The Psychology of Totalitarianism: Why People Obey Dictators

Picture yourself waking up to a morning when every newspaper features the same headline, all television channels carry the same message and deviation from this approved way of thinking will lead to the loss of your job, freedom or life itself. On the surface, such a society is unimaginable in the context of the democracies we inhabit. Throughout history, however, millions of people have lived lives under such circumstances willingly, actively participating in or even defending such authoritarian societies. This leads to a psychologically stimulating question: why do people acquiesce to authoritarian rule?

The explanation involves not only politics, but human psychology. Authoritarian political systems are maintained not solely through the force of violence or weapons. Rather, such regimes are maintained by controlling the attitudes, emotions, identities, and social relations of the governed (Arendt, 1951; Fromm, 1941).

The psychology of totalitarianism is a description of how tyrannical governments are supported, submitted to, forced to be submissive to and followed loyally by their people. An understanding of such psychological processes is critical, as it allows us to identify how average citizens may participate in totalitarian oppression and also for authoritarian systems to continue to rise from the ashes once again at any time and location (Altemeyer, 2006; Zimbardo, 2007).

The Psychological Foundations of Obedience

Obedience to authority is perhaps the most effective instrument at the disposal of any totalitarian state. Human beings are social animals, and it is part of human nature to look for authority to guide them during uncertain and trying times. Where the leaders establish an image of saviour or protector, people will be ready to relinquish personal authority for safety and security (Milgram, 1974). The Milgram obedience experiments proved beyond doubt that ordinary people could be induced to commit immoral acts on the orders of an authority figure (Milgram, 1963). In these studies, people were induced to deliver electric shocks (though it was not real and the subjects did not know that) only on the command of an experimenter to continue.

Totalitarian leaders take advantage of many of the same psychological tendencies. By claiming that they are the rightful authority and stating that it is their duty to follow them, they can get people to go against their moral compass just by obeying. Soon after doing this over and over again, people will become habituated, and resistance to them becomes harder and harder to overcome (Kelman & Hamilton, 1989).

Another factor that obedience exerts over a person is shifting responsibility from the person. If a person does not perceive an action as theirs, and instead of that they believe that it is somebody else’s order that determines their actions, then the level of responsibility for their behaviour will decrease. This is also referred to as ‘agentic state’ (Milgram, 1974), and a lot of inhuman acts that occurred in the past had their foundations in this mechanism.

Read More: The Milgram Experiment: Understanding Obedience to Authority 

Propaganda and the Manipulation of Reality

Totalitarian systems seldom rely solely on force. Instead, they manipulate how individuals perceive reality using propaganda. Propaganda is a planned, sustained attempt to mould attitudes, beliefs, emotions and behaviours by management of information and symbolic narrative (Jowett & O’Donnell, 2019).

Contemporary research in psychology finds that information is perceived as more truthful with increasing exposure, an effect called “illusory truth effect” (Fazio et al., 2015). Dictatorial governments leverage this by constant repetition of messages of leadership glorification, opponents’ demonisation, and distorted reality presentation. Some of the most common psychological techniques of propaganda include:

• Slogans and statements are reiterated numerous times to establish familiarity and approval.
• Common enemies, real or imagined, are invoked and used to foster unity amongst a population.
• Appeals are made to the emotions and sentiments of a population, eliciting patriotism, fear, anger, or pride, depending on what is appropriate to their political goal.
• Authoritarian regimes systematically block alternative views and a free press.
• Those in power filter facts and information to align with the prevailing ideology. (Herman & Chomsky, 1988).

As long as people only rely on a single source of information, they lose the ability to criticise the claims they encounter. After a period of time, propaganda would be able to shape how people think rather than what people think, and could also limit how acceptable certain beliefs are and also limit how individuals can judge claims for themselves (Arendt, 1951).

Social Conformity, Group Identity, and Collective Behaviour

Humans crave inclusion. This need for social approval is essential for authoritarianism to function. People are likely to follow the perceived will of the majority for the reason that being ostracised or rejected by the group is deeply distressing and threatening (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Solomon Asch proved that people will conform to a group belief, even if the belief is obviously wrong (Asch, 1956). Totalitarian regimes can maintain such conformity through the pressures of society, surveillance and expectation.

