Karen Stenner

Last updated

Karen Stenner
Nationality Australian
Alma mater
Scientific career
Fields
Institutions
Website

Karen Stenner is a political scientist specialising in political psychology. Stenner has studied the political activation of authoritarian personality types, and how that activation explains the contemporary success of some authoritarian political figures as well as enduring conflicts between some individuals and the broad tolerance that characterises liberal democracy.

Contents

Education and early career

Stenner attended the University of Queensland, earning a BA in 1987. [1] In 1995 she earned an MA from Stony Brook University, followed by a PhD there in 1997. [1] In 1996 she became an assistant professor at Duke University, and then in 1998 she joined the faculty at Princeton University. [1] She later returned to Australia, where she worked on behavioral economics [2] and public policy at institutions including Griffith University. [3]

Research

In 2005, Stenner published The Authoritarian Dynamic, which is an investigation into authoritarian personality types and how they become politically activated. She states that prior research on authoritarianism has suffered primarily from tautological assertions and has otherwise failed to produce a coherent theory which is consistent cross-nationally, and which can successfully account for how authoritarian expressions fluctuate with diverse sociopolitical conditions. In particular, she asserts that Bob Altemeyer's right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale is best understood as a measure of expressed authoritarianism, and that other measures are needed to assess authoritarian predispositions. To this end, she rejects Altemeyer's "social learning" interpretation and instead argues that authoritarianism is a dynamic response to perceived external threats; not a static personality type based only on the traits of submission, aggression and conventionalism. [4]

Stenner distinguishes between authoritarianism and conservatism, using "authoritarianism" to refer to a resistance to interpersonal difference (i.e. diversity of people and beliefs at a given moment), and "conservatism" as resistance to change. [5] Authoritarianism can thus be thought of as aversion to difference across space, whereas conservatism is aversion to difference across time. [6] For example, one may be a conservative libertarian, but libertarianism is the opposite end of a spectrum from authoritarianism, since the former is defined by encouragement of individual difference and resistance to centralized authority. [7] She thus argues that much of what is conventionally referred to as "racism" is perhaps better understood as "difference-ism," with moral and political diversity (as opposed merely to ethnic diversity) especially provoking intolerant attitudes from authoritarian individuals. [8] In particular, she highlights how authoritarians' expressions of racial, moral, and political intolerance depreciated by approximately 50% when survey respondents were misled to believe that NASA had discovered extraterrestrial life forms which were "very different from us in ways we are not yet even able to imagine."[ clarification needed ] [9]

Stenner argues that conservatives value stability and certainty over increased uniformity, and therefore, will embrace racial diversity, civil liberties and moral freedom to the extent they are already institutionalised and authoritatively-supported traditions within a given society. She argues that conservatives may be drawn towards authoritarianism only when public opinion is fractious and there is a general loss of confidence in major institutions; i.e. when the prospect of revolution appears less daunting to them than the current state of affairs. Authoritarians however want difference restricted regardless of circumstances; even when so doing would necessitate vast social reforms and instability. [10] By this account, she asserts that authoritarians are never more tolerant than when reassured and pacified by an autocratic culture, and never more intolerant than when forced to endure a vibrant democracy. [11] [12]

"If authoritarianism is concerned with sacrificing individual freedom and diversity to group authority and conformity, and if authoritarians have the motives and capacities I have ascribed to them, [then] it is easy to see that the central elements of democracy are not just anathema, but actually insensible to authoritarians. Disagreement, dissent, and disobedience; determination of the 'common good' by debate and negotiation between partisans of competing worldviews: none of this [is] comprehensible, let alone palatable from the authoritarian perspective."

Through survey techniques identifying authoritarianism in respondents, [5] Stenner identifies personality attributes and values shared by those with pro-authoritarian inclinations, and argues that these traits inform an opposition to difference and an attachment to uniformity which are then activated in the presence of normative societal threats. [7] Such threats to uniformity thus transform a personality attribute into a politically salient reaction which ultimately serves to defend one's beliefs and identification with the collective. [13] Most notably, she cites perceptions of poor leadership and belief diversity (i.e. lack of consensus in group values) as being the two most significant factors contributing to the authoritarian response, [14] though she also notes that authoritarians are generally susceptible to the false consensus effect and thus are not likely to perceive normative threats until they have become highly apparent: "Authoritarians are not especially inclined to perceive normative (indeed, any) threat, they are just especially intolerant once they do." [15] When otherwise abated by belief consensus and leadership which they regard as sufficiently strong however, authoritarians express very low levels of moral, racial, and political intolerance. [16] Authoritarians living in Japan in 1990, for example, were found to be nearly indistinguishable from their libertarian counterparts, on account of numerous cultural and societal factors contributing to a climate of near-equanimity and conformity, thereby mitigating the manifest expression of intolerance of difference. [17]

