The Psychology of Modern Authoritarian Subjectivities

Jul 13, 2026

This text explores how modern authoritarianism thrives by aligning with the unique psychological needs and desires of different populations rather than relying solely on force. The author distinguishes between the models of Modi, Trump, Putin, and Xi, arguing that each leader attracts specific personality types—from those seeking moral certainty and traditional roots to those craving chaotic vengeance or technocratic stability. By examining how these regimes resonate across generational and ideological divides, the source suggests that authoritarian rule is a symbolic and cultural construction that provides a sense of belonging or security. Consequently, effective political resistance must move beyond abstract democratic ideals to address the deep-seated emotional longings that these strongmen currently satisfy. Ultimately, the analysis frames authoritarianism as a response to unresolved tensions in human subjectivity, requiring alternative narratives that offer dignity without resorting to exclusion or control.

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

When you picture the rise of uh an authoritarian regime, there's usually this very specific cinematic image that comes to mind.

SPEAKER_01 0:08

Oh, absolutely. Like tanks rolling down a street or people being dragged away in the middle of the night.

SPEAKER_00 0:12

Exactly. It's this classic idea, a population just terrified into submission by, you know, overwhelming military force, like a boot stamping on a human face.

SPEAKER_01 0:21

Aaron Powell Right. Which in a strange way is actually kind of comforting to think about.

SPEAKER_00 0:25

Yeah, because it frames the citizens purely as hostages. Yeah. Like they're just waiting for the forces of liberal democracy to swoop in and liberate them. But um what if we have the psychology of this completely backwards? Aaron Powell Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 0:40

What if it's not just a cage dropped over people?

SPEAKER_00 0:42

Right. What if, for millions of people, authoritarianism is something they actively desperately desire?

SPEAKER_01 0:49

And that is a profoundly uncomfortable question. But it's exactly what we're looking at today. Because I mean, if we just assume oppression is only ever imposed by force, we completely miss the psychological engine that actually keeps these modern systems running. So welcome to the deep dive. Today we're taking a journey into a framework that really radically shifts how we look at global politics. The source material for you today is an essay titled Schmission Moments 11, part two. It was published on this philosophy and culture blog called 3.16.

SPEAKER_00 1:20

Yeah, and we should probably clarify that term right away for anyone who, you know, hasn't spent years studying political theory.

SPEAKER_01 1:26

Aaron Powell Good call. What exactly does Schmision mean here?

SPEAKER_00 1:29

Aaron Powell So it refers to Carl Schmidt. He was this highly influential, though uh very controversial 20th century political philosopher. Basically, Schmidt argued that politics is fundamentally just driven by the distinction between friend and enemy.

SPEAKER_01 1:43

Aaron Powell Right. The ultimate us versus them.

SPEAKER_00 1:45

Exactly. And more importantly, he believed that true power isn't found in some piece of paper like a constitution. True power is a leader's ability to just step outside the law to declare a state of exception in order to protect the state and create order out of chaos. So a Schmischin moment is essentially a flashpoint. It's like a crisis where a leader justifies breaking normal democratic rules. And the people actually cheer for it because they want decisive order more than they want procedural law.

SPEAKER_01 2:12

You nailed it. That's exactly it.

SPEAKER_00 2:14

Which brings us to our mission for you today. We're going to bypass all that deafening day-to-day political noise you see on the news. We want to help you understand the deep cultural, sociological, and really psychological reasons why different demographics are so drawn to strongman regimes.

SPEAKER_01 2:33

And to do that, the source dives into four very specific global leaders.

SPEAKER_00 2:37

Right. We'll be discussing Narendra Modi in India, Donald Trump in the US, Vladimir Putin in Russia, and Xi Jinping in China. But um, before we get into it, I need to set a firm boundary for you right at the top.

SPEAKER_01 2:49

Yeah, this is crucial.

SPEAKER_00 2:50

We're absolutely not taking sides endorsing or condemning any of the politics or figures mentioned today. I really want to stress that. Our goal here is strictly to unpack the author's psychological framework and just convey the ideas contained in this essay.

SPEAKER_01 3:03

Right. And to understand why people want authoritarianism, we first have to like completely discard the idea that authoritarianism is just this single one-size-fits-all model.

SPEAKER_00 3:12

Right. There is no generic dictatorship anymore.

SPEAKER_01 3:14

Exactly. Modern strongmen offer wildly different psychological propositions to their citizens.

SPEAKER_00 3:20

Okay, let's unpack this. The author basically maps out a menu of authoritarian options currently operating in the world. Let's start with India and Narendra Modi. His model is uh it's highly hybridized.

SPEAKER_01 3:34

It is. It pairs this deeply moral civilizational rhetoric with a really tactical use of administrative law.