The concept of group identity is especially significant during political instability. For example, authoritarian leaders will often construct sharp boundaries between ‘us’ and ‘them’, making dichotomous categories of “in-group members” and “out-group members” (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). While this enhances group cohesion, it also fosters prejudiced and hostile attitudes towards those of differing groups. Some factors promote conformity in authoritarian regimes:

• Fear of rejection.
• Need to fit in.
• Need to go along with the prevailing group ideology.
• Manifestation of loyalty through public action.
• Convinced that the majority is always correct.
• People perceive external groups as threats.
• Absence of opportunities to explore different viewpoints.

When an individual identifies with a group with greater strength, their personal values can take second place to loyalty for that group, and people can come to endorse harmful acts by saying that they are done in the name of the group or nation (Haslam & Reicher, 2012).

Read More: Conformity and Rebellion: Understanding Social Influence in Groups

Fear, Psychological Control, and Historical Lessons

However, people may consider fear the most widely accepted feature of a totalitarian system. It is not a specific, contingent fear caused by some situation like a crisis, but a pervasive, chronic fear. Individuals are afraid of prosecution, police control, long-term imprisonment, ostracism or financial sanction as soon as they raise a nonconformist voice (Foucault, 1977).

Psychological control involves direct and indirect coercion. While direct methods include arrests and intimidation, indirect ones do not refer to specific measures of control, but to making people uncertain about who observes them and what the specific costs of the violation will be (Foucault, 1977). Due to that uncertainty, individuals themselves begin to censor and control their own activities, which, in its turn, implies less need for external control and control as an activity itself.

This is illustrated very effectively through historical examples. Under Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, propaganda, nationalism and fear were used to engender support and extinguish dissent (Kershaw, 2008). Under Joseph Stalin, extensive surveillance, purges and ideological conditioning meant that expressing dissent was incredibly dangerous (Conquest, 2008). In both instances, psychological mechanisms and power worked together to uphold authoritarianism.

Crucially, not all support for tyrannical rule stems solely from fear. Authoritarian ideology convinces many that a strong, authoritative leader would ensure order, security, national honour, or economic stability. The concept of an authoritarian personality also explains the tendency for some to look to such a leader during times of crisis. Such people are more willing to submit to an authoritarian regime in exchange for those comforts they most value, obedience and social order (Adorno et al., 1950; Altemeyer, 2006). 

Conclusion

The psychology of totalitarianism explains how dictatorships are maintained through a mixture of obedience, propaganda, compliance, terror and group affiliation. Totalitarian regimes do not simply rule by force but can manipulate how people see their world, one another, and themselves. History provides plenty of examples of how ‘average’ citizens become active players in tyrannical regimes when psychological incentives reinforce cooperation with the state and prevent opposition.

These mechanisms may seem to have purely academic interest, but the psychological lessons of totalitarianism are highly relevant today, in a world of mass media, the manipulation of social networks, political division and misleading information. Creating critical thinking, defending free expression, cherishing diversity and democratic institutions helps societies resist the dynamics of tyranny. Knowledge of these psychological mechanisms can ultimately provide one of the most effective bulwarks against the loss of individual freedom and dignity.

References +

• Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper & Brothers.
• Altemeyer, B. (2006). The authoritarians. University of Manitoba. https://theauthoritarians.org
• Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace & Company.
• Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718
• Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
• Conquest, R. (2008). The great terror: A reassessment (40th anniversary ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993–1002. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000098
• Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1975)
• Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.
• Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the “nature” of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s studies really show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), Article e1001426. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426
• Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1988). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.
• Jowett, G. S., & O’Donnell, V. (2019). Propaganda & persuasion (7th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989). Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. Yale University Press.
• Kershaw, I. (2008). Hitler: A biography. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioural study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In William G. Austin & Stephen Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
• Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer effect: Understanding how good people turn evil. Random House.