One is superficially liberal attitudes among some high scorers (exemplified in
interview
material).
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
"
For example: "There might be no way to get them out except by revolution"
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
(Ronald). \Vilbur reveals, rather pathetically, a similar pogrom mentality in his attitude toward "the Greeks": "If they don't stop (punishing the poor people), there's going to be more American people in the penitentiary. " He feels "they" ought to be sent back to Greece.
b. FAscrsTs. The anti-Semitic stereotypes of the three fascists are fairly similar to those of the pseudodemocratic high scorers. They focus on acquis- itiveness as well as clannishness and monopolization of power. The fascist subjects stress a further trait attributed to Jews, however, which is not men- tioned by the other high scorers, viz. , excessive sensuality.
Buck refers especially to sexual obsessions and homosexuality among Jewish men: (What are Jews like? ) "Most all of them Jews talk about sex mostly, or beatin' a guy out of his money. . . . (What do they talk about sex? ) About what they're
gonna do when they get out, or they're gonna get a 14 tonight. " ? ? ? Floyd, whose ambivalence is peculiarly clear-cut, complains that Jews "won't inter- marry. " An underlying orientation toward Jewish men is suggested by his phras- ing: "Some of their women are really all right" (italics supplied) . . . . Adrian does not himself introduce the topic of Jewish sensuality but does verbalize such fantasies quite readily: (Are Jews somewhat different sexually? ) "They are more amorous than other people. Yes, and I know whereof I speak! More passionate, more romantic. Not that I like it, but they are. "
Like the other high scorers, the fascists reveal a fear of being victimized by Jewish power, along with an ambivalent wish to be accepted into the supposedly "dominant" outgroup. As in their anti-Negro ideology, the fascist inmates' attitudes are distinguished by undisguised hate and by explicit readi- ness to suppress the outgroup by physical force. This goes along with open approval of specifically fascist aggressions against underdogs.
Buck feels that Hitler "done the right thing" to the Jews, who are "lower than a goddam snake. " In this country "they'll have to watch out if they want to eat. " . . . Floyd grimaces with disgust as he speaks of "that harsh guttural voice. " If Floyd had been in Hitler's place, "I'd have done the same thing he did! " . . . Adrian is again too ingratiating to bluster in this way, but is quite open as to his authoritarian hostility: (Is dislike for Jews increasing? ) "No, just the opposite, and I deplore it personally! " He is willing to support fascist persecution in the form of arbitrary deportation of all Jews in America-"send them all to Palestine"-even though he feels compelled to "disapprove of the means (Hitler) took to rid Ger- many of the Jewish problem. Because they did monopolize industry, and something had to be done. " And "the Jews are just as apt to monopolize industry in this coun- try. " While he justifies persecution of Jews for being allegedly too aggressive and powerful, Adrian also "wanted to let the Japs go into Manchuria" because the Chinese are "not aggressive enough! " "They have enough resources and could be a great nation if they had the aggressiveness of the Japs. "
This contradiction throws into relief a further aspect of fascist ideology that can be described as ideological opportunism. By this term is meant a disregard for ethical principles and truth-values, which are replaced by
14 Profane term meaning to have fellatio performed upon oneself.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
opportunistic manipulation of ideas and "facts" in the service of Realpolitik ends. The contexts in which such opportunistic thinking appears are charac- teristically those involving dominance-submission conflicts. The aim of such opportunism is to maintain identification with those on top-whoever they are, whatever they represent-and to avoid at all cost the anxiety of being identified with those below. There is an essential indifference to content, i. e. , indifference to any goals of human happiness. Power for power's sake is the ultimate end; ideological opportunism is one of the means. Such oppor- tunism appears also in the thinking of pseudodemocratic high scorers, but in more disguised forms. (See Chapter XVII. )
Another facet of Adrian's opportunism is revealed by a superficial shift in his identifications which occurred "after the war began in Europe. " His explicit sympathy with the aggressions of fascist Germany and Japan was modified, as American opinion became crystalized against the Axis. He ra- tionalizes that Hitler's aggressions during the war "seemed to be more a matter of conquest than protecting against communism"; and "I certainly didn't expect (the Japanese) to go beyond China. " That Adrian experienced no change in heart but only a superficial realignment so as to avoid conflict with a more dominant ingroup (America), is suggested by his present explicit approval of all aggressions by the Axis nations carried out prior to their open war with the stronger Allied powers.
