Authoritarianism in Action

We propose a state-centered, behavioral view of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism is often incompletely understood at the nation-state level, categorizing particular regimes as authoritarian, or at the individual level, as a set of tendencies or worldviews. We reposition behavior—specifically, person-state interaction—as the main unit of analysis, putting the “authority” back into authoritarianism. We argue that only behaviors that use state rules and state punishments to consolidate ruling class power should be considered authoritarian. In doing so, we achieve three main aims. First, we describe authoritarianism as a fundamentally motivational process, in which the state is used as a means to self- or group-serving ends. Second, we identify a set of behaviors that are rightly understood as authoritarian (e.g., punishing dissidents), as well as behaviors that should not be (e.g., interpersonal forms of punishment). Third, we identify previously overlooked behaviors that fit our definition of authoritarianism (e.g., administrative burden). Finally, we call for the exploration of situations where people might prefer state (to interpersonal) punishment, and prefer the enforcement of official rules (over social norms). Crucially, our view stands in sharp contrast to the prevailing understanding of punishment as cooperative, by centering the uniquely oppressive capacity of state power—with its monopoly on legitimate violence and its last word on legality in the courts. In sum, our state-centered behavioral view bridges individual- and regime-level interpretations of authoritarianism, to capture the unique opportunities available to satisfy self- or group-serving ends by use of the modern state.