What Makes an Authoritarian?

[MoonlessNight]

I think I like the term authoritarian, in that I think that most social interactions should be based off of authority, and that authority should be respected (though only respected to the proper degree). I know that's not how the word is currently being used, but then again it is currently hardly being used as more than an insult or as a byword for facism. I don't see any reason why it can't be hijacked for better purposes since terms like "liberalism" and so forth have already been hijacked to the point where it is difficult to recognize the original concept. And certainly every political word ends up having five or six definitions, liberal is once again a good example, with anarchism probably being a better one.

And for the record I am an anarchist, largely because of my self-defined "authoritarian" leanings. I think that most governments are propped up on false authority and mainly interfere with the actual exhibition of authority in the world.

 

[nvxplorer]

I'm not a real big fan of the internet tests.
They seem a bit simplistic and sometimes skewed.

Agreed, but they can provide some insight.

You might wish to reconsider evaluating things based on a one topic talking point.

The topic seems clear to me. That authoritarian personality can manifest in myriad ways does not constitute more than one topic.

I was mentioning it as a reason someone would submit to an authority in contrast. Because the "why" or "reasons" someone may use, obey or submit to authority are varied. Love and respect are only a few reasons someone would honor or favor an authority and it could "appear" as Authoritarian, but it could also result in not being "Authoritarian" when examined more in-depth.

True, but I'm concerned with true authoritarian personality, not the false appearance of such.

I am interested in your opinion here. Both love and respect are general terms. I love my mother no less than I did when I was five years old. My view of her authority over me is certainly different now. A husband or wife who blindly submit to the other's authority are not demonstrating love, IMO. True respect is not blind. A person may have earned my respect by demonstrating certain characteristics - honesty, compassion, intelligence, etc. In such a case, my respect is a product of trust. As I briefly touched on, I may submit to the authority of position. I used my boss as an example. Again, this is not blind, but is guided by pragmatism.

I had thought you were interested in the "why" or reason, but I don't see much of the other reasoning being considered apart from a concentration on the 'blind' portion in the earlier submission for a definition.

Well, yes, I am asking specifically about unquestioning authority, but feel free to add to the discussion as you see fit.

A definition, BTW, that isn't really relating to Christianity in that the reason someone sets Christ as Lord of their heart is not a preference for the Authoritarian structure.

This statement is somewhat loaded. A person's reasoning behind following Christianity is irrelevant to the topic. People who are authoritarian seek employment to pay their bills, yet we may see the personality traits manifested in their work. That an authoritarian personality can manifest itself through Christian doctrine does not indicate that authority was the driving force in choosing Christianity.

Based simply on observation, I must disagree anyway. It's certainly possible that some may choose Christianity, at least partly, from a desire to acquire authority. I've known several power hungry people whose carreer paths have been guided this way. I've heard that many police officers choose their occupation based on a desire for authority. I see no inherent barrier within Christianity that prevents it from being used in the same manner.

Likewise, I've known many people that have had troubled lives. In failing to exercise control over themselves, some have turned to Chritianity precisely because of its authoritative structure.

 

[nvxplorer]

Thanks for answering my last post, nvxplorer. <snip excellent reply>

I want to thank you for the informative post, StoneDeaf. It provided much insight, and seems to confirm a few observations I've made on the subject.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

...True, but I'm concerned with true authoritarian personality, not the false appearance of such...

...Well, yes, I am asking specifically about unquestioning authority...

Hmm... well, I guess I can't be of use to your specific because I don't know any person that demonstrates what you seem to be calling true Authoritarian personality by using an alleged 'blind' litmus.

On the last political test I've taken, I seem to have measured only slightly Authoritarian (probably the closest score to Centrist or Moderate recorded - although, I would probably disagree with the basis of the test) and I even know of some people that score close to the extreme in Authoritarian, but none seem fitting your required specific.

Graph from member KnightWhoSaysNi's submitted efforts:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=25569050&postcount=142

 

[nvxplorer]

Hmm... well, I guess I can't be of use to your specific because I don't know any person that demonstrates what you seem to be calling true Authoritarian personality by using an alleged 'blind' litmus.

That's okay. Thanks, anyway, for your input.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

That's okay. Thanks, anyway, for your input.

No problem.
A couple questions though.
It appears to me that you have attempted to legitimize any of your submission to authority with 'reasons', but at the same time when it comes to other examples where you use the emotive terms such as blind, the reasons for submission are summarily dismissed.
Any reason for that?
Do you find that conducive to an alleged search for understanding?

 

[StoneDeaf]

I want to thank you for the informative post, StoneDeaf. It provided much insight, and seems to confirm a few observations I've made on the subject.

Hey, that's great. Very happy to have been of service. . . Darned interesting topic.

 

[nvxplorer]

No problem.
A couple questions though.
It appears to me that you have attempted to legitimize any of your submission to authority with 'reasons', but at the same time when it comes to other examples where you use the emotive terms such as blind, the reasons for submission are summarily dismissed.
Any reason for that?

