Authoritarianism in the 21st Century: A Proposal for Measuring Authoritarian Attitudes in Neoliberalism

Abstract

The continuous crises of the neoliberal system have led to an authoritarian turn, with authoritarianism acquiring a different dimension since the studies of Altemeyer in 1981. The aim of the present study is to elaborate a scale to measure authoritarianism adapted to the contemporary era, the Neoliberal Authoritarianism Scale, and to test its validity and reliability. 232 people between the ages of 18 and 81 (X = 38.34; SD = 13.141) residing in Spain participated, consisting of 51.7% women and 38.8% men. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed a good fit of the four-factor model (χ²/df = 1.92; CFI = 0.993; TLI = 0.992; IFI = 0.993; GFI = 0.986; RMSEA = 0.041; SRMR = 0.063). The scale also showed an adequate internal consistency, with a global McDonald’s Omega of 0.893. Nevertheless, the Conventionalism factor needs to be improved (ω = 0.621). This scale is a first preliminary approach to measuring neoliberal authoritarianism, which may help to better understand its scope and impact on people’s lives.

1. Introduction

The study of authoritarianism is a relevant topic in the field of psychological research, especially nowadays, with the rise of the far-right globally (see Forti 2021; Frank 2015; Jay et al. 2019; Layton et al. 2021; Reguera 2017; Traverso 2019; Veiga et al. 2019). Furthermore, the fascist movements of the 1930s prompted one of the first empirical approaches to its study, carried out by Adorno et al. ([1950] 2006), through a psychological point of view. These researchers developed the F-Scale for its measurement, consisting of nine dimensions that shed light on the authoritarian personality of individuals. However, this scale was heavily criticized for several reasons, mainly methodological, but also in terms of its conceptualization as a direct expression of personality (Duckitt 2015, p. 256).

Subsequently, Wilson and Patterson (1968) created the Conservatism Scale, which was also criticized for its conceptual reductionism by understanding authoritarianism only as a conservative attitude. Finally, Bob Altemeyer (1981, 1988, 1996) developed the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA), reducing the original nine dimensions of the F-Scale to three (Authoritarian Aggression, Authoritarian Submission, and Conventionalism), which has become the measure of authoritarianism with the strongest consensus at the present time (Duckitt and Fisher 2003). According to this conceptualization of authoritarianism, it is understood as the covariation of three sets of attitudes: authoritarian aggression, which implies the tendency to cause harm (physical and/or psychological) to those sanctioned by the authorities perceived as legitimate; authoritarian submission, based on subordination to the rules dictated by such authorities; and conventionalism, understood as the acceptance of and commitment to conventional social values and norms resulting from the dominant culture of the society in which the person is immersed, and that are supported by the established authorities.

Further approaches to the study of authoritarianism have been established in recent decades, both in relation to how to measure the construct (Duckitt and Bizumic 2013; Feldman 2003; Funke 2005; Vilanova et al. 2020) and to other social, cultural, and religious concerns (Noval and Moral 2019; Russo et al. 2020; Weise et al. 2012; Womick et al. 2022). The alternatives developed around the RWA have also been diverse (Bizumic and Duckitt 2018; Dunwoody and Funke 2016; Feldman 2003; Funke 2005; Heller et al. 2020). Nevertheless, although many of these revisions, variations, and adaptations consider their application in a socio-historical context that differs from that of Altemeyer’s time, they do not fully incorporate the role that neoliberalism plays in shaping contemporary subjectivities (Azevedo et al. 2019; Bay-Cheng et al. 2015; Cuéllar 2017; Sugarman 2015).

Neoliberalism, whose ideology and practice legitimize economic and social exploitation and inequality, has permeated public consciousness (Azevedo et al. 2019), becoming part of the common sense of individuals (Sugarman 2015). Its credos (its ideas, logics of action, etc.) have been internalized and replicated, in what Foucault ([1979] 2010) described as “the strategic programming of the activity of individuals”. The consequences of this neoliberal lifestyle are used by the new authoritarianisms to express “xenophobic, misogynist, racist, and anti-egalitarian demands in order to adapt to these living conditions” (Robles 2020) that are imposed on the individual.

It is important to acknowledge the diversity of terminology employed to address the phenomena of the rise of the far-right nowadays, emphasizing that these terms do not interchangeably denote the same concept and possess distinct semantic nuances. For instance, it could be posited that a far-right populist movement has emerged as a particularly effective conduit for articulating and mobilizing popular discontent. This theoretical framework encompasses two distinct modalities: national-liberals or authoritarian neoliberals and social identitarians (Saidel 2021). In a similar vein, Traverso (2019) posits that contemporary movements that might be designated as neofascist exhibit a more pronounced historical continuity with classic interwar fascism. Conversely, the present far-right, ultra-right, or post-fascist movements have, to a certain extent, disassociated themselves from this historical connection. At this juncture, the role of Alain de Benoist’s New Right, which came to the fore following May 1968 and distanced itself from the fascist and Nazi imagery of the 1930s and 1940s (Veiga et al. 2019), appears to have been instrumental in fostering the “demarginalization” and normalization of the far right, with its principles even being assimilated into established center-right formations (Saidel 2021).

Within this terminological and characterological spectrum, the movements that have gained the most influence are the so-called populist authoritarianisms, which seek to “represent ‘the people’ in narrow ethno-nationalist terms and define themselves in opposition to a traditionally constituted power structure” (Gandesha 2017). Their rebellion against the system, however, does not touch the levers of the neoliberal economic model that is the cause, precisely, of insecurity and uncertainty in the lives of people. In this sense, the endorsement of pro-neoliberal attitudes has been found to be related to authoritarianism, social dominance (Pratto et al. 1994), system justification theories (Jost et al. 2004), and beliefs in a just world (Lerner 1980).

