Abstract
The concept 'authoritarianism' has several meanings. But its most important meaning lies in the combination of 'authoritarian aggression' (aggression to powerless persons) and 'authoritarian submission' (submission to powerful persons). Reviewing the studies of Adorno et al., Rokeach and Eysenck, we find that this basic meaning of authoritarianism is closely connected with conservatism. This paper presents a theoretical framework to account for this linkage between authoritarianism and conservatism. Our framework derives from purely theoretical consideration, and it also shows the interrelationships between several concepts such as 'authoritarianism', 'revolutionist', 'nihilism', 'extremism', 'moderates', 'defeatism', 'conservatism', and 'progressivism'.
Next, the problem of 'left-authoritarianism' posed by Shils is discussed. To consider this problem, the following three points are important. (1) Whether the 'left-wingers' live in a capitalistic society or a communist society. 'Leftists' in a capitalistic society and 'leftists' in a communist society are not in the same positson. (2) Whether the analysis is concerned with the leftists' attitudes toward the socioeconomic system as a whole or toward specific organizations they belong. They are the attitudes to different objects, so we must discriminate between the former and the latter. (3) Whether the focus is on their personality or on their attitude. We should not confuse the problem of personality with the problem of attitude. Considering these points, we conclude that in capitalistic societies, 'left-wingers' may be 'extremists' but that 'right-wingers' are more 'authoritarian' than 'left-wingers'.