"Blind" is a descriptive term, not emotive. It means "unquestioned," which I've used as well.

Which reasons have been given that I've dismissed? If you're referring to love, I still don't understand how love and unquestioned authority are related. As I described, I was raised in a strict authoritarian household. My father expected blind obedience. My mother blindly obeyed. I can guarantee that love was nowhere to be found in this relationship. Perhaps you would provide an example?

Do you find that conducive to an alleged search for understanding?

I find open discussion conducive to a search for understanding.

Here's a quote from another thread. Who wrote it and in what thread it appears are unimportant:

Christians believe premarital sex is wrong because our God says its wrong in His book.

This is an example of unquestioned authority.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

"Blind" is a descriptive term, not emotive. It means "unquestioned," which I've used as well.

Which reasons have been given that I've dismissed? If you're referring to love, I still don't understand how love and unquestioned authority are related. As I described, I was raised in a strict authoritarian household. My father expected blind obedience. My mother blindly obeyed. I can guarantee that love was nowhere to be found in this relationship. Perhaps you would provide an example?

I find open discussion conducive to a search for understanding.

Here's a quote from another thread. Who wrote it and in what thread it appears are unimportant:

Christians believe premarital sex is wrong because our God says its wrong in His book.

This is an example of unquestioned authority.

Well I would disagree with your ability to evaluate and speak on behalf of others, but I will sympathize that you don't understand the reasoning involved with authoritarianism thinking.

 

[nvxplorer]

Well I would disagree with your ability to evaluate and speak on behalf of others, but I will sympathize that you don't understand the reasoning involved with authoritarianism thinking.

Rather than attack what you perceive as my ability, could you please add to the discussion? I've asked you to explain yourself, yet you've explained nothing. If there's something I'm missing, you could refrain from the personal attacks and actually enlighten me. In failing to do so, I must conclude that it is you who are confused.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Rather than attack what you perceive as my ability, could you please add to the discussion? I've asked you to explain yourself, yet you've explained nothing. If there's something I'm missing, you could refrain from the personal attacks and actually enlighten me. In failing to do so, I must conclude that it is you who are confused.

That's OK. I'm no longer motivated to do that any longer. Not until I see a desire to listen and consider what is being presented. And as for the irony about personal attacks:

I am well within reason to consider limitations on your ability to speak on behalf of others. For example you referenced your folks, not me. And your 'reason' given that they had no love between them was because he expected submission and she submitted. You gave no other reasons that qualified as pertaining to your evaluation.

As for your understanding the reasoning in authoritarianism, I belief this is one of your statements:

"Myself, I am an extreme individualist who cannot relate to authoritarian thinking."

Its from the OP.


Now I could have gone into a generalized husband and wife example where they reflect an authoritarian structure or even gone into a military example. Both examples I have first hand experience with and could attempt to relate the reasoning that may be involved for an individual. But I don't see much of a point in giving an effort any longer. When I had begun to touch on components to some of the reasoning, it was immediately waved away before it got further and the blind or unquestioned insistence was reemphasized.

I'll pass and let someone else entertain the OP request.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I will throw a bone out there and perhaps you can use our interaction as a lesson learned on the OP topic.

I being slightly of the Authoritarian flavor am questioning your authority proper as it relates to my obligation to your request.
You, not having established an authoritative position in my structure, have given me no motivation for submission, no motivation to consider a place for you in that structure. Motivation was what I was beginning to address. Motivation indicates consideration or reasoning - not blind, not unquestioned.

But there again we come to your restriction of what Authoritarianism can include. What you prefer (I infer by the statements you have made) would be the blind and unquestioned painting. My initial opinion is that it might be because it makes it easier for you to reject - being that you're an extreme individualist. But that is merely speculation.

So now we seem to have you, being of the extreme individualist flavor, having a stumbling block between you and getting your request met (at least by me). The why, IMO, would be because you are challenging or attempting to negate the foundation I've attempted to lay and build on and this does not allow things to progress. Instead of seeing what develops and evaluate the whole, everything must squeeze through that individualist scanning mechanism first and only that which gets the sticker based on your stand-alone authority can proceed.

Perhaps a conditional impasse, but I'm fine with it. I didn't enter the situation with a want. Granted, I'm slightly violating all that presentation by pursuing the request without a motivation given by you, but I would qualify that as more of a motivation of wanting to help or serving another Authority.

 

[nvxplorer]

I am well within reason to consider limitations on your ability to speak on behalf of others.

You have no reason to assume I'm not qualified to speak about my parents. They are my parents. I lived with them for seventeen years. I witnessed an authoritarian, loveless marriage for that time period. You, on the other hand, have never met them.

For example you referenced your folks, not me. And your 'reason' given that they had no love between them was because he expected submission and she submitted.

I did no such thing. Nowhere did I suggest that authority was a reason behind a loveless relationship. What I attempted to show you was that authority and love are not necessarily linked. I'm asking you to show how they can be linked.

