I want to find out if Wilhelm Reich's theory about where fascism comes from is true. This isn't a scientific survey so regardless of the results I still won't really know, but I suppose it's still better than nothing. I'm also not an academic so I can't get access to research grants, and I'm not sure anyone would pay for a study like this to begin with (correct me if I'm wrong).
Wilhelm Reich, in The Mass Psychology of Fascism, basically says that fascists are created by two factors: severe economic exploitation / anxiety on the part of the petite bourgeoisie, combined with severe child abuse. Reich believes that the abuse takes place while people are too young to remember it (and/or that the memories may be suppressed), but I imagine that it could have easily continued afterward. (Others who understand Reich better than me, again: correct me if I'm wrong.)
-
Do you believe that you experienced severe abuse or neglect from your parents or guardians?
-
Do you come from a petite bourgeois family? (Do your parents own their home, but still have to work in order to survive?)
Not a problem, thank you. I took a look at the abstract: basically, the paper says that regardless of political orientation, being abused has a good chance of giving you an authoritarian personality? If only there was research connecting upbringing with socioeconomic status!
Also I'm not sure how serious you are with the last sentence, but I do know of some research that has shown some generalized differences between how working class and more wealthy families raise their children.
I’m sorry, I was definitely serious and would love to see the research if it’s not too much trouble.
Sorry about that, the way that you worded that sentence made it seem slightly sarcastic. It turns out that the information that I was recalling was not from a specific study, but was derived from a textbook written by a sociologist. The name of this textbook is Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life 2nd Edition by Annette Lareau. I have not read the actual book myself, but I do know that it discusses some generalized differences that occur between "high SES" and "low SES" children. One concept that I learned in a university class is that high SES children are actively monitored by parents to directly foster growth, while low SES children have more autonomy and develop skills and talents more naturally. As this relies on the liberal concept of socioeconomic status I suspect that this sociologist may have a liberal background, but there is probably some interesting information if you're interested in differences in how the wealthy and working class raise their children.
I believe that it's regardless of parental political orientation, which actually makes it very interesting to me. I think the gist of the paper is that parental abuse distorts our perception of the intentions behind others' behavior, which has implications for our political views. Mainly that abuse leads people to attribute hostility to others behavior, which creates a desire for authoritarianism. This is combined with displaced emotion from being abused.