The authoritarian orientation in liberal democracies: Labor market and workplace authoritarianism

Abstract

Authoritarianism is of growing interest to liberal democracies despite being a traditional concept. To be sure, many dictatorial societies are characterized by authoritarian features, not least by those of their leaders. The concept of authoritarianism, however, does not confine its scope to those societies but has also been applied to analyses of the West, and discussion at the latter level is indeed much more important for us in self-critical terms. In addition, issues involving the political pathology have not been discussed sufficiently at the level of everyday life in liberal democracies. It appears that some pivotal aspects of authoritarianism have long been overlooked and even underappreciated. In fact, while scholars have spotlighted the concept in relation to political structures chiefly in the Second and Third World (Albertus & Menaldo, 2018; Bieber, 2019; Bunce et al., 2010; Collier, 1979; Diamond et al., 2016; Frankenberg, 2020; Frantz, 2018; Heydemann, 1999; Jalal, 1995; Karakoç, 2015; Levitsky & Way, 2010; Marquez, 2017; O'Donnell, 1988; Smith, 1989; Tang, 2016), they have not paid enough attention to its conceptual relevance in relation to those in the First World (Berberoglu, 2021; Brown et al., 2018; Canterbury, 2019).¹ This seems due to the lack of a deeper appreciation of the meaning of the concept in the dimensions of capitalism and market economy, in which authoritarianism emerges as market mechanisms, especially as labor market and workplace authoritarianism.

Erich Fromm (1900−1980) is an archetypal scholar who best illuminates issues of market economy in terms of authoritarianism and does so by combining his distinctive characterological theories. According to Fromm, narcissism is functioning in market society and becomes a negative factor in democracy (Fromm, 1964, 1971 [1947]; see Sakurai, 2018a, 2020, 2021). In addition, it is, says Fromm (2004 [1961]), intertwined with the free market capitalist function of alienation, a pathological social phenomenon wherein human beings are made objects of a system and the latter thereby turns into a subject called “capital” (Marx, 2004 [1844]; see Sakurai, 2018b, 2021).² In order to observe the depth of some connotations of authoritarianism in liberal democracies, it is necessary to look into the mechanisms of narcissism and alienation, and thereby identify the main implications of the authoritarian orientation, a pathological character structure that has been applied primarily to outline the Nazi orientation, particularly with the aid of Fromm's contributions (Fromm, 1941, 1984; see McLaughlin, 1996). On the basis of this research concern, this article attempts to fathom out the key elements of the social pathologies of liberal democracy in terms of the concept, thereby detecting the essence of what has not yet been deciphered with respect to Fromm's issues of narcissism and alienation: economic and political narcissism. It then seeks to reveal labor market authoritarianism and workplace authoritarianism.

First, I will seek the essence of Fromm's conceptions of narcissism and alienation in socio-pathological terms. Second, I will put forward the two concepts of economic narcissism and political narcissism, thereby exposing the nature of authoritarianism in light of the market mechanism. Finally, I will, referring to Fromm's basic theoretical framework of authoritarianism, attempt to define the possible theoretical impact of economic and political narcissism on economic life.

In Fromm's (1971 [1947]) social theory, narcissism is a “character structure” that seeks to indulge one's narcissistic desires as a matter of first priority in a way that takes advantage of others, therefore seen in the same line as “selfishness” (pp. 119−133). The focal point of Fromm's (1971 [1947]) conception of narcissism is that, based on this character feature, it comes into being as “social narcissism,” the functions of which pertain to society and its socioeconomic structure on a socio-pathological level (see Sakurai, 2021, pp. 8−9). The conception, therefore, incorporates a character structure in a social dimension, that is to say society's “narcissistic character structure” (Sakurai, 2021, p. 21; see Fromm, 1971 [1947], pp. 69−88). Social narcissism works in conjunction with the “marketing orientation” in a free market society (Fromm, 1980 [1979]; see Sakurai, 2021, pp. 8−13)—this concept will be explained below.

Another important point concerning Fromm's (1962 [1956]) social theory of narcissism is that in his psychoanalytic theory, its character feature is deemed the antonym of “self-love” in line with selfishness (p. 60). Self-love therein denotes a character orientation that enables one to love oneself (Fromm, 1941, p. 116, 1962 [1956], pp. 57−63, 1964, pp. 97−101). In this regard, these two psychoanalytic concepts have their respective political functions: self-love leads a society to be democratic on the one hand, but narcissism can rather be a factor in instigating a fascist politics on the other (Sakurai, 2018a, p. 193, 2020, p. 184, 2021, pp. 16−17). In addition, the two social psychologies, narcissism and fascism, evolve dialectically in contemporary narcissistic society (Sakurai, 2018a, p. 193, 2021, pp. 18−19). This indicates that human beings achieve a genuine democracy only when succeeding in inaugurating political change based on self-love, while they end up falling into fascism when failing to successfully overcome narcissism and cultivate self-love, and instead develop authoritarian needs. However, it is extremely difficult for contemporary people to undergo the former path in Frommian terms since contemporary society, their living place, pivots on narcissism. Indeed, a narcissistic character structure reinforces the capitalist economy underpinning the free market mechanism and bringing about the social pathology of alienation, a socio-pathological phenomenon wherein human beings come into existence as objects of products in the capitalist system when it evolves its own mechanism. In Fromm's (1962 [1956]) social theory, narcissism contributes to the mechanisms of alienation, and these social pathologies therefore operate in conjunction with each other; this is indeed why Fromm requires human beings to curb and surmount their own desires resting on narcissism (pp. 118−121; Fromm, 1964, p. 90).

