Existential politics: Right-wing authoritarianism and meaning in life
By Jake Womick and Laura A. King
University of Missouri. March 17, 2021
The project of liberal democracy has, on its face, a noble set of ideals—not the least of which are inclusion, equality, and participation. However, the process of “democratizing” nations and running stable and true democracies can present fundamental, existential challenges to entire societies and the individuals who live in them. The inclusion and participation of both majority and minority groups as equal voices at the table can raise issues about freedom, identity, social connections, a sense of shared reality, and meaning in life. And the intentionally slow deliberative processes of democracies can make it difficult to quickly respond to urgent matters of life and death, as the coronavirus pandemic has shown.
For some people, such conditions threaten to create what Viktor Frankl called an “existential vacuum”—feelings of aimlessness, alienation, and futility representative of a modern age in which one may find it increasingly difficult to see life as meaningful. The consequent longing for meaning might make people receptive to strong authorities who forcefully assert meaning by emphasizing simple yet coherent ways of making sense of the world, that we each have a goal directed purpose, and that we’re each an important and significant part of a broader cultural drama. Indeed, as our research has found, right-wing authoritarianism may provide an accessible way for people to experience their lives as meaningful.
A look back: Lessons from Fromm’s Escape from Freedom
Clockwise from top left: Escape from Freedom (1941); Erich Fromm in 1974; Martin Luther (1529), whose “95 Theses” ignited the Protestant Reformation and whose vitriolic “The Jews and their Lies” served as a precursor to Nazi anti-Semitism; Catholic dignitaries shake hands with Hitler in the 1930s, as both worked to restore their views of “German” ways of life.
The German social psychologist and existentialist/humanist philosopher Erich Fromm observed, in Escape from Freedom (1941), that the Protestant Reformation had pried loose the tight grip of the Catholic Church on both private and public life. That, along with the recent economic mobility of the industrial revolution, and the destruction of the German Empire after WWI, had effectively blurred the clearly-defined lines that previously guided the European understanding of free will, (German) identity, sense of truth and reality, and the sense of meaning in life. Almost overnight, the top-down resolution of fundamental existential concerns had become democratized as each individual European (German, especially) was now faced with an existential vacuum and the challenge of finding new ways of “being” in the world.
Fromm’s observation, during WWII, was that that existential vacuum had made the German public ready to accept any strong authority who would step in to “restore order” in addressing those existential concerns again. To his (and everyone else’s) horror, that authoritarian regime was led by Hitler and the Nazi Party, which clearly defined the German identity; imposed strict rules, laws, and values; projected a clear sense of “truth;” and offered an easily understandable sense of meaning in life. Thus, the crux of Fromm’s analysis was: when people experience an existential vacuum of meaninglessness, they may be motivated to support authoritarian leadership to help fill that void and re-establish clear paths to meaning in life. In other words, part of the appeal of authoritarianism is that it functions to promote the feeling that life is meaningful.
Contemporary trends toward authoritarianism
Clearly, these issues are relevant to the modern world as well. As younger generations in democratic societies have made strides toward becoming more inclusive, more strongly emphasized equality between majority and minority voices, and expanded secular democratic participation, they may have also blurred what were once clearly-defined lines outlining meaning in life. These trends may have produced a modern existential vacuum that may help explain why we’re seeing authoritarian movements surge around the globe today.
Upper: Vladimir Putin (Russia) with Donald Trump (USA). Lower: Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil); Nicolas Maduro (Venezuela); and Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (Turkey).
Indeed, data from the World Values Survey estimates that almost half of those without college degrees prefer “a strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with congress or elections” (Norris, 2016). Our own data found that preference for authoritarianism predicted Americans’ support for Trump in 2016 (Womick, Rothmund, et al., 2019), and it appears similar waves of support for authoritarianism recently brought power to Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil (2019), Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela (2013), Viktor Orban in Hungary (2018), Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey (2014), Rodrigo Duterte in Philippines (2016), Vladimir Putin in Russia (2000), Xi Jinping in China (2012), Narendra Modi in India (2014), among others.
