Deviations
from the commonly accepted pattern of conduct, if admitted at all, are regarded as a "break-
?
?
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
Categories 42 to 45 have been omitted from consideration since we gained the impression that there was a certain reluctance on the part of some subjects to talk freely about the topics concerned.
2. "DIFFICUL T" CHILD
There [s a tendency, though not a statistically significant one, for both high-scoring men and women to report more frequently than low scorers that they were "difficult" as children. Among the male interviewees, IO high scorers as contrasted with only r low scorer describe themselves as unman- ageable, difficult, stubborn, aggressive, spoiled and/or sensitive in childhood (Category 4oa. M).
Aside from the possibility of this having actually been the case, it seems that some of the high-scoring subjects may seek in this way to justify the harsh discipline exerted by their parents by taking the blame themselves for any clashes that may have occurred. A further motive for this type of de- scription may be the wish, known to be present in high-scoring men (see above, Chapter VII, to conceive of oneself as possessing ''rugged mascu- linity. " The following examples from the records of high-scoring men seem to support both of the latter alternatives offered here as explanations.
M4o: (What were you like as a child? ) "Rowdy, I guess. Typical fresh Irish kid. . . . Snot-nosed, they used to call it. (Q) Oh, steal Joe Blow's apples (and similar pranks). If there was any trouble, I was in it. (Q) Oh, just a kid-I mean, nothing serious. "
M2o: "I had a pretty mean streak in me, especially around ten, pretty mis- chievous. My grandparents tried to hold me back. See that I'd play with the right kind of children. When I was around 12, I began to be pretty snotty to them and run around any time I wanted to. Sometimes I didn't do my work. At times, I'd feel ashamed of myself. . . . Makes me feel bad now. . . . (Q) No money. I couldn't run around much without money. Always tried to make it some way. . . . Three or four of us ran around together. Pretty snotty. . . . Maybe they tried to hold me down too much when I was younger. Wouldn't let me play, only with certain children. "
There is a corresponding though less pronounced trend in high-scoring women; they report that as children they were difficult, nervous, frail (Cate- gory 4oa. W). . Examples are:
F22: ''All I can remember is that mother said I was very fussy and finicky espe- cially about what I ate. "
F31: "I used to cry all the time. I don't know why, but people hurt my feelings. My brother took that out of me. I fought with him, and it got to the point where I could dish it out. "
F66: "I cried an awful lot when he died. Mother says I cried and ran out of rooms for years after he died because I didn't like to see her with any other man. She says I ruined her chances. "
Low-scoring subjects, on the other hand, show a tendency to describe
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
themselves as quiet, shy, self-conscious, or as unpopular in childhood. Low- scoring women, furthermore, relate somewhat more readily than do the high- scoring to have been "tomboys" and independent as children (Category 4oa, continued). Examples from the records of low-scoring subjects follow:
M48: (What sort of a person were you? ) "Hard for me to say-you mean, was I quiet? Well, would like to have been noisier, was always somewhat repressed by the other kids . . . shunned by (the leading cliques in school) . . . though I finally got in with my own gang about my own level. . . . "
M53: (What sort of person were you? ) "Hard to evaluate. . . . I think I was fairly quiet. . . . I was supposed to be pretty well behaved. Don't think I was remarkable in any respect. "
Mss: "Timid about dancing, afraid to dance; afraid to go out for sports for fear of being not a good player. " ?
F27 "I was an awful drip really. I was a very unhappy child. I think it was be- cause I was so fat. And I was abnormally shy. It used to make me mad when teachers would point me out as a model child for being so quiet. I knew I was only quiet because I was scared of everybody there. At home I was a noisy madcap. Of course, at home I was the center of the stage. Everyone thought I was wonderful. At school I guess I didn't feel appreciated. I knew I was very superior intellectually and was sort of a snob about that-but I didn't really care about that. I wanted to be liked and nobody liked me. So I just hurried home. All through grammar school I only had two friends-both girls. I never knew a boy well enough to really talk to. I guess those girls must have really tried to be friends with me because I never could have made any effort. "
Floyd Allport and D. A. Hartmann (8) found similar results when they administered a scale to measure political attitudes as well as several personal- ity schedules. They found that the liberals-to use our terminology-ex- ceeded the conservatives in "tender-mindedness," awareness of inner motives and conflicts, touchiness in personal matters, sensitiveness to the opinions of others, and a retiring nature. They are less expansive and self-assertive.
3. BLANDNESS VS. ADULT-ORIENTATION
It was assumed, in line with their general tendency toward denial and toward reluctance to face difficulties, that high-scoring subjects would be inclined further to describe their childhood as bland, happy, active, and without worries or shyness (Category 4ob). W e were aware of the fact that this assumption is in apparent contradiction to the trend just referred to, namely that high scorers lean toward describing themselves as having been difficult children. However, it is quite common to find denial of difficulties in such subjects side by side with revelation of difficulties. In descriptions of the childhood self there seem to be on the whole fewer manifestations of denial than in any other field with which we have dealt so far. This might be due to the fact that childhood is a possible projection screen for undesirable traits, offering another possibility of rendering these traits "ego-alien. " Obvi- ously, there is comparatively little necessity to glorify one's childhood, a period so far away in time. On the contrary, some of our high-scoring sub-
? SEX, PEOPLE, AND SELF SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 439
jects seem to find satisfaction in stressing handicaps, such as bad constitution, as something they had to overcome, thus making their success appear the more impressive.
Another aspect of childhood (referred to in the opposite variant of Cate- gory 4ob) is found with considerable frequency in the reports of low-scoring subjects. It may be summarized as orientation toward the adult and the espousal of internalized standards, as manifested in reading a lot, an interest in school and teachers, and in achievement striving. This trend is especially typical of the group of low-scoring men, in which 16 interviewees give a picture of themselves as having been adult-oriented in childhood, as com- pared with only I high-scoring man who does so. In women the correspond- ing figures are 7 and o.
