Personality and Political Socialization: The Theories of Authoritarian and Democratic Character

• Author: Fred I. Greenstein
• Published date: 01 September 1965
• DOI: 10.1177/000271626536100108
• Date: 01 September 1965
• Subject Matter: Articles

Personality and Political Socialization: The Theories
of Authoritarian and Democratic Character
By FRED I. GREENSTEIN *
ABSTRACT: Recent study of political socialization has concen-
trated on one aspect of the experiences which culminate in
adult citizenship—namely, learning which is specifically about
government and politics. Our concern here is with a portion
of what might be called the old political socialization literature,
focusing on nonpolitical personal development that affects po-
litical behavior. There has been abundant research and specu-
lation on the notion of "authoritarian character," but only a
limited amount of discussion of the counterpart, "democratic
character." To clarify the welter of issues arising in the au-
thoritarian literature, it is helpful to distinguish the assump-
tions which are made about the surface features of the charac-
ter type from those made about its dynamics and its genesis.
It is also useful to make further distinctions which sensitize us
to the complex connections between personal character and po-
litical belief, political action, and the functioning of political
institutions.
Fred I. Greenstein, Ph.D., Middletown, Connecticut, is Associate Professor in the De-
partment of Government at Wesleyan University. He previously taught at Yale Uni-
versity. He is author of The American Party System and the American People (1963)
and Children and Politics (1965), and coauthor of Introduction to Political Analysis
(1962).
* This article was written while I was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the
Behavioral Sciences in 1964-1965. I would like to thank a number of my associates for their
thoughtful comments: Christian Bay, Robert Bellah, Miriam Gallaher, Walter Goldschmidt,
John R. Seeley, M. Brewster Smith, and Robert Wallerstein.
81

---

82
HE
socialization experiences which
profusion of &dquo;authoritarianism&dquo; research
Tculminate in adult citizenship can
in the past decade and a half. An
be divided into two rough categories:
admittedly selective review of writings
that learning which is specifically about
on the topic through 1956 contained
government and politics, and nonpoliti-
260 bibliographical references.&dquo; Today,
cal personal development which affects
anything but the most sparse systematic
political behavior. My concern here is
discussion of the relevant research
with a particularly controversial, but
would require a monograph. Even as
intriguing, portion of the topics arising
interest in this matter begins to fall
in the second category-the notions of
off, it is rare to find an issue of a
&dquo;authoritarian&dquo; and &dquo;democratic&dquo; char-
journal dealing with personality and
acter.
In addition to reviewing theory
attitude research that contains no ref-
and research on these character types,
erence to authoritarianism and no use
I will discuss briefly several of the prob-
of the various techniques designed to
lems involved in untangling the complex
measure it.
connections among personal character,
The main immediate stimulus for
political beliefs, political action, and the
this explosion of research was the pub-
functioning of political and other social
lication in 1950 of a 990-page volume
institutions. This is an extensive and
by T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Bruns-
extraordinarily craggy intellectual ter-
wik, Nevitt Sanford, and Daniel J.
rain. In a brief essay I can only hope,
Levinson, entitled The Authoritarian
as it were, to engage in high-altitude
Personality,2 which reported the fruits
aerial reconnaissance-that is, to con-
of several years of investigation into the
struct a rather abstract and quite selec-
psychology of anti-Semitism. On the
tive map of the phenomena which in-
basis of a rich but bewilderingly varied
terest us, illustrating rather than dem-
and uneven assortment of research pro-
onstrating my assertions.
cedures, the authors of this work
Put bluntly, the questions which con-
reached a striking conclusion about the
cern us are: &dquo;Can we distinguish types
psychology of hostility to Jews and
of individuals whose personal make-up
other minority groups. Such prejudiced
-apart from their specifically political
attitudes, they argued, were not simply
beliefs-disposes them to act in a demo-
beliefs which people happened to have
cratic or an authoritarian manner?&dquo;
acquired. Rather, one could identify
&dquo;What socialization practices produce
what might be called a &dquo;bigot person-
such individuals?&dquo; &dquo;What can b6 said
ality,&dquo; 3 a type of individual with deep-
about the circumstances under which
seated psychological needs which mani-
the actual behavior of such individuals
fested themselves in a variety of ways
will be democratic or authoritarian, and
over and beyond ethnic prejudice. The
about the aggregate effects which indi-
1
Richard Christie and Peggy Cook, "A
viduals with democratic or authori-
Guide to Published Literature Relating to the
tarian dispositions may have on the
Authoritarian Personality through 1956," The
functioning of political institutions?&dquo;
Journal of Psychology, Vol. 45 (April 1958),
pp. 171-199.
THE STUDY
2
T. W. Adorno et
OF AUTHORITARIAN AND
al., The Authoritarian
Personality (New York: Harper, 1950), here-
DEMOCRATIC CHARACTER
after cited as AP.
There is, by far,
3