SPEAKER_00 3:41

Right, because Modi's proposition isn't just about, you know, economic management, it's about restoring a sense of Hindu dignity, right?

SPEAKER_01 3:47

Yeah, exactly. The promise is to cleanse the nation of corruption, of Islamic legacy, and of liberal secularism. And this relies on what political scientists call majoritarianism.

SPEAKER_00 3:56

Which is the idea that the dominant cultural majority shouldn't just win elections, they should fundamentally own the national identity.

SPEAKER_01 4:02

Right. So the psychological hook for the voter here is deep-rooted belonging. People internalize this with almost a sense of devotional loyalty. It gives them this stabilizing cultural coherence, even while the regime keeps the outer facade of a democracy going.

SPEAKER_00 4:18

Now, contrast that deep craving for cultural roots with the phenomenon of Donald Trump in the United States, because the underlying mechanism there operates in a completely different universe.

SPEAKER_01 4:29

Oh, totally different. Trump's brand of power is anarchic. It's highly performative. It actively feeds on crisis and contradiction.

SPEAKER_00 4:37

The phrase the author uses here, which I found fascinating, is obscene sovereignty.

SPEAKER_01 4:42

Yeah, that's a great concept. So in a typical system, leaders pretend to follow the rules even when they're secretly breaking them. But obscene sovereignty is the fantasy that a leader can finally just say the unsayable and loudly smash the rules in the name of the people.

SPEAKER_00 4:56

Right. So his power doesn't come from providing moral coherence like Modi does. It comes from the thrilling spectacle of tearing down the moral order itself.

SPEAKER_01 5:04

Exactly. It's a vehicle for resentment and vengeance, like against elites, against the bureaucratic state. The destabilization isn't an accident. The destabilization is the point.

SPEAKER_00 5:14

Wow. And then you look at Russia and Vladimir Putin, and the temperature of the room just dropped to zero.

SPEAKER_01 5:19

It really does. Putinism is driven by this very cold rationality.

SPEAKER_00 5:23

Aaron Powell And the context of Russia's post-Soviet collapse is super vital here.

SPEAKER_01 5:26

Oh, you can't understand it without that. The 1990s in Russia were incredibly traumatizing, massive economic instability, rampant crime, just a total loss of global prestige.

SPEAKER_00 5:37

Aaron Powell So Putin steps in and basically offers the absolute antidote to that specific trauma.

SPEAKER_01 5:42

Aaron Powell Right. He offers a clear chain of command, hyper-masculine competence, and sheer survivalist stability. He relies on this legalistic illusion where elections exist, but the actual power operates quietly through loyalty networks and security services. It's just the pure promise of safety.

SPEAKER_00 5:59

Which brings us to Xi Jinping in China, which the SA frames is the most heavily systematized model of the four. I mean, this is a massive ideologically moralistic structure.

SPEAKER_01 6:08

Yeah, it fuses Marxist theory with this strict confusion hierarchy. And it is entirely powered by data.

SPEAKER_00 6:15

Right. She isn't out there courting popularity or riding a wave of chaotic populism like Trump.

SPEAKER_01 6:21

Not at all. His system demands submission to a higher rational moral order, which is embodied in the Communist Party. And their reliance on data and surveillance, it's not just to punish dissidents.

SPEAKER_00 6:31

Right. It's deeper than that.

SPEAKER_01 6:32

Yeah. The ultimate goal is to construct a population that organically thinks in line with party logic. It's this highly bureaucratic, disciplinary regime.

SPEAKER_00 6:41

I was thinking about this, and um to help visualize it. It's almost like a dystopian personality test for how to cope with modern life.

SPEAKER_01 6:49

Oh, I like that. How do you mean?

SPEAKER_00 6:50

Well, if modern society is a house that feels like it's falling apart, Modi is the spiritual father promising to restore the ancestral foundation so you feel connected. Trump hands you a sledgehammer to smash the rotten drywall because destroying it feels like justice. Putin is the cold CEO who hires a ruthless security firm to lock the doors so you're safe. And G is the strict headmaster who installs a smart home system that monitors your heart rate and automatically locks you in your room if you start pacing too fast.

SPEAKER_01 7:21

That is wow, that's actually a perfect analogy. And what's fascinating here is that because these regimes offer such vastly different psychological rewards, they naturally attract completely different psychological character types.

SPEAKER_00 7:33

Right. The author identifies five distinct authoritarian subjectivities, basically latent personality profiles that seek out these specific forms of power. Let's break those down. First is the submissive traditionalist.

SPEAKER_01 7:45

Yeah, so this profile is defined by a profound fear of moral decay. They feel unmoored by modern progressive shifts, and they just crave a grand narrative to fold themselves into.

SPEAKER_00 7:55

So they would naturally gravitate toward Modi's civilizational appeal, or maybe the strict moralism of she.