Floyd's ideological opportunism is even clearer. He summarizes (and plainly approves) the "harmony" technique exploited by German industrialists, through Hitler, to "solve" class conflict: Hitler's "object wasn't the Jew. He wanted a scapegrace (sic) to get the different classes and provincials together, to fight one thing. . . . To get together instead of having all this bickering and split power. (Was his cause just? ) In the eyes of the German people, yes. (In your eyes? ) Every man for his own country. "
Buck, besides supporting Nazi persecution of Jews, exhibits an interesting " mode of ideological opportunism in his behavior toward the interviewer. The first three inquiries about his views on "the Jewish problem" and "the ' most characteristic Jewish traits" elicited only pseudodemocratic denials of hostility. For example: "They got a right to make a living as much as any- body else. . . . They got a way to make money is all I know. More power to 'em is all I can say. . . . I don't know much about 'em. " But with the fourth question he apparently sensed that he would not be punished for expressing hostility and might (judging from the interviewer's noncommittal attitude) even gain approval for having the "right" view of things: (Can you tell a Jew usually? ) "You're damn right I can tell 'em as soon as I talk to 'em. " From this point on, Buck drops his fac;ade and exhibits intense aggressiveness toward Jews.
c. Low ScoRERS. The low scorers tend to reject anti-Semitic stereotypy as such. Thus Dick retorts that "it doesn't hold true" that there are any "char-
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
acteristic Jewish traits"; for ''the Jews, in my opinion, are not a race but a religion. " Jim declares: "I don't see why they should be picked out as being any different from anyone else. " More positively, these men actively con- demn anti-Semitism.
"When a person gets too far off the base about the Jews or Negroes, I am liable to step in and tell him off" (Don). Art interprets the hostility concealed behind pseudodemocratic anti-Semitism; his own equalitarian ideology is apparent: "I have often heard the expression, 'Some of my best friends are Jews. ' Well, hell, some of my best friends are people! It sounds like you are making a concession to them. " It is of interest that Art's father is described as "a rabid Jew-hater. "
Further, in contrast with the narrow, personalized mythologies that domi- nate the thinking of the high scorers; these men exhibit a broader perspective. They seem to show a greater capacity for surveying human relationships in a detached way, which at the same time reveals compassion and respect for other human beings. One form this takes is empathy with Jews' psychological problems as an outgroup and a tendency to construct sociopsychological interpretations of anti-Semitism.
Jim remarks that Jews may be "inclined to be egotistical"; and at first a typical anti-Semitic projection is expected, until he goes on to clarify his meaning: "Not exactly a trait, but I think a good many of them feel that they're discriminated against. I think, in view of that, that they strive harder than most people do, and as a race they stick together and cooperate with each other to a large extent. " This is quite unlike Ronald's complaint that "they act like they're better than anyone else, and anyone that doesn't think they are is nothing but a fool. " Don believes that "if they have any objectionable features" as a group (which he doubts), it is because they are "stepchildren of history" in the sense of having been restricted to certain occupations and living conditions. Art is more explicit: "The Jews way back in history were other than Christians, and were limited (by the Christians) in their spheres of endeavor. . . . So they became sharpies in the money department as a defense mechanism. . . . So they had attributed to them those traits that are most despicable: craftiness, greed about money, etc. "
Art says that he is inclined to regard the Jews' "reputation for sharp dealing" as unfounded, but "I don't know whether it is true or not. " The important point is that the matter is not vital to him: he is not driven by inner conflicts to an insistence on projecting ruthless acquisitiveness onto Jews. Dick is more at a loss for ideas to account for anti-Semitism. He can only suggest that it is "just brought down from history. "
C. POLITICO-ECONOMIC A TTITUDES 1. GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE ST A TISTICS
A statistical summary of results from the PEC scale for the prison group is presented in Table 3(XXI). On this scale, the prison group obtained the highest mean, 4. 68, of all groups taking Form 40 or 45 except the Service
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY TABLE 3 (XXI)
RESULTS ON THE PEC SCALE FROM THE GROUP OF PRISON INMATES
Item
3. (Labor unions)
7. (American Way)
11. (Government control) 14. (Ford and Morgan) 17. (Economic security)
Total mean/person Mean/person/item Range
Standard Deviation: . 96
Mean/Person
5. 93 6. 80 5. 30 6. 07 4. 93
29. 03 5. 80
5. 4-7. 0
Mean/Person
2. 74 5. 22 2. 67 3. 33 3. 04
17. 00 3. 40
1. 0-4. 0
Mean/Person
3. 19 4. 16 1. 58 5. 87 2. 63 4. 52 2. 74 4. 94 1. 89 3. 90
12. 03 23. 39 2. 41 4. 68
1. 0-7. 0
High Quartile Low Quartile D. P. Over-all
Club Men. 15 It would seem that criminals tend in general to be conservative i':l their politics. With respect to the PEC scale quartiles, Table 3(XXI) reveals that not only is the high quartile mean fairly high, but the low quar- tile mean is definitely higher than in other groups-so high as to indicate that there could be few if any extreme low scorers on the PEC scale. As a matter of fact, only one inmate (out of 1 10) obtained a PEC score of 5, i. e. , 1. 0 per item. The two next lowest scores were, respectively, 2. 2 and 3. 0 per item. It is not surprising, then, to find that the average D. P. for the PEC scale is only 2-41, the lowest for any group which took Forms 40 or 45? (See Table 9(V). ) Moreover, the correlation between the E and PEC scales for the prison group is only . 14.
