In the early debates within Critical Theory on the so-called "authoritarian character" two distinct questions overlapped. On the one hand, especially in the works of Erich Fromm (1932, 1936), a concept of a social character was developed. He assumed that adaptation to or submission under given social conditions produced a specific character structure that subjectively supported those conditions and inhibited societal change towards more democratic conditions. Fromm argued that an authoritarian society produced authoritarian individuals. On the other hand, in the infamous studies on The Authoritarian Personality by Adorno et al. (1950), the F-scale was developed as a diagnostic instrument designed to identify authoritarian tendencies of 'potentially fascist individuals' (p. I). However, these two strands of inquiry were indeed conflated within early Critical Theory: proto-fascist dispositions were understood as effects of broader authoritarian social dynamics (Brunner, 2025).

In contemporary debates, however, these two approaches tend to diverge. In quantitative research on right-wing authoritarianism (Beierlein et al., 2014; Oesterreich, 1998; Decker et al., 2022) it is common to draw on a condensed version of the F-scale—the concept of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) developed by Altemeyer (1981). There, authoritarianism is primarily conceptualized as a triad of authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism, whereas some researchers argue for the reintegration of dimensions that Altemeyer had excluded, such as projectivity or superstition (Decker et al., 2022). Thus, the authoritarian "syndrome" studied by Adorno et al. (1950) is still considered highly relevant for analyzing contemporary authoritarianism, even though alongside this "classical authoritarianism" newer forms—such as libertarian authoritarianism (Amlinger & Nachtwey, 2025)—are also being discussed.

By contrast, contemporary discussions of social character or dominant modes of subjectivity (Gruber, 2010; Eichler, 2013) tend to refer to Fromm’s notion of the authoritarian social character only as an outdated point of reference. Researchers argue that the authoritarian social character has become obsolete due to societal shifts toward a post-Fordist, neoliberal, flexible capitalism, and has been replaced by a more flexible subjectivity—individuals who act as performance-oriented yet hedonistic self-entrepreneurs (Bröckling, 2016) or "entreployees" (Pongratz & Voß, 2003a, b).

We aim to reconnect these two diverging lines of discussion. The affirmative character scale developed by Jäger (2022)—drawing on current accounts of contemporary types of subjectivation—attempts to conceptualize a new social character that is highly adapted to contemporary flexible capitalism. This scale is intended as a tool to relate contemporary subjectivity to current forms of authoritarianism: on the one hand, to explore overlaps and conceptualize how adaptation to present conditions may serve as a breeding ground for authoritarian tendencies; on the other hand, to identify differences between the affirmative character and classical authoritarianism, while also investigating whether latent authoritarian potential exists within the affirmative character structure that classical authoritarianism scales fail to detect. Thus, the affirmative character scale (Aff-Scale) is an instrument to gauge the junction between highly adapted individuals to flexible capitalism and anti-democratic, authoritarian traits, as can be observed, for example, in the U.S. since the 45th presidency.

While the scale (Jäger, 2022), which was first tested on a random sample (N = 1,050), showed good internal consistency (α = .78) and construct validity (F-scale by Adorno et al., 1950; Achievement Motive Inventory by Schuler & Prochaska, 2001; System Justification Scale by Kay & Jost, 2003), the assumed model structure could not be confirmed (see Appendix Table 8). This article aims to refine, revise and revalidate the scale using a larger data set from a quota sample.

Analyses of variance (RM-ANOVA) showed that the first Aff-Scale is significantly different from the F-scale and that it explains additional variance.¹1

In Study 1 (Jäger, 2022), a sample group was identified that scored high on both the new Aff-Scale and the original F-scale. These 120 participants (Highscorer_both) even scored 7.5% higher on the F-scale than the group of high scorers on the F-scale itself.

Our theoretical framework rests on Erich Fromm's social character theory (1932) and Max Weber's (1920) sociological analyses. Although social character is understood as the result of the interaction between the socioeconomic structure of society and psychological structure, Fromm emphasized that the concept of “social character” must not be understood as static, but as a rather malleable feature. Social characters change and their relationship to social authorities constantly adapts to changes in line with the role of authority within societies. Thus, social character theory is consistent with the notion of Critical Theory, that emphasizes “a temporal core to truth instead of opposing it as something immutable to historical movement” (Horkheimer & Adorno, 1944, p. IX). Social character does not refer to the most widespread character structure, but rather the structure most adapted to prevailing social conditions—one that best fulfills the function of maintaining and reproducing those conditions. Hence, the concept of social character must not be conflated with personality as it is understood in contemporary academic psychology. It is not concerned with relatively stable individual differences in thoughts, emotions and behaviors—even though thoughts and emotions are shaped by adaption to prevailing social imperatives. Social character rather focusses on how people are subjugated to those imperatives and how this process of subjugation entails specific relationships to authorities and ideologies. Thus, we will find a myriad of different personalities within the confines of affirmative social character. In short, the affirmative character aims at grasping the character structure that is most tightly adapted to the social conditions and imperatives of today.