This picture is substantiated in the direct study by the present author, referred to above (30), of children scoring low on a prejudice scale espe- cially designed for them. Though such children show less submission to authority, they tend to be genuinely more oriented toward adult values, such as interest in work.
Examples from both low-scoring men and women follow:
M53: (Especially remarkable? ) "I don't know. I don't think so. I was a pretty good student in school. Seemed to have a lot of friends. I don't remember any out- standing disappointments. (Worries as a child? ) Oh, let's see, that's difficult. I don't know. I can't remember any recurring worries as a child. (What about little things? ) Well, let me think. Shortly after my father's death, I worried about that for a while. Growing up without a father. . . . In high school I think I worried a lot about future occupation and how to earn a living. "
Ms6: (What were you like as a child? ) "Oh, very serious . . . read Rippants' 'His- tory of the World' at nine. My grandfather, when I was nine or ten, gave me Wash- ington Irving's 'Conquest of Granada,' which meant a great deal to me-gave me a sense of objectivity in history . . . he sometimes gave me temperance books. "
F27: "I was reading Dickens and Thackeray when other children were on Brer Rabbit, and knew all about the symphonies and operas while they were on nursery rhymes. "
Along the same line is a certain tendency on the part of the low-scoring subjects to report relative isolation in childhood, while high scorers refer to what may be defined as gang-sociability (Category 4oc), including such aspects as popularity and the holding of offices in clubs and high school fraternities and sororities. No figures for this trend are given in Table 4(XI), but examples from records of low-scoring subjects describing shyness and relative isolation in childhood are given here:
Msg: (What were you like as a child? ) "Always shy and when I was around a large group it was quite a while before I would enter into the spirit of things. "
F27: "I knew I was quiet because I was scared of everybody there. . . . I wanted to be liked and nobody liked me. So I just hurried home. "
F75: "In a way we are all alike in our family-shy and afraid of people. W e don't discuss it but I have noticed it in all of us, even my sister who doesn't act like it often.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
44?
My mother has always pushed us and wanted us to be different-go-getters-but she isn't. I was the worst-the sort who would cross the street rather than say hello to a friend. . . . I remember wishing my mother would leave me alone to do what I wanted. That would have been bad though. I guess, because I would have grown up a hermit. Even now, I prefer to curl up with a book or go for a walk by myself. "
M49: "Well, when we were small, we spent all the time we possibly could out-of- doors, and when we came out here, we never associated with . . . never had any con- tact with other children outside of school time (worked, helping at home) . . . just
played together at home. . . . Neither of us ever went out for any sports . . . . "
4. CONTRASTING PICTURE OF CHILDHOOD AND PRESENT
The last two categories to be discussed under attitude toward one's child- hood help to support and to round out the impression gained so far. It was pointed out above that high-scoring subjects seem to use their childhood as a projection screen for traits now considered as undesirable. This should make for discontinuity between childhood and present self (Category 41). Actually, such is the case, significantly more often in the high scorers (at the 1 per cent level for men and at the 5 per cent level for women) than in the low scorers, the latter tending to show continuity between childhood and adult self. High scorers even may give the impression of an actual break by
glorifying the present self and by finding fault with the past.
On the whole, finally, high scorers tend to make little spontaneous comment while the low scorers offer considerable spontaneous comment about their childhood (Category 46), the difference being significant at the 2 per cent level for both men and women. This is but one more among several manifes- tations of the greater intraceptiveness of the low scorers, and of their greater
inclination to explain human behavior in psychological and social terms.
5. SUMMARY OF A TTITUDE TOW ARD PRESENT SELF AND CHILDHOOD SELF
As in the evaluation of their parents and of the other sex, high scorers tend in their self-evaluation to stress the positive and desirable aspects; or at least this is so on the surface level. They are prone to point to their "will power" and determination in overcoming the handicaps and vicissitudes of life. Energy, decisiveness, aggressiveness in competition tend to be particularly prominent in the ego-ideal of high-scoring men.
However, there is evidence that the repeated assertions of independence are a defense against strong feelings of dependence, passivity, helplessness, and sometimes even self-contempt. These feelings are but rarely recognized or accepted as such without making an attempt at self-justification.
What is not acceptable to the ego tends in the further course of events to become externalized, thus rendering the ego narrow and constricted. In fur- ther consequence, prejudiced subjects tend to regard themselves as conven- tional, not different, and therefore "all right," and their descriptions of themselves have a definitely moralistic tone.
Deviations from the commonly accepted pattern of conduct, if admitted at all, are regarded as a "break-
? SEX, PEOPLE, AND SELF SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 44I
through" of tendencies which are either beyond explanation or which are explained away by external factors and incidents over which the subject could not possibly have had control. Judicious explanations of the socio- psychological kind are avoided in this type of approach to the self. This makes for a comparative lack of experienced continuity between childhood self and present self. In line with this, high scorers are generally somewhat reluctant to make spontaneous reference to their childhood, thus trying further to disclaim for themselves and for their parents the responsibility for the outcome.
Unprejudiced individuals, on the other hand, seem to be on better terms with themselves, due perhaps to the fact that they have been more loved and accepted by their parents. Thus they are more ready to admit falling short of their ideals and of the roles they are expected to play by our culture. Impulses and tendencies which seem less desirable are ? nonetheless accepted as a part of the self, making for a richer, more complex, and more intraceptive content of the ego. Thus, as was pointed out in the first section of this chapter, low-scoring men prove themselves more able to afford frank admis- sion of passivity and weakness without having to resort-to the same degree as high-scoring men may have to-to the use of rigid and counterphobic defenses against these feelings. In accordance with this, there is comparatively frequent evidence of open admission of conflict about the feminine role in low-scoring women, as well as of their genuine fondness of men.