Concerning the present moment, it can be considered that we are facing neoliberal authoritarianism as a form of government that connects nationalism, patriarchy (with the idea of the heteronormative family), and religion, together with debt, financialization, and capital accumulation (Stubbs and Lendvai-Bainton 2020). Such governance focuses its politics on discipline and control, along with the systematic marginalization of certain social groups and minorities (Bruff 2014). Neoliberal authoritarianism, or authoritarian neoliberalism, is a reality that has been emphasized by several theorists (Bruff 2014; Ryan 2019; Tansel 2017). The correlation between authoritarianism and neoliberalism is the result of numerous factors that have become intertwined within a specific historical context. In the 1990s, neoliberalism emerged victorious by portraying itself as tolerant and diverse, a manifestation of what has been termed “progressive neoliberalism,” a concept coined by Nancy Fraser (2017) based on her theoretical perspective on the recognition/redistribution binomial. Nevertheless, the 2008 financial crisis exposed the system’s true underlying dynamics, which were predicated on the principles of inequality and exploitation. Consequently, there was an emergence of authoritarian trends resulting from the propagation of neoliberal values and the crisis of liberal democracy (Robles 2020). It is noteworthy that Milton Friedman was willing to “legitimize political authoritarianism to forge liberalized markets” (Brown 2021, p. 102), a phenomenon that can be observed in the regime established in post-Allende Chile. In Fraser’s conceptualization, these neoliberal authoritarianisms would materialize through the recognition/redistribution dichotomy by acting on the former, targeting the grievances of a specific, formerly privileged population (middle-class white men) who must now contend to regain their recognition, while redistribution remains subject to the prevailing neoliberal regulations.

To comprehend this neoliberal authoritarianism in greater depth, it is necessary to conceptualize the intertwining of neoliberalism and authoritarianism. This analysis identifies three axes that, when combined, result in neoliberal authoritarianism or authoritarian neoliberalism. These axes are historically situated in the contemporary world of the early 21st century. These phenomena are described in concise terms; however, they are representative of complex realities that impact individuals’ daily lives and “common sense” (

Table 1. Some characteristics of the axes that, when combined, can lead to neoliberal authoritarianism.

Conservative-Moral Axis	Political Axis	Labor Axis
Family-oriented role and politicization of religion	In line with far-right parties and their security-focused discourse on immigration and belligerence on social media	Conversion of the worker into a self-employed entrepreneur and the role of meritocracy
Alliance between neoliberalism and neoconservatism	Cultural nationalism that shifts the focus away from economic issues	Anthropological mutation: from the subject-who-works to the subject-who-lives-to-work
Expansion of Hayek’s “protected personal sphere”	Constant threat of a “common enemy” that justifies the Security State	Subject of performance, “entrepreneur of oneself”, doomed to excess (always more)
The welfare state is replaced by the nuclear family (Western-Eurocentric)	Scapegoats: Muslims, immigrants, feminism, and the radical left (communism)	Dissolution of time and space: the boundaries between work and leisure are blurred (you work at home; you are like at home at work)
Religious politicization: the new spirit of capitalism (Weber) reflected in religious activism, mainly through Evangelical neo-Pentecostal doctrines	Belligerent cyberpolitics on social media: trolling and politically incorrect discourse, fake news, conspiracy theories, memes associated with the American alt-right	Only productive work, not reproductive work
		Meritocracy: “government of the winners” linked to Foucault’s idea of the “entrepreneur of oneself,” where freedom and autonomy go hand in hand with the demands of performance, flexibility, and adaptability. A supposedly post-prejudice state in which one’s fortune depends exclusively on one’s own effort and ability, so that failure is the result of personal inadequacy rather than structural injustices (Bay-Cheng et al. 2015)
		Relationship with the Just World Theory (Lerner 1980) and the System Justification Theory (Jost et al. 2004)

).

When conceptualized in this manner, it can be posited that the traditional dimensions measured in the RWA (Authoritarian Aggression, Authoritarian Submission, and Conventionalism) can be inscribed within the intersections of authoritarianism with the neoliberal economic model. Consequently, it is plausible to work with such dimensions of authoritarianism and others that are more specific to neoliberalism, especially in terms of their influence on the labor axis. This theoretical framing of our current context raises important questions about how the classic paradigm of authoritarianism manifests today in neoliberal societies. Hence, to the altemeyerian covariation, we could add the effect that Neoliberalism has on it. In other words, is there any relation between Authoritarian Aggression, Authoritarian Submission, and Conventionalism with Neoliberalism? This finding aligns with the observations made by Ipar (2018) who previously notedthe emergence of a shift “in the trend whereby the old spirit of neoliberalism (multicultural, individualistic, with a primacy of economic rationality)” is “mutating into authoritarian, subjective, and cultural forms” (p. 847).

Therefore, the general objective of the present study is to construct and validate an instrument to measure authoritarian attitudes as they relate to neoliberalism, named the Neoliberal Authoritarianism Scale. For pragmatic reasons, the focus of this first approach is on the population residing in Spain, which implies a very concrete social and historical context. The specific objectives are as follows:

• Integrate the four dimensions of neoliberal authoritarianism into a single scale, elaborating items updated to the present time.
• Determine the validity and internal reliability of the instrument, as well as the adjustment of the suggested four-dimensional model (composed of the dimensions Authoritarian Aggression, Authoritarian Submission, Conventionalism, and Neoliberalism) through the application of the instrument to a sample obtained from the general population residing in Spain.
• Propose adjustments to the instrument based on the results obtained.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

The research methodology adheres to a quantitative approach, following a cross-sectional design. Due to the need to incorporate neoliberalism in the measurement of current authoritarianism, it was decided to develop a completely new scale, the Neoliberal Authoritarianism Scale, taking into account the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWA) by Altemeyer (1981), since it is the most widely accepted scale for measuring authoritarianism among researchers. Accordingly, Altemeyer’s three original dimensions and their conceptualization have been maintained, although the items included have been updated for their adaptation to the actual historical context. Similarly, a new dimension, characterized as Neoliberalism, has been incorporated with its corresponding items.

As socio-demographic variables, age, gender, profession, self-perceived political orientation, and professed religion or belief were considered.

2.2. Participants

The sample included a general population over 18 years old with residence in Spain. These two parameters were the only inclusion criteria for the research. A non-probabilistic (theory-driven) “chain” or “snowball” sampling was carried out, where the initial group of selected participants recruited new ones among their networks of friends, relatives, or acquaintances.

A total of 325 subjects took part in the study, with 93 subjects participating in the exploratory phase and 232 subjects participating in the confirmatory phase.

Regarding the exploratory phase, the sample comprised 93 participants over the age of 18 from the general Spanish population, with ages ranging from 19 to 73 (X = 45.85; SD = 14.697). With respect to gender distribution, 45.2% of the sample consisted of women (n = 42), compared to 54.8% of men (n = 51). The majority of the subjects were of Spanish nationality, constituting 94.6% of the total sample. The remaining 5.4% of subjects hailed from various European countries.