How can these results-the inmates' general conservatism, and the low correlation between E and PEC scores-best be explained? First, as to the general conservatism, interview material suggests that antidemocratic emo- tional attitudes play an important determining role. Another factor, partially "caused" by such attitudes, which may favor conservatism, is the lack of an informed and adequate frame of reference within which to evaluate politico- economic events. 16 This phenomenon, the general significance of which has been discussed in Chapter XVII, seems on the basis of interview material more extreme in the inmates than in most other groups. Such a lack could be influenced partly by prison isolation, but also by disinterestedness deriving from preoccupation with private emotional conflicts as well as from the low educational level of many of the inmates.
15 See Table 8(V).
16 The relationship between lack of an informed and adequate frame of reference, on the one hand, and receptiveness to reactionary ideas on the other, has been discussed particularly by Cantril (17).
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
Since the reliability and validity of the PEC scale depends upon at least a minimal information and interest on the part of the subjects, the factor just discussed might help to account also for the low correlation obtained between PEC and E scores. Another factor that would reduce this correlation is the truncation of both distributions at their lower ends-i. e. , the near-absence of very low score~. In addition, two special features of some high-scoring inmates might have helped to lower the E-PEC correlation by lowering their scores on certain items.
One is superficially liberal attitudes among some high scorers (exemplified in interview material). These would seem to be related in part to reality factors such as marginal socioeconomic status, greater first- hand experience of economic insecurity, and so forth. The lack of genuine- ness in these attitudes is revealed in their personalized-persecutory tone, and in a readiness for antidemocratic approaches to politico-economic conflicts. A second special feature is the greater frequency among these high-scoring inmates of openly fascist politico-economic attitudes. Not only are these not measured directly by the PEC scale (see Chapter V) but to the extent that they are consistently fascist, they actually tend to lower scores on PEC Item
1 1. For while fascists share the conservative antilabor, pro-business approach, they differ from traditional laissez-faire conservatives in desiring "strong" government control (not, of course, social control over business, but control by business over labor).
The pattern of specific PEC item means and D. P. 's is consistent with the above interpretations of general conservatism among the inmates and of the slight relationship between PEC and E scores (see Table 3(XXI)). The reactionary implications of Item 7 (American way) are probably not easy to grasp without a rather positive liberal-internationalist political orientation. This item, as might be expected, has an exceptionally high mean and a rather low D. P. On the other hand, Item 17, condemning economic security, would be expected to have a relatively low mean because it touches the personal experience of both high- and low-scoring inmates; and this factor should also lower its D. P. These expectations are borne out. Finally, Item 3, urging stronger labor unions, should discriminate most clearly between high and low scorers: it presents in a fairly pure form the issue of political liberalism- conservatism and little sophistication is required to understand what it implies. This PEC item is in fact the most differentiating of all.
2. INTERVIEWEES GENERALLY
The interviews tend to confirm the supposition that most of the inmates are politically uninformed. The above-average intelligence and education of most of the particular inmates interviewed makes this fact even more strik- ing, In addition to revealing general ignorance and confusion in discussing politico-economic affairs, a number of the interviewees directly admit their ignorance and lack of interest in this area.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
"I don't know about politics. I never studied that much and I never talk about it. . . . I don't think much-only what I hear over the radio" (Wilbur). "That's some- thing I don't know nothing about: politics" (Eugene). "I'm not a political-minded man" (Robert). "Don't know much about" the Roosevelt New Deal (Floyd). "I never did pay much attention about political things" (Buck). "I pay very little attention to it"; "I don't understand those things, but I pr~fer to do what the Republicans do, whatever that is" (Adrian). "A subject I never gave a lot of atten- tion to" (Dick).
There are nonetheless important differences among the interviewees in their degree of political awareness (or lack of it), as well as in some of their general attitudt;s.
3. HIGH SCORERS
Differences between the politico-economic attitudes of the low-scoring
interviewees and those of the pseudodemocratic prejudiced interviewees are not clear-cut. Four of the 5pseudodemocratic men-Robert, Eugene, Wilbur, and Ronald-exhibit some pro-labor attitudes, though these are not consistent. For instance, in late 1945 or early 1946, all of these men believed that wage increases were justified by high prices and by the ability of employers to pay more wages. Each of them, however, revealed indecision as to how far trade union activity should go, especially where strikes might be involved. Typical is Robert's view that "the unions demand just a little more than they have a right to. " All of these men condemned political activity by organized labor. In varying degrees, however, they support some social security legislation. Robert even endorses such measures as public health insurance and the gen- eral idea of government economic planning, But all of them oppose such equalizing restrictions as wartime salary limitations.
