Most common classification is right vs. left. Its main problem is that it is it is based on
conventional ideological content of political parties in European parliamentary
system or its US version conservative vs. liberal, which makes it too context
specific. Ideological contents change so
this distinction does not explain how people find an “ideological compass” to
align themselves with ideological factions with totally new content. For example, ideologically the Republican Party
circa 1860 is the polar opposite of the Republican Party circa 2000, Communist
parties circa 1900 are the polar opposite of the Soviet Communist Party circa
1930. What is more, people often switch
political affiliation e.g. Eastern European immigrants who used to be Communist
party functionaries switch to the Republican Party upon arriving in the
US. This cannot be explained by the draw
of the ideological content.
Another classification is authoritarian vs. liberal. It is based on cognitive theory linking
different modes of cognition to personality types. From a cognitive point of view, people who have
low tolerance for ambiguous moral situations in everyday life and are naturally
drawn into authoritarian ideologies and viewpoints that offer them a “mental
crutch” to straighten out these ambiguities.
Folks who have high tolerance for ambiguous moral situation are drawn to
liberal live-and-let live ideologies. This approach does better in explaining “ideological
turncoats” i.e. why followers of one ideological content in one situation
switch to another ideological contents in another situation. The explanation is their ‘internal compass’
that senses authoritarian vs liberal style of various ideologies and follows
this style depending on the personality type.
However, this approach does not do well explaining why certain ideological
contents attract both authoritarian and liberal types in the same context. For example, it does not explain why liberal
ideologies in the US attract both liberal and authoritarian personalities.
That explanation can be provided when we add the power
dimension. Power is a central concept in
sociology and pursuit of power is perhaps the most universal after sex
motivators of human behavior. However,
not all people have the same conceptions of power. The original authoritarian personality theory
(Adorno et al.) distinguished two personality types – authoritarian and
liberal- based on conceptualization of power relations. For authoritarians, power is concrete and
vested in individuals, whereas for liberals power is abstract and vested in principles. This is a different distinction than that
based on cognitive approach emphasizing tolerance of ambiguity.
Putting it all together, ideological preferences can be
classified on two dimensions that are relatively independent of each other: tolerance
of ambiguity (low vs. high) and conceptualization of power (concrete vested in
person and abstract vested in principle).
This results in a four-fold classification shown below.
|
|
Concept
of power
|
|
|
Tolerance of ambiguity
|
Concrete
vested in person
|
Abstract
vested in principles
|
|
Low
|
Charismatic authoritarian (e.g. gang
leader)
|
Bureaucratic authoritarian e.g. “grass
Nazi” priest or NKVD functionary
|
|
High
|
Perfectionist/ high achiever/libertarian
(e.g. saints, Gandhi)
|
Liberal or anarchist egalitarian (cf.
ethnography of them by David Graeber)
|
Stated differently, people have two compasses pointing in
somewhat different directions. One helps
them to follow authoritarian or liberal ideologies defined by doctrinaire
rigidity. Folks with low tolerance for
ambiguity will be attracted to rigid doctrines, and folks with high tolerance
of ambiguity will follow flexible doctrines.
The second compass will help them align with ideologies emphasizing different
conceptions of power: concrete vs. abstract.
Since political parties, ideologies, religions, etc. are not monolithic
but embody factions emphasizing different levels of rigidity and different
conceptions of power, they may attract both authoritarian and liberal
personalities who paradoxically share common ideological content defining this
party or religion (e.g. liberal vs. authoritarian Catholics, Muslims,
Communists etc.). For example, a “grass
Nazi” reporting his neighbors to authorities for slight transgressions of
sanitation or building codes (e.g. their grass being an inch higher than the
limit specified in the code) may share the same abstract conception of power (abstract)
as liberal egalitarians but he will be at odds with them on the tolerance of
ambiguity. A functionary of the
Communist party may share the same concept of power (abstract) as an anarchist
egalitarian, but the two will fight over tolerance of ambiguity.
Likewise, both gang leaders and saints may share the same
concept of power – concrete vested in person- but differ in their tolerance of
ambiguity. A charismatic gang leader
will not tolerate any ambiguity and fight any attempt to upset the rigid
hierarchical order (i.e. each time he feels ‘dissed’). A saint, by contrast,
has a high tolerance of ambiguity and will raise above it by achieving personal
perfection i.e. power vested in his person that is immune to ambiguities of
everyday life.