With respect to political orientation, the predominant choice was center (37.6%), followed by center-left and left, with 24.7% each. The center-right option accounted for 8.6% of the total, with the lowest percentages allocated to the far left (2.2%), right (1.1%), and far right (1.1%). A significant proportion of the sample identified as atheist (55.9%), with a notable number also identifying as Catholic (36.6%). A mere 2.2% of subjects identified as agnostic, while the remaining 5.4% fell into the Other category.

In the subsequent confirmatory phase, the sample of 232 participants exhibited an age range between 18 and 81 years old (X = 38.34; SD = 13.141). Regarding the gender distribution, 51.7% of the sample consisted of women (n = 120), compared to 38.8% of men (n = 90), and 0.4% identified as non-binary (n = 1). The remaining 9.1% (n = 21) did not report a specific gender (Other).

In terms of political orientation, the most frequently chosen options were left (28.3%), center-left (25.5%), and center (25.5%). The center-right option received 11.3% and the right 7.1%. Although there was a small representation of the far-left (2.4%), there were no participants in the sample who chose the far-right option. Similarly, the majority of the declared religion or belief was Catholic (32.3%). This was followed by individuals who defined themselves as atheists (29.7%) and agnostics (17.2%). About 4.3% of the participants chose the Evangelical religion and 0.9% chose Islam. The remaining 15.5% chose Other.

Regarding nationality, most participants chose Spanish nationality (68.5%, n = 159), followed by 17.2% of individuals belonging to various Latin American countries (n = 40). The rest of the sample belonged to European countries other than Spain (3.9%) and to other geographical locations (10.3%).

As for the distribution by profession, although there is some variability, the largest number of participants is clustered in the category of students (n = 33), marketing and business professionals (n = 23), professionals in education (n = 21) and psychology (n = 21), engineers, technicians, and professionals in the technology sector (n = 17), civil servants and administrators (n = 16), veterinarians (n = 12), and health professionals (n = 7).

2.3. Instrument

The Neoliberal Authoritarianism Scale has undergone a rigorous development following the guidelines for test construction outlined by Muñiz and Fonseca-Pedrero (2019). We decided to use a Likert-type measure with 5 response options, ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree, with an intermediate option (3), since the “neutral” positioning of the respondents is relevant regarding the topic addressed.

Through the literature that was gathered, 40 statements or items were preliminarily constructed in accordance with the basic principles of representativeness, relevance, simplicity, diversity, clarity, and comprehensibility (Muñiz et al. 2005). These were distributed in alignment with the four hypothesized dimensions:

• Authoritarian Aggression: the tendency to cause harm (physical and/or psychological) to those sanctioned by the authorities perceived as legitimate and who belong to the exogroup.
• Authoritarian Submission: subordination to the rules dictated by the authorities perceived as legitimate.
• Conventionalism: acceptance of and commitment to conventional social values and norms accepted by society and endorsed by the established authorities.
• Neoliberalism: tendency to accept economic policies of market deregulation and to adopt meritocratic attitudes.

The Neoliberalism dimension was conceptualized with two key aspects of its functioning in mind: (1) at the macro level, its promotion of non-intervention by the state and the destruction of its social function, privatization, and market deregulation, together with social cuts, euphemistically called austerity policies; and (2) at the micro level, its effect on the individual and their subjectivity, exemplified in the Foucauldian self-entrepreneur, the adoption of meritocratic attitudes, and the belief in a just world.

An inter-judge phase was carried out to assess the content validity of the items. A total of five researchers with expertise in the subject area were selected to rate the relevance, uniqueness, and significance of each item on a scale of 0 to 5 (Quiroz 2011). These aspects were collectively assessed, with the accuracy of each statement serving as the criterion for measuring the concept of neoliberal authoritarianism, as outlined in the theoretical framework. In a similar vein, each expert evaluated the items based on the quality and appropriateness of the statements, considering their use in the general Spanish population. This evaluation considered diversity in terms of cultural background and socioeconomic and educational level. After this review, 18 items were selected to compose the final version of the scale.

2.4. Procedure

The Neoliberal Authoritarianism Scale was administered online using the Question-Pro platform. The duration of the survey was around 10 min.

To avoid generating response bias, the scale was labeled the Socio-political Attitudes Scale for administration to the population. Similarly, the data were collected anonymously and exclusively for research purposes, as indicated to the participants at the beginning of the form, adjusted to the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association (2010).

2.5. Data Analysis

The 18 selected items were tested to determine the reliability and construct validity of the instrument. SPSS 25.0 and JASP 0.19.2.0 statistical analysis programs were used. An Exploratory Factor Analysis followed by a Confirmatory Factor Analysis was performed to determine the underlying structure and confirm the hypothesized dimensions or factors (Authoritarian Aggression, Conventionalism, Neoliberalism, and Authoritarian Submission).

Regarding the Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), the principal component extraction method and an oblique rotation (Oblimin) were selected. Through a review of the literature, Lloret-Segura et al. (2014) determined a shift from a majority use of orthogonal rotation (specifically Varimax) to a more profuse use of oblique rotation. Some of the reasons given for such a change were due to the fact that social science phenomena are usually somewhat interrelated, so forcing an orthogonal rotation could mean moving away from reality.

In the case of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), a set of specific indicators was selected to test the fit of the model (Loehlin 1992). Several indices were used in the present study, such as CFI (Comparative Fit Index), TLI (Tucker–Lewis Index), IFI (Incremental Fit Index), GFI (Goodness of Fit Index), RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), SRMR (Standardized Root Mean Square Residual), AVE (Average Variance Extracted), and HTMT (Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio). Analogously, and because Chi-square (χ²) is very sensitive to sample size (Jöreskog and Sörbom 1993), the ratio between Chi-square and degrees of freedom (χ²/df) was estimated, where values lower than 3 are considered acceptable (Schermelleh-Engel et al. 2003). CFI, TLI, IFI, and GFI indices with values above 0.90 would indicate a good model fit, while the RMSEA and SRMR values should be equal to or below 0.06. The convergent validity indicator AVE, in turn, should yield a result ≥0.50, while the discriminant validity provided by the HTMT index should have a value ≤0.90.

