Karen Stenner is a political scientist specialising in political psychology. Stenner has studied the political activation of authoritarian personality types, and how that activation explains the contemporary success of some authoritarian political figures as well as enduring conflicts between some individuals and the broad tolerance that characterises liberal democracy.
Education and early career Stenner attended the University of Queensland, earning a BA in 1987. In 1995 she earned an MA from Stony Brook University, followed by a PhD there in 1997. In 1996 she became an assistant professor at Duke University, and then in 1998 she joined the faculty at Princeton University. She later returned to Australia, where she worked on behavioral economics and public policy at institutions including Griffith University.
Research
In 2005, Stenner published The Authoritarian Dynamic, which is an investigation into authoritarian personality types and how they become politically activated. She states that prior research on authoritarianism has suffered primarily from tautological assertions and has otherwise failed to produce a coherent theory which is consistent cross-nationally, and which can successfully account for how authoritarian expressions fluctuate with diverse sociopolitical conditions. In particular, she asserts that Bob Altemeyer's right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) scale is best understood as a measure of expressed authoritarianism, and that other measures are needed to assess authoritarian predispositions. To this end, she rejects Altemeyer's "social learning" interpretation and instead argues that authoritarianism is a dynamic response to perceived external threats; not a static personality type based only on the traits of submission, aggression and conventionalism.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 13-27.
Stenner distinguishes between authoritarianism and conservatism, using "authoritarianism" to refer to a resistance to interpersonal difference (i.e. diversity of people and beliefs at a given moment), and "conservatism" as resistance to change. Authoritarianism can thus be thought of as aversion to difference across space, whereas conservatism is aversion to difference across time. For example, one may be a conservative libertarian, but libertarianism is the opposite end of a spectrum from authoritarianism, since the former is defined by encouragement of individual difference and resistance to centralized authority. She thus argues that much of what is conventionally referred to as "racism" is perhaps better understood as "difference-ism," with moral and political diversity (as opposed merely to ethnic diversity) especially provoking intolerant attitudes from authoritarian individuals.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 328-330. In particular, she highlights how authoritarians' expressions of racial, moral, and political intolerance depreciated by approximately 50% when survey respondents were misled to believe that NASA had discovered extraterrestrial life forms which were "very different from us in ways we are not yet even able to imagine."Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 279.
Stenner argues that conservatives value stability and certainty over increased uniformity, and therefore, will embrace racial diversity, civil liberties and moral freedom to the extent they are already institutionalised and authoritatively-supported traditions within a given society. She argues that conservatives may be drawn towards authoritarianism only when public opinion is fractious and there is a general loss of confidence in major institutions; i.e. when the prospect of revolution appears less daunting to them than the current state of affairs. Authoritarians however want difference restricted regardless of circumstances; even when so doing would necessitate vast social reforms and instability. By this account, she asserts that authoritarians are never more tolerant than when reassured and pacified by an autocratic culture, and never more intolerant than when forced to endure a vibrant democracy.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 334.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 250.
Through survey techniques identifying authoritarianism in respondents, Stenner identifies personality attributes and values shared by those with pro-authoritarian inclinations, and argues that these traits inform an opposition to difference and an attachment to uniformity which are then activated in the presence of normative societal threats. Such threats to uniformity thus transform a personality attribute into a politically salient reaction which ultimately serves to defend one's beliefs and identification with the collective. Most notably, she cites perceptions of poor leadership and belief diversity (i.e. lack of consensus in group values) as being the two most significant factors contributing to the authoritarian response,Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 292-324. though she also notes that authoritarians are generally susceptible to the false consensus effect and thus are not likely to perceive normative threats until they have become highly apparent: "Authoritarians are not especially inclined to perceive normative (indeed, any) threat, they are just especially intolerant once they do."Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 81-82. When otherwise abated by belief consensus and leadership which they regard as sufficiently strong however, authoritarians express very low levels of moral, racial, and political intolerance.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 52-76. Authoritarians living in Japan in 1990, for example, were found to be nearly indistinguishable from their libertarian counterparts, on account of numerous cultural and societal factors contributing to a climate of near-equanimity and conformity, thereby mitigating the manifest expression of intolerance of difference.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 319.
