Authoritarian cosmos: Complexity, elective affinities and the

Abstract

The dissertation grew out of a deep frustration with existing theoretical accounts of authoritarianism. Seeing strong interconnections and consistent patterns in the literature, the author began to explore the possibility of developing a more ecological framework. Stubbornly carrying the - now so seemingly - quaint "torch of the enlightenment", the project set out with a brief conceptual archeology - a leisurely walk through the fascinating hall of fame in this long and well-established research tradition. Having identified four major conceptual themes that permeate the historical record (individual factors, structural factors, ideational factors and core values and beliefs), the dissertation then tried to advance a value-belief Esperanto capable of creating stronger connections among the factors. Using the wisdom of the past as well as the insights of a multi-conceptual cast - lenses as diverse as Weber's concept of elective affinities, social identity theory, developmental psychology, Symbolic Interactionist thought and research on values and beliefs - it outlined a "new", fairly unorthodox framework for the understanding of authoritarian self dynamics, observed affinities, associated threat and salience processes and/or the inner workings of the authoritarian reaction (the submissive and aggressive defensive mechanisms). To "show" that authoritarianism does not represent a "natural" outcome of group processes, a quasi-biological certitude and/or a value-added tax that humanity somehow had to pay for its own evolutionary tandrums but may be better conceived as an emergent property of particular interactional constellations (and thus seems far from an inevitable condition), the author explored a range of hypothetical scenarios. Recognizing the continued importance and implications of these phenomena in today's world, the dissertation ends with a passionate call for further theory integration. It especially maintains that continuing to keep compiling "new" empirical information seems less fruitful than trying to analyze the already existing stock of knowledge. Once one transcends the terminological and conceptual Wild West, it becomes fairly obvious that it is not the pieces that are missing but a better way to put them together.