Dehumanizing Christians

Cultural Competition in a Multicultural World

George Yancey

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9781412852678
• eBook ISBN: 9781351523059
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Right-wing authoritarianism has emerged as a social psychological theory to explain conservative political and religious movements. Such authoritarianism is said to be rooted in the willingness of individuals to support authority figures who seek to restrict civil and human rights. George Yancey investigates the effectiveness of right-wing authoritarianism and the social phenomenon it represents. He analyzes how authoritarians on both the right and the left sides of the sociopolitical spectrum dehumanize their opponents.

1

---

Introduction

We have been warned—warned about the direction our society is going. We have been warned that the “enemies of freedom”¹ seek to take away our personal rights and set up an authoritarian government. We are warned that the “authoritarians” are followers easily led and manipulated to support the revoking of our rights. These followers’ inability to engage in introspection and tendency to employ double standards in their thinking makes them susceptible to hand over power to an enterprising politician who will manipulate a situation to gain governmental power at the expense of our rights. This is the message emerging from those conducting research about “right-wing authoritarianism.” Much of this message is readily seen in the work of Robert Altemeyer, but it is a message one may receive from other researchers and social thinkers (Blass 1992; Luck and Gruner 1970; Rubinstein 1997; Thomsen, Green, and Sidanius 2008).

Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) has emerged as a popular social psychological theory to explain conservative political and religious movements (Altemeyer 1996; Duckitt and Fisher 2003; Hunsberger 1996) and the behavior of the individuals involved (Altemeyer 1988; Cohrs et al. 2005; Hunsberger, Owusu, and Duck 2009; Leak and Randall 1995; Van Hiel and Mervielde 2002). It is a theory arguing that a certain personality trait—authoritarianism—is linked to a series of individual and social dysfunctions. Among other things, authoritarianism is argued to be linked to the willingness of individuals to support authority figures who seek to take away our civil and human rights. Individuals with high levels of RWA will arguably help authorities to take away the rights of unpopular minority groups. Proponents of RWA argue that a significant number of other dysfunctional characteristics—inability to critically think, intolerance, self-righteousness—are connected to this basic characteristic.

The popularity of RWA crossed from academic musing to acceptance in popular culture largely due to the book Conservatives without Conscience by John Dean (2006). Dean used this theory in his attempt to explain why conservative extremists were taking over the Republican Party. He argues that these extremists exhibit authoritarianism that produces intolerance, obedience, and governmental interference in our lives. The popularity of Dean’s work makes it important to fully investigate the arguments embedded within RWA. If RWA is accurate, then we have a powerful way of understanding one of the two major political parties and, according to proponents of RWA, religious conservatives. If it is inaccurate, then we have a lot of people being led astray by some excellent writing.

A funny thing happened on my way to understanding RWA. I conducted a study on cultural progressive activists—individuals who define themselves as opponents of what many call the “Christian Right.” As I read their answers to many of my open-ended questions, I saw them characterizing their opponents in much the same way Altemeyer characterized right-wing authoritarians. They saw Christian conservatives as unable to engage in critical thinking, easily led by corrupt leaders, looking to take over society, intolerant of the opinions of others, and essentially as what is wrong in society. The similarity of their view to how Altemeyer described right-wing authoritarians was so striking that there are only two answers to this observation, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. One answer is that Altemeyer is right, and these other individuals are smart, too. They have made the same observations but just have not done the scientific study Altemeyer has done. The second answer is that Altemeyer is part of a general subculture predisposed to see certain people they disagree with as possessing negative traits (irrational, intolerant, etc.), and his work reflects that bias. If this is true, then it is possible that the theory of RWA is built more on subcultural ideals than observed social reality.

This book will investigate the effectiveness of RWA to explain the social phenomenon it claims to explain by constructing an alternate theory and testing it against RWA. In doing so, I hope to see if RWA is the reflection of the biases of a certain subculture or if it is the accurate concept some claim it to be.

