Ironies: the unconscious dynamics of authoritarianism in anti-authoritarians
And the lies we tell ourselves to stay in our love-hate trap with tyrants.
Dear Readers,
I sincerely apologize for the lapse in posts. It was much longer than I anticipated or would have liked. I have been contemplating the topic of authoritarianism and was about to publish a post when the Canadian Freedom Convoy went underway, awareness of the Great Reset caught on, then Putin invaded Ukraine and began committing war crimes, while countries around the world have been collapsing under their leaders. These events required a lot of attention and given me much to think about. And it has taken me some time to work through this topic in my personal life. I hope you find that it was worth the wait. Future posts will likely be sporadic due to a closely-related project. I hope to be sharing that project with you all soon.
Thank you for reading, sharing, and subscribing.
While leaders wage wars against their own people across the world, most individuals think they know what authoritarianism means because they recognize it in other groups. In actuality, individuals from all sides are prone to a profound love-hate relationship with authoritarianism. For decades past, the extreme Right was equated with authoritarianism of neo-Nazis, the patriarchy, and Donald Trump. Now the Left has recently become synonymous with the authoritarianism of lockdowns, mandates, and Trudeau. Both sides are befuddled with the other party’s blindness to authoritarianism (or at least its potential) in their leaders. In the United States, Americans are hurting as we suffer the consequence of people voting against a potential tyrant (maybe an actual one, although we may never know) because he wasn’t their preferred choice of authoritarian.
“There is one feature of the authoritarian character which has misled many observers: a tendency to defy authority and to resent any kind of influence from ‘above.’ Sometimes this defiance overshadows the whole picture and the submissive tendencies are in the background. This type of person will constantly rebel against any kind of authority, even one that actually furthers his interests and has no elements of suppression.”
- Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom
Rebellion against all forms of authority whether oppressive or beneficial is most frequently demonstrated by those who use free speech to shame others from exercising the same right (i.e. “Words are violence!”). So-called health and safety measures provide a false sense of security through a real sense of restriction. So-called social justice movements serve as excuses to stimulate rebellion against one oppressive system (real or imagined to whatever degree) in exchange for systems that are even more limiting (ie. “You will own nothing and be happy.”) The unconscious compulsion is one of several reasons why the authoritarian following, when challenged about their irrationality or hypocrisy (i.e. “You’re attacking the very thing that you benefit from!”), often deflect or double down on their commitment to authoritarian rule.
“In persons of the first type in whom the rebellious attitude is in the center of the picture, one is easily led to believe that their character structure is just the opposite to that of the submissive masochistic type. It appears as if they are persons who oppose every authority on the basis of an extreme degree of independence. They look like persons who, on the basis of their inner strength and integrity, fight those forces that block their freedom and independence. However, the authoritarian character’s fight against authority is essentially defiance. It is an attempt to assert himself and to overcome his own feeling of powerlessness by fighting authority, although the longing for submission remains present, whether consciously or unconsciously.”
- Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom
As the extreme Left reveals the extent of its influence, Right-wing extremists are also growing in number - perhaps in retaliation to their own mirror image. Right wing authoritarians exhibit rigid defiance, refusing even the mildest inconveniences (i.e. wearing a mask to reduce transmission) and disregard for others’ vulnerability served to doubly prove their opposition to authority. By doing so, they signaled a profound fear of powerlessness. During conflicts over vaccine hesitancy, some raised an important question - “Would you take the vaccine if Trump was still president and promoted it?” The question is hypothetical and might be a litmus test for whether an individual’s unconscious authoritarianism is motivating their vaccine hesitancy.
The relationship is perhaps not love-hate but hate-(love). Consciously, they abhor authority. Unconsciously, they are desperate for it. They justify the devaluation of their rights and liberties (i.e. freedom of speech and thought) in the name of health or social justice because their craving for dependence runs deeper than their desire for freedom - and this is especially exacerbated in times of existential threat. Ironically, these individuals often present themselves as (and are) rebels, free thinkers, anti-authority, and concerned with “equity”. They are proud to rail against the rules and proud to protest the system - whether or not there is rational basis for it. This helps to explain the inconsistencies between some self-proclaimed activists and their demonstrable commitment: so-called feminists excusing patriarchies that attempt to crush women in Islamic countries, BLM neglecting and vandalizing Black communities, and neither group acknowledging modern-day slavery or sex trafficking. Setting aside the con artistry of their leaders, how can we explain activism that focuses on illusory problems while turning a blind eye to atrocities? Opposing systems of severe oppression can be overwhelming for anyone. Authoritarian followers’ delusions of efficacy against tyranny cannot withstand the severity of reality. Promise of a revolution or utopia from a reassuring demagogue is nearly irresistible because it triggers their compulsions for dependency and rebellion, simultaneously.