SPEAKER_01 8:01

Exactly. But they would be completely alienated by Trump's vulgar chaos or Putin's coldness.

SPEAKER_00 8:07

Okay, then on the opposite end, we have the resentful individualist.

SPEAKER_01 8:11

Right. This person is driven by feelings of marginalization and institutional betrayal. They feel the system is rigged by corrupt elites.

SPEAKER_00 8:19

So they want the sledgehammer.

SPEAKER_01 8:21

Yes. They are the perfect match for Trump's grievance politics. They might respect Putin's raw strength, but they would utterly reject she's ideological control or Modi's collectivism.

SPEAKER_00 8:33

Then there's the third type, the loyal institutionalist. Yeah. And these are people who just inherently value continuity and order above everything. Rule breaking terrifies them.

SPEAKER_01 8:42

Right. So they find comfort in the continuity of Modi, Putin, and she. But Trump, Trump is their absolute nightmare because his whole brand is unpredictability.

SPEAKER_00 8:51

That makes sense. Now the fourth profile is super interesting to me. The cynical realist.

SPEAKER_01 8:55

Ah, yeah. The cynical realist views all politics just as a survival game. They don't need to believe in the moral cause at all.

SPEAKER_00 9:02

So they could thrive under any of the four regimes.

SPEAKER_01 9:04

Pretty much. As long as they can figure out the unwritten rules of the game to navigate it, they're fine. They can adapt to Modi's tactics, Trump's media instincts, Putin's power, whatever.

SPEAKER_00 9:14

Okay, and the fifth type is the aspiring technocrat. This profile desires pure competence, hierarchy, and systemic efficiency. They want the trains to run on time using data, not emotion.

SPEAKER_01 9:25

Exactly. So they prefer she's administrative rigor or Putin's strategic control. They are completely repelled by someone like Trump.

SPEAKER_00 9:33

Okay, but wait. So is the author saying a cynical realist or an aspiring technocrat living right now in like London or Toronto is basically a sleeper cell authoritarian. Like, are these hardwired destinies just waiting to be activated?

SPEAKER_01 9:47

No, no, they aren't fixed destinies. The author views these as latent desires born from unresolved psychic tensions. I mean, we all possess a need for order or a fear of chaos or a desire for retribution when we feel wronged, right? Aaron Powell Right.

SPEAKER_00 10:00

So it's about what happens when society fails to address those needs.

SPEAKER_01 10:04

Exactly. Authoritarianism succeeds by providing a symbolic vocabulary that answers those deepest needs. When a liberal democracy fails to make someone feel secure or culturally respected, those desires bubble up looking for a host.

SPEAKER_00 10:19

And those desires don't just form in a vacuum. A huge part of this essay examines how your demographic background, like your gender, your politics, your generation, shapes what kind of authoritarianism you crave. Let's look at gender first, because all four of these systems are deeply patriarchal, but in very different ways.

SPEAKER_01 10:36

Yeah, they customize it. Modi's rhetoric frequently positions women symbolically as the mothers of the nation. Trump, on the other hand, offers this defiant misogyny that acts as a magnet for disaffected men.

SPEAKER_00 10:47

Right, men who feel displaced by modern gender equality.

SPEAKER_01 10:50

Exactly. Then Putin plays the role of the hyper-masculine protector of women, and she demands rigid family harmony while actively restricting feminist activism.

SPEAKER_00 10:59

Here's where it gets really interesting, though. When you look at the left-right political divide, the affinities are full of glaring contradictions. Just reporting on what the text says here, when you look at the left, there's this deep internal conflict.

SPEAKER_01 11:13

Right. Some anti-imperialist thinkers are actually fascinated by Modi or she because they view them as necessary counterweights to Western hegemony.

SPEAKER_00 11:23

But that fascination usually short circuits pretty quickly, right?

SPEAKER_01 11:26

Very quickly. Because the core leftist ideals of pluralism clash violently with Modi's majoritarianism and she's surveillance state. Meanwhile, Trump and Putin are almost universally rejected by the left as regressive.

SPEAKER_00 11:39

Right. But then the right side of the spectrum finds totally different elements to admire.

SPEAKER_01 11:43

Yeah. The right loves Modi's return to indigenous tradition and Putin's ordered sovereignty. Trump is obviously the ultimate avatar for right-wing disruption, but free market libertarians are super suspicious of Xi and Putin because of the heavy state controls.

SPEAKER_00 11:56

But then you have the neoreactionary movement, right? This fringe, very online right-wing ideology.

SPEAKER_01 12:03

Yes. They want to scrap democratic equality for these absolute tech monarchies. And ironically, they look at communist China and deeply admire Xi's strict societal hierarchy.

SPEAKER_00 12:13

Aaron Powell, which is just the ultimate horseshoe irony of global politics. You have anti-imperialist leftists and neoreactionary right-wingers finding weird, contradictory things to admire in Xi's China for completely opposite reasons.