Fromm's conception of alienation, an idea that he absorbed exclusively from Marx (Fromm, 2004 [1961]; see Lio, 1989; Marx, 1992 [1867], 2004 [1844]), is associated particularly with his unique concept of “marketing orientation” in a social dimension (Fromm, 1971 [1947]; see Sakurai, 2018, Chap. 6, sect. 6.3.2.3; Sakurai, 2021, pp. 14−16). The concept denotes a character structure in which one experiences “oneself as a commodity and … one's value as exchange value,” and which arises under a free market economic system (Fromm, 1971 [1947], p. 68). In this orientation, one finds it most important to sell oneself as a commodity at the highest possible price through undertaking the role that “I am as you desire me” (Fromm, 1971 [1947], pp. 72−73). It is contemporary people's essential attitude, necessary to live in contemporary society built on a free market mechanism, that enables their society to function under the mechanism. In the society, which is run by the orientation, everything is determined by people's preferences evinced by the free market; the character structure and the market mechanism functionally affect, and are affected by, each other.

In Fromm's theoretical framework, the socio-pathological phenomenon of alienation is stimulated by the marketing orientation, which buttresses the functions of a free market society in which people's way of life is characterized by the “having mode,” the individual's and society's character feature that drives itself to increase “property” as a matter of first priority (Fromm, 2011 [1976]), p. 58), whereby they are allowed to focus particular attention on increasing property. In addition, the marketing orientation works together with the free market economic system founded on capitalism, a socioeconomic mechanism that induces the pathological social phenomenon. The most salient characteristic of the orientation is depicted by one's burning desires to be liked by others and thereby to take a passive position that determines one's decisions and actions according to others’ preferences, which is due to the fact that one's own value depends heavily upon the desires, and also by those to put a lot of energies into having private property and thereby to try to satisfy oneself in the dimension of private life (Fromm, 1971 [1947], pp. 72−82, 2011 [1976], pp. 57−63; see Sakurai, 2018a, pp. 171−176, 2021, pp. 14−16). This is precisely what Fromm's conception of alienation signifies on the level of actual life.

What inferences does a Frommian theory of economic narcissism suggest from a socio-theoretical perspective? What theoretical impact does the theory make on social and political theory? One of the most remarkable socio-pathological features that is discernible in the theory is the fact that fascism pertains to the social conditions of contemporary free market society. In a mechanism in which a fascist politics is expected to emerge under the conditions of free market capitalism, narcissism works in conjunction with alienation while inducing authoritarian needs entailing sadomasochistic symbiosis and necrophilia. In liberal democracies, however, this type of pathological politics does not simply betoken the political form of a state or a government as a result of political mobilization. In the systems of liberal democracy, it signifies instead everyday-life lessons disciplined by time and property, namely “contemporary disciplined, workaday daily life” (Sakurai, 2018a, p. 192). Under this social condition, fascist movements therefore thrive as labor market authoritarianism, in which human beings as labor power are completely operated by its sadomasochistic political power in conjunction with the functions of alienation, and as workplace authoritarianism, by which they are confined to disciplined, workaday daily life. They thereby become more and more dependent on machines and products while fostering narcissism as people's unconscious desires to underpin the free market and its essential mechanisms.

As we saw above, Fromm's conception of narcissism inherently internalizes the philosophical and socio-theoretical concept of alienation, therefore fulfilling its functions in a socio-theoretical dimension rather than in a simple psychoanalytic dimension. From this perspective, it is possible to define two kinds of narcissism on a socio-theoretical level: economic narcissism, predicated upon the marketing orientation; and political narcissism, built on the authoritarian orientation. These two social pathologies are inextricably interwoven with each other in the way in which authoritarian needs are rather provoked by a marketing character structure, from which perspective it is possible to perceive authoritarianism even in the free market economic sphere. In this respect, liberal democracy is associated to a greater or lesser degree with authoritarian/fascist movements, that is with authoritarian character structures that can be a solid basis for fascism (Fromm, 1941, 1964; see Sakurai, 2020).

The cardinal socio-theoretical meaning of fascism in liberal democracy is precisely workplace authoritarianism resting on labor market authoritarianism, an authoritarian character structure that forces human beings as labor power to discipline themselves in a sadomasochistic way that compels them to accept whatever the free market mechanism demands, of which structure it is extremely difficult for them to get rid. Perhaps one of the most effective solutions to those pathologies of liberal democracy is to offer resistance to these kinds of authoritarian oppressions in seemingly democratic practice.⁷ In this light, democracy rather comes into being as a “rebellious act” (Pausch, 2017, 2019), particularly as a continual effort to break free from authoritarian constraints that warrant the pathological mechanisms of workplace and labor market authoritarianism in the name of democracy.