Regarding the accuracy of the scores, reliability was estimated using McDonald’s Omega coefficient. Additionally, an item-factor and inter-factor correlation analysis was carried out, as well as a hierarchical cluster analysis to observe the way in which the participants’ scores were grouped.

3. Results

3.1. Exploratory Factor Analysis

In the sample of 93 participants, the adequacy of the data for the factor analysis was tested using the Kaiser, Meyer, and Olkin (KMO) test and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. A coefficient of 0.895 was obtained in the KMO test, confirming satisfactory adequacy (>0.80). Analogously, Barlett’s test of sphericity allowed rejecting the null hypothesis (p = 0.000), proving the existence of relationships between the variables included in the instrument.

In this sense, the presence of the four hypothesized factors was confirmed, with a total explained variance of 64.586% (

Table 2. Variance explained by the four factors (EFA).

Component	% Variance	% Accumulate Variance
Authoritarian Aggression	41.688	41.688
Conventionalism	9.845	51.534
Neoliberalism	7.382	58.916
Authoritarian Submission	5.670	64.586

).

It can be observed that the first component, Authoritarian Aggression, explains 41.688% of the accumulated variance. The second component, Conventionalism, is responsible for 9.845%, while the third component, Neoliberalism, and the fourth, Authoritarian Submission, contribute 7.382% and 5.670% of the total variance explained, respectively.

Analogously, the obliquely rotated factor solution revealed a factor loading above the criterion for inclusion of the items in each factor (≥0.40). Therefore, in each dimension, the items present weights above 0.40 in all cases.

Table 3. Items of the Neoliberal Authoritarianism Scale, distributed by dimensions.

Item	Authoritarian Aggression	Conventionalism	Neoliberalism	Authoritarian Submission
1. People live in a world where everyone, usually, gets what they deserve.	−0.145	0.312	0.795	−0.081
2. Good morals are only possible through religious education, which should be taught in every school.	0.083	0.743	−0.045	0.130
3. I believe that the current political “benevolence” is impeding the application of harsher but necessary measures to maintain social order.	0.578	0.113	0.225	0.231
4. Parents should be strict with their children to ensure they comply to the rules.	0.151	−0.016	−0.180	0.842
5. State subsidies make people lazy and careless.	0.492	−0.055	0.240	0.293
6. Most of the MENAs (Unaccompanied Foreign Minors) who arrive in our country are involved in delinquency.	0.606	0.351	0.041	0.085
7. Everything was easier before globalization.	−0.225	0.704	0.111	0.057
8. To help our country’s economy, the State should remove barriers to the free movement of the markets.	0.076	−0.254	0.747	0.161
9. Only the union between a man and a woman should be called marriage.	0.196	0.786	0.043	−0.088
10. I am in favor of multiculturalism (the presence of diverse cultures) in our country.	0.252	0.687	−0.139	0.140
11. Obedience and respect for authority are the fundamental pillars of children’s education.	−0.003	0.160	0.034	0.774
12. Too many politicians focus on issues such as gender identity and forget about the labor issue that really concerns me.	0.557	0.182	0.176	0.122
13. Those who oppose the authorities should be punished, since they destabilize the social order.	−0.065	0.018	0.198	0.698
14. I am in favor of austerity measures (reduction in public spending).	0.398	−0.011	0.624	−0.132
15. The authorities should restrict more severely the entrance of foreigners to our country, especially in this period of crisis.	0.600	0.291	0.192	0.055
16. Privatized sectors are always of higher quality, because by competing with other sectors, they improve their products and services.	0.236	0.124	0.515	0.054
17. I am in favor of implementing the death penalty for certain crimes.	0.820	−0.086	−0.061	0.034
18. What makes people different from each other is their ability to strive to achieve their goals.	0.025	−0.007	0.530	0.272

presents the list of scale items with their corresponding factor loadings.

In this sense, items 3, 5, 6, 12, 15, and 17 constituted the Authoritarian Aggression dimension; items 4, 11, and 13 formed the Authoritarian Submission dimension; items 2, 7, 9, and 10 comprised the Conventionalism factor. Finally, items 1, 8, 14, 16, and 18 represented the Neoliberalism dimension, thereby signifying the two aspects that are characteristic of this economic system: macro-level (items 8, 14, and 16) and micro-level (items 1 and 18).

In order to ascertain the reliability of the scores, it is imperative to conduct a reliability estimation. This objective can be achieved through a variety of strategies (Muñiz 2018), with one of the most prevalent and widely employed being Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient. However, the reliability of the scale will be assessed using an additional estimate based on McDonald’s Omega, which is not affected by the number of items, in contrast to Cronbach’s Alpha (Roco-Videla et al. 2024). In this regard, high reliability was obtained (α = 0.915, ω = 0.918), thus providing statistical reliability guarantees for application in a larger sample. Concerning each factor, the reliability indices were as follows: α = 0.782, ω = 0.784 for Neoliberalism; α = 0.794, ω = 0.804 for Conventionalism; α = 0.888, ω = 0.889 for Authoritarian Aggression; and α = 0.761, ω = 0.777 for Authoritarian Submission.

3.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Due to the lack of normality (p = 0.029) in the sample of 232 participants, the estimator applied was Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS), an estimator based on the matrix of polychoric correlations, which does not assume a linear relationship.

A factorial model was constructed using the JASP program (Figure 1), which illustrates the item-factor and inter-factor correlations.

The model fit was examined using the aforementioned indexes, that is, the χ²/df value, CFI, TLI, IFI, GFI, RMSEA, SRMR, AVE, and HTMT.

The proposed factorial model is significant at a level of p < 0.001. The fit test through the χ²/df division gives a value of 1.92, which indicates a good fit (<3) (

Table 4. Chi-square goodness of fit.

Model	χ2	df	p
Base model	3336.037	153
Factorial model	247.268	129	<0.001

).

Regarding the rest of the fit indicators, the confirmatory factor analysis revealed that the four-factor model presented an adequate fit (CFI = 0.993; TLI = 0.992; IFI = 0.993; GFI = 0.986; RMSEA = 0.041; SRMR = 0.063) (

Table 5. Coefficients obtained in the CFA.

CFI	TLI	IFI	GFI	RMSEA	SRMR
0.993	0.992	0.993	0.986	0.041	0.063

), although the SRMR value is slightly higher than 0.60.

