definitions of Authoritarianism

Mon Oct 28 12:33:33 PST 2002

    Interesting definition, but note how it turns entirely on what one sees
as "the private rights and freedom of citizens."

    For example, are those who favor gun controls "authoritarian"?  Well,
they often use "the Rule of Law to justify the need for obedience and
control," they often use rhetoric about the NRA that is aimed at
"foment[ing] suspicion and intolerance towards those seen as a threat" --
from the NRA (the "gun lobby") to "gun nuts," the "gun crazy," militia
groups, and the like -- and emphasize the need to maintain "order" and
"stability" by taking guns out of people's hands.

    And of course if the pro-gun-control forces are right (or at least right
enough) on the merits, then *they might well be right to do so*.  If guns in
private hands were really an unalloyed menace, then of course we should use
the Rule of Law to justify the need for obedience towards gun controls.  It
might even be proper to suggest that those who continue to insist on
maintain the vast level of private arms in our society -- in the face of the
strong evidence of how awful guns are, and how helpful gun controls would be
-- should be viewed with suspicion and intolerance (though perhaps some
excessive rhetoric would be improper even then).  And it would be quite
right to suggest that gun controls should be favored because of the need for
order and stability.  I disagree with the positions, because I disagree with
the gun control movement of the merits.  But the term "authoritarian" adds
nothing to the debate, and just ends up being a label one can use to fault
those who you think are wrong on the merits.

    How about those who favor broad antidiscrimination laws?  They too often
use "the Rule of Law to justify the need for obedience" towards
antidiscrimination laws.  They certainly try to "foment suspicion and
intolerance" towards those that they label as "racist" (and I should stress
that those who are genuinely racist *should* be viewed with suspicion and
intolerance).  And they suggest that racism threatens social stability, by
exacerbating racial hostilities, and that we can better keep order and
stability if we restrict people's ability to discriminate.

    Does this make the supporters of these antidiscrimination laws
"authoritarian"?  Few people on this list would say that this is so, I
think, because they think that some laws should be obeyed, some controls are
proper, some people should be viewed with suspicion and intolerance, and
that the needs for order, predictability, and stability sometimes do justify
restriction on people's behavior.  So "authoritarian" again ends up being a
term not for people who meet certain objective, nonpartisan criteria -- such
as the criteria mentioned before -- but as a rhetorical tool for attacking
people whose views of "private rights and freedoms" you don't sure.

    Eugene

 -----Original Message-----
From: Lynne [mailto:hendersl at IX.NETCOM.COM]
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 11:07 AM
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: definitions of Authoritarianism

SOme definitions that are useful, I believe, if one is concerned about
creeping authoritarianism/recent trends:
"authoriarian/authoritarianism" in a thin sense can mean either a habitual
or required obedience to authority (habitual was Arendt's interpretation),
but it has meaning beyond that.  There is research on individuals and their
orientatiion to authority --"the authoritarian personality" research, the
authoritarianism scale on th eMMPI, etc. that grew out of concern with
right-wing authoritarianism;  ironically, research into other forms appears
to have been symied when funds dried up during the Cold War and researchers
were seen as "too liberal"--see *The Altruistic Personality*, *Crimes of
Obedience* for later research and development.

 Authoritarian political systems  are charactertized by "repression,
intolerance, [and] encroachment on the private rights and freedoms of
citizens, " in the name of control and order. "authoritarian goernments take
various forms and use various mechanisms to assure state hegemony in society
[ and  may tolerate some dissent, honor "democratic" forms, free speech,
etc.  to some degree]. .  . such governments may depend on 'centralized
executive control and coercion" and the need for command and obedience, " b
ut oligarchies also can be authoritarian, , , , authoritarian governments
seek to dominate 'by arresting, subverting, or destroying autonomous
individual, collective, and institutional behavior."  Authoritarians use the
Rule of Law to justify the need for obedience and control, to forment
suspicion and intolerance towards those seen as a threat, and emphasize
"order, predictability and stability." (footnotes ommitted, 66 Ind. LJ
396-97)

THus it is a group of characterisitcs that is our concern, not an isolated
act or controversial decision.

Prof. Lynne Henderson
Boyd School of Law--UNLV
4505 Maryland Pkwy
Box 451003
Las Vegas, NV  89154
702-895-2625

----- Original Message -----
From: Volokh, Eugene <mailto:VOLOKH at MAIL.LAW.UCLA.EDU>
To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu <mailto:CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: Authoritarianism

        I appreciate Sandy's thoughtful post here, but I think it only helps
highlight the difficulty with using the term "authoritarian," especially in
the absence of any clear definition.

        If the original message that started this thread had described Bush
as tending towards "authoritarianism in a way similar to Charles de
Gaulle's," I think it would have yielded a *very* different reaction on the
part of most observers, both from the Left and from the Right.  It might
have produced an interesting discussion of its own, but quite a different
one than we've had.

        This suggests to me that Sandy is using a definition of
"authoritarianism" that has quite a different connotation (and perhaps even
denotation) than the term often has.  For instance, as I mentioned before,
my New Shorter Oxford defines "authoritarian" as "Favouring or characterized
by obedience to (esp. political) authority as opp[osed] to personal liberty;
tyrannical, dictatorial."  Now de Gaulle thought the French Presidency
should be strong than some others thought, and perhaps than many of us might
think (I'm just not sure); but I doubt that we'd call him "tyrannical" or
"dictatorial" except as hyperbole, or with a great deal of qualification.

        Now I know there are indeed terms that have different meanings and
connotations in technical discourse than they have in public discussion.
And in theory, we could agree on a definition of "authoritarian" that is (1)
not highly pejorative, and (2) broad enough to include many people and
actions that we wouldn't think are tyrannical or dictatorial.

        On the other hand, we also see that (1) the original use of the term
on this thread did -- unless I am very much mistaken -- try to use the term
in a highly pejorative way, rather than in the mild and descriptive way that
Sandy suggested, and (2) we have yet to see in this thread any clear
definition of "authoritarian."  That, I think, supports my view that
"authoritarian" is not a terribly helpful label in this discussion, given
how likely it is that it will mean very different things to different
people, and how tainted it is with the highly pejorative connotation -- one
that goes far beyond the actions of Charles de Gaulle -- that comes from its
association with "tyrannical" and "dictatorial."

        Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanford Levinson [mailto:SLevinson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU
<mailto:SLevinson at MAIL.LAW.UTEXAS.EDU> ]
> Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 2:52 PM
> To: CONLAWPROF at listserv.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: Authoritarianism
>
>
> Mark Scarberry writes;
>
> >Jack's treatment of abuses of power by President Nixon as a GOP
> >phenomenon leads me to ask whether the previous Democratic
> president,
> >President Johnson, had a better record. Is there someone on the list
> >who has followed the recent scholarship on the Johnson
> presidency and
> >who would be willing to give us a brief response?
>
>
> Let's assume that Mark is absolutely right.  Might we not
> have an important discussion of the frequency with which
> presidents of the United States have adopted a variety of
> "authoritarian" postures and what this might tell us about
> the operating assumptions of the American system of
> government?  I presume that everyone would agree that Charles
> de Gaulle was quite "authoritarian" in his conception of the
> French presidency.  So perhaps we could do some comparative
> analysis and ask which of our presidents, including those
> termed "great" by at least some assessors, were at least as
> "authoritarian" as de Gaulle.
>
> sandy
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20021028/5ae9f41e/attachment.htm