Furthermore, low scorers tend to derive their security from recourse to their personal identity in addition to such external factors as group mem- bership or property. Hence they tend to present themselves in their inter- views as individualized and unconventional. Instead of trying to live up to conventionally defined rules and values, they tend to strive toward real achievement, toward understanding and affiliation, and toward the realiza- tion of humanitarian and liberal values such as the improvement of social relations or self-improvement. They seem to be interested in explanations of their present self in terms of their entire development. They make con- siderable spontaneous reference to their childhood. Their descriptions of themselves as children are ! ">ften far from the picture of what would be generally called a well adjusted child. They report having been withdrawn, shy, and self-conscious; oriented toward work, reading, and an adult set of values. These reports are in accordance with direct findings, in an inde- pendent study, on the personality of extremely unprejudiced children.
As adults, low scorers often continue to manifest open anxieties and feel- ings of depression, due perhaps at least in part to their greater capacity of facing insecurity and conflict. Their greater readiness to introspect may be considered as an attempt to master these problems and to achieve a depend- able and flexible form of adjustment. Sometimes it appears that they may succeed; in other cases it seems that there is but a morbid dwelling on psy- chological topics.
? CHAPTER XII
DYNAMIC AND COGNITIVE PERSONALITY ORGAN! - ZA TION AS SEEN THROUGH THE INTERVIEWS Else Frenkel-Brunswik
A. DYNAMIC CHARACTER STRUCTURE
1. DEFINITION OF RA TING CA TEGORIES AND QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
Throughout the preceding discussion of interview material repeated ref- erence was made to a variety of so-called defense mechanisms. Among them were repression of sex and aggression, overemphasis on cleanliness, various forms of defense against one's own passivity, and the like. Again and again it became evident that the difference between the ethnocentric and the non- ethnocentric extremes hinges more on the rejection vs. the acceptance of such depth factors as homosexuality, or aggression, or passivity, or anality than it does on the mere presence or absence of one or another of these tendencies. In other words, it was not primarily the relative strength of such tendencies that seemed to matter, but rather the way in which these tendencies were handled in the motivational dynamics of the subject in question. In the framework of these dynamics, ? defense mechanisms are the instruments of rejection of those tendencies which the subject is not ready to face and to incorporate.
The categories of the Interview Scoring Manual discussed in the present chapter are centered about such defense mechanisms, per se, along with other dynamic patterns fulfilling a related function. Thus, some of these categories cut across a variety of aspects investigated so far, and offer the possibility of providing synopses of previous observations. By the use of these categories direct support could be found for many assumptions made previously on the basis of more scattered or indirect evidence.
The list of categories related to dynamic character structure is as follows: 442
? PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 443 INTERVIEW SCORING MANUAL: DYNAMIC CHARACTER
STRUCTURE (toTable I(XII))
PRESUMABLY "HIGH" VARIANTS
PRESUMABLY "Low" VARIANTS
Positive expressions of "erotic" orality (of zone-sensuality, e. g. , food cathexis, oral perver- sions, and/or sublimations, i. e. , verbal-emotional-artistic ex-
pressiveness-expansiveness)
Anal reaction-formations func- tional and nonmoralistic. Means-end relationship re- tained; or anal sublimations; or relative absence of anal reac- tion-formations
47?
48.
49?
Counter- cathectic rejection of "erotic" orality (of zone- sensuality and/or its sublima- tions, i:e. , of verbal-emotional- artistic expressiveness)
Rigid-moralistic-anal reaction- formations as ends-in-them- selves; overemphasis on, and preoccupations with, totali- tarian-moralistic (positive and negative) typologizing (e. g. , two kinds of people, "clean" and "dirty"); emphasis on
money and property
Diffuse, ego-alien dependence.
Escapism, dodging responsibil- ity; underlying ego-alien pas- sivity; helplessness-weakness (expressed openly in men only when overwhelmed or victimized-e. g. "foxhole re- ligion"-with ali-or-none char- acter). Characterized by affec- tive poveny and exchange- ability of object
47?
48.
a. Diffuse, impersonalized; some- times replaced by ingratiation b. Moralistic-authoritarian. To-
a. Focal, personal
secutory (pogrom frame of mind)
c. Destructive-explosive. Tend- ing toward ali-or-none, and toward physical expression
(2) Love-oriented. Especially in response to rejection by a cathected object
c. Relatively mild, day-to-day. T ending toward regular re- lease, and toward verbal ex- pression
a. Ego-alien
sr. Ambivalence:
a. (I) Sometimes admitted
openly; ego-accepted
( 2) Conscious inhibition of
affect
b. Expressed sometimes openly
toward original objects or
b. Solved by dichotomies and dis- placement
so. Aggression:
49? Love-orientedsuccorance-nur- turance, acceptance of de- pendency and affect, . specific- ity of object cathexis
?
b. (I) Principled - intellectual- talitarian; punitive; often per- ized
? 444
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
a. Inverted Oedipal attachment b. Underlying ego-alien identifi- cation with opposite sex par- ent's role. Emphasis on domi-
nance-submission conflicts c/M. Pseudo-masculinity c/W. Pseudo-femininity
53? Externalized superego, "social anxiety"; or rigid superego, unconscious guilt
a. Normal Oedipal attachment b. Genuine, ego-integrated iden- tification with either or both
parents
c. Ego-integrated masculinity and/or femininity. Emphasis is on character traits and inter- nalized values
53? Internalized superego, some- times severe and irrational; conscious guilt
?
