Official message: if you doubt the authorities, you are crazy, or how the modern psychiatric business works. Types and syndromes

Unlimited power in the hands of limited people always leads to cruelty.

A. Solzhenitsyn. Gulag archipelago

Uncontrolled power corrupts people.

Ethel Lilian Voynich. Gadfly

Authoritarianism as a quality of personality - the desire to become the sole leader and to subordinate partners to interaction and communication as much as possible, organize a clear hierarchical structure around itself, based on the strict fulfillment of its requirements and orders.

One day Confucius was driving near a mountain. A woman sobbed loudly over the grave. Leaning in respect on the front of the chariot, Confucius listened to her sobs. And then he sent his disciple to the woman, and he asked her: - You are killing yourself like that - it seems that you are not grieving for the first time? “So it is,” the woman replied. - Once, my father-in-law died from the claws of a tiger. Then my husband died from them. And now my son is dead. Why don't you leave these places? asked Confucius. “There are no cruel authorities here,” the woman replied. “Remember this, student,” said Confucius. - Cruel power - more ferocious than a tiger.

Authoritarianism, as opposed to democracy, is a monopoly of power, the maximum suppression of initiative, the use of coercive measures. An authoritarian leader seeks to activate subordinates by administrative methods, adopting iron discipline and exactingness, threats of punishment and His Majesty Fear. Powerful and cold authoritarianism turns people into passive performers. It destroys all goodwill in the team, mutual understanding and mutual respect between the leader and his subordinates. As a rule, an authoritarian leader is characterized by aggressiveness, high self-esteem and pretentiousness, stereotyped thinking, and a desire for dominance. He is intolerant of objections and criticism. By exerting all-round pressure on people, authoritarianism pronounces threats and ultimatums with a metallic voice.

An authoritarian boss or family member considers his opinion to be the absolute truth, an axiom and, without any hesitation, imposes it on the outside world: "As I said, period." The underlying cause of this behavior is neurotic compensation for feelings of inferiority. A strong, self-confident person does not like coercion. His arsenal is dominated by persuasion and explanation. The craving for dominance and bossing, deafness to dissent make an authoritarian person rush to power. Only there he will find an outlet for the manifestation of his quality. Having achieved power, an authoritarian personality knows how to "build" everyone, make them "step in step", keep "in a fist". A typical path for authoritarianism is to get an officer's rank and rise to the rank of colonel or general, to take the place of a sports coach, the chair of the chief. If this does not happen, the authoritarianism comes off on family members or on the dog.

When an authoritarian leader makes high demands on himself, shows vigor, inspiration and enthusiasm, such a person, despite the rigidity of the leadership, causes involuntary respect among people. Seeing his discipline, composure, the highest concentration on solving the tasks set, people also become disciplined and do not complain that the bar of high requirements has been set for them. Resentment and protest moods arise when an authoritarian leader is optional, unorganized, lax, undemanding to himself. In other words, the authoritarian leadership is not necessarily a fat minus. Many effective leaders are authoritarians and often take pride in it because their industry thrives.

The trouble with authoritarianism is that it brings down a system of punishments on people without first winning their respect and hearts. Vladimir Tarasov writes: “If you don’t win a heart, you can’t punish. If the heart is not won, it means that you do not enter the center of gravity of persons subordinate to you. Approaching you is not valuable to them. Moving away from you is not sad, and if you still pass judgment, it reveals that you do not understand well what is happening around you, you perceive the situation inadequately. It only damages your credibility. Because it is unforgivable for a leader. And forgivable only for a hopeless beginner. Without winning the heart, you can be punished only if the law is violated, established not by you, but by your predecessors. But even here there is a risk: after all, your predecessors might not have enjoyed authority. In any case, you need to know the measure. Excessive punishment looks like the revenge of a weak person. The best reaction to a violation is a reaction of strength, a reaction of indifference: yes, I see that you are violating, and we will undoubtedly return to this issue in two weeks. Maybe you have your own reasons for the violation, but we will return to this later. And, of course, there is no good-natured shade in the intonation: oh, prankster, wait a minute, I'll get to you! And no malice: I am vindictive, beware! Only the indifference of the machine, which, when it thoroughly understands, can punish. But he can understand. Or, less likely, even forgive. Having won the heart, it is impossible not to punish. If not punished, the subordinate, prompted by the natural desire to get closer to the center of gravity, will forget about the measure. He will lose the main quality of a subordinate - the willingness to carry out an order, still not knowing anything about its content. An unpunished subordinate will seek to carry out only those orders that contribute to his advancement to the center, and evade the execution of others. Following him, other subordinates will rummage through your orders, as in cheap goods on sale, choosing the most suitable ones for execution. Only the one who felt punished is punished, and not the one who was punished.

Gogol's The Inspector General has the character of Derzhimorda, while Chekhov's Unter Prishibeyev has typical bearers of authoritarianism. Derzhimorda did not give much free rein to his fists; for the sake of order, he puts lanterns under the eyes of everyone - both the right and the guilty. Unter Prishibeev in court proves the “justice” of authoritarianism and wonders why the judges do not share his opinion: “Excuse me, you are not a police officer, not a headman, is it your job to disperse the people? - Not his! Not his! voices are heard from different angles of the camera. - There is no life from him, your dignity! Fifteen years we endure from him! As soon as he came from the service, so from that time on, at least run from the village. Tortured everyone! "That's right, your dignity!" says the elder witness. - We are sorry for the whole world. It's impossible to live with him! Whether we walk with images, whether it’s a wedding, or, let’s say, some kind of occasion, everywhere he screams, makes noise, introduces all orders. He pulls the ears of the guys, peeps at the women, so that nothing happens, like some kind of father-in-law ... The other day, he went around the huts, ordered that they not sing songs and that they did not burn fires. There is no such law, he says, to sing songs. “Wait, you still have time to give the order,” says the peace officer, “and now let Prishibeev continue. Go on, Prishibeev! - I'm listening! - wheezes unter. - You, nobility, deign to say, it's not my business to disperse the people ... Well, sir ... And what if there are riots? Can something be allowed to make people ugly? Where is it written in the law to give the people will? I can't allow it. If I do not disperse them and exact them, then who will? No one knows the real order, in the whole village I’m the only one, you can say, your honor, I know how to deal with people of a simple rank, and, your honor, I can understand everything ...

