Normally, the person whose conscience is authoritarian is boud to the external authorities and to their internalized ‘voice;’ there is a constant interaction between the two. The presence of external authorities by whom a person is awed is the source which continuously nourishes the internalized authority — the conscience. If the authorities did not exist in reality, that is, if the person had no reason to be afraid of them, then the authoritarian conscience would weaken and lose power [some people experience ‘being set free’ when an external authority dies]. Simultaneously, the conscience influences the image which a person has of the external authorities. For such conscience is always colored by man’s need to admire, to have some ideal, to strive for some kind of perfection, and the image of perfection is projected upon the external authorities. The result is that the picture of these authorities is, in turn, colored by the ‘ideal’ aspect of conscience. This is important because the concept a person has of the qualities of the authorities differs from their real qualities; it becomes more and more idealized and, therefore, more apt to be re-internalized. Often this interaction of internalization and projection results in an unshakable conviction in the ideal character of the authority, a conviction which is immune to all contradictory empirical evidence [this is why ‘cult’ figures become so powerful and why zealots will not only die for the cause they will be able to guilt-free kill innocent people].
The contents of the authoritarian conscience are derived from the commands and taboos of the authority; its strength is rooted in the emotions of fear of, and admiration for, the external authority. Good conscience is the consciousness of pleasing the (external and internalized) authority; guilty conscience is the consciousness of displeasing it. The good authoritarian conscience produces a feeling of well-being and security, for it implies approval by, and greater closeness to, the external authority; the guilty conscience produces fear and insecurity, because acting against the will of the authority implies the danger of being punished and — what is worse — of being deserted/abandoned/shunned by the external authority.
In order to understand the full impact of the last statement we must remember the character structure of the person with the authoritarian conscience. He [or she] has found inner security by becoming, symbiotically, part of the external authority felt to be greater and more powerful than himself. As long as he is part of that external authority — at the betrayal of his own integrity — he feels that he is participating in the external authority’s strength and goodness. His feeling of certainty and identity depends on this symbiosis; to be rejected by the authority means to be thrown into a void, to face the horror of being ‘nothing’ in the eyes of the external authority. Anything to the one with the authoritarian conscience is better than this. To be sure, the love and approval of the external authority give him the greatest satisfaction; but even punishment is better than being deserted/abandoned/shunned. The punishing external authority is still connected and if one has ‘sinned,’ the punishment is at least proof that the external authority still cares. By his acceptance of the punishment his sin is forgiven and the security of ‘being part of’ is restored.