Marc J. Hetherington

A magisterial textbook level analysis of authoritarianism, nonauthoritarianism, and the modern polarized political and social-cultural climate.

The work builds on Adorno, Stenner, and others in assessing the authoritarian personality, threat multipliers, and increased polarization. They do well at introducing the concept of authoritarianism, the history of its study, defining authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism, the authoritarianism and nonauthoritarianism as the new matrix for polarization since the 1960s, and then seeing how authoritarianism, nonauthoritarianism, and polarization played out primarily in the 2000s through 9/11, the Iraq War, and the election of Barack Obama.

The book's major contribution to the field is in its understanding of nonauthoritarians as the primary driver of polarization and under threat multipliers: authoritarians tend to maintain the same disposition and attitudes, and when there is greater openness to a group or for civil liberties or the like, it comes from the openness of the nonauthoritarians. Nevertheless, when the threat level multiplies, authoritarians remain where they are, and it is the nonauthoritarians who move toward authoritarianism as the threat level increases. The authors do well in describing how this played out in many cultural issues of the late 20th and early 21st century.

Much work needs to be done in the field; far too many times authoritarians are cast as "the other," and in the work the authors admit that it is hard to get a good handle on what has driven authoritarians to authoritarianism (and, for that matter, nonauthoritarians toward nonauthoritarianism). It would also be good to be able to describe nonauthoritarians in their own right and not just in contrast with authoritarians.

It can be chilling to read this book and recognize it was written a decade ago; it would almost seem to have been the Trump campaign's manual (and if the author only knew how prescient his comment regarding the dynamics of the 2016 election would play out!). A work definitely worth considering if one wants to understand the dynamics at play in polarization and politics, and even social and cultural preferences, in our current age.… (altro)

Hetherington & Weiler put forth the theory that there are two types of people: fixed, and fluid. The fixed have a world view of danger: people and nature are out to get them. Fluid folks, on the other hand, find the world a delightful place to explore, filled with good people. Fixed people drive giant four wheel drive pickups or Hummers, keep big dogs, and prefer plain coffee from Dunkin Donuts over fancy Starbucks concoctions. Fluid folks drive small cars that are less damaging to the environments, like cats, and love trying new cuisines. Oh, and fixed people tend to live rural, while fluids congregate in the city. Most people are NOT pure forms of either, but land somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Now, there is nothing wrong with being on either end of the spectrum, but… in America, these tendencies are being used by the major parties to divide people and gain support. This is what’s behind the growing chasm between Democrats and Republicans. The Republican Party stresses the dangers in the world, and that they are the only candidates that can protect the people of the USA; Democrats try to say they are supporting programs like the ACA that will benefit all classes. Now, this is a broad brush to paint the political/sociological scene with, but it seems, in most cases to be true.

And it’s getting worse- the two sides don’t get together very often. If the fixeds and the fluids worked together, partied together, went to school together, they would learn that the other side isn’t really the bunch of idiots they think they are. Hard to do when the Powers That Be try to demonize the other side.

Are they right about this? Yes, I think- partly. The chasm between sides is getting worse every day. And it’s obvious that the divide is being used by said Powers That Be. Is it quite as simple as that? Well, no, I don’t think so. There are a lot of other things affecting the world. But this book is a great start to understanding the problems. The one problem I see is that the authors are clearly biased towards one side; it happens to be the side I mostly fall into, but it’s going to make it harder for the side they are against to take the book seriously. Four stars.… (altro)