In terms of convergent validity, the factors Neoliberalism (AVE = 0.44) and Conventionalism (AVE = 0.41) offer values below 0.50, indicating lower convergent validity. The factors Authoritarian Aggression (AVE = 0.52) and Authoritarian Submission (AVE = 0.52) both offer convergent values above 0.50.

As for discriminant validity, the results are presented in

Table 6. Discriminant validity of CFA.

	Authoritarian Aggression	Neoliberalism	Conventionalism	Authoritarian Submission
Authoritarian Aggression	1.000	-	-	-
Neoliberalism	0.865	1.000	-	-
Conventionalism	0.695	0.447	1.000	-
Authoritarian Submission	0.700	0.718	0.557	1.000

.

All values are below 0.90. Therefore, the four factors have acceptable discriminant validity.

Similarly, the weights of the items obtained in each dimension were assessed in the CFA, as well as the relationship between each dimension (since a non-orthogonal model was used). In addition, the percentage of variance explained by each dimension regarding the items included in it has also been calculated. Thus, it has been observed that:

• The weights corresponding to each dimension are over 0.40 in every item except item 7, which belongs to the Conventionalism dimension. All are significant (p < 0.001) (see

  Table 7. R2 value and weights of the items in each factor.

  Factor	Item	Factor Loading	R2
  Authoritarian Aggression	3	0.669	0.448
  	5	0.849	0.721
  	6	0.728	0.530
  	12	0.727	0.528
  	15	0.736	0.541
  	17	0.610	0.372
  Neoliberalism	1	0.498	0.248
  	8	0.554	0.307
  	14	0.785	0.616
  	16	0.768	0.590
  	18	0.669	0.447
  Authoritarian Submission	4	0.641	0.411
  	11	0.875	0.765
  	13	0.629	0.396
  Conventionalism	2	0.675	0.456
  	7	0.379	0.144
  	9	0.875	0.765
  	10	0.535	0.286

  Note. p-value < 0.001.

  ).
• The mean R-Squared for each dimension is more than 40%. Specifically, it is 52% in Authoritarian Aggression, 44% in Neoliberalism, 52% in Authoritarian Submission, and 41% in Conventionalism (see Table 7).
• All dimensions are positively and significantly related (p < 0.001) (see

  Table 8. Covariance between factors.

  	Authoritarian Aggression	Neoliberalism	Conventionalism	Authoritarian Submission
  Authoritarian Aggression	-	0.887	0.771	0.720
  Neoliberalism	0.887	-	0.676	0.723
  Conventionalism	0.771	0.676	-	0.636
  Authoritarian Submission	0.720	0.723	0.636	-

  Note. p-value < 0.001.

  ).

3.3. Correlation Analysis

Correlation analyses were conducted between items and their corresponding factors, as well as between factors, to observe, for each case, the degree of association or interdependence. The Spearman coefficient (with values between −1 and 1) was chosen as a measure of correlation due to the absence of normality.

3.3.1. Correlation Between Factors

Regarding the correlation between factors, the data reveal positive correlations between the four dimensions with a significance level of p < 0.001 (

Table 9. Correlations between scale factors.

	Authoritarian Aggression	Authoritarian Submission	Conventionalism	Neoliberalism
Authoritarian Aggression	-	0.558	0.536	0.701
Authoritarian Submission	0.558	-	0.396	0.533
Conventionalism	0.536	0.396	-	0.411
Neoliberalism	0.701	0.533	0.411	-

Note. p-value < 0.001.

).

Based on the results obtained, it can be observed that the Conventionalism factor has the lowest correlation with the rest of the hypothesized factors. On the other hand, it should be noted that the Neoliberalism dimension has the highest correlation with the Authoritarian Aggression dimension.

3.3.2. Item-Factor Correlation

The item–factor correlations have been shown to be positive and significant between each factor and its respective items, with a p < 0.001 (

Table 10. Scale item–factor correlations.

Factor	Item	Correlation
Authoritarian Aggression	3	0.697
	5	0.777
	6	0.741
	12	0.762
	15	0.751
	17	0.629
Neoliberalism	1	0.610
	8	0.635
	14	0.769
	16	0.771
	18	0.721
Authoritarian Submission	4	0.805
	11	0.850
	13	0.731
Conventionalism	2	0.536
	7	0.678
	9	0.709
	10	0.611

Note. p-value < 0.001.

).

3.4. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis

Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to observe the possible groupings generated within the dataset. Ward’s link was applied as the method of grouping between clusters, and the squared Euclidean distance was selected as the interval.

This analysis revealed the clustering of the data into three groups, as shown in

Table 11. Clustering of scores and means of each item/group.

Items	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
Group 1	2.63	2.08	3.69	3.07	3.66	2.86	3.06	3.21	2.79
Group 2	2.20	1.36	3.34	2.96	2.51	2.28	2.39	2.98	1.24
Group 3	1.81	1.09	1.89	2.09	1.30	1.16	2.21	2.00	1.04
Total	2.20	1.49	2.94	2.69	2.44	2.06	2.53	2.71	1.64
Items	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Group 1	2.15	3.82	4.27	3.38	3.72	3.52	3.52	3.25	4.03
Group 2	1.74	3.09	3.50	2.79	2.99	2.77	2.64	2.05	3.09
Group 3	1.25	2.01	2.30	2.05	1.86	1.52	1.41	1.25	2.12
Total	1.69	2.94	3.31	2.71	2.82	2.56	2.48	2.14	3.04

.

Similarly, it was intended to observe the distribution of these groups in relation to the four hypothetical dimensions of neoliberal authoritarianism. For this purpose, a factor analysis was carried out with two fixed extraction factors in order to obtain a distribution on an XY coordinate axis. On the one hand, a grouping of scores was observed around an axis formed by Authoritarian Aggression, Authoritarian Submission, and Neoliberalism. On the other hand, a clustering corresponding only to the Conventionalism dimension was found, together with an item belonging to the Aggression dimension, which saturates with greater weight, together with the four items of Conventionalism already established. This is item 6, Most of the MENAs (Unaccompanied Foreign Minors) who arrive in our country are involved in delinquency. In this sense, it can be said that the axis of Conventionalism includes the particular concern for the situation of minors, mainly Moroccans, who arrive in Spain and who are often associated with the Muslim religion (whether they are believers or not). A scatter plot was developed to illustrate this distribution (Figure 2).