more literature
A
on
phrase used in a prepublication report
of
authoritarian than
the study to the general public: Jerome
on democratic char-
Himelhoch, "Is There a Bigot Personality?"
acter.
One of the wonders of recent
Commentary, Vol. 3 (March 1947), pp. 277-
social science scholarship has been the
284.

---

83
Authoritarian Personality is a book
similarities to the typology presented
dealing more with prejudice than with
in The Authoritarian Personality. But
the problem suggested by its title-
his evaluation of the type was not at
psychological dispositions toward au-
all negative. Rather, he saw it as ex-
thority.
&dquo;The title,&dquo; as one of the
emplifying the best virtues of National
authors points out, &dquo;was not thought
Socialist manhood.5
of until the writing was virtually fin-
There is, of course, nothing new in
ished.&dquo; 4
But it was the title phrase
the awareness that some people are
which came to provide the heading un-
more deferential toward authority than
der which subsequent investigation pro-
others and that the same people often
ceeded, and, in general, ethnic prejudice
are harsh to their subordinates.
The
has become a secondary issue in re-
fawning underling is a stock character
search on authoritarianism.
in fiction, as is the tyrannical superior.
The term &dquo;authoritarian&dquo; has at least
It is a safe assumption that the readers
two shortcomings as an analytic tool.
of Fielding’s Tom Jones (1747) had no
First, it is applicable not only to indi-
difficulty recognizing the .character of
vidual psychological dispositions (our
Deborah Wilkins, who &dquo;seldom opened
concern here), but also to the content
her lips either to her master or his
of political belief and to the structure
sister till she had first sounded their
of political systems. Because of this
inclinations, with which her sentiments
we may easily gloss over the possibility
were always strictly consonant,&dquo; and
that &dquo;authoritarianism&dquo; at any one of
of whom Fielding says:
these levels is not necessarily accom-
It is the nature of such persons ... to
panied by authoritarianism at the other
insult and tyrannize over little people.
levels.
For example, democratic be-
This being indeed the means which they
liefs may be imposed in an authori-
use to recompense to themselves their ex-
tarian manner. And, within an authori-
treme servility and condescension to their
tarian movement, the leadership may
superiors; for nothing can be more rea-
include individuals of nonauthoritarian
sonable than that slaves and flatterers
should exact the same taxes on all below
dispositions, and may even conduct its
them which they themselves pay to all
own deliberations in a democratic fash-
above them.6
ion.
What is
Secondly, the term
new in the twentieth-century
seems almost in-
evitably
literature
to be
on authoritarianism is
the
a pejorative. In a lib-
eral democracy &dquo;authoritarian&dquo; equals
specification of a constellation of psy-
&dquo;bad.&dquo;
The evaluative connotations of
chological correlates of this tendency
and
the
the elaboration of a
term interfere with
theory of its
our efforts to use
it
psychodynamics and genesis.
This
as a neutral instrument for denoting
theory (which I shall shortly summa-
an empirical phenomenon. A historical
note
rize) was woven from a number of
on the work of the Nazi psycholo-
gist E. R. Jaensch may help to remind
5
E. R. Jaensch, "Der Gegentypus," Beiheft
zur Zeistschrift für angewandte Psychologie
us that the term can have meaning
und Charakterkunde, Beiheft 75 (1938). Just
independent of its negative connota-
as the AP was mainly concerned with the
tions.
In 1938 Jaensch described a
type of individual whose dispositions are
psychological type with remarkable
antithetical to democracy, Jaensch was most
concerned with the "anti-type," whose dis-
4
Nevitt Sanford, "The Approach of the
positions were incongruent with National So-
Authoritarian Personality," Psychology of Per-
cialism.
sonality, ed. J. L. McCary (New York: Grove
6
Henry Fielding, Tom Jones, Book I, chaps.
Press, 1959), p. 256.
6 and 8.

---

84
strands of contemporary social psycho-
...