A History of RWA

The theoretical foundation of RWA likely began with the work of Fromm (1941), who articulated that individuals turn to authoritarianism to relieve the anxiety experienced as they gained freedom in the emerging modern society. He envisioned authoritarianism as the source behind the rise of Nazism. However, Fromm only theorized about such a concept. Adorno et al. (1950) further developed Fromm’s ideas with empirical work indicating that acceptance of fascism and ethnocentrism is linked to a set of personality traits that they called “the authoritarian personality.” Adoreno et al. envisioned this as a personality trait developed during early socialization. Those socialized to uncritically accept the commands of authority figures grew up to continue to accept those authorities when they persecute minority groups. However, the original authoritarian scale was found to be seriously flawed in that it attempted to assess nine elements of personality that were neither sufficiently theoretically related to each another nor well-defined (Altemeyer 1981). Not only did the fascist scale (or F-scale) originally used suffer from low construct validity, but its unidirectional wording allowed it to be subject to agreement bias .²

To address these weaknesses, Altemeyer (1981) revised these measurements and eventually conceptualized what he termed “right-wing authoritarianism.” He argued that the nine dimensions of the authoritarian personality were not empirically sound. Dimensions such as “cynical” or “superstitious” were not useful for exploring the attitudes of authoritarians (1996), and his work reduced the dimensions down to three dimensions: authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionality. He also questioned the Freudian basis of the theory.³ Rather than early socialization, he argued for a generalized social learning model as a better way to explain the development of authoritarianism. Not only did the relationship with one’s parents help create authoritarian ideas but also experience with others and events that reinforce, or refute, notions of authoritarianism led to the development of right-wing authoritarianism.

The development of RWA has fueled a great deal of research. Some researchers have looked to find how RWA contributes to social dysfunctions. RWA has been linked to the tendency of individuals to exhibit racial or ethnic prejudice (Cohrs and Asbrock 2009; Duckitt and Sibley 2007; Rowatt and Franklin 2004), show prejudice against sexual minorities (Hunsberger 1996; Tsang and Rowatt 2007), reject ethnic immigrants (Thomsen, Green, and Sidanius 2008), be dogmatic (Crowson 2009; Rokeach 1960), censor those they disagree with (Altemeyer 2007; Lambe 2002; Lambe 2008), and lack the ability to engage in introspection (Duriez and Soenens 2006; Rubinstein 2003). Studies have contrasted RWA with social dominance orientation as potential sources of prejudice (Cohrs and Asbrock 2009; Duckitt and Sibley 2007), indicating that researchers perceive RWA as a major determinant of generalized prejudice. Altemeyer (1996) himself outlines a series of dysfunctions linked to his extensive study of RWA, including those listed above as well as being more punitive, more likely to make incorrect inferences, more hostile toward feminists, more fearful of a dangerous world, hypocritical, more likely to inflame intergroup conflict, more likely to avoid learning about their personal feelings, self-righteous, less supportive of liberty, and mean-spirited. It sounds like people with RWA are a curse on our society.

Determining who tends to have RWA has been an important focus of previous work. Researchers have documented that RWA is seen more readily among political conservatives (Altemeyer 1988; Stone 1980; Van Hiel and Mervielde 2002) and the highly religious (Altemeyer 1988; Duck and Hunsberger 2009; Hunsberger 1996). Altemeyer (1996) also argues that the less educated are more likely to have high levels of RWA. Such work paints a picture of RWA being linked to an uneducated social and political conservative subculture. This conservative subculture can be seen as the source of authoritarianism in our society. In fact, by calling it right-wing authoritarianism, the image is conjured up that all of these negative qualities linked to authoritarianism are the domain of mostly, or even only, religious and political conservatives. Many of the items in the scale mirror some of the political and religious positions of these conservatives. Therefore, it is not surprising that political and religious conservatives score high on a RWA scale because it seemed to be constructed with those groups in mind. It is clear that the RWA scale measures something. The high interitem correlations in RWA scales consistently remove all doubt of something being captured. But what is being captured? Do these scales have the construct validity to measure what it reports to measure? Does the RWA scale measure something called authoritarianism, or does it merely measure political or religious conservatism?

