Subcultural norm explanations must still explain why authoritarian traits cohere

Evidence

Critics have contended that this position is destroyed by the demonstration of a correlation with education and SES. The numerous components of authoritarianism are found together in a person simply because they are the norms of his subculture—the little-educated, less bright, low SES subculture. To this we must respond by asking: Why does this subculture put its norms together as it does? Why should self-glorification, parent idealization, impunitiveness, anti-intraception, and prejudice cohere as a set of norms? The question is there whether you ask it for the individual or for the group. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 634

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘norms vs. personality dynamic’ debate echoes Bourdieu’s habitus and the structure-vs-agency debate in sociology; also connects to cultural cognition work on motivated reasoning.
• DEEPTHINKING: A tight dialectical move: shifting the burden of explanation back onto the subculture account — whatever explains, personality or culture, must explain trait coherence, so the critique doesn’t actually dissolve the question.