I'm not a peasant, I'm a non-commissioned officer, a retired captain, I served in Warsaw, at the headquarters, sir, and after that, if you please know, how I got clean, I was in the fire department, sir, and after that, due to the weakness of the disease, I left the fire department and two years in the men's classical gymnasium as a doorman... I know all the rules, sir. And the peasant is a simple man, he does not understand anything and must listen to me, because it is for his own good. . It used to happen, in Warsaw, or when I was a porter in a male classical gymnasium, when I hear some inappropriate words, I look into the street, can not see the gendarme: “Come, I say, here, cavalier,” and I report everything to him. And here in the village, who will you tell?.. Evil took me. It became a shame that the current people forgot themselves in self-will and disobedience, I swung and ... of course, not so much, but so, right, gently, so that I would not dare to say such words about your highness ... The officer stood up for the foreman. I, therefore, am also a police officer ... And off we go ... I got excited, your honor, well, it’s impossible without that, so as not to be beaten. If you don’t beat a stupid person, then sin is on your soul. Especially if for the cause ... if the mess ... -But understand that this is none of your business! - What? how is it not mine? Wonderful, sir... People make a mess, and it's none of my business! Why should I praise them, or what? They are complaining to you that I forbid you to sing songs ... But what good is there in songs? Instead of doing what they do, they are songs ... And they also took the fashion in the evenings with fire to sit. You need to go to bed, and they have conversations and laughter ... - Enough! - says the judge and begins to interrogate the witnesses. Unter Prishibeev raises his glasses to his forehead and looks with surprise at the world leader, who is obviously not on his side. His bulging eyes shine, his nose turns bright red. He looks at the magistrate, at the witnesses, and cannot understand in any way why the magistrate is so agitated and why from all corners of the cell one hears now a murmur, now restrained laughter. The verdict is also incomprehensible to him: a month under arrest! - For what?! he says, throwing up his hands in bewilderment. - By what law? And it is clear to him that the world has changed and that it is no longer possible to live in the world. Gloomy, gloomy thoughts take possession of him. But when he left the cell and saw the peasants crowding around and talking about something, out of habit, which he could no longer control, he stretched his arms at his sides and shouted in a hoarse, angry voice: “Narrod, disperse!” Don't crowd! Home!"

Petr Kovalev 2013

During my work as a psychologist, I have had the opportunity to talk with hundreds of people who were previously diagnosed by other specialists as "deficient oppositional disorder", "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder", "excessive anxiety", and other mental disorders. I was struck by the following: (1) how many people among them are opposed to authoritarian power, and (2) how few such power fighters are among those who diagnosed them.

Opponents of authoritarian power question the legitimacy of any power before taking it seriously. The assessment of the legitimacy of power includes an analysis of whether or not this power knows what it is talking about, whether it is honest, whether it cares about people who respect power. And if these doubters come to the conclusion that the authorities are illegitimate, they challenge this authority and begin to resist it - sometimes actively, and sometimes actively-passively, sometimes in a smart way, and sometimes not.

Some activists complain about how few such power fighters are in the US. One reason may be that many of the natural opponents of power are now being identified for treatment by psychopathologists and prescribed drugs before they even have political awareness and an idea of the oppression of power over society.

Why psychologists and psychiatrists diagnose opponents of authoritarian power with a mental disorder

To get into graduate school, graduate school or internship, and get a diploma or a degree, to become a psychologist or psychiatrist, you have to jump through a lot of burning hoops. All this requires compliance with behavioral authority and consideration for it - even if you treat it without respect. In the selection and preparation for work of professionals from the field of psychiatry and psychology, a lot of power fighters are eliminated. Having wandered through the expanses of higher education for ten years of my life, I know that diplomas and titles are basically evidence of compliance. Those who study for a long time live for many years in a world of conformism, in which a person gets used to obeying the requirements of authorities or superiors. Therefore, to many doctors, both medical and scientific, people who are not like them, who are not willing to adapt their behavior, seem to be aliens. That is, the diagnosis is obvious, the case is clinical.

I have found that most psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals are not only extremely obedient to authority, but also do not realize how great their obedience is. It also became clear to me that the anti-authoritarian behavior of patients causes great excitement and anxiety among these professionals, and from here comes both diagnoses and treatment.

During my studies, I discovered the following. To be labeled as someone with "boss problems" is simply not to suck up to a clinical executive who is a hybrid of Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich, and Howard Cosell by nature. When one of the teachers told me that I had “problems with the authorities,” I did not understand why I was given such a stigma. On the one hand, I found it very funny, because in the environment of working-class children in which I grew up, I was considered quite accommodating and obedient. After all, I always did my homework, did not skip classes and got good grades. But while my new stigma made me smile widely because I was now considered a "bad boy," I was also very concerned about the kind of profession I had gotten myself into. If a person like me has "problems with the authorities", then what do they call those guys with whom I grew up and was brought up? They were not indifferent to many things, but these guys did not care about the school and their behavior in it. Well, I found the answer pretty quickly.

Diagnosis of a mental disorder for opponents of power

In 2009, the Psychiatric Times published an article titled ADHD & ODD: Confronting the Challenges of Disruptive Behavior. It reported that "destructive mental disorders", which the title of the articles refers to, are the most common mental health problems in children and adolescents. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder by definition manifests itself in the inability to concentrate, pathologically increased distractibility, poor self-control, impulsivity and hyperactivity. Oppositional defiant disorder is defined in the article as "a pattern of negativistic, hostile, and demonstrative behavior without serious interference with the basic rights of others, as manifested in behavioral disorders." Among the symptoms of this disease are "frequent challenge or refusal to comply with the requests and rules of adults", as well as "frequent disputes with adults".

