all about communism and did not care if there was opposition to his ideas. On the other hand, Benito Mussolini was in charge of Italy and all about fascism. Possibly the worst known dictator of all times was Hitler, in charge of, Germany, he was all about Nazism. Each had a different outlook on ruling, but they all did things similarly to lead to nations hatred against them. Basically, their ultimate goal was to do what was best for their countries, however, there want for power tended to get in the way. They all wanted to accomplish many things, they used many different ideas and ways to run their nations. They were all blamed for their nations demise in one way or another. This essay will discuss the similarities and differences between Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini.

The state of Mussolini’s Fascist Italy and Hitler’s Nazi Germany, can be highly comparable in their policies and ideologies. Fascism is a political ideology, in which the country is to be racially and culturally pure. Mussolini said himself that “Fascism desires the state to be strong and organic and to always be prepared for conflict”. Fascism includes things such as nationalism, hostility to democracy, racism, the love of symbols such as uniforms, parades and army discipline. It is a totalitarian philosophy which worships the state and nation. Fascism is an extreme right-wing that celebrates the nation or race as a pure community which exceeds all other loyalties and expectations (Downing, 2001). Most of the time it celebrates masculinity and male supremacy, rarely it will promote female solidarity (De Grand, 1995). Fascist aims are to prepare for conflict and violence and to prepare and educate the youth. Both were able to gain support from military associations,

According to the article “Authoritarianism, socioethnic diversity and political participation across countries”; “Authoritarians are more likely to display intolerant and punitive attitudes when they perceive a threat to the social cohesion of the in-group” (Singh). This identifies that authoritarian behavior occurs when someone does not understand when something goes wrong, that they are more likely to become very upset over the situation. “Stenner (2005), for example, finds that authoritarians become more intolerant and punitive when exposed to threats to the values and institutions that characterize the in-group, while non-authoritarians tend to become more tolerant and understanding” (SINGH). This quote establishes the actions of an authoritarian; identifying their respective lack of understanding if something goes wrong, and that they are unsure of how to cope with the situation that is placed in front of them. Authoritarian personalities play a role with prejudice, in that they are judgmental of others, they perceive themselves to decidedly be right, and do not allow themselves to get to know others. This theory is very significant to American society because it does not allow people to strive to their full potential.

To ‘investigate this question we will first discuss, in a theoretical section, the terms “authoritarian personality” and “authoritarianism”, then have a look at the evolution in methods to measure them, with different scales and studies. Secondly, we will discuss the difference between personality and behavior. Then

Authoritarianism is a form of government in which the leader or leaders have exclusive power concerning matters of the state. Although these

The article, “The Authoritarian Personality,” written by Erich Fromm discusses the common and different characteristics between the two forms of an authoritarian personality. He starts to explain how one becomes a mature person. He states that to become a mature person, said person needs to have developed love and reason. He then states that an authoritarian character has not reached maturity, and therefore, has not developed love or reason. Erich Fromm continues to explain that the difference between the ruler and the ruled is how they start to feel “greater.” The way the ruled feels “greater” is by depending on their ruler for guidance and by following the ruler to become a part of the larger group. The way the ruler feels “greater” is by depending on the ruled to continue to look at them as strong and powerful. He then points out that one person can hold both the ruler and the ruled characteristics. Erich Fromm continues to explain the differences between rational and irrational authority and where these two forms of authority are found. He ends by saying that the understanding of love and reason, and developing said characteristics is the foundation to a person’s own authority and political democracy. While reading this article, it brought me back to all the times I have dealt with people who have authoritative personalities and how it affected me. As stated by Erich Fromm, all people with authority personalities contain components of both the ruler and the ruled.