You gave no other reasons that qualified as pertaining to your evaluation.

I gave no reasons at all. I simply described the relationship.

As for your understanding the reasoning in authoritarianism, I belief this is one of your statements:

"Myself, I am an extreme individualist who cannot relate to authoritarian thinking."

Its from the OP.

Point? I do not submit to authority blindly. At least, I do not feel that I do. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

Now I could have gone into a generalized husband and wife example where they reflect an authoritarian structure or even gone into a military example. Both examples I have first hand experience with and could attempt to relate the reasoning that may be involved for an individual. But I don't see much of a point in giving an effort any longer. When I had begun to touch on components to some of the reasoning, it was immediately waved away before it got further and the blind or unquestioned insistence was reemphasized.

I, too, have had first hand experience with both. What you seem to be missing is that we're not discussing authority and its applications. We're discussing authoritartian personality. There is reasoning behind military authority that is fundamental to its operation. One can be trained to obey commands unquestioningly without possessing an authoritarian personality. The one is irrelevant to the other.

 

[nvxplorer]

I being slightly of the Authoritarian flavor am questioning your authority proper as it relates to my obligation to your request. You, not having established an authoritative position in my structure, have given me no motivation for submission, no motivation to consider a place for you in that structure. Motivation was what I was beginning to address. Motivation indicates consideration or reasoning - not blind, not unquestioned.

Totally confusing. You are under no obligation to respond to my OP. I am not demanding that anyone respond to it. You say that I've given you no motivation to respond, yet here we are. Again, I'm confused as to what you're saying here.

But there again we come to your restriction of what Authoritarianism can include. What you prefer (I infer by the statements you have made) would be the blind and unquestioned painting. My initial opinion is that it might be because it makes it easier for you to reject - being that you're an extreme individualist. But that is merely speculation.

Others have understood my OP and definition. Why you're having difficulty is unknown to me. As I stated, and you pointed out in the previous post, authoritarian personality is something I "cannot relate to." That should tell you that I don't understand it. It has nothing to do with rejection. I cannot honestly reject something I don't understand or cannot relate to.

So now we seem to have you, being of the extreme individualist flavor, having a stumbling block between you and getting your request met (at least by me). The why, IMO, would be because you are challenging or attempting to negate the foundation I've attempted to lay and build on and this does not allow things to progress. Instead of seeing what develops and evaluate the whole, everything must squeeze through that individualist scanning mechanism first and only that which gets the sticker based on your stand-alone authority can proceed.

Perhaps a conditional impasse, but I'm fine with it. I didn't enter the situation with a want. Granted, I'm slightly violating all that presentation by pursuing the request without a motivation given by you, but I would qualify that as more of a motivation of wanting to help or serving another Authority.

Foolishly, after reading "I will throw a bone," I expected to see some substance. My mistake. You are a true authoritarian. Good luck with that.

 

[MoonlessNight]

How can anyone submit to an authority blindly? You have to recognize someone as an authority in order to submit to them, do you not?

 

[nvxplorer]

How can anyone submit to an authority blindly? You have to recognize someone as an authority in order to submit to them, do you not?

From the OP: expecting unquestioning obedience

In this case, "unquestioning" and "blind" are synonymous.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

From the OP: expecting unquestioning obedience

In this case, "unquestioning" and "blind" are synonymous.

A bit of socratic questioning is needed here, IMO:

So by your definition, an Authoritarian (by the common understanding of the term) that questions instruction (by someone they submit to) to do something that clearly is against their ethics/morals would not be an Authoritarian?

Example: A submissive wife that regularly and wantingly submits to her husband's wishes one day questions or even refuses the husband's intended plan to have a threesome with her (the wife) and the woman next door. Therefore and by nvxplorer's assertion, the wife really isn't of the Authoritarian mindset.

Would this be accurate with what you've said?

 

[nvxplorer]

A bit of socratic questioning is needed here, IMO:

So by your definition, an Authoritarian (by the common understanding of the term) that questions instruction (by someone they submit to) to do something that clearly is against their ethics/morals would not be an Authoritarian?

Example: A submissive wife that regularly and wantingly submits to her husband's wishes one day questions or even refuses the husband's intended plan to have a threesome with her (the wife) and the woman next door. Therefore and by nvxplorer's assertion, the wife really isn't of the Authoritarian mindset.

Would this be accurate with what you've said?

What I think is irrelevant. What's more important is whether you think this is accurate with what I've said.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

What I think is irrelevant. What's more important is whether you think this is accurate with what I've said.

By this response, I take that as the socratic questioning finally pointed out the conflict.
That is what I think.

 

[nvxplorer]

By this response, I take that as the socratic questioning finally pointed out the conflict.
That is what I think.

You think wrong. Nice try, but you'd likely have better luck with someone conflicted ( ) by an authoritarian personality. Start your own thread, perhaps?