Why the attraction towards authoritarian leaders grows in times of crisis: sociological theories from Bauman to Fraser

In a world marked by instability, economic crises and widespread fears, even the most consolidated democracies seem to show an increased inclination towards authoritarian leaders. In recent months the debate on this topic has reignited, highlighting the growing consensus towards strong political figures, often perceived as guarantors of safety and order. But is this really a universal human need?

Political culture, need for protection and nostalgia for order

When society perceives itself as fragile and insecure, the promise of a strong and resolute leader can appear reassuring. Zygmunt Bauman (2006), in “Liquid Fear”, explains that widespread fear in a globalized and uncertain world pushes people to desire stability and authority. Erich Fromm (1941), in the classic “Escape from Freedom”, underlines a modern paradox: freedom can generate anguish, because it implies responsibility, uncertainty and loneliness. In many cases, give up part of your autonomy and relying on a perceived strong authority represents a way to reduce existential anxiety.

This predisposition to authoritarian power can be observed in the Stanford Prison Experiment: the sensation that the experiment caused (beyond its ethical nature) concerned the fact that absolutely “ordinary” individuals, inserted in a hierarchical context without clear limits, proved ready to assume authoritarian roles and exercise power in an oppressive way. This suggests that Not it is an individual pathologyas much as the configuration of the social context pushes towards authoritarian dynamics.

Finally, social conformism (Asch, 1951) demonstrates that group pressure and fear of isolation are powerful factors in determining adherence to dominant opinions, even when these may not be shared and/or incorrect. When an authoritarian figure manages to catalyze consensus, those who dissent risk marginalization; because of this, adapting often appears to be the safest choice.

The need for recognition and the charisma of the leader

The fascination with authoritarian leaders is not just about fear or conformity, but also about the desire to recognition and belonging. Max Weber (1922) defines charisma as a form of “extra-rational” legitimacy since these figures are able to build an aura of exceptionality through powerful symbols, evocative languages ​​and identity narratives. Charisma, as Weber understood it, is not an objective quality, but a social process: it is collective recognition which transforms an ordinary person into a guide perceived as “unique” and salvific.

Pierre Bourdieu (1979), with his theory of distinctionhighlights a further aspect: culture is not a neutral space, but a field in which people fight for prestige, to be recognized as legitimate, authoritative, “of value”. In this so-called field of symbolic struggle, the authoritarian leader can emerge as a dominant figure precisely because embodies the social signs of power: strength, confidence, control, success. It is not so much the rational coherence of his ideas that generates consensus, but rather the ability to represent a model of superiority that attracts those who feel lostexcluded or vulnerable.

And here also comes into play individualistic society: in a context in which the self is increasingly fragmented, the figure of the strong leader becomes a symbolic “glue”. which restores a sense of unity and collective identity.

The collective imagination and mediatization

The role of the average and of the social in the construction of the figure of the autocrat: Guy Debord (1967), in “The Society of the Spectacle”, shows how contemporary politics increasingly becomes an aesthetic and media representation. Today, digital platforms amplify this logic: visibility, likes and followers become metrics of political legitimacy. Byung-Chul Han (2012), in “The society of transparency”, argues that in this framework, authoritarian leaders appear “authentic” because they speak a simple and direct language that reassures and polarises, skilfully using persuasion techniques and Cialdini’s principles to consolidate their influence.

A critical view: the choice of autocrats is not inevitable

Although many sociological and psychological readings explain the fascination with authoritarian leaders as a human need for stability and protection, not all scholars agree in considering this tendency as “natural” or “inevitable”.

Raymond Williams (1977), in his criticism of culture as a set of dominant meanings, reminds us that discourses on power and order are historical and cultural constructions and that the fascination for the autocrat it is not a biological or psychological destinybut the result of precise collective and institutional narratives that legitimize authority as necessary (put simply: if we like the “strong man”, it is also because we have been told that that figure brings stability).

Clifford Geertz (1973) also points out how the meanings attributed to charisma and leadership vary from culture to culture. There is no universal instinct that leads us to look for the “strong man”: it is shared representations, symbols and cultural myths that define what we consider legitimate and desirable and, therefore, in some cultures authoritarian guides are sought, in others more collaborative people are valued.
Finally, sociologist Nancy Fraser (2013) warns that “culturalist” explanations often risk ignoring the material conditions and structural inequalities that fuel the search for authority. For Fraser, the fascination with authoritarian leaders is not simply an emotional need, but a response to economic and social insecurities produced by neoliberalism and austerity policies.