According to Stenner, authoritarianism is primarily the result of cognitive inhibitions and personality factors which significantly limit one's ability to tolerate ambiguity, complexity, and—by extension—sociocultural diversity. Authoritarians rank very low on openness to experience—one of the Big Five personality traits—and are demonstrably more likely to commit spelling errors, to have smaller vocabularies (relative to libertarians) and to be less likely to pursue post-secondary education. [18] Ultimately, she argues that authoritarians are best understood as "simple-minded avoiders of complexity rather than closed-minded avoiders of change." [19] She similarly rejects the hypothesis that religiosity is a contributory factor to authoritarian beliefs and expressions, citing research indicating a lack of correlation before concluding: "There is no necessary relation between belief in and personal commitment to a religious code, and demand for state coercion of others' adherence to [the] same. The latter rests primarily on something beyond personal faith and individual codes of conduct, having to do with a compulsion to control the diversity and complexity of one's environment, that is, a need to regulate other people's behaviour." [20]

Though focusing primarily on authoritarian predispositions as they are expressed by individuals on the American political right, Stenner nonetheless notes that the dynamic can appear elsewhere on the political spectrum. In particular, she cites the Nation of Islam as a potential sub-cultural manifestation of the authoritarian dynamic, comparing its "self-glorification", insistence on conformity, and militant rejection of state legitimacy to similar attitudes expressed by civilian militia and patriot movements among white authoritarians on the American right. [21] She also notes that approximately one-third of authoritarians tend towards socialism, [22] with even non-socialist authoritarians indicating a willingness to support affirmative action, provided that such measures are enacted with the aim of reducing social stratification, as well as operated by institutions which those same authoritarians perceive as sharing their own beliefs and ideals. Likewise, she asserts that any perceived relation between authoritarianism and laissez-faire economic policies is inconsistent, because of it being highly contingent on authoritarians' varying levels of trust in government. [23]

Stenner identifies the same psychological phenomenon cross-nationally, citing data obtained from both Altemeyer's RWA scale and surveys of child-rearing values as conducted in fifty-nine countries by the World Values Survey. [24] According to Stenner, authoritarians living within Eastern European nations expressed relatively low levels of racial, moral, and political intolerance prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as socialist autocracies provided citizens with normative reassurance (the former-Yugoslavia under the rule of Josip Broz Tito being one of the most notable examples). Following the Fall of Communism and subsequent institution of liberal democratic norms, authoritarians within these countries began to express more intolerant attitudes, becoming nearly indistinguishable from authoritarians living within Western-European nations despite differing significantly in their political and economic beliefs and backgrounds. [25] Likewise, she cites studies conducted on identical twins reared in separate environments which have found that authoritarian predispositions have a significant genetic component, on account of them being rooted in personality variables which in turn are substantially heritable. [26]

Stenner thus extrapolates that authoritarianism is not a "learned" phenomenon, but rather an innate psychological tendency which can be found within all civilizations worldwide, and that individuals so predisposed to it "will never live comfortably in a liberal democracy". [27] She thus concludes her analysis by suggesting that authoritarian predilections can only be deterred through responsible leadership and favourable societal conditions, and that such an impediment is perhaps a contributing factor to previously-failed attempts at instituting liberal-democratic norms in formerly-autocratic cultures such as those found in Iraq and Afghanistan: [28] [29]

"The lack of actual community in many of the world's [countries]—the legacies of imperialism, the spoils of war, and artificial boundaries—proves to be a great impediment to "installing" democracy and "converting" to democratic citizenship. One cannot create a self-governing community where no community truly exists, and democracy cannot be sustained in the presence of excessive difference. In the final analysis then, democracy does not produce community, it requires community. ... If there are inherent predispositions to intolerance of difference, if citizens so predisposed pop up in all societies, and if those predispositions are actually activated by the experience of living in a vibrant democracy, then freedom feeds fear which undermines freedom, and democracy is its own undoing."