My own observations support Fromm’s that the authoritarians’ defiance belies their desire for submission. I have known individuals to exude decisiveness yet remain in a quandary over the smallest of decisions. I have also seen some present themselves as rebels in public but discover they are slaves in private. They strive to convince themselves and others of their fierce independence because they are unconsciously resisting an internalized, overbearing authority figure - usually a parent. They are stuck in the struggle between conformity and rebellion.
Compelled to suppress his instinctual needs and his means of achieving their gratification, he may conceal their existence even from himself. Surface conformity becomes his only means of communication, and when this happens words and gestures acquire a concealing function. He never says what he means, and gradually he doesn't even know what he means.
-Joost A. Meerloo, Rape of the Mind
My professional experience also reflects Meerloo’s insights into how conformist non-conformists can be. They believe what they’ve been trained to repeat, but they don’t know what it actually means. Worse, they don’t even know what they themselves mean. When I see this interfering with a client’s therapeutic process (i.e. stumbling over words, increased anxiety, altering personal narratives to align with political ones), I assure them that they can speak freely from their personal experience without judgment or interference from me, as is my ethical responsibility. Almost immediately, the struggle ends. Instead of authenticity, disingenuous beliefs flow without the slightest difficulty! As Meerloo observed, once authoritarians are reassured of their rights and freedoms, they discard it - whether as a knee-jerk abreaction to authority, or to freedom, or to both. One might argue that this is a symptom of trauma so it’s concerning that most mental health professionals overlook it. Worse yet, many therapists are now trained to model submission to authoritarianism and affirm it in clients. The implications for individual and societal mental health are dire, as history has demonstrated without exception.
Origins and antidotes
“When parents do not permit a child to express his instinctual needs openly and directly, they force him to look for other ways to express them. If during his early training-which may start on the day of his birth-the infant encounters endless restrictions to the direct expression of his needs, he will try to communicate these needs in indirect ways-through tension, restlessness, and crying. Instead of being able to use natural outlets for his instinctual drives, the child is permitted and conditioned to act only through suppression and control of the drive. In his struggle to bring the drive under control in order to please his parents, the child's natural means of expression may become inverted. Instead of expression, he acquires repression. This is where the roots of such adult behaviour as abject submissiveness and the urge for conformity lie.”
“The carry-overs into adult life of this kind of child-rearing are obvious. Trained into conformity, the child may well grow up into an adult who welcomes with relief the authoritarian demands of a totalitarian leader. It is the welcome repetition of an old pattern that can be followed without investment of new emotional energy. Trained previously to divert his aggression to scapegoats, he may now displace his hidden resentments against his parents' rules and regulations toward society as a whole. Or he may find release for them in the wild explosion of pent-up aggression which is exemplified by the lynch mob or by Hitler's storm troopers.”
-Joost A. Meerloo, Rape of the Mind
Indeed, the oppositionally defiant expression of an authoritarian character is typically a reaction to repeated and systemic abuse by authority. The impact of milder adversities that Meerloo described - parental misattunement to the child or intimidating and frustrating the child - can leave lasting imprints upon an individual until resolved. Without this resolution, one can regress to toddlerhood or adolescence unexpectedly, which we often see reenacted in the tantrums of activists in universities. But with healing and growth, it is possible to develop a healthy sense of self and a healthy, moderating relationship with authority. So how can we attain resolution and maturation? This is the work of psychotherapy and Jordan Peterson has given some practical advice on how to approach it. We can choose to do this work or risk entrenchment in systems of tyranny. And just as it requires courage to recognize and address mistreatment from a parent, standing up to “the grown-ups” in society who abuse power will require courage too. Those who have accomplished the former are prepared to accomplish the latter.