According to Stenner, authoritarianism is primarily the result of cognitive inhibitions and personality factors which significantly limit one's ability to tolerate ambiguity, complexity, and—by extension—sociocultural diversity. Authoritarians rank very low on openness to experience—one of the Big Five personality traits—and are demonstrably more likely to commit spelling errors, to have smaller vocabularies (relative to libertarians) and to be less likely to pursue post-secondary education.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 143-173. Ultimately, she argues that authoritarians are best understood as "simple-minded avoiders of complexity rather than closed-minded avoiders of change."Stenner, K. and Haidt, J. (2018). Authoritarianism is not a momentary madness, but an eternal dynamic within liberal democracies. In C.R. Sunstein. (Ed.), Can It Happen Here? (pp. 183). New York City, NY: Dey Street Books. She similarly rejects the hypothesis that religiosity is a contributory factor to authoritarian beliefs and expressions, citing research indicating a lack of correlation before concluding: "There is no necessary relation between belief in and personal commitment to a religious code, and demand for state coercion of others' adherence to [the] same. The latter rests primarily on something beyond personal faith and individual codes of conduct, having to do with a compulsion to control the diversity and complexity of one's environment, that is, a need to regulate other people's behaviour."Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 271-272.
Though focusing primarily on authoritarian predispositions as they are expressed by individuals on the American political right, Stenner nonetheless notes that the dynamic can appear elsewhere on the political spectrum. In particular, she cites the Nation of Islam as a potential sub-cultural manifestation of the authoritarian dynamic, comparing its "self-glorification", insistence on conformity, and militant rejection of state legitimacy to similar attitudes expressed by civilian militia and patriot movements among white authoritarians on the American right.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 141-142. She also notes that approximately one-third of authoritarians tend towards socialism,Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 132. with even non-socialist authoritarians indicating a willingness to support affirmative action, provided that such measures are enacted with the aim of reducing social stratification, as well as operated by institutions which those same authoritarians perceive as sharing their own beliefs and ideals. Likewise, she asserts that any perceived relation between authoritarianism and laissez-faire economic policies is inconsistent, because of it being highly contingent on authoritarians' varying levels of trust in government.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 178-186.
Stenner identifies the same psychological phenomenon cross-nationally, citing data obtained from both Altemeyer's RWA scale and surveys of child-rearing values as conducted in fifty-nine countries by the World Values Survey.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 316-319. According to Stenner, authoritarians living within Eastern European nations expressed relatively low levels of racial, moral, and political intolerance prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, as socialist autocracies provided citizens with normative reassurance (the former Yugoslavia under the rule of Josip Broz Tito being one of the most notable examples). Following the Fall of Communism and subsequent institution of liberal democratic norms, authoritarians within these countries began to express more intolerant attitudes, becoming nearly indistinguishable from authoritarians living within Western-European nations despite differing significantly in their political and economic beliefs and backgrounds.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 96-116. Likewise, she cites studies conducted on identical twins reared in separate environments which have found that authoritarian predispositions have a significant genetic component, on account of them being rooted in personality variables which in turn are substantially heritable.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 145-146.
Stenner thus extrapolates that authoritarianism is not a "learned" phenomenon, but rather an innate psychological tendency which can be found within all civilizations worldwide, and that individuals so predisposed to it "will never live comfortably in a liberal democracy".Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 1. She thus concludes her analysis by suggesting that authoritarian predilections can only be deterred through responsible leadership and favourable societal conditions, and that such an impediment is perhaps a contributing factor to previously failed attempts at instituting liberal-democratic norms in formerly-autocratic cultures such as those found in Iraq and Afghanistan:Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 331-332.Stenner, K. (2005). The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge University Press. 335.