She consequently upholds parliamentary systems of government as examples of "stealth democracy" which are less susceptible to authoritarian influences, on account of them providing normative reassurance to individuals with such predispositions. Conversely, she argues against the multilevel structure of the U.S. political order, stressing that it serves ultimately to amplify public disagreement, propagate adversaries, and polarize the electorate—conditions which are all guaranteed to exacerbate the authoritarian dynamic. [30] Stenner also stresses that expressions of moral, political, and racial intolerance can only be ameliorated by emphasizing unity through common social/cultural identities, and that democracy cannot be sustained in the absence of substantial commonality: [31] [32]

"We tend to imagine, despite a preponderance of evidence, that everyone can be socialized away from intolerance toward greater respect for difference, if only we have the will, the resources, and the opportunity to provide the right experiences. ... According to this wishful understanding of reality, the different can remain as different as they like and the intolerant will eventually have their intolerance educated out of them. But all the available evidence indicates that exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviours. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness. ... This strategy is not nearly as daunting as it might sound, as it is the appearance of sameness that matters, and that apparent variance in beliefs, values, and culture seem to be more provocative of intolerant dispositions than racial and ethnic diversity. What is daunting is the fierce resistance that such proposals encounter from those very actors with the greatest stake in promoting tolerance and respect for difference. But blind faith aside, the science of democracy yields some inescapable, if heretical conclusions. Ultimately, nothing inspires greater tolerance from the intolerant than an abundance of common and unifying beliefs, practices, rituals, institutions, and processes. And regrettably, nothing is more certain to provoke increased expression of their latent predispositions than the likes of “multicultural education,” bilingual policies, and non-assimilation. In the end, our showy celebration of, and absolute insistence upon, individual autonomy and unconstrained diversity pushes those [who are] by nature least equipped to live comfortably in a liberal democracy not to the limits of their tolerance, but to their intolerant extremes. ... We can do all the moralizing we like about how we want our ideal democratic citizens to be. But freedom is most secure and tolerance is maximized when we design systems to accommodate how people actually are, because some people will never live comfortably in a modern liberal democracy."

The Authoritarian Dynamic has been frequently cited by news outlets such as The New York Times , [2] [33] The Atlantic , [34] Slate , [35] and Salon [36] as a work that predicted the resurgence of authoritarianism in contemporary politics, and particularly as an example of research that helps to explain the rise of the Alt-right and other culturally-nationalist sentiments in the lead-up to the 2016 United States Presidential election. Stenner's work suggests that these events appeared surprising or mystifying to many contemporary commentators mainly because they were not provoked by any specific event, but rather because they were a predictable backlash against the gradual increase in diversity and tolerance of difference that has characterized the last several decades of liberal democracy. [37] Jonathan Haidt identified it in 2016 as a text that offers a particularly strong explanation of authoritarianism's contemporary successes. [38] In 2018, Haidt and Stenner collaborated to write a chapter for Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America, wherein they state that "Western liberal democracies have now exceeded many people's capacity to tolerate them," and that authoritarianism is not a momentary phenomenon, but will continue to endure throughout all human societies—and liberal democracies—for as long as perceived "normative threats" remain evident to authoritarians. [39]

Selected works

Related Research Articles

Conservatism is a cultural, social, and political philosophy and ideology, which seeks to promote and preserve traditional institutions, customs, and values. The central tenets of conservatism may vary in relation to the culture and civilisation in which it appears. In Western culture, depending on the particular nation, conservatives seek to promote and preserve a range of institutions, such as the nuclear family, organised religion, the military, the nation-state, property rights, rule of law, aristocracy, and monarchy. Conservatives tend to favour institutions and practices that enhance social order and historical continuity.

Right-wing politics is the range of political ideologies that view certain social orders and hierarchies as inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable, typically supporting this position based on natural law, economics, authority, property, religion, biology or tradition. Hierarchy and inequality may be seen as natural results of traditional social differences or competition in market economies.