Psychologist Russell Barkley, one of the leading mainstream medical authorities on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, says that people who suffer from the syndrome have what he calls a deficit of "rule-based behavior." These people are less receptive to the rules of recognized authorities and less sensitive to positive and negative consequences. According to authorities in the mainstream of psychiatry, youth with oppositional defiant disorder also have a deficit of "rule-based behavior." Therefore, quite often in people at a young age, these two types of disorders are present simultaneously.

But does anyone with this "rule-based behavior deficit" need a medical diagnosis and medication?

Albert Einstein would have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder as a young man, and perhaps Oppositional Defiant Disorder to boot. Albert ignored his teachers, failed his college entrance exams twice, and struggled to keep a job. However, Einstein biographer Ronald Clark, in his book Einstein: The Life and Times, argues that Albert's problems did not arise from a lack of attention, but rather from a hatred of authoritarian Prussian discipline in schools, where he studied. “The teachers in elementary school seemed like sergeants to me, but in the gymnasium the teachers were like lieutenants,” said Einstein. At the age of 13, he read Kant's difficult Critique of Pure Reason because it interested him. Clark also reveals that Einstein didn't want to go to college, rebelling against his father's "intolerable" "practical profession". When Einstein finally entered college, one of the teachers told him: "You have one drawback: you can't say anything." However, the very qualities of Einstein, which still greatly upset the authorities, allowed him to succeed.

By today's standards, the legendary organizer Saul Alinsky, who wrote "Reveille for Radicals" and "Rules for Radicals" ("Wake Up for Radicals" and "Rules for Radicals"), would certainly receive one or more diagnoses from the category of destructive mental disorders. Recalling his childhood, Alinsky said: “I never thought about walking on the grass until I saw the sign “Do not walk on lawns.” After that, I just started stomping on them." Alinsky also recalled being taught Hebrew by a rabbi at the age of ten or eleven:

One day I read three pages in a row without a single mistake in pronunciation, and suddenly one cent fell on the book. … The next day the rabbi came again and told me to start reading. I refused. I just sat silently, refusing to read. He asked why I was silent, and I replied: "This time it's either a nickel or nothing." He swung and gave me such a slap that I flew across the room.

Many people who suffer from anxiety and/or depression are also anti-authority. Often the main worry in their lives that fuels their anxiety and/or depression is the fear that disrespect for illegitimate authority will lead them to financial or social marginalization. At the same time, they are afraid that compliance with such an illegitimate government will simply kill them.

I have spent a lot of time with people who, at some point in their lives, had such strange and extravagant thoughts and behaviors that they began to fear terribly for their families and for themselves. They received a diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychosis, but then fully recovered and led many years of productive life. Among these people, I did not meet a single person who could not be called a power fighter. After their recovery, these people channeled their anti-authoritarian urges towards more constructive political goals, including reforming the mental health treatment system.

Many anti-authoritarians who have previously lived with a diagnosis of a mental disorder have told me that having received such a diagnosis, they faced a dilemma. Authoritarians by definition demand unconditional obedience. Therefore, any resistance to diagnosis and treatment was of great concern to authoritarian psychiatrists and psychologists. They felt that patients were out of control, they labeled them as "not treatable," they passed more and more severe diagnoses and sentences and prescribed more and more powerful drugs. This angered the anti-authoritarians, sometimes to such an extent that even those close to them frightened their behavior.

There are anti-authoritarians who take psychiatric drugs to help them live and work, but often reject psychiatrists' explanations of why they find it difficult to function without drugs. For example, they take Adderall (an amphetamine prescribed for ADD sufferers), but they know that their attention problems are not the result of a biochemical imbalance in the brain, but boring work. Likewise, many anti-authoritarians take occasional prescribed benzodiazepines, such as Xanax, under high stress, but feel it would be safer for them to occasionally smoke marijuana, which they cannot do because they are drug tested at work.

I know from experience that many power fighters who have been diagnosed by a psychiatrist usually do not reject all power, but only what they consider illegitimate. But it turns out that this is usually power in society.

Maintaining the social status quo

Americans are increasingly being told that inattention, anger, anxiety, and paralyzing despair are a disease that needs to be treated, not the result of social problems that need to be corrected by political means. There is simply no better way to maintain the status quo of society than to treat inattention, anger, anxiety, and depression as a biochemical problem for a person who is ill, rather than a normal response to an increasingly authoritarian society.

But in reality, depression is closely linked to social and financial ills. People are much more likely to get depressed when they don't have a job, when they work part-time, receive benefits, or are stuck in debt. And kids diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder always pay attention when they are paid, or when this or that job or activity is new to them, when it is interesting to them, or when they have chosen it themselves.

In earlier dark times, authoritarian monarchies formed alliances with authoritarian religious institutions. When the world emerged from the Dark Ages and entered the Age of Enlightenment, there was a powerful burst of energy. To a large extent, this revival was associated with a skeptical attitude towards authoritarian and immoral institutions and with the return of self-confidence and intelligence. Today we are entering another gloomy Middle Ages, only the institutions in it are different. Americans badly need anti-authoritarian power fighters who will question, challenge and resist new illegitimate authorities and restore faith in their own sanity.

Supporters and opponents of authoritarianism will be in every generation. There is no tradition in American history of power fighters taking effective action by inspiring other people to successful rebellion and rebellion. But from time to time there are rebels like Thomas Paine, Crazy Horse cabaret or Malcolm X who challenge the system. Therefore, authoritarian forces sideline those who fight the system, depriving them of funds, criminalizing anti-authoritarianism, and diagnosing those who are against authoritarianism with a mental disorder, and selling them drugs to “cure” their illness.

The idea of individual differences in the manifestation of outgroup discrimination formed the basis of the authoritarian personality theory, the founder of which is T. Adorno and his colleagues (the Berkeley group) (Adorno et al., 2001). They, like Freud, believed that the reason for the negative attitude towards the out-group should be sought in the personality of its carrier. However, their views differed from those of Freud. Freud believed that intergroup conflict corresponds to human nature, and therefore is mandatory.

