The polarised arena of political psychology, has seen "authoritarianism" as long shorthand for Right-wing rigidity, such as blind obedience to tradition, aggression toward outsiders, and a craving for hierarchical order. But what if slapping the "authoritarian" tag on Left-wing extremism is not just sloppy, but scientifically misleading? A ground-breaking study from Serbia, published in Political Psychology, introduces the SLAV scale – a tool designed to measure so-called Left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) – and delivers a bombshell: These beliefs don't align with classic authoritarian traits. Instead, they capture radical anti-establishment fervour, prompting an urgent call to rethink the entire concept. As researchers Marija B. Petrović and Milica Ninković argue, ideological labelling like LWA might "hinder instead of help" our understanding, blurring lines between radicalism and true authoritarianism. In a post-communist context like Serbia, where Left-wing regimes once ruled with iron fists, this re-examination feels especially timely – and reveals why clinging to outdated models risks distorting how we view threats to democracy from all sides.
The Roots of the Debate: Right-Wing Bias in Authoritarianism Research
Authoritarianism, as classically defined, thrives on submission to authority, conventionalism, and out-group aggression, traits Theodor Adorno pinned on fascism's rise in the 1930s. Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) became the poster child: Conservatives valuing security and tradition over change. But whispers of a Left-wing mirror emerged, folks pushing conformity to progressive norms, moral absolutism on social justice, and aggression against "intolerant" foes. Enter LWA: A desire to topple hierarchies violently, reject traditions, demand state censorship of Right-wing speech, and dismantle capitalism.
Critics, however, have long dismissed LWA as a "myth" or "Loch Ness Monster," rare, unproven, and perhaps a conservative invention to whatabout away RWA. Bob Altemeyer, RWA's godfather, found Left-wing authoritarians "as rare as hen's teeth." Others argue scales conflate ideology with authoritarianism, leaning Right in items or ignoring cultural context. Recent U.S.-centric studies (e.g., Emory's 2021 work) claim LWA exists, predicting violence and sharing RWA's dogmatic core, but sceptics counter it's overblown or methodologically flawed, like double-barrelled questions mixing politics with personality.
The Serbian study flips the script by building from the ground up in a unique setting: Post-communist Serbia, scarred by Tito-era Leftism and recent democratic backsliding. Petrović and Ninković treat LWA as adopted beliefs, not innate traits, proposing four facets: antihierarchical aggression (e.g., "burn down the social order"), anticonventionalism (e.g., ban religious education), anticapitalist sentiments (e.g., abolish private property), and censorship of Right-wing ideas (e.g., limit media access in crises).
The SLAV Scale: Building and Testing a New Tool
Crafted across three studies (N=1,213), the SLAV (likely "Socialist Left-Wing Authoritarian Views" or similar) scale started with expert input from 20 Serbian psychologists and sociologists, pruning weak items. Study 2 (n=546, avg. age 51) validated its four-factor structure via social media recruits, refining "top-down censorship" to "censorship of Right-wing ideas" for precision. Study 3 (n=655, avg. age 45) probed links: High SLAV scorers showed political cynicism, conspiracy thinking, and views of capitalism as unjust, hallmarks of radicalism.
The kicker? SLAV weakly or negatively correlated with neutral authoritarianism measures (e.g., no link to authoritarian child-rearing; anticonventionalism tied to lower general authoritarianism). Antihierarchical aggression hinted at RWA-like aggression, but overall, SLAV captured "radical Leftist ideas" more than submission or conventionalism. In Serbia's history of Left-wing regimes, this suggests LWA scales snag anti-system zeal, not the obedience-craving core of classic authoritarianism.
Why Re-Examine? Implications and Broader Critiques
The SLAV findings echo global debates: LWA might be "real" in predicting violence or dogmatism (per Emory and Frontiers studies), but labelling it "authoritarian" muddies waters. Critics like Nilsson argue scales conflate ideology with traits, needing ideological controls to isolate "authoritarian" essence. In post-communist spots, LWA taps historical trauma, anti-capitalism as rebellion, not submission.
Re-examination matters: Mislabelling fuels polarisation,Right-wingers cry "both sides" without nuance, Leftists dismiss valid critiques as smears. Serbia's non-representative samples (social media, older skew) limit generalisability, but they highlight cultural specificity, LWA in the West might differ from Eastern Europe's communist hangover. Future work? Longitudinal studies, diverse cultures, and ideology-pure scales to clarify if LWA is authoritarianism's "Left mirror" or just extremism.
Petrović and Ninković nail it: The "authoritarian" label confuses poles; is RWA's opposite Left-liberalism, or LWA itself? By decoupling radical Left beliefs from classic traits, SLAV urges a rethink: Focus on shared threats like aggression and censorship, without ideological baggage. In our fractured world, that's not pedantry, it's progress toward spotting real authoritarian risks, Left or Right. The spectre haunting psychology isn't LWA, it's our rush to label without rigour. Time to evolve the framework, or risk missing the Leftist forest for the ideology trees.