Pluralism as a political philosophy is the diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles. While not all political pluralists advocate for a pluralist democracy, this is the most common stance, because democracy is often viewed as the most fair and effective way to moderate between discrete values. Political theorist Isaiah Berlin, a strong supporter of pluralism, wrote: "let us have the courage of our admitted ignorance, of our doubts and uncertainties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Toleration</span> Allowing or permitting a thing, person, or idea of which one disapproves

Toleration is when one allows, permits, an action, idea, object, or person that one dislikes or disagrees with.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Applied philosophy</span> Branch of philosophy

Applied philosophy is a branch of philosophy that studies philosophical problems of practical concern. The topic covers a broad spectrum of issues in environment, medicine, science, engineering, policy, law, politics, economics and education. The term was popularised in 1982 by the founding of the Society for Applied Philosophy by Brenda Almond, and its subsequent journal publication Journal of Applied Philosophy edited by Elizabeth Brake. Methods of applied philosophy are similar to other philosophical methods including questioning, dialectic, critical discussion, rational argument, systematic presentation, thought experiments and logical argumentation.

The term "illiberal democracy" describes a governing system that hides its "nondemocratic practices behind formally democratic institutions and procedures". There is a lack of consensus among experts about the exact definition of illiberal democracy or whether it even exists.

Moral psychology is a field of study in both philosophy and psychology. Historically, the term "moral psychology" was used relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development. Moral psychology eventually came to refer more broadly to various topics at the intersection of ethics, psychology, and philosophy of mind. Some of the main topics of the field are moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral sensitivity, moral responsibility, moral motivation, moral identity, moral action, moral development, moral diversity, moral character, altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral forecasting, moral emotion, affective forecasting, and moral disagreement.

Political psychology is an interdisciplinary academic field, dedicated to understanding politics, politicians and political behavior from a psychological perspective, and psychological processes using socio-political perspectives. The relationship between politics and psychology is considered bidirectional, with psychology being used as a lens for understanding politics and politics being used as a lens for understanding psychology. As an interdisciplinary field, political psychology borrows from a wide range of disciplines, including: anthropology, economics, history, international relations, journalism, media, philosophy, political science, psychology, and sociology.

Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality trait measuring an individual's support for social hierarchy and the extent to which they desire their in-group be superior to out-groups. SDO is conceptualized under social dominance theory as a measure of individual differences in levels of group-based discrimination; that is, it is a measure of an individual's preference for hierarchy within any social system and the domination over lower-status groups. It is a predisposition toward anti-egalitarianism within and between groups.

In psychology, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a set of attitudes, describing somebody who is highly submissive to their authority figures, acts aggressively in the name of said authorities, and is conformist in thought and behavior. The prevalence of this attitude in a population varies from culture to culture, as a person's upbringing and education play a strong role in determining whether somebody develops this sort of worldview.

Ambiguity tolerance–intolerance is a psychological construct that describes the relationship that individuals have with ambiguous stimuli or events. Individuals view these stimuli in a neutral and open way or as a threat.

<i>The Authoritarian Personality</i> 1950 sociology book

The Authoritarian Personality is a 1950 sociology book by Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, researchers working at the University of California, Berkeley, during and shortly after World War II.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jonathan Haidt</span> American social psychologist (born 1963)

Jonathan David Haidt is an American social psychologist and author. He is the Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership at the New York University Stern School of Business. His main areas of study are the psychology of morality and moral emotions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paradox of tolerance</span> Logical paradox in decision-making theory

The paradox of tolerance states that if a society's practice of tolerance is inclusive of the intolerant, intolerance will ultimately dominate, eliminating the tolerant and the practice of tolerance with them. Karl Popper describes the paradox as arising from the fact that, in order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must retain the right to be intolerant of intolerance.

A number of studies have found that human biology can be linked with political orientation. This means that an individual's biology may predispose them to a particular political orientation and ideology. Many of the studies linking biology to politics remain controversial and nonreplicated.

Political ethics is the practice of making moral judgments about political action and political agents. It covers two areas: the ethics of process, which covers public officials and their methods, and the ethics of policy, which concerns judgments surrounding policies and laws.

Moral foundations theory is a social psychological theory intended to explain the origins of and variation in human moral reasoning on the basis of innate, modular foundations. It was first proposed by the psychologists Jonathan Haidt, Craig Joseph, and Jesse Graham, building on the work of cultural anthropologist Richard Shweder. More recently, Mohammad Atari, Jesse Graham, and Jonathan Haidt have revised some aspects of the theory and developed new measurement tools. The theory has been developed by a diverse group of collaborators and popularized in Haidt's book The Righteous Mind. The theory proposes that morality is "more than one thing", first arguing for five foundations, and later expanding for six foundations :

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic backsliding</span> National decline in democracy

Democratic backsliding is a process of regime change toward autocracy that makes the exercise of political power by the public more arbitrary and repressive. This process typically restricts the space for public contestation and political participation in the process of government selection. Democratic decline involves the weakening of democratic institutions, such as the peaceful transition of power or free and fair elections, or the violation of individual rights that underpin democracies, especially freedom of expression. Democratic backsliding is the opposite of democratization.

