The text “Mass Dictatorship and the Modern State” by Roger Griffin introduces the challenge of modernity especially with totalitarian regimes and authoritarian mass dictatorships. It focuses on how they evolve, while facing a crisis.
Authoritarian mass dictatorships are depicted as socially controlling and don´t want structures to change completely, while totalitarian regimes strive to create a “new man”. It is also mentioned that the change of society is natural and static. Especially when a society undergoes a crisis, it needs to socially rehabilitate. Therefore a revitalisation movement is a response to a crisis where the community self rehabilitates, so it won't perish and change into something new.
Usually there is a leading figure, who shows the community how to achieve a new and better order to survive catastrophes. This almost untouchable figure is charismatic and seems to have all the solutions, after traumatic events.
Mass dictatorship can be divided into totalitarian and authoritarian. The difference between these regimes is their approach to modernity. Totalitarian regimes want to reshape society completely and have utopian principles, there is often little personal freedom. Authoritarian regimes focus more on maintaining order and suppressing new transformations of society and personal freedom.
The different political regimes are brought into context with the theme of modernity. Modernity means changes in the economy, politics and socioculturally and is natural, therefore unstoppable. Political regimes that require a stable society need to embrace change rather than prohibit it like authoritarian regimes. On the other side totalitarian regimes utopian changes are very hard to achieve but also hard to define. Still this step towards change is more modern and could therefore have a higher chance to prevail.