Some scholars have argued that the potential features linked to RWA scale are also found among political progressives (McCloskey and Chong 1985; Ray 1983; Ray 1984). They argued that there are examples of authoritarian social movements built on progressive, rather than conservative, political motivations (Ray 1983; Shils 1954). If these critics are correct, then authoritarianism is a concept transcending political party and religious orientation. As such authoritarianism, and not political or religious values, should be addressed in any attempt to create a less authoritarian and more critically thinking population. However, Altemeyer (2007) argues that even in such progressive movements the actors are psychologically acting in a “right-wing” manner. He contends that unquestioning obedience to authority is a trait that can theoretically be exhibited in a progressive movement, but it is best exhibited among political and religious conservatives. Therefore, his efforts to find even one left-wing authoritarian in Canada and the United States have largely failed (1996).

The claim of some who argue for the reality of RWA is that this personality trait is found in differing levels among individuals due to their propensity to follow authorities (Ekehammar et al. 2004; Heaven and Bucci 2001), even when those authorities are taking away the civil rights of the individuals who support the authorities. They argue that this type of inconsistency is more likely to be found among political and religious conservatives. Others have argued that RWA is the result of social learning, and thus an individual’s relationships and experiences growing up lead them into authoritarian values (Altemeyer 2007). Both arguments of the origin of RWA seemingly endorse progressive political ideology over conservative ideology. Either conservatives are more likely to have personality traits that support authoritarianism, or they are more likely to have been taught those values. This argument is not only relevant with political conservatives; it is also argued that religious conservatism is linked to this tendency to blindly follow authorities (Altemeyer 1988; Leak and Randall 1995). Such thinking has led to criticism that RWA is merely a politically driven theory (Ray 2004). It is vital to use data to see if the dynamics predicted by the theories’ proponents hold up under scrutiny and to assess whether political and religious conservatives are especially susceptible to authoritarianism.

Defining Right-Wing Authoritarianism

Before RWA can be fully examined, it needs to be defined. Altemeyer (1988; 2007) basically defined the idea of RWA as the degree to which individuals will, under the proper conditions, submit to authoritative abuse. His RWA scale is an empirical attempt to measure this characteristic. It corrected the unidirectional wording of the original F-scale with half of the questions requiring to be reversed coded. Furthermore, rather than attempting to pull together nine distinct characteristics, the RWA scale produced attitudinal clusters on three related dimensions. Understanding those dimensions provides us with a more complete understanding of RWA.

The first dimension is authoritarian submission, or the degree to which individuals are willing to submit to perceived established and legitimate societal authority. These individuals are theoretically willing to allow the government, or other authorities, to take away the rights of others. There is a tolerance of official misconduct by those described by this dimension. Some research suggests that those with high levels of RWA are less willing to punish authority figures found guilty of crimes (Altemeyer 1981; Altemeyer 2007; Narby, Cutler, and Moran 1993). This dimension is not directly linked to such individuals who engage in actions against disapproved groups; however, it is clear that they will stand on the sidelines while authority figures take away the rights of members of those groups.

The next dimension is authoritarian aggression, or the aggression directed at groups targeted to be punished by legitimate authorities. Individuals with high levels of RWA are theoretically willing to show hostility toward members of rejected groups. They desire to seek higher punishment on individuals determined to have violated social norms and values than those with low levels of RWA. If asked, right-wing authoritarians are relatively willing to help authority figures to engage in hostility toward groups disregarded by the mainstream of society. They are also less sympathetic to the plight of those who suffer from the misadventures of authority figures.

The final dimension is conventionalism, or the degree to which social conventions are seen as endorsed by societal authorities. Individuals with high levels of RWA are more likely to have high levels of conventional religiosity. They are also more likely to adhere to traditional sex roles and to conform to traditional social practices. Thus they are more willing to see those who break these laws as deviant and working against the interest of society. These individuals are also more supportive of conservative political positions.