At the turn of the 21st century, alongside the rise of flexible or post-Fordist capitalism, a so called “new spirit of capitalism” (Boltanski & Chiapello, 2006) emerged. It entailed outsourcing of parts of the production process, organizing work on a project basis and a shift in “work ethic and competence” (ibid., p. 205) from extrinsic motivation to internal motivation; the self is expected to act intuitively in an entrepreneurial manner. This is linked to increasingly blurred boundaries between work and private life and between “personal and professional knowledge, serious and playful activities. This corresponds to the requirements of a flexible, creative, individualized, knowledge-based, and global capitalism” (Nachtwey & Seidl, 2017, p. 14, translation by the authors).

Various authors have theorized this transformation, along with the new demands placed on workers and the resulting emergence of a new form of subjectivity. Bröckling (2019) speaks of an "entrepreneurial self", that no longer simply performs prescribed tasks in exchange for wages but instead operates as an "intrapreneur"—continuously optimizing itself and its work in a proactive manner and adapting to new circumstances (Bröckling, 2019, p. 29). Pongratz and Voß (2003a, b) elaborate on this in their concept of the "entreployee" describing how the internalization of entrepreneurial logics—such as self-control, self-economization, and self-rationalization—leads to increased personal responsibility, self-organization, and a perception of work as a commodity. According to Reckwitz (2006), this flexibilization of the subject is also evident in the cultural field: the postmodern subject, as he conceptualizes it, no longer orients itself around fixed norms but appears as a hybrid figure, caught in the tension between the imperative of creativity and the demands of efficiency, between self-realization and the pressure to conform, between individuality and standardization.

In the field of psychoanalytically oriented social characterology, which explicitly builds on Fromm, there have also been attempts to capture a new social character: Fromm (1976) himself already addressed certain aspects of the emerging "entrepreneurial self" during the early phase of the neoliberal turn in his concept of the "marketing character". Later, various authors, drawing on sociological literature mentioned earlier, examined “postmodern ego-oriented” (Funk, 2006), “flexible” (Gruber, 2010), or “post-Fordist social characters” (Eichler, 2013), often linking these to narcissistic conflicts.

Interestingly, the question of authoritarian tendencies plays no significant role in these accounts of social character. The new subjectivity is typically sharply contrasted with the authoritarian one, which is often regarded as outdated (Brunner, 2025). However, Eichler (2013) proposes that the post-Fordist social character contains a potential for alienation and authoritarian tendencies, especially when contradictory social demands must be internalized and subjectively processed.

One approach that seeks to capture the social character of the 21st century by relating it to flexible, neoliberal subjectivities, while explicitly building on Fromm’s earlier reflections on social characterology, is the concept of the affirmative character (Jäger, 2022). The theoretical perspective was updated and expanded by extending the analysis of inner-worldly asceticism beyond its cultural-historical and religious roots to contemporary socio-economic systems, especially in late modern performance societies such as Silicon Valley (Barbrook & Cameron, 1996).²2

The Californian ideology (Barbrook & Cameron, 1996) is a fusion of yuppieism and hippieism that emerged in the cultural bohemian milieu of San Francisco and the high-tech industry of Silicon Valley. It combines the entrepreneurial zeal of the yuppies with the physical free-spiritedness of the hippies. It can also be seen as a paradoxical mixture of ideas from the New Left and libertarian-authoritarian ideas, and it marks the birth of solutionism.

The affirmative character is defined as a character structure that is primarily characterized by uncritical integration into existing social structures (Jäger, 2022, p. 412). In contrast to the classic authoritarian character, which is characterized by strict submission to authority figures, the affirmative character manifests itself in the quiet incorporation and reproduction of existing post-Fordist und neoliberal power structures (Jäger, 2022, p. 412). This dynamic is based less on coercion than on the internalized logic of the system (Jäger, 2022, p. 311). Thus, the affirmative character represents a form of “autonomous” submission that reflects more subtle mechanisms of adaptation to social power relations (see Foucault, 1993, Biopower) and thus represents a step forward in the commodification of subjectivity under libertarian authority (Jäger, 2022, p. 311).

The classic authoritarian character is characterized by unreflective conventionalism, submissiveness to authority, and aggressive behavior toward those who deviate from the norm. It strives for hierarchical order, power, and control, often embodied by a leader, rejects curiosity, reflection, and emotional openness, and is characterized by superstition, stereotypes, and hostile projection. Sexuality is strictly regulated, and deviations are punished. Based on psychoanalytic mechanisms of repression, this model corresponds to traditional forms of power that discipline individuals.