In the theory of Adorno and his colleagues, the idea is carried out that intergroup conflict is an anomaly, and not any person can become its participant, but only one who has certain personal characteristics.

In their study, Adorno and his colleagues used a range of techniques, including questionnaires that included questions about the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents and their views; a clinical interview in which respondents talked about their past and also expressed their opinion on a number of social problems; a thematic-apperceptive test in which participants were shown a series of pictures depicting dramatic events and asked to describe their actions in each case.

Adorno and his colleagues began their study by creating a scale of anti-Semitism, filling in which the respondent had to determine the degree of their agreement with a number of statements about Jews. The members of the Berkeley group believed that anti-Semitism was only part of the ethnocentrism syndrome, to measure which they created another scale (the E-scale), which measured people's attitudes towards various minorities. After that, 80 respondents who filled out the scale of ethnocentrism and scored very high or very low on it participated in a clinical interview, with the help of which the researchers tried to find out the individual characteristics of people belonging to two different types.

These studies made it possible to describe a person prone to discrimination against outgroups - an authoritarian person who had the following traits:
conventionalism: support for the values of the American middle class;
authoritarian subservience: uncritical submission to the idealized authorities of one's own group;
authoritarian aggression: the tendency to seek out people who do not respect conventional values in order to condemn, reject and punish them;
anti-intraception: rejection of everything subjective, full of fantasy, sensual;
superstition: belief in a mystical destiny of one's own destiny, a predisposition to thinking in rigid categories;
power thinking and the cult of power: thinking in such categories as domination-submission, strong-weak, leader-followers; identification of oneself with images that embody strength; flaunting strength and fortress;
destructiveness and cynicism: general hostility, denigration of everything human;
projectivity: a predisposition to believe in the gloomy and dangerous processes taking place in the world; projection of their unconscious, instinctive impulses on the outside world;
sexuality: excessive interest in sexual "incidents".

To measure the degree of authoritarianism, Adorno and colleagues created the F-scale. Its distinguishing feature was the fact that the same statement could be associated with several subscales at once. Examples of statements on the authoritarian scale are:
conventionalism: "Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues that children should learn";
authoritarian subservience: “Young people sometimes have rebellious ideas; but when they grow up, they have to overcome it and calm down”;
authoritarian aggression: "Most of our social problems would be solved if we got rid of antisocial elements, swindlers and imbeciles";
anti-traception: "The businessman and the manufacturer are much more important to society than the artist and the professor";
superstitiousness: "The sciences justify themselves, but there are many important things that the human mind will never understand";
power thinking: “People can be divided into two classes; weak and strong";
destructiveness and cynicism: "Confidence turns into disrespect";
projectivity: “Today, when so many different people are constantly on the road, and everyone meets everyone, you need to be especially careful to protect yourself from infections and diseases”;
sexuality: "Homosexuals are no better than other criminals and should be severely punished."

The correlation between the F- and E-scales was equal to 0.75, which meant that the degree of authoritarianism of a person is indeed directly related to the negative attitude towards minorities. Subsequent experimental studies have shown that authoritarian people exhibit greater in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination even when assessing artificial, experimentally constructed groups.

Based on the ideas of Freud, Adorno and colleagues believed that the reason for the formation of an authoritarian personality is a special situation of family development (authoritarian father and punishing mother; formal, strictly regulated family relationships; lack of warmth, trust and immediacy between parents and children).

The authoritarian personality theory, like other concepts, has not escaped criticism. It takes place along the following lines.
1. The definition of an authoritarian personality in the form in which it was formed in the 50s of the XX century does not correspond to today's realities, since it contains a number of features specific to adults living at that time. In response to this criticism, the content of the authoritarian personality syndrome was changed.

The modern interpretation of the authoritarian personality belongs to B. Altmeyer (Dyakonova, Yurtaykin, 2000; Altemeyer, 1996), who associated it with such features of a person as complete and unconditional submission to power and authority, adherence to traditional social norms (conventionalism, conformism), and aggressiveness towards towards those groups whose rejection is encouraged by the authorities. In particular, American studies of the 90s of the XX century show that authoritarianism is associated with racism (Roets, Van Hiel, Cornells, 2006), with a negative attitude towards AIDS patients, drug addicts, environmentalists, abortion, homeless people (Peterson, Doty, Winler, 1993), illegal immigrants (Ommund-sen, Larsen, 1997), working women (Pek, Leong, 2003), homosexuals (Stones, 2006), as well as representatives of other religious movements, for example, Muslims (for Christians) (Rowatt, Franklin, Cotton, 2005). Subsequently, Altmeyer created the "Right-wing Authoritarianism" scale, which is still used to study authoritarianism.

However, some researchers believe that each of the three parameters of authoritarianism identified by Altmeyer has independent significance. This pattern is clearly seen in children (Rigby, 1998). This means that submission to the authorities does not necessarily imply a high level of conformism - submission to group norms, and conformity - political intolerance. Conforming people do not necessarily show negative attitudes towards other groups, but they are more sensitive to the threat of in-group cohesion. It is the presence of such a threat that leads them to an increase in outgroup discrimination (Feldman, 2003).

The independence of various measurements of authoritarianism led to the idea of creating new scales for its measurement. One of these scales was created by K. Rigby. Its goal is to measure people's attitudes towards representatives of various social institutions that embody power (police, army, judiciary, education) (Rigby, Metzer, Ray, 1986).

2. Features of the family situation are not the only reason for the emergence of an authoritarian personality. In response to this criticism, proponents of the theory began looking for other factors that influence the degree of authoritarianism. As a result, the following conditions were identified that contribute to the formation of an authoritarian personality.
a) The social situation in society. The degree of authoritarianism depends on people's perception of a threat to their position. For example, the number of authoritarian Americans increased with an increase in the perception of a threat from a large outgroup - the USSR, and the number of authoritarian New Zealanders - with the perception of a future economic downturn, social disintegration, and a high level of crime in their country (Doty, Peterson, Winter, 1991; Duckitt, Fisher, 2003; McCann, 1999).