Examining the relationship between authoritarianism and meaning in life
We seemed to see that pattern over and over. Yet, to our amazement, little scientific research had actually tested whether right-wing authoritarianism was, in fact, related to the perception of meaning in life. So, we designed and conducted a series of four studies to measure the two, and potential confounding variables, and examine them to see if they were related (Womick, Ward, et al., 2019). Participants completed measures of right-wing authoritarianism, global meaning in life, the facets of meaning, and indicators of psychological and physical distress (e.g., illness, depression).
We measured right-wing authoritarianism using a set of survey questions that asked participants to rate (e.g., on a scale from 1-7, where 1 = Disagree and 7 = Agree) their preferences for strong leaders, social conventions, and aggression towards those perceived as deviating from the social order (Altemeyer, 1981).
We similarly measured meaning in life, based on prior research suggesting that when people say their lives feel meaningful they typically mean their lives feel significant, purposeful, and/or coherent (King & Hicks, 2021). People experience significance when they feel that they and their contributions matter to others, so participants rated their life’s significance by indicating their agreement/disagreement with items such as: “Even considering how big the universe is, I can say that my life matters.” People experience purpose when they feel directed toward personally valued goals, which participants indicated by rating items such as, “I have a good sense of what I’m trying to accomplish in life.” And people experience coherence when they can see how the world around them make sense, which they reported in response to items such as, “I can make sense of the things that happen in my life.”
Image: DanielFela/Shutterstock
In all four studies, the data patterns showed that right-wing authoritarianism was positively related to global meaning in life and each of these three facets of meaning. Additionally, analyses found the link between right-wing authoritarianism and meaning in life was not simply due to confounding “third variables,” such as cognitive ability, cognitive style, personality traits, or religiosity. People who endorsed deference to authorities, adherence to societal traditions, and derogation those who are dissimilar, evaluated their lives as more meaningful—more significant, more purposeful, and more coherent.
Further, right-wing authoritarianism also served an existential buffering function. That is, for people without a strong authoritarian orientation, psychological and physical distress undermined meaning in life. In contrast, people who strongly endorsed a right-wing authoritarian orientation were better able to maintain a sense of meaning in life even when they experienced physical and psychological distress. We also found that although right-wing authoritarianism was related to all three facets of meaning in life, it was more strongly related to the significance facet than the purpose and coherence facets. Thus, the primary reason right-wing authoritarianism was related to meaning in life was because it made people feel important—like their lives matter and like their contributions have impact.
Understanding support for Donald Trump
These findings, based on quantitative data, are consistent with the idea that authoritarianism can promote the sense that one’s life is meaningful because it makes sense of the world in simple, clear ways; it spells out clear goals which give purpose to one’s life; and, most of all, it makes people feel significant. Such findings can also help us, perhaps, to better understand why Americans with right-wing authoritarian orientations seemed so devoted to President Donald Trump.
Donald Trump walks through rows of riot police in Lafayette Park during Black Lives Matter protests after the police killing of George Floyd. Photo: Tom Brenner/Reuters.
For Americans perceiving an existential vacuum in an increasingly liberal and democratized nation, Trump’s authoritarian approach to leadership in the American government offered an easily understandable sense of meaning and purpose in life. His messages clearly defined the “American” identity as White, Christian, and conservative, and clearly defined who was not welcome in America (e.g., the Muslim travel ban, and the border wall to prevent Mexicans from illegal crossings). He repeatedly wielded federal troops in strict crackdowns of “law and order” against Black Lives Matter protestors, who challenged White supremacy in the conventional American social order. Trump frequently legitimized right-wing ideas and extremist conspiracies as “truth,” and labeled any discrepant information or critical coverage as “fake news.” He routinely inflamed the culture wars and, in that context, gave direction to his followers, telling them when to “stand back and stand by” and when to go out and “fight like hell.” And he emphasized their significance by heaping praise on them when they showed loyalty. When they behaved violently, in incidents where people were injured and even killed, Trump emphasized their value and significance, saying they “were very fine people” after they attacked protestors in Charlottesville in 2017, and saying “you are very special” after they attacked the Capitol on January 6th 2021.
Such authoritarian displays of “strong leadership” offered Trump’s followers a simple, coherent view of themselves and the world around them, and legitimized their right-wing beliefs and values. He highlighted their shared cultural goals and gave them purpose. And, most of all, he emphasized their significance, and made them feel valued in a nation where they felt their (privileged) status declining. In short, Trump may have likely enjoyed such strong support from his base because his authoritarian style helped make them feel their lives were meaningful.