56a. Distortion of "reality" 56b. Authoritarian moralism
56a. Realistic-objective re world generally
56c. Denial of "negative things" in 56c. self, "official optimism"
56d. Concern with physical symp- toms
56e. Concern with physical appear- ance
56f. Hysterical conversion symp- toms (especially in men)
"reality representatives" of original objects (e. g. author- ity; mother figures)
52? Identification:
54- Rejection and countercathexis 54? Acceptance and sublimation
of ego-alien impulses, espe- cially of sex, of aggression against parents and authorities, and of feelings of weakness and passivity
55. Ego weak; often skillful in at- taining success and deter- mined in overt action; some- times combined with oppor- tunistic over-realism
of id, often with conscious conflict between competing impulses; sometimes conscious inhibition of id
55? Ego moderate strength, or strong. Criteria: sustained ef- fort, ability to postpone pleasure for sake of in- ternalized values; ability to assume responsibility; emo- tional maturity, etc. Some- times drifting into impractical pursuits
Further mechanisms
The quantitative results are shown, in the usual manner, in Table 1 (XII).
56b.
Intellectualization, sometimes of the type of philosophical rationalization rather than of intellectual penetration
Open psychological conflict
concerning own adequacy, maturity, or the violation of liberal values, etc.
? PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 445
2. ORALITY AND ANALITY
We turn first to the so-called oral and anal trends, especially their ac- ceptance vs. rejection whenever this occurs in the two groups scoring extremely high or low on the overt Ethnocentrism scale. As in the preceding discussion, the terms "anality" and "orality" do not refer here to the earlier psychogenetic stages but rather to special character syndromes found in the adult personality; these latter have been described, likewise by psycho- analysis, in terms of present symptoms assumed to be connected with their respective counterparts in childhood.
It was first expected that in line with the general tendency toward repres- sion, high-scoring subjects would tend to defend themselves against both the direct oral urge, e. g. , indulgence in food, drinking, smoking, etc. , as well as against tendencies assumed to be related to this urge-indulgence in talking, artistic interests, etc. The low scorers, on the other hand, were expected to show more acceptance of and more liking for manifestations assumed to be directly or indirectly related to orality. On this basis, orality was incorpo- rated in the Interview Scoring Manual in the form defined by Category 47?
Although there actually is within our material a trend in the expected direction, especially for women (see Table I (XII)), it is far from being statistically significant. This may well be due to the presence of an "oral demandingness" in the high scorers as manifested, for example, in a depend- dence on getting "things," and a dependence on authorities and supernatural forces as discussed above. These specific manifestations were not fully antici- pated at the time the definitions of the category were laid down, although they were given proper consideration throughout by the two raters, both being clinically trained and psychoanalytically oriented.
The original hypothesis proved most valid where rejection of drinking and smoking on the part of the typical high scorer was concerned, and this may well be seen as part of a general conventionalism.
As was expected, indulgence in what may be called direct orality is more often found in the low scorers. An illustration may be found in the following record:
F62: "For a while I wanted to be an actress but I love to eat and, strangely enough, the actresses seem not to eat. Because of not being able to reduce and because of the fact that the job of a teacher is more secure, I decided to become a teacher. "
The various behavior forms assumed to be indirectly derived from orality do not show any pronounced differences, however. More detailed distinc- tions of the various levels and kinds of direct and devious manifestations of orality may well reveal striking differences between the ethnically prej- udiced and unprejudiced.
In contrast to orality, the rejection vs. acceptance of tendencies customar- ily designated as anal syndrome (Category 48) proved significantly differ- entiating (at the I per cent level) for both men and women interviewees.
? 47?
48?
49. 50?
~
b,
c. 51?
~
b.
Men Q. 7
1! . . 32 ll. 5
TABLE 1 (XII)
INTERVIEW RATINGS ON DYNAMIC CHARACTER STRUCTURE
FOR 80 SUBJECTS SCORING EXTREMELY "HIGH" OR "LOW" ON THE ETHNIC PREJUDICE QUESTIONNAIRE SCALE
Interview rating categories Jabbreviated from Manual)
Number of "High"(H) and "Low"(L) Sex ratings received by
Sums of instances ? positive" ~negative"
Level of statistical significance
reached or
surpassed (percentage)
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
5
1
1
2 5
Rejection(H) vs, positive ex- pression(L) of "erotic" orality Women
H L 2
u. 9 25 4
24 3
31 5 24 3
30 4 24 3
Anal reaction-formations rigid- Men moralistic (H) vs, functional Women and nonmoralistic(L)
Diffuse, ego-alien(H) vs, love- Men oriented(L) dependence Women
Aggression:
Diffuse, depersonalized(H) Men vs. focal, personalized(L) Women
Moralistic-authoritarian(H) Men vs. principled-intellectualized WOmen or love-oriented(L)
Destructive-explosive(H) Men vs. relatively mild(L) Women
Ambivalence:
Ego-alien(H) vs, sometimes Men admitted openly(L) Women
Solved by dichotomies and dis? Men placement(H) vs, expressed Women openly toward original object(L)
121 3 172 3
173 2 14 i72 1 7
11. 2 2 13 g3 0 11
20 men and 25 women "high scorers" H L
20 men and 15 women "low scorers"
15 2 2 12 27 16 1 2 ro 26
2 2 3 3
15 2 4 27 ! . [ 4 2 25
14 2 5 22 93 2 18
4 3
4 6
6 6
7 5
? 3il18 7 3 . . ! ! . 17 14
213 25 3 1
211 ~ 3 1 >tl
2! Q253 211157
1 >1:'"' . . . . . . . . ,
214 30 5 112 27 6
l
. . . . . N
510 24 6 4. 1. 28 5
. . . . .
-
0
711 25 12 5
3! 1 23 12 5 z
410 18 7 310 18 7
M . . . ,
312 26 6 3~ 25 4
0
212 29 3 19 21 4
1
. . . . .
-
1 z . . . ,
373 060
~
5~5 1 . ! ! . . 1 232 3 I3
$1
1
~
1
1 z
5
:I:
1 q
1
C)
M
::0
(FJ
0
z
-<
1:5
> z
0
(FJ
M
::0
:I:
M
. . . . . M
(FJ
. .