Some authors identify behavioral indicators that can be used to measure the level of authoritarianism without resorting to questionnaires. Among them:
political preferences (conventionalism). During periods of social tension, the number of supporters of conservatives increases and the number of supporters of liberals falls;
attitude towards censorship (authoritarian servility). During periods of social tension, the number of supporters of censorship increases;
authoritarian religious currents (authoritarian servility). During periods of instability, the number of supporters of authoritarian religious movements increases;
attitude towards outgroups (authoritarian aggression). During periods of social tension, attitudes towards outgroups worsen;
interest in psychology (anti-intraception). During periods of social tension, the level of sales of books on psychology falls;
occult sciences (superstition). During periods of social tension, the number of people who are fond of astrology grows;
dog breed (power thinking). During periods of social tension, the number of dogs of fighting breeds increases;
comedy characters (power thinking). During periods of social tension, comedic characters become more aggressive;
political cynicism (destructiveness and cynicism). During periods of social tension, there is a growing number of people who are distrustful and cynic about the government and other social institutions;
punishment for sexual crimes (sexuality). During periods of social tension, penalties for sexual crimes increase.
It is possible that in this case it is not the social environment itself that is important, but its perception by a person: people who believe that the world around them is dangerous are more authoritarian (Duckitt et.al., 2002).
b) Situational threat. In order for the rejection of outgroups by authoritarian people to manifest itself in full, a temporary sense of threat, not related to the situation in society, is sufficient. The source of such a threat may be a reminder to a person of the inevitability of death. Such a reminder leads to a more negative attitude towards people who are different from the frightened person. For example, Christians who were reminded of the inevitability of death viewed Jews more negatively than those who were not reminded of death. However, this pattern is more pronounced among authoritarian people (Greenberg et.al., 1990).
c) Education. First, the level of education has some influence on authoritarianism. According to American data, four years of college education leads to a decrease in authoritarianism (Peterson and Lane, 2001). However, the likelihood of a decrease in the level of authoritarianism in the course of education is related to its type. For example, the results of a study conducted in South Africa and the United States showed that the level of authoritarianism was associated with the level of education only among US residents, but not among South Africans. One explanation for this phenomenon is that the ability of education to reduce authoritarianism is manifested to the extent that education is aimed at teaching dialectical thinking and is carried out with the participation of weakly authoritarian educators (Duckitt, 1992).
Secondly, the level of authoritarianism depends on the nature of education. In particular, biology, chemistry, and engineering students are more authoritarian than humanities students (eg, philosophers) and those in the social sciences (sociology, psychology) (Rubinstein, 1997). In addition, authoritarianism is negatively associated with academic achievement in the humanities, which require the ability to see different points of view (Peterson and Lane, 2001).
d) Profession. For example, the level of authoritarianism among police officers is higher than among professional soldiers and airport guards, and they are higher than among people not associated with law enforcement agencies (Rubinstein, 2006).
e) Religiosity. One explanation for the difference in the level of authoritarianism among educated South Africans and the United States is that "white" South Africans are religious and strongly identified with their group, which has a greater influence on the level of authoritarianism than education (Duckitt, 1992).
f) Type of culture. This is indirectly confirmed by the presence of cross-cultural differences in the level of authoritarianism, which is higher among representatives of collectivist cultures (for example, Asian countries and Japan) than among residents of individualistic ones (for example, the United States). Authoritarianism is particularly strongly associated with so-called vertical individualism and collectivism as compared to horizontal collectivism (Kemmelmeier et.al., 2003; Larsen et.al., 1990).

3. The presence of authoritarian traits is not a guarantee that their carrier will carry out outgroup discrimination. In response to this criticism, proponents of the authoritarian personality theory put forward the following idea. An authoritarian person is characterized by a desire not to differ from the majority, therefore an authoritarian person is prone to outgroup discrimination only in cases where such an attitude towards an outgroup is considered acceptable and justified in society. Otherwise, he will be an ardent supporter of equality. Thus, the personality traits, behavior and views of an authoritarian person are a vivid, many times intensified reflection of the processes taking place in society.

In particular, an authoritarian personality has that locus of control that is value-significant in the group to which he belongs. For example, authoritarian residents of the United States have an internal locus of control, while for residents of Russia, the relationship between authoritarianism and locus of control has not been established (Dyakonova, Yurtaykin, 2000). Another example is connected with Russia in the 90s of the XX century. Highly authoritarian post-Soviet Russians were supporters of the principle of equality cultivated in the Soviet Union and opposed government laissez-faire in trade relations. However, authoritarian US citizens supported opposite ideas (McFarland, Ageyev, Abalakina-Paap, 1992).

Therefore, at the moment, speaking of an authoritarian personality, the emphasis is rather not on the family situation of its development, but on its relationship with the group. For example, J. Duckitt (Duckitt, 1989, 2000) believed that authoritarianism is an aspect of group cohesion: an authoritarian person has a very strongly developed need for identification with a group, the values of her group are very important for her, and she rejects the significance of the values of other social groups.

