The concept of authoritarianism, first defined in The Authoritarian Personality published in 1950, has since been treated in a bewildering array of studies that have explored both its narrow psychological meaning and its broader social implications. In this volume, authors John P. Kirscht and Ronald C. Dillehay have provided a much-needed review of this growing subject, summarizing and evaluating about 260 studies that have appeared to date. Kirscht and Dillehay differentiate between the psychological and the sociological approach to authoritarianism, tracing the historical development of both schools of thought. They also outline three major views of authoritarianism: as antecedent to certain types of behavior (for example, ethnic prejudice), as the consequence of other variables (such as child rearing practices), or as a correlate of yet other processes(e.g. alienation); these views, in turn, suggest a variety of theoretical and methodological issues. The authors review, in addition, the multitudes of beliefs and behaviors thought to vary with authoritarianism, examining the validity of these relationships in empirical research. While the authors do not attempt to reformulate or redefine authoritarianism, they point up avenues for future research and single out significant research findings which are likely to offer the firmest ground for development.

The concept of authoritarianism, first defined in The Authoritarian Personality published in 1950, has since been treated in a bewildering array of studies that have explored both its narrow psychological meaning and its broader social implications. In this volume, authors John P. Kirscht and Ronald C. Dillehay have provided a much-needed review of this growing subject, summarizing and evaluating about 260 studies that have appeared to date. Kirscht and Dillehay differentiate between the psychological and the sociological approach to authoritarianism, tracing the historical development of both schools of thought. They also outline three major views of authoritarianism: as antecedent to certain types of behavior (for example, ethnic prejudice), as the consequence of other variables (such as child rearing practices), or as a correlate of yet other processes(e.g. alienation); these views, in turn, suggest a variety of theoretical and methodological issues. The authors review, in addition, the multitudes of beliefs and behaviors thought to vary with authoritarianism, examining the validity of these relationships in empirical research. While the authors do not attempt to reformulate or redefine authoritarianism, they point up avenues for future research and single out significant research findings which are likely to offer the firmest ground for development.

"What does the backlash against Critical Race Theory, the Capitol insurrection, Trumpism, Twitter, and neo-Nazis have in common? This book delves deep into conservative social media and far-right extremist platforms to understand the revival and proliferation of far-right authoritarian populist discourses after Trump's ascent to power. After the January 6th Capitol insurrection and the role social media have played in normalizing and promoting far-right populist authoritarianism, there is a renewed interest to study digital discursive aggression. Inspired by Critical Theory, Panayota Gounari masterfully uses Critical Discourse Studies to analyze social media data and articulate a discursive, pedagogical and historical project"--

While the international system has been evolving in an increasingly liberal direction, the level of democratic practice within the post-Soviet region has, on the whole, declined. Two decades after the popular uprisings against communism, many governments in the region have successfully blunted both popular and international pressures for democratic consolidation. Each selection in this volume explores how international factors interact with domestic conditions to explain the persistence of authoritarianism throughout the region. The selections in the volume cover several countries, including Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, South Ossetia, Ukraine, Moldova, and Belarus; special attention is paid to the Russian Federation since it is both a member of the region and acts as an external actor influencing the political development of its neighbors. This volume is especially relevant as the world again experiences the surprising overthrow of long-running authoritarian regimes. The failure of democratic consolidation among post-Soviet states offers important lessons for policymakers and academics dealing with the recent wave of political transitions in the Middle East and Asia.

Although politics at the elite level has been polarized for some time, a scholarly controversy has raged over whether ordinary Americans are polarized. This book argues that they are and that the reason is growing polarization of worldviews - what guides people's view of right and wrong and good and evil. These differences in worldview are rooted in what Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler describe as authoritarianism. They show that differences of opinion concerning the most provocative issues on the contemporary issue agenda - about race, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and the use of force to resolve security problems - reflect differences in individuals' levels of authoritarianism. Events and strategic political decisions have conspired to make all these considerations more salient. The authors demonstrate that the left and the right have coalesced around these opposing worldviews, which has provided politics with more incandescent hues than before.

Based on a detailed study of 35 cases in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and post-communist Eurasia, this book explores the fate of competitive authoritarian regimes between 1990 and 2008. It finds that where social, economic, and technocratic ties to the West were extensive, as in Eastern Europe and the Americas, the external cost of abuse led incumbents to cede power rather than crack down, which led to democratization. Where ties to the West were limited, external democratizing pressure was weaker and countries rarely democratized. In these cases, regime outcomes hinged on the character of state and ruling party organizations. Where incumbents possessed developed and cohesive coercive party structures, they could thwart opposition challenges, and competitive authoritarian regimes survived; where incumbents lacked such organizational tools, regimes were unstable but rarely democratized.