2. "DIFFICUL T" CHILD
There [s a tendency, though not a statistically significant one, for both high-scoring men and women to report more frequently than low scorers that they were "difficult" as children. Among the male interviewees, IO high scorers as contrasted with only r low scorer describe themselves as unman- ageable, difficult, stubborn, aggressive, spoiled and/or sensitive in childhood (Category 4oa. M).
Aside from the possibility of this having actually been the case, it seems that some of the high-scoring subjects may seek in this way to justify the harsh discipline exerted by their parents by taking the blame themselves for any clashes that may have occurred. A further motive for this type of de- scription may be the wish, known to be present in high-scoring men (see above, Chapter VII, to conceive of oneself as possessing ''rugged mascu- linity. " The following examples from the records of high-scoring men seem to support both of the latter alternatives offered here as explanations.
M4o: (What were you like as a child? ) "Rowdy, I guess. Typical fresh Irish kid. . . . Snot-nosed, they used to call it. (Q) Oh, steal Joe Blow's apples (and similar pranks). If there was any trouble, I was in it. (Q) Oh, just a kid-I mean, nothing serious. "
M2o: "I had a pretty mean streak in me, especially around ten, pretty mis- chievous. My grandparents tried to hold me back. See that I'd play with the right kind of children. When I was around 12, I began to be pretty snotty to them and run around any time I wanted to. Sometimes I didn't do my work. At times, I'd feel ashamed of myself. . . . Makes me feel bad now. . . . (Q) No money. I couldn't run around much without money. Always tried to make it some way. . . . Three or four of us ran around together. Pretty snotty. . . . Maybe they tried to hold me down too much when I was younger. Wouldn't let me play, only with certain children. "
There is a corresponding though less pronounced trend in high-scoring women; they report that as children they were difficult, nervous, frail (Cate- gory 4oa. W). . Examples are:
F22: ''All I can remember is that mother said I was very fussy and finicky espe- cially about what I ate. "
F31: "I used to cry all the time. I don't know why, but people hurt my feelings. My brother took that out of me. I fought with him, and it got to the point where I could dish it out. "
F66: "I cried an awful lot when he died. Mother says I cried and ran out of rooms for years after he died because I didn't like to see her with any other man. She says I ruined her chances. "
Low-scoring subjects, on the other hand, show a tendency to describe
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
themselves as quiet, shy, self-conscious, or as unpopular in childhood. Low- scoring women, furthermore, relate somewhat more readily than do the high- scoring to have been "tomboys" and independent as children (Category 4oa, continued). Examples from the records of low-scoring subjects follow:
M48: (What sort of a person were you? ) "Hard for me to say-you mean, was I quiet? Well, would like to have been noisier, was always somewhat repressed by the other kids . . . shunned by (the leading cliques in school) . . . though I finally got in with my own gang about my own level. . . . "
M53: (What sort of person were you? ) "Hard to evaluate. . . . I think I was fairly quiet. . . . I was supposed to be pretty well behaved. Don't think I was remarkable in any respect. "
Mss: "Timid about dancing, afraid to dance; afraid to go out for sports for fear of being not a good player. " ?
F27 "I was an awful drip really. I was a very unhappy child. I think it was be- cause I was so fat. And I was abnormally shy. It used to make me mad when teachers would point me out as a model child for being so quiet. I knew I was only quiet because I was scared of everybody there. At home I was a noisy madcap. Of course, at home I was the center of the stage. Everyone thought I was wonderful. At school I guess I didn't feel appreciated. I knew I was very superior intellectually and was sort of a snob about that-but I didn't really care about that. I wanted to be liked and nobody liked me. So I just hurried home. All through grammar school I only had two friends-both girls. I never knew a boy well enough to really talk to. I guess those girls must have really tried to be friends with me because I never could have made any effort. "
Floyd Allport and D. A. Hartmann (8) found similar results when they administered a scale to measure political attitudes as well as several personal- ity schedules. They found that the liberals-to use our terminology-ex- ceeded the conservatives in "tender-mindedness," awareness of inner motives and conflicts, touchiness in personal matters, sensitiveness to the opinions of others, and a retiring nature. They are less expansive and self-assertive.
3. BLANDNESS VS. ADULT-ORIENTATION
It was assumed, in line with their general tendency toward denial and toward reluctance to face difficulties, that high-scoring subjects would be inclined further to describe their childhood as bland, happy, active, and without worries or shyness (Category 4ob). W e were aware of the fact that this assumption is in apparent contradiction to the trend just referred to, namely that high scorers lean toward describing themselves as having been difficult children. However, it is quite common to find denial of difficulties in such subjects side by side with revelation of difficulties. In descriptions of the childhood self there seem to be on the whole fewer manifestations of denial than in any other field with which we have dealt so far. This might be due to the fact that childhood is a possible projection screen for undesirable traits, offering another possibility of rendering these traits "ego-alien. " Obvi- ously, there is comparatively little necessity to glorify one's childhood, a period so far away in time. On the contrary, some of our high-scoring sub-
? SEX, PEOPLE, AND SELF SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 439
jects seem to find satisfaction in stressing handicaps, such as bad constitution, as something they had to overcome, thus making their success appear the more impressive.
Another aspect of childhood (referred to in the opposite variant of Cate- gory 4ob) is found with considerable frequency in the reports of low-scoring subjects. It may be summarized as orientation toward the adult and the espousal of internalized standards, as manifested in reading a lot, an interest in school and teachers, and in achievement striving. This trend is especially typical of the group of low-scoring men, in which 16 interviewees give a picture of themselves as having been adult-oriented in childhood, as com- pared with only I high-scoring man who does so. In women the correspond- ing figures are 7 and o.