This graphic suggests that while some people maintain a directly proportional relation between the four dimensions, higher levels of Conventionalism do not necessarily go hand in hand with higher levels of Neoliberalism, Aggression, and Submission. This behavior is observed in Groups 1 and 2, with Group 1 showing the greatest dispersion. On the other hand, Group 3 shows this directly proportional relation between the four dimensions, in this case indicating low values in all of them.

3.5. Reliability Analysis

An overall reliability of ω = 0.893 was obtained. For each factor, the reliability indexes were ω = 0.760 for Neoliberalism, ω = 0.621 for Conventionalism, ω = 0.821 for Authoritarian Aggression, and ω = 0.732 for Authoritarian Submission.

Thus, although the overall reliability can be considered high, it is insufficient for the Conventionalism dimension. Considering that the Omega estimator is actually a measure of reliability for unidimensional scales, the high value of the overall reliability should be understood as a consequence of the correlation between the items of the Conventionalism dimension and the remaining items that are part of the scale but, taken independently, do not correctly define this factor.

In order to shed light on this issue, the discrimination coefficients of the items were calculated to observe the extent to which they effectively discriminate, or do not discriminate, each range of scores on the scale. Results below 0.39 indicate the need to revise the item (

Table 12. Discrimination analysis for the Neoliberal Authoritarianism Scale (EAN).

Reactive	Discrimination Coefficient
R_1	0.393
R_2	0.404
R_3	0.582
R_4	0.461
R_5	0.720
R_6	0.588
R_7	0.255
R_8	0.457
R_9	0.512
R_10	0.316
R_11	0.625
R_12	0.615
R_13	0.466
R_14	0.645
R_15	0.622
R_16	0.606
R_17	0.470
R_18	0.563

).

The analysis carried out revealed the existence of two items with values below 0.39, both of which belong to the Conventionalism dimension. Therefore, these are two items that need to be reviewed and reformulated. Similarly, it should be noted that item 1, belonging to the Neoliberalism dimension, although within the limit (0.393), is the only one below 0.40, which indicates less precision in its discriminatory power.

Consequently, a new reliability analysis was carried out, eliminating the items with low discriminant power, below 0.39 (items 7 and 10). By including these items only in the Conventionalism dimension, only the reliability of the modified and total dimensions was tested. At this point, the overall reliability implied a value of ω = 0.895 and a value of ω = 0.644 for Conventionalism. Thus, the reliability of Conventionalism, while still not at an acceptable level, has improved slightly. However, eliminating two items in this dimension would reduce the number of items conceptualized for this factor by half, which could be unbalanced in relation to other dimensions, such as Authoritarian Aggression (composed of six items).

4. Discussion

The aim of this research involved the development and validation of an instrument to measure authoritarian attitudes in neoliberalism, the Neoliberal Authoritarianism Scale, through the analysis of its psychometric properties and its factorial structure. This scale is based on Altemeyer’s Right Wing Authoritarianism Scale (Altemeyer 1981, 1988) and was developed with the aim of advancing the study of authoritarianism, considering the importance that the neoliberal economic system has in the configuration of our common sense and in the imposition of living conditions in accordance with its functioning, and which seems to find support in the current political panorama through antidemocratic policies defended by far-right parties on the rise (Dardot and Laval 2019; del Campo 2023; Merchand 2020; Saidel 2023; Wegelin and Alquezar 2021).

The factorial analyses that have been carried out reveal a structure formed by four factors, showing coherence from a theoretical perspective. Hence, Authoritarian Aggression, Authoritarian Submission, Conventionalism, and Neoliberalism seem to maintain a relationship among themselves, following the conceptualization provided by Altemeyer for the first three factors, but with the inclusion of a fourth factor that offers a new perspective for their interpretation.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) yielded an adequate model fit, with critical fit indexes including a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.993, a Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.992, a Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.041, and a Standard Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) of 0.063. These indices point at an overall reliability of ω = 0.893, suggesting adequate internal consistency within the model. However, the reliability of the Conventionalism dimension was found to be diminished (ω = 0.621) in comparison to the values obtained in the pilot phase (N = 93), thereby demonstrating its inadequacy. The underlying cause of this phenomenon can be attributed to the low discrimination coefficients exhibited by items 7 (Everything was easier before globalization) and 10 (I am in favor of multiculturalism [the presence of diverse cultures] in our country), both of which are affiliated with this dimension. One potential explanation for this phenomenon lies in the conceptualization of the categories involved. During the development of the items, there was a connection between the issues of globalization and multiculturalism with the discourse of the neoliberal far right and its culturalist and Islamophobic nationalism. This is illustrated by the discourse they use on the need to recover and reinforce traditions in the face of “Muslim invaders”. This conceptualization appears to be valid, as evidenced by the observation that item 6 (concerning unaccompanied foreign minors) demonstrated an association with the Conventionalism factor in the hierarchical cluster analysis.

However, it is worthwhile to inquire into the reasons behind the observed decline in the reliability of the Conventionalism dimension within the broader sample of subjects (N = 232), while the other three factors demonstrated comparable levels of reliability. When employed at a larger scale, items that lack sufficient discrimination may diminish their capacity to differentiate between subjects who exhibit high scores on the measured construct and those who exhibit low scores. This phenomenon may occur due to a consensus, albeit with nuances, among diverse population sectors on certain issues (e.g., globalization and multiculturalism). For instance, individuals with left-wing and right-wing political leanings may both express support for multiculturalism in principle. However, right-wing individuals tend to prioritize the preservation of their own cultural identity, often rejecting other cultural groups, as evidenced by previous research (Barni et al. 2020; Peresman et al. 2021). This is a form of multiculturalism that conveys an affirmative response, although with restrictions. In the absence of specification regarding the cultures to which the item refers, the recipient may interpret the message in a variety of ways, contingent on the social representations and frames of reference employed in their daily lives. A comparable phenomenon emerges in the context of globalization, as it is not overtly disapproved of by the most right-wing political factions when it is associated with the business world and commercial expansion.

The data revealed three trends that must be addressed: (1) the association between Neoliberalism and Authoritarian Aggression; (2) the association between Neoliberalism and Conventionalism; and (3) the lower correlation of Conventionalism with the other three dimensions.

