Theoretical Conundrum: The Politics and Science of Theorizing Authoritarian Cognition

Abstract

The historical development of the four main theories which have attempted to explain the relationship between cognitive style and ideological content-i.e., authoritarianism, extremism theory, context theory, and value pluralism theory-is analyzed from a rhetorical perspective. The discussion focuses on the manner in which the tensions between theoretical universalism and political critique have been "resolved" by theorists working in different historico-political contexts. While both these scientific and political values have been of central concern in theorizing the link between cognitive style and content, they are deeply incompatible because it is not possible to establish a fixed relationship between a personality dimension and the changing beliefs associated with different ideologies across time and place. This has prompted theorists aiming for universalistic accounts to define ideological orientation in terms of psychological processes rather than content, which, in turn, has compromised the critical potential of their theory. The paper concludes that the historical development of the literature may be understood in terms of dilemmatic counter-themes which, under different political circumstances, have been resolved in novel ways. KEY WORDS: authoritarianism; extremism; critique; universalism; rhetoric of inquiry The theory of authoritarianism was developed as an attempt to explain ideological beliefs in terms of personality dynamics and was both a political and scientific enterprise (cf. Oesterreich, 1985). Its political aspirations are evident in theoretical attempts to establish a direct and necessary relationship between ideological beliefs (radicalism-conservatism) and psychological rationality-irrationality. Although there are many psychological aspects to authoritarian irrationality, a central feature, which is the focus of this paper, is the rigid, black-white style of authoritarian cognition. Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) used an account of psychodynamic defenses to theorize a psychological relation

Need for cognitive closure and politics: Voting, political attitudes and attributional style

“…The relationship between intolerance towards ambiguity and political attitudes has been widely investigated in classical studies on authoritar ‐ianisrn (Adorno, Frenkel‐Brunwik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950), tender‐tough rnindedness (Eysenck, 1954), dogmatism (Rokeach, 1960), conservatism (Wilson, 1973), and in more recent research on value pluralism theory (Tetlock, 1983, 1986), and context theory (Sidanius, 1988). Nevertheless, according to Durrheim (1997), research linking cognitive style and politics was often criticized for not being independent from ideology and content. Very recently, however, Jost et al (2003) have tried to integrate theories on conservatism within the motivated cognition approach, to which the construct of need for closure undoubtedly belongs (Kruglanski, 1996a).…”

The Impact of Need for Closure on Conservative Beliefs and Racism: Differential Mediation by Authoritarian Submission and Authoritarian Dominance

“…Based on both the theorizing on this topic and the results of the research that has been conducted from this point of view (for an overview, see Durrheim, 1997), one should expect a positive relationship between RWA and cognitive conservatism. With respect to the relationship between SDO and cognitive conservatism, however, the situation is less clear.…”

Ideologies of moral exclusion: A critical discursive reframing of depersonalization, delegitimization and dehumanization

“…On one hand, one has still to deal with theories that posit the inevitability of unequal social relations (such as social dominance theory, system justification theory) (Reicher, 2004). One the other hand, one has to deal with theories that define ideological orientation in terms of psychological processes rather than content (Durrheim, 1997).…”