While the concept of affirmative character itself must not be conflated with authoritarianism per se, we assume that it relates to today’s currents of authoritarian tendencies. In contrast to traditional notions of the authoritarian character, affirmative character structures pragmatically align themselves with the authority currently prevailing in society (in the form of the libertarian performance paradigm), reject leaders (authoritarian submission) and rigid norms (conventionalism), and demonstrate a flexible adaptability to social challenges. However, there is a similar sadomasochistic mechanism at play between submission and aggression, but aggression is used as a driving force, albeit less disintegrative and destructive toward the outside world than in the authoritarian character, but rather instrumentally more rational and self-optimizing (inwardly) or derived as a lack of empathy or solidarity. Emotional and social skills such as resilience and mindfulness are harnessed for adaptability and serve self-regulation rather than compassion, while superstition and strict hierarchies are rejected. Sexuality is viewed as a resource depending on the situation and is not regulated moralistically.

To ensure content validity, the team of authors generating the item pool consisted of researchers from different backgrounds (psychologists, political scientists, sociologists). Moreover, item selection was based on both theoretical considerations and empirical indicators from Jäger (2022). The measurement construct was sufficiently defined in advance and reviewed by the team regarding its validity. Changes in the factor structure due to the results of the EFA were thoroughly discussed in the team and tied back to the theoretical framework.

The factorial validity of the model was examined based on the second subsample (n_CFA= 588) using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). After item exclusion, five latent factors (affirmation, libertarianism, self-optimization, solutionism, flexibility and mobility) remained and were tested using robust maximum likelihood estimation to account for nonnormal distribution of the items (MLR).

Results indicated standardized factor loadings that were consistently statistically significant. As the CFI was low based on general cut-offs (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003): χ² = 247.05, df = 136 p < .001; CFI = 0.927; RMSEA = 0.048 (95% CI [0.041, 0.055]); SRMR = 0.057, modification indices were examined. Based on the modification indices, one theoretically plausible residual covariance between item errors was released to improve the model fit. The covariance between AFF1_6 and AFF2_4 was released because both items target similar aspects of individual performance orientation and are also both part of the same dimension (self-optimization). The global fit indices indicate good model fit, with RMSEA, SRMR, and CFI all showing good values that are above the most common thresholds. These results can be viewed as a first indicator for factorial validity that needs to be replicated in future studies (see Figure 1).

Low factor loadings of individual items (e.g., AFF4_6 for Libertarianism and AFF2_4 for Self-Optimization) may indicate that a revision and sharpening of the wording could be necessary (see Discussion).

Derived from theory and based on results from Jäger (2022)⁸8

The study by Jäger (2022) was able to show theoretically (pp. 367–373) and empirically (RM-ANOVA) that the Aff-Scale exhibits convergent but, above all, discriminant properties compared to the F-scale (pp. 490–496). Furthermore, as mentioned above, construct validity was demonstrated using various established scales (Schuler & Prochaska, 2001; Kay & Jost, 2003).

A moderate to large correlation of the Aff-Scale with authoritarianism was expected, as the affirmative character is theorized to be a more subtle form of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism was operationalized using the validated short scale Kurzskala Autoritarismus 3 (KSA-3; Beierlein et al., 2014), measuring authoritarianism as an overarching dimension with three sub-dimensions: authoritarian aggression, authoritarian submissiveness and conventionalism (three items each). The answers are indicated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

Correlation with right-wing extremism was expected to be positive, but lower, as the Aff-Scale aims to capture less aggressive, more liberal, and well-educated subpopulations that do not necessarily share right-wing extremist attitudes (or know how to hide them better or see them as a socially sanctioned danger to their professional advancement), despite authoritarian tendencies. We measured right-wing extremism using the Fragebogen Rechtsextremismus - Leipziger Form (FR-LF; Heller et al., 2020). The FR-LF measures right-wing attitudes on six dimensions: approval of a right-wing authoritarian dictatorship, chauvinism, hostility towards foreigners, anti-Semitism, social Darwinism, and trivialization of National Socialism using three items per dimension. Responses are recorded on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”.

Moreover, the following connections to sociodemographic variables were expected and used for further construct validation (see hypotheses): 1) Younger participants were expected to show higher scores on the Aff-Scale. 2) Unlike classical authoritarianism, we assume that the affirmative character is to be found primarily among the well-educated (2) and upper classes (3) (idid.). Hypotheses of the Jäger (2022) could thus be replicated, emphasizing the scientific robustness and validity of the Aff-Scale.