(1) The Neoliberalism dimension shows its highest correlation with the Authoritarian Aggression dimension. This tendency was already visible in the distribution of the items for each factor. For some of them, the AFE showed a different disposition than initially hypothesized. This is the case, for example, for the item State subsidies make people lazy and careless, which, when constructing the items, was hypothesized as a measure of neoliberalism, and yet showed a higher factor loading in Authoritarian Aggression. In this sense, it appears that the willingness to accept policies of market deregulation, privatization, and the destruction of the welfare state resonates with attitudes of aggression toward those perceived as other, outside the ingroup. This is consistent with the very dynamics of neoliberalism, through its meritocratic principles and its belief in a just world, as Lerner (1980) has argued, which, expressed in the phrase “homo homini lupus”, generalizes the competitiveness of the business model to the social whole and feeds on the fear that the creation of external threats to the ingroup (and to the self) promotes. Such findings are consistent with the growing literature on neoliberal authoritarianism (Gallo 2022), which derives from the intertwining of authoritarian state policies and neoliberal reforms in an era of ongoing economic and democratic governance crises (Bruff and Tansel 2020). From a social psychological approach, this resonates with the correlation found by various authors between individualistic and materialistic values characteristic of meritocracy with social dominance and authoritarianism (Duriez and Van Hiel 2002; Son Hing et al. 2007; Wilson 2003), all acting as predictors of intergroup prejudice (Lázaro et al. 2016).

(2) The Neoliberalism dimension has the lowest correlation with the Conventionalism dimension. It seems that the adoption of neoliberal policies is not necessarily followed by the acceptance of and commitment to conventional social values and norms that are accepted by society and recognized as legitimate by the established authorities. This relationship between Neoliberalism and Conventionalism is interesting because it is introduced into the debate about the role that religion has historically played in the adoption of capitalism. In this sense, it is worth considering the hypothesis already stated by Max Weber ([1904] 2012), which “links Protestantism, through its effects on psychology, with the origins of capitalism” (Henrich 2022, p. 592), and which would imply considering an alignment between conservatism and neoliberalism that is more evident in countries with a Protestant tradition.

Therefore, in light of what has been revealed by various authors, it could be possible to hypothesize whether the low levels of correlation between Conventionalism and Neoliberalism in the sample of the present study are, to some extent, due to the predominant Catholic tradition in Spain, and whether this result would change if the majority religion were derived from Protestantism, as is currently the case, for example, in some Latin American countries where evangelicalism is highly politicized and shows great affinity with neoliberal policies, in part because many of the evangelical churches originate in the United States (Cabezas and Vega 2022, p. 121).

In addition, it is pertinent to inquire whether the concept of supposed “progress” that the bourgeois revolution and capitalism brought to break the chains of the old feudalism and aristocracy have also functioned by dissociating neoliberal ideas from a certain traditionalist imaginary (as the individuals more aligned with traditional values rejected the ideas of change of the incipient bourgeoisie). As such, we should consider the deterritorializations and reterritorializations, in Deleuze’s terms, that capitalism and its latest phase, neoliberalism, have produced on the desires “liberated” from the traditionalist constraints of the epochs preceding its expansion.

(3) The Conventionalism dimension has the lowest correlation with the other three dimensions. This tendency is observed both when analyzing the correlations between the factors and when clustering the scores of the participants. These results continue the debate on the association between authoritarianism and conservatism to the degree that the latter defends conventional values. Thus, they are consistent with Altemeyer’s (1996) own statement that “while people who score high on right-wing authoritarianism tend to be conservative, the reverse is not necessarily true”. For this reason, not all individuals who scored highly on Conventionalism in the sample of the present study have high scores on Authoritarian Aggression, Authoritarian Submission, and Neoliberalism, as some of them have similar scores on these three dimensions as other individuals with lower levels of Conventionalism.

Nevertheless, the association between authoritarianism and conservatism remains a subject of analysis, as Adorno et al. ([1950] 2006) affirm “the connection between these two ideologies [conservative and authoritarian] and the difficulty of separating them” (p. 180). Thus, more or less conventional, neoliberal authoritarian movements will adopt a certain conservatism in order to defend hierarchical class relations and the statu quo.

Therefore, these three trends that emerge from the data analysis seem to offer certain considerations that should be weighed when making a more accurate interpretation of the current authoritarianism.

On the other hand, regarding the most expected association between the Aggression and Submission dimensions, it follows the line of Passini (2008), who concludes that people who support aggression against deviance implicitly demand their submission to it, meaning that authoritarian submission and authoritarian aggression are two sides of the same coin. This understanding of how authoritarianism functions is possible when its multidimensionality is considered.

In this sense, and in relation to the aforementioned statement, it is important to note that the elaborated Neoliberal Authoritarianism Scale continues to maintain multidimensionality. This decision has been defended by various authors for its greater adequacy with respect to the original unidimensional conception of Altemeyer’s scale (Duckitt and Bizumic 2013), as it could avoid problems of overlap between items. Consequently, the instrument examined in this study provides sufficient psychometric guarantees and can contribute to broadening and deepening the study of authoritarianism as it manifests in neoliberal Western societies.

Neoliberalism has become deeply entrenched in public consciousness in contemporary Western societies, as Azevedo et al. (2019) have noted. This phenomenon has resulted in the internalization of a set of rules that govern market functioning and serve as guidelines for behavior in various spheres of life, including the personal and family domains, which are not exclusively economic in nature. Consequently, the concept of “common sense” is evaluated in relation to the norms of neoliberal capitalism. Hence, any examination of authoritarianism must consider the subjectivizing influence of neoliberalism, which refers to the manifestation of authoritarian dispositions within a neoliberal subject. Therefore, the incorporation of the neoliberalism dimension into the measure of authoritarianism would indeed be justified.

The present instrument endeavors to fulfill this function by studying the neoliberal intersection with authoritarianism. This research initiative, in its nascent stage, is being developed in a manner that mirrors the pace of the social phenomenon under study.

The limitations of the research are primarily rooted in the sample size. It is important to note that this study is preliminary, and the inclusion of a larger number of participants would have enhanced the reliability of the results. For instance, the inclusion of a wider range of individuals from all political orientation spectrums, which appear to be skewed to the left in the test sample, would have provided a more comprehensive representation. Additionally, the inclusion of participants from different age groups would have facilitated more robust comparisons.