4. Authoritarianism is associated with a person's attitude not only to outgroups, but also to other aspects of existence. Modern research has shown that in addition to the characteristics already listed, an authoritarian personality is characterized by the support of certain attitudes and the presence of personality traits.
Resistance to social change. Closely related to authoritarianism is a person's attitude to social change. For example, a study conducted in 1991 in Russia before presidential elections showed that authoritarian citizens were conservative in the sense that they resisted any change in the Soviet Union's communist governance (McFarland, Ageyev, Abalakina-Papp, 1992). Another study in Russia (Goertzel, 1989) points to the existence of a similar relationship, the results of which showed that the authoritarianism of Russian citizens is associated with support for the centralization of power (not decentralization), uniformity of opinion (not pluralism), and the greater attractiveness of the pigeon compared to with a hawk. Finally, similar results were obtained in a recent study in Romania (Krauss, 2002). This study showed that authoritarianism is positively associated with support for the communist principle of distribution of remuneration, a planned, regulated economy, and fascist ideology, and negatively with support for pro-Western centrist parties. This is happening contrary to the ideology of the government, which is oriented towards capitalism.
Weak interest in political life (Peterson, Smirles, Wentworth, 1997).
Disbelief in conspiracies organized by representatives of the state. For example, authoritarian Americans believe more that President Kennedy was assassinated by a lone Oswald acting in his own name than that the assassination was orchestrated by government officials (McHoskey, 1995).
Support for the military intervention of one's country in the affairs of other states and a negative assessment of the political leaders of these countries. For example, authoritarian Americans were more supportive of the Gulf War and more often viewed S. Hussein as a terrorist (Crowson, DeBacker, Thoma, 2006).
Strong expression of national identity (Blank, 2003).
A certain understanding of the causes and the possibility of correcting prejudices and stereotypes. Authoritarians are less likely to believe that prejudice is caused by ignorance and are more likely to blame society for it. In addition, they are less likely to believe that education of tolerance is a way to solve the problem of interethnic conflicts (Hodson and Esses, 2005).
Rejection of human rights: democratic rights, incl. freedom of speech and demonstration, the government's lack of the right to declare war without a referendum (Crowson, DeBacker, Thoma, 2006; Duckitt, Far-re, 1994), and transgender rights (Tee, Hegarty, 2006).
Positive attitudes towards the law and negative attitudes towards prisoners (Na and Loftus, 1998).
Assessing the Seriousness of Crime: Authoritarians rate a crime committed by a person in authority, such as a law enforcement or military official, as less serious than a crime committed by a person who opposes authority (Feather, 1998).
Attribution of Responsibility to the Criminal: Authoritarianism is positively associated with the responsibility attributed to the criminal (Feather, 1998).
Attention to the race of trial participants: the more authoritarian people are, the more attention they pay to the race of the defendant and victim in criminal trials (Landwehr et.al., 2002).
Interest in Crime: Authoritarians enjoy crime dramas based on true events (Raney, 2004).
Sexual aggressiveness: the higher the authoritarianism, the higher the willingness of men to commit sexual assault (Walker, Rowe, Quinsey, 1993). However, this connection is mediated by acceptance of rape myths* and hostile sexism: authoritarians accept rape myths and view women negatively (Begany and Milburn, 2002).
Negative attitudes towards psychologists and psychiatrists: Authoritarian people have a negative attitude towards psychological and psychiatric centers and the professionals working in them (Furr, Usui, Hines-Martin, 2003).
Self-stereotyping, choosing a life path in accordance with gender-role stereotypes. For example, the results of American studies show that after graduating from college, men with a high level of authoritarianism try to build a career, while women experience disappointment and expect marriage (Peterson and Lane, 2001). In addition, authoritarian men stereotype themselves by gender, preferring "traditionally masculine" professions and hobbies (Lippa, Martin, Friedman, 2000).
Lack of self-interest: Highly authoritarian people do not engage in introspection, do not seek self-knowledge (Peterson and Lane, 2001).
Low level of moral development. According to American data, a high level of authoritarianism is associated with a low level of moral development according to Kohlberg, and a low level of authoritarianism is associated with a high level of moral development (Van Ijzendoorn, 1989).
Rejection of the idea of multiple systems of moral norms. Thus, according to American data (McHoskey, 1996; Wilson, 2003), authoritarianism is positively associated with the acceptance of the idea of the immutability of moral norms and negatively with support for the idea of their plurality. In addition, authoritarian people are less likely to believe that upholding moral standards should not harm others (Wilson, 2003).
Punishment based parenting style (Peterson, Smirles, Wentworth, 1997).
Preference for entertainment associated with conflict and the physical impact of participants on each other, and underestimation of entertainment, which implies attention to one's inner world and the inner world of other people (Peterson, Pang, 2006).
People often like those who think the same way they do. The higher the degree of authoritarianism, the more pronounced this effect. This pattern is especially pronounced in relation to a person who is not like others, is a member of a minority (for example, believes that drugs are as safe as alcohol or tobacco, and welcomes piercing) (Smith, Kalin, 2006).
Because authoritarianism is a personality syndrome, it is associated with other personality traits, such as the Big Five traits. Thus, authoritarianism is positively associated with extraversion and conscientiousness, negatively with openness to new experience (Akrami, Ekehammar, 2006; Butler, 2000; Ekehammar et.al., 2004; Heaven, Greene, 2001; Peterson, Smirles, Wentworth, 1997). In addition, the higher the authoritarianism, the higher the cognitive rigidity (Crowson, Thoma, Hestevold, 2005).

Originating in the early 1950s, the authoritarian personality theory has changed significantly, but is still one of the main explanations for intergroup conflicts. One of the invariable features of this explanation is the ignorance of the specifics of relations between the groups participating in the conflict. This specificity is taken into account in the theory of real conflict, which will be discussed in the next chapter.

3. Authoritarian syndrome

This syndrome is closest to the overall picture of H, as it appears throughout our study. It follows the "classical" psychoanalytic model that resolves the aedile complex in a sadomasochistic way, and which Erich Fromm called the "sadomasochistic character"14. According to Horkheimer's theory in the same work for the collection "Authority and the Family", external social repression goes hand in hand with internal repression of sensual impulses. In order to achieve the "internalization" of social coercion, which always requires more from the individual than it gives him, his behavior in relation to authority and his psychological instance, the superego, takes on irrational features. An individual can only then realize his own social adaptation if he likes obedience and submission; the sadomasochistic structure of desires is therefore both the one and the other, both the condition and the result of social adjustment. Sadistic as well as masochistic tendencies find satisfaction in our social form. With a specific resolution of the Oedipus complex, which determines the structure of the syndrome described here, such types of satisfaction turn into character traits. Mother's love in its original form falls under a strict taboo; the ensuing hatred of the father is transformed by the formation of a reaction into love. This transformation brings about a special kind of super-ego. One never fully succeeds in accomplishing the most difficult task of the individual in his early development, namely, to transform hatred into love. In the psychodynamics of an "authoritarian" character, early aggressiveness is partially absorbed, transforming into masochism; in a different group. Often a Jew becomes a substitute for a hated father and in the imagination takes on the qualities that caused resistance in relation to the father: sobriety, coldness, desire to dominate, and even the properties of a sexual rival. The ambivalence is vast: it manifests itself primarily in both a blind faith in authority and a willingness to attack what seems weak and socially acceptable as a "victim". Stereotyping in this syndrome is not only a means of social identification, but also has a real "economic function" in the individual's own psyche: it helps to direct his libidinal energy in the appropriate direction in accordance with the requirements of an enhanced super-ego.
281

