The Authoritarian Personality and It's Enemies: Wilhelm Reich, Theodor W. Adorno, Alice Miller and Klaus Theweleit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essay presents a reconstruction and critical interpretation of four theories of authoritarian personality related to analysis of fascism. The first theory origins from a book The "Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich, published already before the Second World War, the second theory comes from a famous "The Authoritarian Personality" by Theodor W. Adorno. The third was presented by Alice Miller in "For Your Own Good", and the fourth – by Klaus Theweleit in groundbreaking "Male Fantasies". Only one of them, by Miller, refers directly to pedagogy. Nevertheless, the essay presents all four publications in relation to upbringing. The essay raises following questions: what is authoritarian personality? Which elements of education support its development and which prevent it? The theories are presented in relation to each other. Some of their conclusions are consistent, but other present conflicting positions. The dialectical method applied by the author enables to see, among others, how Adorno’s theories are put upside down by Miller, as well as Theweleit, who develops Reich’s ideas. The reconstruction of the dialogue between presented theories enables to put new questions related to the role of authoritarian personality in contemporary times.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".