TRC Final Report

Volume 5

Chapter 7

Subsection 14

Authoritarianism

94 Before leaving individualistic psychological explanations, it is worth asking whether perpetrators are not self-selected, that is, people with particular kinds of personality predispositions who are drawn to certain careers and circumstances to emerge as killers and torturers. The theory of the authoritarian personality presents such a view. Rooted in earlier thinking from the 1920s, the authoritarian thesis was made famous in a major book published in 1950¹⁷. A particular kind of person, the ‘authoritarian personality’, it was claimed, emerged from rigid and punitive family structures. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, it was argued that children of such families split off and repressed feelings of hostility and resentment towards their parents and projected these hostile feelings towards members of weaker and stigmatised groups. As Adorno once put it, authoritarians metaphorically resemble cyclists: “above they bow, below they kick”. Authoritarians as a type also manifest a particular pattern of social attitudes: ethnocentrism (or favouritism towards their own group), prejudice towards out-group members, anti-democratic views and a propensity towards conservatism and fascist ideology.

95 There is solid and reliable recent evidence that authoritarianism was manifest among white South Africans, that it was correlated with anti-black prejudice and anti-democratic tendencies, and was more prevalent among Afrikaans rather than English-speakers, and among those who regarded themselves as conservative.

96 In recent years, the theoretical base of authoritarianism has been revised. It is no longer seen as rooted primarily in either intrapsychic conflict or in strict, hierarchical and rigid family socialisation. Rather, it is a set of beliefs expressing strong and loyal identification with one’s own social or cultural group – ethnic, national, racial, religious – with strong demands on group togetherness (cohesion). Respect and unconditional obedience is given to own-group leaders and authorities (an attitude of bowing to the top) while authoritarian aggression reflects negative prejudice, intolerance and punitiveness towards out-group members (the kicks below). Authoritarianism in this view is a form of social identity rather than a particular personality type. It is nevertheless a modality of identity with tendencies towards hostility towards ‘others’ – expressed in South Africa as the intolerance and hostility of whites towards blacks and those on the left¹⁸. It is certainly not far-fetched to argue that such people may be drawn towards lives in the police and the army, themselves rather rigid and hierarchical institutions, which then reinforce authoritarian tendencies that are already present. Hence, self-selection on psychological grounds is quite feasible.

97 But does this offer an explanation for a predisposition to commit atrocities? Evidence is really rather thin. There is no direct evidence that shows that authoritarian identities are actually more violent in terms of behaviour. Research of this sort has shown evidence of expressed intolerance, prejudice, racism and anti-democratic tendencies but not direct evidence of murderous actions. It is dubious in the additional sense that there may be many authoritarians in a given social order, but far fewer perpetrators of violent deeds. Therefore the links to violence are neither direct nor proven.

98 However, authoritarianism may form a contributing factor in the propensity towards violence in that both central elements of the authoritarian personality – obedience and loyalties to in-group authorities, and hostile distancing from others (a tendency towards dehumanisation of the ‘enemy’) – have been directly implicated in aggression. It is a feasible link in the chain; it is not the whole story.

99 In evidence before the Commission it would seem that many perpetrators, particularly from the security forces and right-wing organisations, would fit rather closely the description of authoritarian identity. Certainly there is evidence that security force training, perhaps particularly of the sort found in South Africa prior to 1994, may facilitate such tendencies. Here again are extracts from Mr John Deegan’s testimony, describing police training:

During police training at the college in Pretoria, the ‘code of silence’ was soon inculcated into new recruits through various methods of indoctrination and brainwashing and reprisals for not being one of the group. If one person stepped out of line, no matter how trivial the offence, the whole platoon or company would be punished. Individualistic behaviour was punishable not only by the system of instructors, trainers and officers, but by your peers as well – fellow trainees eventually through fear of punishment would punish fellow students before infringements came to the notice of superiors … I learnt early on in my training that individualism was out.

100 It should be apparent from the above that violence is not a matter of individual psychology alone. It is the combination of personal biographies interwoven with institutional forms (organisations, military structures, hierarchical arrangements of power) and an escalation of events in historical terms that provides the assemblages or configurations that produce awful deeds. It is not a mechanistic formula. Since authoritarianism in this view is a particular form of identification, social identity frameworks as potential motives for violence will now be examined.