So, in the end, the stereotype itself to a large extent acquires the features of libido and prevails in the internal budget of the individual. He develops, in part, very strong violent traits that go back to the anal-sadistic phase of development. From the point of view of sociology, this syndrome in Europe was more typical of the lower middle class; in America it can be expected in people whose real status deviates from the desired. Here the "authoritarian" syndrome is clearly opposed to the "conventional" one, which is characterized by social dissatisfaction and the absence of such conflicts; however, these syndromes have much in common regarding conformity.
Interview M352 begins as follows:
(What are you happy with?) Well, I'm the first person - the shift foreman, we work in shifts ... (the respondent emphasizes his "leading" position) small departments, 5 people in each department - five people per shift - this satisfies me personally .. that 5 people work for me, they come to me, they ask for my advice in matters that concern our production, and that the final decision is mine. The fact that the last decision is up to me, and I do it, and knowing that I am doing it right, gives me personal satisfaction. The fact that I earn my living does not give me satisfaction. These are the things that I mentioned, to know that I please someone gives me satisfaction as well.
The denial of material satisfaction, a sign of a restrictive super-ego, is no less typical than the double satisfaction of commanding others and at the same time pleasing the boss. His ambitions to improve his social position are expressed in overt identification with those who surpass him in authority and rank.
(What would happen if you had more money?) It would raise our standard of living, make it possible to buy a car. We could move to a more respectable residential area, have business and personal relationships with people standing on a higher rung of the social ladder, with the exception of some good friends with whom you always make friends. And, of course, we would meet people who are a step above us in upbringing and have more experience. And if you get there and have connections with such people... then you yourself are raised to a higher level...
His religious beliefs are slightly coercive and show a stronger need for punishment:
I believe, exactly as it is written in the Bible, that there is a God - the world has not changed and he needed a savior, and he was born, lived, died, rose again and one day will come again, and a man who lived according to his Christian faith will live forever - and others will perish.
282

The apparent rigidity of conscience shows, however, strong traces of ambivalence: what is forbidden can be accepted if it does not lead to social conflict. A super-ego that is too rigid is not only not really integrated, but also remains outside.
Adultery, while it is not revealed, is normal, if it is discovered, then this is a disorder, but since so many respected people do it, so what. apparently normal.
Almost identical to the surface super-ego, the ideal-ego, as Freud originally called it, his concept of God, which carries all the features of a strong, but "ready to help" father:
Well, if you look deeper, then everyone has special ideas:
maybe he calls it God or not, in any case it is the ideal by which they live and which they want to be like... Pagans and all other people have some kind of religion that they believe in, that it is that does something for them that she can help them.
What this interviewee reports about his childhood confirms the genetic relationship between the "authoritarian" syndrome and the sadomasochistic solution to the Oedipus complex:
Yes, my father was a very strict man. He was not pious, but he was strict in raising us children. His word was law, and if he was not obeyed, then punishment followed. When I was 12 years old, my father beat me almost every day because I took the tools from the box and did not put them back ... Finally he made me understand that these things cost money and I should learn how to put them away.. .
(He explained that he was beaten every day because of his inattention, as his father told him, and that after a few weeks he did not touch the instrument at all, since "I simply could not put all the instruments back together") ... But, you know, I never blamed my father for this - I myself was to blame. He gave his orders, and if I did not follow them, then I was punished, but never in anger. My father was a good man - there is no doubt about that. He was always interested in that. what we did... My father was a very sociable person. He left home almost every day. He always worked in some kind of committee - a very sociable person, everyone liked him ... He took care of us. We always had everything we needed, but there was no unnecessary luxury. He didn't like unusual things. My father thought that it was a luxury, he considered them unnecessary ... Yes, he was quite strict. (Which parent were you closer to?) I think to my father. Although he beat me half to death, I could talk to him about everything... (The interviewee emphasizes that his father was honest with every person and also with him.)
283

This interviewee was broken by his father, who tried too hard to "subdue him", and it is this fact that determines his anti-Semitism. He, along with admiration for raw violence, accuses the Jews of ruthlessness in practical life.
The Jews seem to benefit from the present situation. Now they are going to bring these Jews from Europe; they seem to stick together and they can apparently accumulate capital. They are a kind of people - unscrupulous, except for money matters. (The interviewee here obviously means dishonesty in money matters, although probably in other matters as well.) If you prevent them from making money, you will be backed up against the wall.
Here the immutability with which the Jews are considered, and which appears already in the "conventional" syndrome, is expressed almost absolutely and exclusively with a thirst for revenge:
For me, a Jew is just as much a stranger, of the same sort as, for example, a Filipino. You pay attention to them. They celebrate their all these different holidays, which are completely alien to me, and which they adhere to ... They will never become real Americans ... (What would it be like if there were less prejudice against the Jews?) I don’t know, I don’t know anything I can do. I think Jews should be what they are - they can't change - sort of like an instinct that will never disappear. They will always remain Jewish through and through. (What should be done?) They are in a position to seize power - well, then we should stop them ... maybe laws should be passed to prevent them from doing so.
Here, too, the authoritarian idea is central: the Jews are a threat, usurpers of "power."
The next last characteristic of the authoritarian syndrome is the psychological equivalent of the "no compassion for the poor" way of thinking discussed in Chapter IV. "Authoritarian", identifying himself with power, at the same time rejects everything that is "below". Even where social conditions can be attributed to the plight of a group, he resorts to a trick and falsifies the situation, turning it into something worthy of punishment:
this is accompanied by moralistic scathing speeches, signs of a categorical suppression of one's own instincts.
The interviewee further emphasized that blacks and whites should be separated so that they would definitely have a chance and "not to bypass the problem", as he put it. He pointed out that venereal diseases were common among Negroes, which came from low morality, and when
284