This picture is substantiated in the direct study by the present author, referred to above (30), of children scoring low on a prejudice scale espe- cially designed for them. Though such children show less submission to authority, they tend to be genuinely more oriented toward adult values, such as interest in work.
Examples from both low-scoring men and women follow:
M53: (Especially remarkable? ) "I don't know. I don't think so. I was a pretty good student in school. Seemed to have a lot of friends. I don't remember any out- standing disappointments. (Worries as a child? ) Oh, let's see, that's difficult. I don't know. I can't remember any recurring worries as a child. (What about little things? ) Well, let me think. Shortly after my father's death, I worried about that for a while. Growing up without a father. . . . In high school I think I worried a lot about future occupation and how to earn a living. "
Ms6: (What were you like as a child? ) "Oh, very serious . . . read Rippants' 'His- tory of the World' at nine. My grandfather, when I was nine or ten, gave me Wash- ington Irving's 'Conquest of Granada,' which meant a great deal to me-gave me a sense of objectivity in history . . . he sometimes gave me temperance books. "
F27: "I was reading Dickens and Thackeray when other children were on Brer Rabbit, and knew all about the symphonies and operas while they were on nursery rhymes. "
Along the same line is a certain tendency on the part of the low-scoring subjects to report relative isolation in childhood, while high scorers refer to what may be defined as gang-sociability (Category 4oc), including such aspects as popularity and the holding of offices in clubs and high school fraternities and sororities. No figures for this trend are given in Table 4(XI), but examples from records of low-scoring subjects describing shyness and relative isolation in childhood are given here:
Msg: (What were you like as a child? ) "Always shy and when I was around a large group it was quite a while before I would enter into the spirit of things. "
F27: "I knew I was quiet because I was scared of everybody there. . . . I wanted to be liked and nobody liked me. So I just hurried home. "
F75: "In a way we are all alike in our family-shy and afraid of people. W e don't discuss it but I have noticed it in all of us, even my sister who doesn't act like it often.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
44?
My mother has always pushed us and wanted us to be different-go-getters-but she isn't. I was the worst-the sort who would cross the street rather than say hello to a friend. . . . I remember wishing my mother would leave me alone to do what I wanted. That would have been bad though. I guess, because I would have grown up a hermit. Even now, I prefer to curl up with a book or go for a walk by myself. "
M49: "Well, when we were small, we spent all the time we possibly could out-of- doors, and when we came out here, we never associated with . . . never had any con- tact with other children outside of school time (worked, helping at home) . . . just
played together at home. . . . Neither of us ever went out for any sports . . . . "
4. CONTRASTING PICTURE OF CHILDHOOD AND PRESENT
The last two categories to be discussed under attitude toward one's child- hood help to support and to round out the impression gained so far. It was pointed out above that high-scoring subjects seem to use their childhood as a projection screen for traits now considered as undesirable. This should make for discontinuity between childhood and present self (Category 41). Actually, such is the case, significantly more often in the high scorers (at the 1 per cent level for men and at the 5 per cent level for women) than in the low scorers, the latter tending to show continuity between childhood and adult self. High scorers even may give the impression of an actual break by
glorifying the present self and by finding fault with the past.
On the whole, finally, high scorers tend to make little spontaneous comment while the low scorers offer considerable spontaneous comment about their childhood (Category 46), the difference being significant at the 2 per cent level for both men and women. This is but one more among several manifes- tations of the greater intraceptiveness of the low scorers, and of their greater
inclination to explain human behavior in psychological and social terms.
5. SUMMARY OF A TTITUDE TOW ARD PRESENT SELF AND CHILDHOOD SELF
As in the evaluation of their parents and of the other sex, high scorers tend in their self-evaluation to stress the positive and desirable aspects; or at least this is so on the surface level. They are prone to point to their "will power" and determination in overcoming the handicaps and vicissitudes of life. Energy, decisiveness, aggressiveness in competition tend to be particularly prominent in the ego-ideal of high-scoring men.
However, there is evidence that the repeated assertions of independence are a defense against strong feelings of dependence, passivity, helplessness, and sometimes even self-contempt. These feelings are but rarely recognized or accepted as such without making an attempt at self-justification.
What is not acceptable to the ego tends in the further course of events to become externalized, thus rendering the ego narrow and constricted. In fur- ther consequence, prejudiced subjects tend to regard themselves as conven- tional, not different, and therefore "all right," and their descriptions of themselves have a definitely moralistic tone.
Deviations from the commonly accepted pattern of conduct, if admitted at all, are regarded as a "break-
? SEX, PEOPLE, AND SELF SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 44I
through" of tendencies which are either beyond explanation or which are explained away by external factors and incidents over which the subject could not possibly have had control. Judicious explanations of the socio- psychological kind are avoided in this type of approach to the self. This makes for a comparative lack of experienced continuity between childhood self and present self. In line with this, high scorers are generally somewhat reluctant to make spontaneous reference to their childhood, thus trying further to disclaim for themselves and for their parents the responsibility for the outcome.
Unprejudiced individuals, on the other hand, seem to be on better terms with themselves, due perhaps to the fact that they have been more loved and accepted by their parents. Thus they are more ready to admit falling short of their ideals and of the roles they are expected to play by our culture. Impulses and tendencies which seem less desirable are ? nonetheless accepted as a part of the self, making for a richer, more complex, and more intraceptive content of the ego. Thus, as was pointed out in the first section of this chapter, low-scoring men prove themselves more able to afford frank admis- sion of passivity and weakness without having to resort-to the same degree as high-scoring men may have to-to the use of rigid and counterphobic defenses against these feelings. In accordance with this, there is comparatively frequent evidence of open admission of conflict about the feminine role in low-scoring women, as well as of their genuine fondness of men.