SPEAKER_01 12:25

And if we connect this to the bigger picture, it proves that authoritarianism is a dynamic formation. It's incredibly adaptable. It finds the exact fractures in modern liberal societies and exploits them.

SPEAKER_00 12:38

That adaptability is so clear when you look at the generational divides in the essay. Let's run through these quickly. The silent generation, born 1928 to 1945, they survived massive global trauma and depression. So that they crave moral order and survival.

SPEAKER_01 12:52

Right. So the stabilizing narratives of Modi and Putin appeal heavily to them.

SPEAKER_00 12:55

Then you have the baby boomers, 1946 to 1964, raised during a post-war boom, strong institutional trust, but now they're nostalgic. They want to rewind the clock.

SPEAKER_01 13:04

Yeah, which makes them highly receptive to Modi's cultural synthesis, and they view Trump as a necessary backlash figure to stop liberal shifts.

SPEAKER_00 13:12

Gen X, 1965 to 1980, the latchkey generation, came of age with 24-hour cynical news, so they expect institutions to lie.

SPEAKER_01 13:22

Right, so they're attuned to contradictions. They actually respect Putin's bare-knuckle survival instincts. They see it as honest rooflessness. And it explains why Xi's rigid bureaucracy completely repels them.

SPEAKER_00 13:34

Then millennials, 1981 to 1996, drowning in the fallout of neoliberalism, student debt, housing crises, climate disaster, they feel commodified.

SPEAKER_01 13:43

So because they are desperate for systems capable of actual long-term planning, they're weirdly fascinated by Xi's massive climate initiatives, even though the surveillance terrifies them, and they see Trump just as a symptom of a broken democracy.

SPEAKER_00 13:56

Finally, Gen Z 1997 onward. Digital natives. Reality is mediated by algorithms. So they view politics through an ironic meme-era lens.

SPEAKER_01 14:04

Yeah, they see traditional binaries as fake. They know she's a massive threat to digital freedom, but some are seduced by the aesthetics of his technomoral ascendants.

SPEAKER_00 14:12

So what does this all mean? We've diagnosed the mechanics, we've identified the psychological subjectivities, and we've unpacked why people secretly crave these systems. Now, how does the author suggest we actually resist this?

SPEAKER_01 14:24

Well, the author argues that standard opposition strategies almost always fail. Why? Because they rely on abstract appeals to procedural democracy or liberal norms. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 14:36

Like pointing a finger and yelling, hey, that leader is breaking the rules of the Constitution.

SPEAKER_01 14:40

Exactly. And that completely misses the psychological reality of the voter. Criticizing Modi for being illiberal falls flat to a follower who sees him as restoring moral order. Condemning Trump's lawlessness doesn't work on someone who views his actions as symbolic justice against corrupt elites.

SPEAKER_00 14:57

It sounds like trying to talk a friend out of a toxic relationship by showing them a spreadsheet of the relationship's logical flaws, like, look, on row four they lied to you. That won't work if what they really need is to feel loved and secure, and this toxic person is the only one offering that feeling. A spreadsheet does not cure an emotional void.

SPEAKER_01 15:16

That is spot on, and this raises an important question. To resist authoritarianism, you cannot just criticize the regime. You must offer alternative narratives that speak to the exact same latent desires, the need for dignity, solidarity, and belonging. But without using violence or exclusion, it requires what the author calls deep listening.

SPEAKER_00 15:37

You essentially had to outcompete the authoritarian on emotional fulfillment.

SPEAKER_01 15:42

Yes. Democratic societies need to look inward. Authoritarianism isn't just an external glitch, it's a resting place for the unresolved psychic tensions of modern life. Freedom versus order, justice versus vengeance. If democracies don't address those tensions, authoritarianism will. Wow.

SPEAKER_00 15:58

We have covered some intense ground today. Thank you for joining us on this deep dive. If there's one core realization to take away from this, it's that strongmen don't just hack voting machines, they hack our deeper psychological needs.

SPEAKER_01 16:09

You really do.

SPEAKER_00 16:10

Now I'm gonna leave you with a final thought to mull over, building on all of this. If authoritarian regimes are currently perfectly tuned to our present psychological anxieties, how will they evolve next?

SPEAKER_01 16:20

Oh, that's a chilling thought.

SPEAKER_00 16:22

Right. In a future, fully integrated with artificial intelligence, deep fakes, and algorithmic living, will a new sixth character type emerge, the algorithmic subject, and what terrifyingly customized authoritarianism will rise to make them feel safe?

SPEAKER_01 16:37

Something to think about, for sure.

SPEAKER_00 16:39

Keep questioning the world around you and keep looking past the surface. Thanks for listening.