The three dimensions are highly correlated with each other. These high correlations suggest that conventionalism, traditionally linked to religious and political conservatism, is automatically linked to authoritarian submission and aggression. Yet the questions developed by Altemeyer generally contain elements of more than one of these dimensions within them. This structure makes it difficult to disentangle the distinct dimensions from each other, and it makes the scale vulnerable to criticisms that it is set up to link conservatism to dysfunctional societal elements. Each of these dimensions produces an image of the authoritarian that proponents of RWA envision in their work, but the real question becomes whether there is the possibly of an alternative vision of an authoritarian that can be discovered with a different approach to this question.

RWA has been conceptualized as a personality trait rather than as a social attitude.⁴ Research (Ekehammar et al. 2004; Heaven and Bucci 2001; Perry and Sibley 2011) exploring the way RWA interacts with personality characteristics operates under the assumption that RWA is best understood as an aspect of an individual’s personality. Authoritarianism is also conceptualized as a psychological reaction to the perception of threat (Cohrs et al. 2005; Perrin 2005; Sibley, Wilson, and Duckitt 2007) and certain individuals submit to authoritarian control to meet their needs for security (Oesterreich 2005). Perhaps political and religious conservatives can be more likely to have an orientation that envisions a conventional order as a way to maintain a personal level of security. This need can be linked to their willingness to accept political and social conservatism. Such a desire for security can also reflect an unwillingness of conservatives to reflect upon the shortcomings of the current social order, and that unwillingness inhibits their ability to critique our current social and political order. Yet other research has indicated that RWA scales are conditioned on the situation a respondent is placed in (Altemeyer 1988; Duckitt and Fisher 2003; Sales 1973), which suggests that measures of RWA are linked more to social attitudes than to personality traits. If RWA is not automatically tied to personality traits of conservatives, but is contextualized to how individuals respond to threats of their social beliefs and social order they desire to feel secure, then it is theoretically possible for political and religious progressives to possess high levels of RWA in the right social conditions.

Altemeyer (2007) argues that RWA is connected to the way individuals have been socialized and their life experiences. Individuals who have been raised to obey authority and who have life experiences that reward such obedience are conceptualized as being highly vulnerable to accepting RWA. If RWA is envisioned as the accepting of a conventional lifestyle, then clearly such a theoretical assertion naturally links RWA to political and religious conservatism. However, it seems plausible that individuals may be raised to respect nontraditional sources of authorities (i.e., progressive political leaders and/or educators) and develop authoritarian ideas that comport with obedience to progressively oriented institutions. Such individuals may target conventional groups as threats and targets worthy of being controlled by authority figures.

The Horrors of Right-Wing Authoritarianism

Why should we be concerned with RWA? After all, it may be just a different way of looking at life. Some people may prefer to rely on authorities, while others are more free-spirited. If research on RWA painted such a picture, then I would not be writing this book. If authoritarianism is merely another way to look at life, then it is an interesting subject, but not a vital one. However those who study RWA do not see it as just another way of life. Many of them deeply fear the rise in RWA in our society, and if they are correct, they are right to have these fears.

Altemeyer is an important voice and is concerned about RWA. He argues that RWA is correlated to a host of very unsavory characteristics. For example, he argues that right-wing authoritarians are more likely to be bigoted, with a variety of types of prejudices. In theory those with authoritarian inclinations would spew their venom at perceived deviant groups they do not like. Whether these groups are racial, sexual, or gender minorities can vary in different contexts, but the propensity of certain individuals to exhibit prejudice is considered an important feature of authoritarianism. Even beyond prejudice and bigotry, there are other dysfunctional aspects linked to right-wing authoritarians. Altemeyer argues that such individuals are less willing to protect others from governmental abuses. This is a feature of the authoritarian submi...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Is Right-Wing Authoritarianism Incorrect?
• 3 Constructing the Christian Dehumanization Scale
• 4 Who Are Those That Dehumanize Christians?
• 5 Authoritarianism, Dehumanization, and Critical Thinking
• 6 Is Christian Dehumanization Merely a Version of Right-Wing Authoritarianism?
• 7 Where Do We Go from Here?
• Appendix
• References
• Index