I'm not disparaging the article you linked to, which is more than the passage you quoted, but isn't Adorno's psychologizing a bit out of date?
Subsequent scholars like Karen Stenner have taken Hofstadter's insights and ditched some of its 20th-century psychological baggage. I highly recommend her "The Authoritarian Dynamic". These scholar…
I'm not disparaging the article you linked to, which is more than the passage you quoted, but isn't Adorno's psychologizing a bit out of date?
Subsequent scholars like Karen Stenner have taken Hofstadter's insights and ditched some of its 20th-century psychological baggage. I highly recommend her "The Authoritarian Dynamic". These scholars focus more on measuring traits that can be measured, rather than speculating on the unconscious (which, how would you measure it?). For example,
"Authoritarian submission, authoritarian conventionalism, and rejection of egalitarianism significantly predicted support for Trump when comparisons included Democrats, but they did not distinguish Trump support from that for other Republican candidates. Instead, individuals who backed Donald Trump during the Republican primaries and the general election in 2016 were significantly more likely to exhibit group-based dominance and authoritarian aggression than backers of other Republican candidates. That is, compared to other Republicans, they were especially likely to believe that: 'Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups'; 'What our country needs instead of more "civil rights" is a good stiff dose of law and order'; 'Some groups of people must be kept in their place'; and 'What our country really needs is a strong, determined President which will crush the evil and set us in our right way again.'"
Right, I'm not disparaging Adorno or his experience. He had good insights using the tools of his time. The Freudian elements present in the tools of his time are mercifully dying out, though.
I'm not disparaging the article you linked to, which is more than the passage you quoted, but isn't Adorno's psychologizing a bit out of date?
Subsequent scholars like Karen Stenner have taken Hofstadter's insights and ditched some of its 20th-century psychological baggage. I highly recommend her "The Authoritarian Dynamic". These scholars focus more on measuring traits that can be measured, rather than speculating on the unconscious (which, how would you measure it?). For example,
"Authoritarian submission, authoritarian conventionalism, and rejection of egalitarianism significantly predicted support for Trump when comparisons included Democrats, but they did not distinguish Trump support from that for other Republican candidates. Instead, individuals who backed Donald Trump during the Republican primaries and the general election in 2016 were significantly more likely to exhibit group-based dominance and authoritarian aggression than backers of other Republican candidates. That is, compared to other Republicans, they were especially likely to believe that: 'Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups'; 'What our country needs instead of more "civil rights" is a good stiff dose of law and order'; 'Some groups of people must be kept in their place'; and 'What our country really needs is a strong, determined President which will crush the evil and set us in our right way again.'"
https://as.nyu.edu/content/dam/nyu-as/psychology/documents/facultypublications/johnjost/Group-Based%20Dominance%20&%20Authoritarian%20Aggression%20Predict%20Support%20for%20Trump.pdf
Right, I'm not disparaging Adorno or his experience. He had good insights using the tools of his time. The Freudian elements present in the tools of his time are mercifully dying out, though.