 graphictruth says: Which is the point to sociologist Altmeyer's book, who has been researching authoritarianism for thirty years, and can now publish a popular work (for free) because he's about to retire and can't be fired for his temerity. Seventeen of the twenty “most corrupt” wereSurprise? A review by one of his critic's, Ray, J.J., of one of his works in the: The Australian Journal of Psychology, 1990, 42, 87-111 An excerpt:
The basis for Altemeyer's claim that his work explains Right-wing authoritarianism (rather than non-political conservatism) is, therefore, a considerable mystery...and I said "Surprise?". Is it a considerable mystery that we might be near agreeing? actually, his book distinguishes between "right wing authoritarian" and "right wing politics." An RWA - and I do wish he'd used better terminology - is probably, in the current context, also right wing politically, but would in the old Soviet Union, be most probably a Communist Party member. Indeed, he is not speaking about conservatism at all, but rather authoritarianism. btw, the criticism cited predates some of the more significant studies cited in Altmeyer's book - and is also seems to be dependent on semantic niggles and willful misunderstandings. Since it's a "book review," not a peer-reviewed journal entry, it's not held to such rigorous standards as one might think from the citation line alone, and the author certainly does not limit themselves to the tone of respectful academic dissent one would ordinarily expect - so one has to wonder if the author took it somewhat more personally than one really should. |
View the Top Clips from December 29, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