He was asked about other reasons, he explained this by "unsatisfactory living conditions" and tried to explain that it was difficult for him, what he meant. The conditions lead to a lack of restraint and respect for the private sphere of life - they are all so cramped - and "lose the sense of distance" that should be between people", etc.
The insistent emphasis on "distance", the fear of "close physical contact" can be interpreted in the sense of our thesis that in this syndrome, the separation between one's own and another's group absorbs a huge amount of spiritual energy. For individuals of this type, identification with the family and subsequently with their entire group is a necessary mechanism for imposing authoritarian discipline on themselves and avoiding the temptation due to the "outburst of anger", which, due to their inherent ambivalence, constantly finds a new niche for them.

To get into graduate school, graduate school or internship, and get a diploma or a degree, to become a psychologist or psychiatrist, you have to jump through a lot of burning hoops. All this requires compliance with authority in behavior and an attentive attitude towards it - even if you treat it without respect. In the selection and preparation for work of professionals from the field of psychiatry and psychology, a lot of power fighters are eliminated. Having wandered through the expanses of higher education for ten years of my life, I know that diplomas and titles are basically evidence of compliance. Those who study for a long time live for many years in a world of conformism, in which a person gets used to obeying the requirements of authorities or superiors. Therefore, to many doctors, both medical and scientific, people who are not like them, who are not willing to adapt their behavior, seem to be aliens. That is, the diagnosis is obvious, the case is clinical.

During my studies, I discovered the following. To be branded as someone with "boss problems" is simply not to suck up to a clinical practice leader who is a hybrid of Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich and Howard Cosell by nature. When one of the teachers told me that I had "problems with the authorities," I did not understand why I was given such a stigma. On the one hand, I found it very funny, because in the environment of working-class children in which I grew up, I was considered quite accommodating and obedient. After all, I always did my homework, did not skip classes and got good grades. But although my new stigma made me smile widely because I was now considered a "bad boy", I was also very worried about the kind of profession I had entered. If a person like me has "problems with the authorities", then what do they call those guys with whom I grew up and was brought up? They were not indifferent to many things, but these guys did not care about the school and their behavior in it. Well, I found the answer pretty quickly.

Diagnosis of a mental disorder for opponents of power

In 2009, the Psychiatric Times published an article titled "ADHD & ODD: Confronting the Challenges of Disruptive Behavior". It reported that "destructive mental disorders", to which the articles in the title refer, are the most common mental health problems in children and adolescents. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder by definition manifests itself in the inability to concentrate, pathologically increased distractibility, poor self-control, impulsivity and hyperactivity. Oppositional defiant disorder is defined in the article as "a pattern of negativistic, hostile and demonstrative behavior without serious infringement of the basic rights of others, which manifests itself in behavioral disorders." Among the symptoms of this disease are "frequent challenge or refusal to comply with the requests and rules of adults", as well as "frequent disputes with adults".

Psychologist Russell Barkley, one of the leading mainstream medical authorities on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, says that people with the disorder have what he calls a deficit of "rule-based behavior." These people are less receptive to the rules of recognized authorities and less sensitive to positive and negative consequences. According to mainstream psychiatric authorities, youth with oppositional defiant disorder also have a deficit of "rule-based behavior." Therefore, quite often in people at a young age, these two types of disorders are present simultaneously.

But does anyone with this "rule-based behavior deficit" need a medical diagnosis and medication?

Albert Einstein would have been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder as a young man, and perhaps Oppositional Defiant Disorder to boot. Albert ignored his teachers, failed his college entrance exams twice, and struggled to keep a job. However, Einstein biographer Ronald Clark argues in Einstein: The Life and Times that Albert's problems were not due to lack of attention, but rather to hatred of authoritarian Prussian discipline in schools, where he studied. "The teachers in elementary school seemed like sergeants to me, but in the gymnasium the teachers were like lieutenants," said Einstein. At the age of 13, he read Kant's difficult Critique of Pure Reason because it interested him. Clarke also reveals that Einstein didn't want to go to college, rebelling against his father's "intolerable" "practical profession". When Einstein finally entered college, one of the teachers told him: "You have one drawback: you can't say anything." However, the very qualities of Einstein, which still greatly upset the authorities, allowed him to succeed.

By today's standards, the legendary organizer Saul Alinsky, who wrote "Reveille for Radicals" and "Rules for Radicals" ("Wake Up for Radicals" and "Rules for Radicals"), would certainly have received one or more diagnoses from the category of destructive mental disorders. Recalling his childhood, Alinsky said: "I never thought about walking on the grass until I saw the sign "Do not walk on the lawns." After that, I just started trampling them." Alinsky also recalled being taught Hebrew by a rabbi at the age of ten or eleven:

Many anti-authoritarians who have previously lived with a diagnosis of a mental disorder have told me that having received such a diagnosis, they faced a dilemma. Authoritarians by definition demand unconditional obedience. Therefore, any resistance to diagnosis and treatment was of great concern to authoritarian psychiatrists and psychologists. They felt that patients were out of control, they labeled them as "not treatable", they issued increasingly severe diagnoses and sentences and prescribed increasingly stronger drugs. This angered the anti-authoritarians, sometimes to such an extent that even those close to them frightened their behavior.

Maintaining the social status quo

Supporters and opponents of authoritarianism will be in every generation. There is no tradition in American history of power fighters taking effective action by inspiring other people to successful rebellion and rebellion. But from time to time there are rebels like Thomas Paine, Crazy Horse cabaret or Malcolm X who challenge the system. Therefore, authoritarian forces marginalize those who fight the system, depriving them of funds, criminalizing anti-authoritarianism, and diagnosing the opponents of authoritarianism with a mental disorder, and selling them drugs to "cure" their illness.