Frankfurt School and Political Science On Totalitarianism

Because politics is a social expression, it is natural for philosophers and political scientists to examine the sociology of a group of people regarding their choices of leaders whom they choose to support. In terms of choosing to support a democratic or non-democratic leader, the Frankfurt School of philosophers (Arendt, Adorno, Fromm, Nevitt et al.) show that society can be manipulated into choosing as the powerful elite, who control the media and the manner in which the public masses think, prefer them to choose. In other words, there is an art of deception and manipulation exercised by the purveyors of mass media. On the other hand, there is also a willingness on the part of the public to ascribe to the views of a demagogue, who projects himself vividly, with force, conviction and articulation. Such a leader can attract masses to supporting a vision, even if it is totalitarian and authoritarian. If the leader convinces the people that the vision is not only good but also necessary, the mass of people can be moved to support it, disregarding implications that may appear obviously evil to those less easily manipulated and/or swayed by the rhetoric of the leader or by the manipulations of the purveyors of mass media. Arendt focuses on anti-Semitism as the root of the problem for those who choose to support authoritarian leaders, as occurred in Germany between the wars (Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism 10). This paper will discuss the psychological orientations of societies towards politics and how the different philosophers and political scientists provide evidence to support their arguments.

The Frankfurt School varies in its approach to dissecting the social psychology with regard to politics. Adorno for instance identifies the culture industry as to blame for the shift in social thinking from what should have been a natural uprising among the proletariat to, what he judges to be an unnatural pacification of the working class via subjugation by media (the manufacturers of culture). Horkheimer utilized group and individual studies via survey and interview as well as observation in order to integrate data from which could be culled patterns of thinking and behavior. This methodology allowed the Frankfurt School philosopher to identify patterns that could explain the psychology behind social thought and social submission to totalitarian forms of government (Adorno et al. 12). Arendt, for her part, uses personal experience and a victim narrative in conjunction with the narrative depicting Hitler as evil authoritarian to convey an argument about how nationalist fervor can blind people to sad and tragic realities. Arendt's argument follows thus: the psychology of ordinary Germans following Hitler was supported by the leader's identifying of Jews as the root of all Germany's problems; they served as an easy scapegoat and relieved the German people of taking responsibility for their ills themselves. Why the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem, as Arendt depicts with obvious approval (Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem 193) should be no less concerned with the authoritarianism of Israel's leaders and their actions towards Palestine is a question that should be asked as well, if one is to follow Arendt's own conjuring of totalitarian evils and the nationalistic fervor that supports it. The scapegoat clause could easily apply in Palestine as she uses it in Germany.

However, from the perspective of the political scientist, a more subtle interpretation can be given to the facts that resides neither in the Critical Theorist perspective of the Marxist (post-Marxist) Frankfurt School or in the lazy victim/scapegoat narrative utilized by Arendt. The complexity of social psychology cannot be reduced to generalizations that lead to white hats and black hats or good vs. evil distinctions. Authoritarianism is not even always understood as such, and can easily masquerade as democratic. Even today's political landscape is gray, with one portion of voters believing they democratically elected a president to the White House and the other side believing the election was the result of authoritarian intrusion from a foreign power. Facts are not provided but headlines and feeling are plentiful -- and neither makes calm or rational assessment all that particularly easy. As Abraham and Verba note, feeling plays a major role in politics (78): their methodology rests on measurements taken through survey of samples from five countries, with questions including the extent to which participants discuss politics in their daily lives (communication being one of the political scientists' measures). To this end, the political scientist is able to provide quantifiable data that presents a less reactionary or biased perspective on the reasons why a society might veer towards or away from a particular kind of leader. Arendt, submersing herself into the atmosphere and personally experiencing the events, writes with a discernible bias and a distinctly definable feeling; Abraham and Verba take a more clinical approach, as does Huntington, who points to the cultural divisions among peoples, which cause them to support or withdraw support from leaders (regardless of their method of governance, whether it be democratic or non-democratic -- a leader who represents one's values will be chosen over a leader who does not, according to Huntington's theory). Huntington's considerate examination of history through the lens of cultural theory exposes the issue most prominently -- namely, that "the fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic" but cultural (Huntington 22).

In conclusion, the psychological orientation of society towards leaders depends upon the perspective of the philosopher or political scientist: the Frankfurt School views it as a competition between working class individuals and elites; Arendt views it as a question of anti-Semitism; Huntington views it as a cultural question. The work of Abraham and Verba supports the view of Huntington in that it takes quantitative approach to discerning the cause -- but in the end, questions remain -- as do the myriad perspectives.

Works Cited

Arendt, Hannah. The Origins of Totalitarianism. NY: Harvest, 1979. Print.

Arendt, Hannah. Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. NY:

Penguin, 2006. Print.

Adorno, Theodore et al. The Authoritarian Personality. NY: Harper, 1950. Print.

Almond, Gabriel; Verba, Sidney. Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1989. Print.

Huntington, Samuel. "The Clash of Civilizations?" Foreign Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3

(Summer, 1993), pp. 22-49.