Can left-wing movements serve a similar existential function?
Left-wing political movements also often receive widespread support. Research on the links between political ideology and well-being, however, suggests political liberals typically report their lives as less meaningful than do political conservatives. But that overall pattern hardly means that left-wing beliefs do not serve an existential psychological function. Left-wing political orientations have clear connections to concerns about life/death (e.g., universal healthcare), freedom and authenticity (e.g., self-expression, right to protest), cultural identity (e.g., inclusivity, representation, anti-discrimination), education/open-mindedness and shared reality (e.g., scientifically testing and rejecting ideas), compassionate values and social connectedness, and so on.
Martin Luther King Jr. led a progressive movement that was meaningful (with purpose, coherence, significance), but also existentially complex, fraught, and turbulent.
Progressive movements may also be relevant to meaning in life, but the existential dynamics involved are probably complicated. First, if one’s goals for the future of one’s society are different than traditions or the present status quo, then one’s purpose might be to push for change—but that change might create social or economic upheaval. Second, learning new information about the world will, in the long term, help develop an increasingly accurate and coherent understanding of the world, but in the short term it requires that one likely experience uncertainty and incoherence as we discard traditional views and struggle to adopt new ones. Third, creating a better life for future generations, by changing the world, can offer a sense of significance—but that may or may not happen during one’s lifetime (if at all) and it may be difficult to spent time working toward outcomes that are not traditionally valued as important. Additionally, as we alluded to at the outset, open-minded progressive social values (e.g., pluralism) may actually create the existential vacuum conditions that make it more difficult to consensually validate one’s purpose, coherence, and significance. These considerations suggest that left-wing progressive ideas may have the capacity to promote meaning in life—but that the situation is likely a complicated one.
Thus, the important questions may be: When, under what conditions, and for whom do left-wing progressive political beliefs and movements serve an existential function, e.g., as a source of meaning in life? A related question would be whether or not left-wing orientations are accompanied by other existential dynamics and consequences (e.g., uncertainty, loneliness, hope) that create a more ambiguous and complex existential experience (e.g., meaning) than does the simplicity of a clear-cut right-wing authoritarian adherence to the traditional status quo.
Perpetual polarization
Our research empirically tested long-standing conceptual ideas about the potential link between existential concerns and right-wing authoritarianism. If liberal political dynamics (e.g., inclusion, equality, participation) blur one’s previously clearly-defined lines outlining meaning in life, this research shows that right-wing authoritarian leadership can help “restore” a sense of coherence, purpose, and significance, and ultimately provide one with a meaningful place in the grand scheme of things. Thus, one reason why political polarization may be so difficult to combat is because the ideologies driving progressive changes, and authoritarian allegiance to the status-quo, are each tied to the fundamental existential need to feel one’s life is meaningful.
Dr. Jake Womick runs the MaP (Meaning in life and Politics) lab at CSU Bakersfield. His lab primarily focuses on two areas: The experience of meaning in life and political psychology. He explores the intersection between these areas, examining how political beliefs and behaviors impact individuals' sense of meaning. In the field of political psychology, his research revolves around the symmetry vs. asymmetry debate, the distinction between liberalism and leftism, pluralism as a strength for society and politics, and the origins and consequences of left-wing vs. right-wing prejudice. Ultimately, our goal is to leverage these insights to foster a more inclusive America. Additionally, we investigate a diverse range of topics driven by student interest, including personality, identity, authenticity, well-being and more.
Dr. Laura King is a Curators’ Distinguished Professor at the University of Missouri. Laura’s research focuses primarily on the experience of meaning in life, embedding that experience in everyday life. Her research, which has been funded by NSF and NIH, spans personality and social psychology, motivation, political psychology, psychology of religion, and moral psychology. Dr. King is a fellow of APA and APS, and has received numerous awards in personality/social psychology, including the Jack Block Award for Outstanding Scholarly Contributions to Personality Psychology. She was the first woman to edit the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences and has served as editor of Perspectives on Psychological Science. She is a past president of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. The author of two successful introductory psychology textbooks, Laura is also an award-winning teacher, receiving 6 different teaching awards at SMU and the Purple Chalk Award for Teaching Excellence from the Mizzou Undergraduate Council.