Adorno's F-scale
I've gotten interested in critical theory lately, partly because of a recent thread on Adorno, but also because the philosophical strain of extreme rightism I've been following sees itself as being born out of the death of leftism. Critical theory counts in some ways as leftism because it's supposed to be broadcasting norms to aid in emancipation. These norms are supposed to be based on empirical studies of various aspects of society.
I take a very dim view of it (to the point of being a little disgusted by critical theory). So this is an exercise in putting aside biases to see what's really going on here. Adorno's F-scale is some armchair psychoanalysis Adorno did to try to characterize the kind of person who is open to authoritarianism. He wrote a book about it entitled The Authoritarian Personality. At one point in it, he opines that openness to authoritarianism is related to suppressed homosexualtiy. As it happens, one of the biggest Trump supporters I know is a very openly gay friend (a long time friend, so I can't ditch him). So the gayness angle might be bullshit. Adorno just didn't live in a world where gayness is normalized, so he didn't realize that your sexuality doesn't really influence your ideas about what's good for society (all that much).
So let's look at the F-scale, which rates how close a person might be to being pre-fascist. This is one version from wikipedia:
Quoting wikipedia
What's your score?
Oops, wait, I'll get a better test.
I take a very dim view of it (to the point of being a little disgusted by critical theory). So this is an exercise in putting aside biases to see what's really going on here. Adorno's F-scale is some armchair psychoanalysis Adorno did to try to characterize the kind of person who is open to authoritarianism. He wrote a book about it entitled The Authoritarian Personality. At one point in it, he opines that openness to authoritarianism is related to suppressed homosexualtiy. As it happens, one of the biggest Trump supporters I know is a very openly gay friend (a long time friend, so I can't ditch him). So the gayness angle might be bullshit. Adorno just didn't live in a world where gayness is normalized, so he didn't realize that your sexuality doesn't really influence your ideas about what's good for society (all that much).
So let's look at the F-scale, which rates how close a person might be to being pre-fascist. This is one version from wikipedia:
Quoting wikipedia
Conventionalism: conformity to the traditional societal norms and values of the middle class
Authoritarian submission: a passive notion towards adhering to conventional norms and values
Authoritarian aggression: punishing and condemning individuals who don't adhere to conventional values
Religion and Ethics
Superstition and Stereotypy
Power and "Toughness"
Anti-intraception: "rejection of all inwardness, of the subjective, the imaginative, the tender-minded, and of self-criticism"
Destructiveness and Cynicism: generalized hostility, vilification of the human
Projectivity: the disposition to believe that wild and dangerous things go on in the world; the projection outwards of unconscious emotional impulses
Sex: exaggerated concern with sexual "goings-on"
What's your score?
Oops, wait, I'll get a better test.
Comments (18)
Quoting frank
Times change, and perhaps homosexuality is less psychologically charged than when it was illegal. Still, if one substitutes a generalised 'deviant sexuality', then the dominance/submission and S&M spectrum looks to line up quite neatly. Try your gay Trumpery pal out with that and see if you get a hot reaction. Mind you, I don't see Trump as your classic fascist leader - his own perversions are far too close to the surface.
If the location of your sweet spot is debatable, I suggest a little sexual experimentation. I'm sure you will find it if you follow your excitement.
Thanks for the suggestion, but just wish the proposition came from someone more interesting than an aging online man.
My theory is that Americans are by nature kind of sheep-like. At a football game we all coalesce into a patriotic mass as the national anthem is played. Knowing that about ourselves, we demand democracy to keep our personal identities from being subsumed into the super-identity. In other words, we use democracy to guard against our native tendencies.
A country like Russia doesn't really need democracy because historically, they aren't easy to govern. They don't feel threatened by dictatorship because they don't fear that they'll all just fall in line and lose themselves in the herd.
I think Adorno may have had it backwards. You're open to dictatorship only if you aren't afraid of it. You aren't afraid of it if you're very confident about your own autonomy.
This doesn't really address what you said, but I said it anyway,
I'll ask him if he thinks his devotion to Trump is coming from a desire to be dominated by him in bed. That's a great idea.
Speaking of football, I consider your theory to be like a football bat.
No doubt that the purpose of democracy is to reduce the threat of dictatorship, which is roughly defined as denying power to the people. But where you go wrong, IMH of Os is suggesting the threat isn't real, but is just the over-active imaginations of a paranoid people with self-confidence problems.
In other words, yes it is part of the American psyche to question government, but that is based upon history and well developed ideology, not just mindless fear governments can be bad.
Speaking of Russia, I'd suggest their willingness to cede power to dictators is also explained by their history. Russian people are bound together by a shared history and attachment to that land. Americans are bound by a limited history, a specific ideology, and a dream of self advancement .
More so not liberals than liberals though.
Since base-football, which makes use of the footbat, is a vast untapped opportunity for merchandise sales stretching out to the horizon, I think you're saying my theory is freaking genius.
Quoting Hanover
Are dictatorships really unusually bad compared to democracies? They're both capable of horrendous mistakes and diabolical episodes, as well as great feats of righteousness. How is one really better than the other?
Quoting Hanover
True. I think that explains why we have the oldest constitution in continuous use. The Constitution is all we've got.
Apparently when it gets above 4.5 is when you begin to give off authoritarian vibes, above 5.5 and youre pretty much fascist.
Very dated.
Quoting Jamal
:up:
Sure, but when a democracy fucks up, we say, "that wasn't very democratic now, was it?" When a dictatorship fucks up, we say, "that was pretty dictatorial now, wasn't it?"
As in dictators are supposed to promote the dictators, but democracies aren't.
So, yeah, I go with the system that means welll, but fails from time to time as opposed to the one that means harm and typically gets it right.
The questions, at least some, were ambiguous enough to be difficult to answer without equivocation. All in all a ridiculous test that reveals almost nothing of any use or value.
Seems about right.
Do you mean dictatorships usually mean harm?
Don't we all?