Furthermore, low scorers tend to derive their security from recourse to their personal identity in addition to such external factors as group mem- bership or property. Hence they tend to present themselves in their inter- views as individualized and unconventional. Instead of trying to live up to conventionally defined rules and values, they tend to strive toward real achievement, toward understanding and affiliation, and toward the realiza- tion of humanitarian and liberal values such as the improvement of social relations or self-improvement. They seem to be interested in explanations of their present self in terms of their entire development. They make con- siderable spontaneous reference to their childhood. Their descriptions of themselves as children are ! ">ften far from the picture of what would be generally called a well adjusted child. They report having been withdrawn, shy, and self-conscious; oriented toward work, reading, and an adult set of values. These reports are in accordance with direct findings, in an inde- pendent study, on the personality of extremely unprejudiced children.
As adults, low scorers often continue to manifest open anxieties and feel- ings of depression, due perhaps at least in part to their greater capacity of facing insecurity and conflict. Their greater readiness to introspect may be considered as an attempt to master these problems and to achieve a depend- able and flexible form of adjustment. Sometimes it appears that they may succeed; in other cases it seems that there is but a morbid dwelling on psy- chological topics.
? CHAPTER XII
DYNAMIC AND COGNITIVE PERSONALITY ORGAN! - ZA TION AS SEEN THROUGH THE INTERVIEWS Else Frenkel-Brunswik
A. DYNAMIC CHARACTER STRUCTURE
1. DEFINITION OF RA TING CA TEGORIES AND QUANTITATIVE RESULTS
Throughout the preceding discussion of interview material repeated ref- erence was made to a variety of so-called defense mechanisms. Among them were repression of sex and aggression, overemphasis on cleanliness, various forms of defense against one's own passivity, and the like. Again and again it became evident that the difference between the ethnocentric and the non- ethnocentric extremes hinges more on the rejection vs. the acceptance of such depth factors as homosexuality, or aggression, or passivity, or anality than it does on the mere presence or absence of one or another of these tendencies. In other words, it was not primarily the relative strength of such tendencies that seemed to matter, but rather the way in which these tendencies were handled in the motivational dynamics of the subject in question. In the framework of these dynamics, ? defense mechanisms are the instruments of rejection of those tendencies which the subject is not ready to face and to incorporate.
The categories of the Interview Scoring Manual discussed in the present chapter are centered about such defense mechanisms, per se, along with other dynamic patterns fulfilling a related function. Thus, some of these categories cut across a variety of aspects investigated so far, and offer the possibility of providing synopses of previous observations. By the use of these categories direct support could be found for many assumptions made previously on the basis of more scattered or indirect evidence.
The list of categories related to dynamic character structure is as follows: 442
? PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 443 INTERVIEW SCORING MANUAL: DYNAMIC CHARACTER
STRUCTURE (toTable I(XII))
PRESUMABLY "HIGH" VARIANTS
PRESUMABLY "Low" VARIANTS
Positive expressions of "erotic" orality (of zone-sensuality, e. g. , food cathexis, oral perver- sions, and/or sublimations, i. e. , verbal-emotional-artistic ex-
pressiveness-expansiveness)
Anal reaction-formations func- tional and nonmoralistic. Means-end relationship re- tained; or anal sublimations; or relative absence of anal reac- tion-formations
47?
48.
49?
Counter- cathectic rejection of "erotic" orality (of zone- sensuality and/or its sublima- tions, i:e. , of verbal-emotional- artistic expressiveness)
Rigid-moralistic-anal reaction- formations as ends-in-them- selves; overemphasis on, and preoccupations with, totali- tarian-moralistic (positive and negative) typologizing (e. g. , two kinds of people, "clean" and "dirty"); emphasis on
money and property
Diffuse, ego-alien dependence.
Escapism, dodging responsibil- ity; underlying ego-alien pas- sivity; helplessness-weakness (expressed openly in men only when overwhelmed or victimized-e. g. "foxhole re- ligion"-with ali-or-none char- acter). Characterized by affec- tive poveny and exchange- ability of object
47?
48.
a. Diffuse, impersonalized; some- times replaced by ingratiation b. Moralistic-authoritarian. To-
a. Focal, personal
secutory (pogrom frame of mind)
c. Destructive-explosive. Tend- ing toward ali-or-none, and toward physical expression
(2) Love-oriented. Especially in response to rejection by a cathected object
c. Relatively mild, day-to-day. T ending toward regular re- lease, and toward verbal ex- pression
a. Ego-alien
sr. Ambivalence:
a. (I) Sometimes admitted
openly; ego-accepted
( 2) Conscious inhibition of
affect
b. Expressed sometimes openly
toward original objects or
b. Solved by dichotomies and dis- placement
so. Aggression:
49? Love-orientedsuccorance-nur- turance, acceptance of de- pendency and affect, . specific- ity of object cathexis
?
b. (I) Principled - intellectual- talitarian; punitive; often per- ized
? 444
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
a. Inverted Oedipal attachment b. Underlying ego-alien identifi- cation with opposite sex par- ent's role. Emphasis on domi-
nance-submission conflicts c/M. Pseudo-masculinity c/W. Pseudo-femininity
53? Externalized superego, "social anxiety"; or rigid superego, unconscious guilt
a. Normal Oedipal attachment b. Genuine, ego-integrated iden- tification with either or both
parents
c. Ego-integrated masculinity and/or femininity. Emphasis is on character traits and inter- nalized values
53? Internalized superego, some- times severe and irrational; conscious guilt
?