A notable constraint pertains to the methodological inadequacies identified during the scale validation procedure. Specifically, the Conventionalism dimension exhibited an unsatisfactory reliability value. The underlying cause of this finding can be explained by the low discrimination coefficients of item 7 (Everything was easier before globalization) and item 10 (I am in favor of multiculturalism (the presence of diverse cultures) in our country), both of which belong to the aforementioned dimension. This phenomenon can be attributed to the conceptualization process of the categories. During the item development stage, an association was identified between globalization/multiculturalism and the discourse of the neoliberal far-right, characterized by a certain chauvinist protectionism and strong Islamophobia (i.e., the idea that traditions should be preserved in the face of invaders). This conceptualization appears to have merit, considering that item 6 (referring to the MENAs) was indeed associated with the Conventionalism factor in the hierarchical cluster analysis. However, further investigation is necessary to ascertain the underlying reasons for this association.

In light of the above, the continuation of the present study will be directed toward the refinement of the Neoliberal Authoritarianism Scale. In a similar vein, cross-validation with an additional sample will facilitate more precise evaluation of the model’s goodness of fit. Furthermore, the potential for conducting comparative studies with populations from diverse international settings is a valuable avenue for expanding the study’s scope and enhancing its generalizability.

Psychology plays a significant role in explaining certain micropolitical aspects of the functioning of our societies. Consequently, psychology must not adopt an abstract and unrealistic stance of neutrality, as this would merely serve to reinforce the individualism characteristic of neoliberalism and its authoritarian tendencies. The objective of the intervention should not be to facilitate the subject’s adaptation to the imposed conditions, but rather to assist them in identifying and addressing the underlying causes of their discomfort. Conversely, psychology will perpetuate the promotion of a market for the well-being of the self that aligns with the principles of meritocracy. This shift in responsibility for the precariousness and inequality engendered by the system will be transferred to individuals. Consequently, this will foster the development of numerous mental health problems and lead to a retreat into authoritarian attitudes based on a belief in a just world and the justification of such a system.

A close examination reveals a multifaceted relationship among psychology, politics, and economics. François Lyotard posited that a political economy is predicated on a libidinal economy, that is, productive modes (such as the neoliberal economic model) are rooted in a particular conception of desire. However, the neoliberalism that operates on such desire, instead of facilitating its realization, mistreats it and causes suffering, as Fernández-Savater (2024) points out. This suggests a perpetuation of neoliberalism not solely driven by the persuasiveness of its ideological discourse, but rather by its integration into the quotidian experiences of individuals, encompassing both material (e.g., consumption) and non-material aspects (e.g., personal fulfillment, growth, authenticity, and freedom). This phenomenon, as suggested by Amigot and Martínez (2022) and as evidenced by the habits of everyday life, can be understood as the result of a long-standing and pervasive influence that has managed to secure its hegemonic position in society, as would be understood in Gramscian terms.

Considering these reflections, it is worthwhile to pose the same inquiry that Žižek (2012) previously put forward: are we destined to operate within the confines of hegemony, or is it possible, at least provisionally, to interrupt its mechanisms (p. 25)? To elucidate this inquiry, psychology must engage in the debate concerning the possibility of constructing new non-neoliberal subjectivities, a process that would entail a decolonization of the colonial-capitalistic unconscious, as Rolnik (2019) suggested. Hence, the principle of capitalist reality and the functioning of desire in contemporary societies are of particular significance.

The fundamental issue at hand is not the implementation of a specific psychological methodology for the purpose of engendering these transformations; rather, it is the emancipation of this methodology from the confines of its traditional role as an observer and its active involvement in the prevailing socio-political discourses. The potential for contribution to the development of alternatives is not derived from therapy, but rather from its comprehensive understanding of identity, subjectivity, and attitudes. Psychologists should consider the ineffectiveness of covering up distress that highlights the flaws in the system with individualized therapies or psychotropic drugs. These solutions, while presenting an illusion of autonomy, ultimately fail to provide genuine independence. In this regard, it could be highly advantageous for the field of psychology to adopt novel approaches in addressing the issues that impact mental well-being. For instance, psychology could play an active role in promoting personal autonomy at the individual, relational, and occupational levels, thereby expanding beyond the scope of individualized consultations. To that end, it is imperative to engage with emergent movements, such as those pertaining to post-capitalism, which entail the following:

(1)

A statement of work autonomy through a reduction in bureaucracy. The central principle of this objective is to ensure that the connection between one’s desires and actions does not result in adverse consequences or emotional distress. This phenomenon aligns with a period of technological advancements that facilitate a reduction in work hours and the organization of personal lives around non-capitalist objectives, such as achieving a true work–life balance. This approach is likely to yield substantial benefits in terms of mental health.

(2)

An affirmation of personal autonomy that goes beyond the private and markedly individualistic idea of autonomy in neoliberalism, where the figure of the “other” disappears. It is necessary to build relational autonomy, as suggested by Palop (2019). This approach facilitates independence or uniqueness through the cultivation of healthy relationships with others, thus recognizing diversity and interdependence in existence. It demonstrates a proclivity to comprehend the notion of the “self” as defined by the “other,” thereby facilitating the reemergence of solidarity within the collective.

Psychologists who are informed and involved in this process could offer people not only personal psychological support but also tools to help them transcend their individual discomfort and connect it with social demands. The integration of theoretical frameworks with practical applications in the field of psychology holds the potential for significant social benefits. These benefits include (1) enhanced social awareness regarding individuals’ life circumstances and (2) the development of truly autonomous individuals who are less susceptible to learned helplessness, a phenomenon that is prevalent among the majority due to the precarious living conditions imposed by the system. As Ovejero (2015) contends, a new social psychology is imperative, one that is genuinely critical and emancipatory. To this end, the field of social psychology must continue to examine the questions raised by the Frankfurt School during the interwar period of the 20th century regarding authoritarianism, including the proposals of many other authors who have explored this issue in depth, also involving the empirical level (see Beierlein et al. 2014; Duckitt and Sibley 2010; Dunwoody and Funke 2016; Jonason and Webster 2010). This examination will serve as an exercise in critical theory, investigating the contemporary representations of authoritarian subjectivity and their connections to the conditions of existence imposed by neoliberalism.