Janet R. Jakobsen is a scholar of gender and sexuality. She is Ann Whitney Olin Professor of Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies at Barnard College and Director of Barnard's Center for Research on Women. She has also been Barnard's Dean for Faculty Diversity and Development.

The territorial peace theory finds that the stability of a country's borders has a large influence on the political climate of the country. Peace and stable borders foster a democratic and tolerant climate, while territorial conflicts with neighbor countries have far-reaching consequences for both individual-level attitudes, government policies, conflict escalation, arms races, and war.

References

  1. 1 2 3 "Faculty gains 14 assistant professors". Princeton University. 13 September 2018. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  2. 1 2 Edsall, Thomas (5 April 2018). "The Contract With Authoritarianism". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  3. 1 2 Stenner, Karen (25 August 2009). "Three kinds of "conservatism"". Psychological Inquiry (2-3), 142-159. 20 (1): 142–159. doi:10.1080/10478400903028615. S2CID   143878133.
  4. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 13-27.
  5. 1 2 Kinder, Donald R. (1 February 2007). "The Authoritarian Dynamic The Authoritarian Dynamic. By Karen Stenner. (Cambridge University Press, 2005.)". The Journal of Politics. 69 (1): 264–265. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00518.x. S2CID   153080653.
  6. ↑ Jacobs, Tom. "Authoritarianism: The terrifying trait that Trump triggers". Pacific Standard Magazine. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  7. 1 2 Laura, Stoker (August 2007). "Review The Authoritarian Dynamic – By Karen Stenner". Political Psychology. 28 (4): 509–513. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00586.x.
  8. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 328-330.
  9. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 279.
  10. ↑ Stenner, Karen (2009). "Three Kinds of "Conservatism" (PDF). Psychological Inquiry. 20 (2–3): 142–159. doi:10.1080/10478400903028615. S2CID   143878133. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 May 2013. Retrieved 2 June 2012.
  11. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 334.
  12. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 250.
  13. ↑ Jonathan, Weiler (September 2006). "Review The Authoritarian Dynamic". Comparative Political Studies. 28 (4): 935–938. doi:10.1177/0010414006287614. S2CID   153453136.
  14. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 292-324.
  15. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 81-82.
  16. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 52-76.
  17. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 319.
  18. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 143-173.
  19. ↑ Stenner, K. and Haidt, J. (2018). Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness, but an eternal dynamic within liberal democracies. In C.R. Sunstein. (Ed.), Can It Happen Here? (pp. 183). New York City, NY: Dey Street Books.
  20. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 271-272.
  21. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 141-142.
  22. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 132.
  23. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 178-186.
  24. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 316-319.
  25. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 96-116.
  26. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 145-146.
  27. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 1.
  28. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 331-332.
  29. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 335.
  30. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 333-335.
  31. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 330-331.
  32. ↑ Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 335.
  33. ↑ Edsall, Thomas (22 January 2020). "Why Trump persists". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  34. ↑ Friedersdorf, Conor (9 August 2019). "What Ails the Right Isn't (Just) Racism". The Atlantic. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  35. ↑ Mounk, Tascha (13 March 2019). "The Authoritarian Vote". Slate. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  36. ↑ Rosenberg, Paul (24 November 2019). "Republicans, a history: How did the party of "law and order" become the party of crooks and crime?". Salon. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  37. ↑ Konnikova, Maria (25 December 2016). "The psychological research that helps explain the election". The New Yorker . Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  38. ↑ Haidt, Jonathan (6 January 2016). "The Key to Trump is Stenner's Authoritarianism". The Righteous Mind. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
  39. ↑ Stenner, K. and Haidt, J. (2018). Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness, but an eternal dynamic within liberal democracies. In C.R. Sunstein. (Ed.), Can It Happen Here? (pp. 209-217). New York City, NY: Dey Street Books.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.