56a. Distortion of "reality" 56b. Authoritarian moralism
56a. Realistic-objective re world generally
56c. Denial of "negative things" in 56c. self, "official optimism"
56d. Concern with physical symp- toms
56e. Concern with physical appear- ance
56f. Hysterical conversion symp- toms (especially in men)
"reality representatives" of original objects (e. g. author- ity; mother figures)
52? Identification:
54- Rejection and countercathexis 54? Acceptance and sublimation
of ego-alien impulses, espe- cially of sex, of aggression against parents and authorities, and of feelings of weakness and passivity
55. Ego weak; often skillful in at- taining success and deter- mined in overt action; some- times combined with oppor- tunistic over-realism
of id, often with conscious conflict between competing impulses; sometimes conscious inhibition of id
55? Ego moderate strength, or strong. Criteria: sustained ef- fort, ability to postpone pleasure for sake of in- ternalized values; ability to assume responsibility; emo- tional maturity, etc. Some- times drifting into impractical pursuits
Further mechanisms
The quantitative results are shown, in the usual manner, in Table 1 (XII).
56b.
Intellectualization, sometimes of the type of philosophical rationalization rather than of intellectual penetration
Open psychological conflict
concerning own adequacy, maturity, or the violation of liberal values, etc.
? PERSONALITY ORGANIZATION SEEN THROUGH INTERVIEWS 445
2. ORALITY AND ANALITY
We turn first to the so-called oral and anal trends, especially their ac- ceptance vs. rejection whenever this occurs in the two groups scoring extremely high or low on the overt Ethnocentrism scale. As in the preceding discussion, the terms "anality" and "orality" do not refer here to the earlier psychogenetic stages but rather to special character syndromes found in the adult personality; these latter have been described, likewise by psycho- analysis, in terms of present symptoms assumed to be connected with their respective counterparts in childhood.
It was first expected that in line with the general tendency toward repres- sion, high-scoring subjects would tend to defend themselves against both the direct oral urge, e. g. , indulgence in food, drinking, smoking, etc. , as well as against tendencies assumed to be related to this urge-indulgence in talking, artistic interests, etc. The low scorers, on the other hand, were expected to show more acceptance of and more liking for manifestations assumed to be directly or indirectly related to orality. On this basis, orality was incorpo- rated in the Interview Scoring Manual in the form defined by Category 47?
Although there actually is within our material a trend in the expected direction, especially for women (see Table I (XII)), it is far from being statistically significant. This may well be due to the presence of an "oral demandingness" in the high scorers as manifested, for example, in a depend- dence on getting "things," and a dependence on authorities and supernatural forces as discussed above. These specific manifestations were not fully antici- pated at the time the definitions of the category were laid down, although they were given proper consideration throughout by the two raters, both being clinically trained and psychoanalytically oriented.
The original hypothesis proved most valid where rejection of drinking and smoking on the part of the typical high scorer was concerned, and this may well be seen as part of a general conventionalism.
As was expected, indulgence in what may be called direct orality is more often found in the low scorers. An illustration may be found in the following record:
F62: "For a while I wanted to be an actress but I love to eat and, strangely enough, the actresses seem not to eat. Because of not being able to reduce and because of the fact that the job of a teacher is more secure, I decided to become a teacher. "
The various behavior forms assumed to be indirectly derived from orality do not show any pronounced differences, however. More detailed distinc- tions of the various levels and kinds of direct and devious manifestations of orality may well reveal striking differences between the ethnically prej- udiced and unprejudiced.
In contrast to orality, the rejection vs. acceptance of tendencies customar- ily designated as anal syndrome (Category 48) proved significantly differ- entiating (at the I per cent level) for both men and women interviewees.
? 47?
48?
49. 50?
~
b,
c. 51?
~
b.
Men Q. 7
1! . . 32 ll. 5
TABLE 1 (XII)
INTERVIEW RATINGS ON DYNAMIC CHARACTER STRUCTURE
FOR 80 SUBJECTS SCORING EXTREMELY "HIGH" OR "LOW" ON THE ETHNIC PREJUDICE QUESTIONNAIRE SCALE
Interview rating categories Jabbreviated from Manual)
Number of "High"(H) and "Low"(L) Sex ratings received by
Sums of instances ? positive" ~negative"
Level of statistical significance
reached or
surpassed (percentage)
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
5
1
1
2 5
Rejection(H) vs, positive ex- pression(L) of "erotic" orality Women
H L 2
u. 9 25 4
24 3
31 5 24 3
30 4 24 3
Anal reaction-formations rigid- Men moralistic (H) vs, functional Women and nonmoralistic(L)
Diffuse, ego-alien(H) vs, love- Men oriented(L) dependence Women
Aggression:
Diffuse, depersonalized(H) Men vs. focal, personalized(L) Women
Moralistic-authoritarian(H) Men vs. principled-intellectualized WOmen or love-oriented(L)
Destructive-explosive(H) Men vs. relatively mild(L) Women
Ambivalence:
Ego-alien(H) vs, sometimes Men admitted openly(L) Women
Solved by dichotomies and dis? Men placement(H) vs, expressed Women openly toward original object(L)
121 3 172 3
173 2 14 i72 1 7
11. 2 2 13 g3 0 11
20 men and 25 women "high scorers" H L
20 men and 15 women "low scorers"
15 2 2 12 27 16 1 2 ro 26
2 2 3 3
15 2 4 27 ! . [ 4 2 25
14 2 5 22 93 2 18
4 3
4 6
6 6
7 5
? 3il18 7 3 . . ! ! . 17 14
213 25 3 1
211 ~ 3 1 >tl
2! Q253 211157
1 >1:'"' . . . . . . . . ,
214 30 5 112 27 6
l
. . . . . N
510 24 6 4. 1. 28 5
. . . . .
-
0
711 25 12 5
3! 1 23 12 5 z
410 18 7 310 18 7
M . . . ,
312 26 6 3~ 25 4
0
212 29 3 19 21 4
1
. . . . .
-
1 z . . . ,
373 060
~
5~5 1 . ! ! . . 1 232 3 I3
$1
1
~
1
1 z
5
:I:
1 q
1
C)
M
::0
(FJ
0
z
-<
1:5
> z
0
(FJ
M
::0
:I:
M
. . . . . M
(FJ
. .