Clarence, on the other hand, is consistently reactionary. He seems to sup- port the more hard-boiled policies of big business. Objecting strenuously to trade union activity and identifying with employer "toughness," he declares with satisfaction: "If a man can't make a profit in his business, he'll close it down. " He complains that "it's the corporation they blame all the trouble on. " Ronald asserts a similar view: "I believe in free enterprise. I believe that business should be able to conduct their own business. " Clarence, Ronald, and Eugene, despite their own (pre-prison) submerged economic status, ex- press marked status anxiety toward politico-economic outgroups and a perse- cutory fear of being overwhelmed by such groups becoming dominant- specifically, organized labor, "the Communists," and Russia. (Recall the problem of status-anxiety toward Negroes, and the fear of being over- whelmed by the latter if they should succeed in rising nearer to democratic equality. )
Clarence is afraid that "if labor keeps getting more power we'll be like Russia. That's what causes wars! . . . You take the C. I. O. The majority of the C. I. O. is communism (sic)! . . . Anyone who believes in communism ought to be deported! "
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
Ronald complains that labor unions are "so strong now that they're trying to run the government. " Eugene fears that our government could become threatened by "the strikes" but even more by Russia: "We're going to have to look out for Russia. . . . I think sooner or later we're going to go to war with them. "
For 4 of these men (all except Robert), there is definite evidence that such liberal attitudes as they do express may be undependable. For these attitudes seem to be based not on genuinely democratic principles but on the same kind of personalization of ideology that was seen in their racism. On one side are fantasies of actual or threatened victimization, in which politico- economic processes are oversimplified into an imagined, purely personal con- flict between forces of "good" and forces of "evil. " Thus, Clarence's attitude toward unions seems to be determined by his fear of criticizing business power and by an overcompensatory "rugged individualism": "I've worked all my life and I wouldn't let no organization tell me when I worked and when I couldn't. " His ambivalent attitude toward what he calls "the best form of government" is equally devoid of any reference to issues, and reflects a "good man, bad man" theory of society: "Of course, sometimes we get rotten politicians. " . . . Ronald's paranoid interpretations of political events are suggestive of the kind of thinking we came to expect from Hitler and Mus- solini. His first response to inquiry about his political views is that "We've got a persecutor in California for governor. " Declining to explain this, he goes on instead to attack President Roosevelt as another "persecutor. " He tells of how his father was "pushed out of a job" by the N. R. A. Then, making it clear first that "I don't believe in communism," he complains that "there's so many little people who never have anything. " This prefaces another per- sonal story-of his grandmother's inadequate old-age pension, from which
he concludes that the law ought to be changed to grant more liberal allow- ances. (He objects, however, to public health insurance because "there are plenty of private insurance companies. ") Asked his opinion of the then cur- rent 30 per cent wage increase demands, Ronald again personalizes the matter by referring bitterly to high prices in the prison canteen. He attributes these to prison "graft" and hints darkly at various people "getting theirs. " Prompted to return to the question, in one breath he denounces unions, rejects the idea of any government controls over business, and concludes that by "agree- ment" with business "the government should arrange higher wages without the union. " This is an unwitting description of the "impartial," big-business- controlled fascist state. It is consistent also with his feeling that while "democracy is the best type of government," it is "inefficient. "
Intimately linked with feelings of victimization by "forces of evil" are similarly personalized attitudes to the "forces of good," viz. , submissive- dependent leader worship. This is well exemplified by Eugene's conception of President Roosevelt as a paternal hero who single-handedly saved Amer- ica: "Just everything good about him. Took this country out of a rut. He
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
took guys on the street without a job and put them in the C. C. C. 17 In other words, he's just tops, that's all. " . . . Wilbur, who is one of "the poor people," also admires Roosevelt in a personalized way because "he fixed it so that people could have jobs and get food for their families. " Neither of these men shows any conception of the New Deal as a social reform movement induced by mass democratic pressure. Wilbur expressed as follows his concern (in December, 1945) over high prices and relatively low wages: "They're trying to cut the little fellow off. " On the face of it this sounds like a strong identification with the economically oppressed. Such an identification is rendered suspect, however, by the personalization of Wil- bur's attitudes toward Roosevelt and by his lack of any generalized demo- cratic philosophy. His persecutory anti-Greek delusions and general ethno- centrism increase this suspicion. It is not any economic circumstance but "the Greeks" which "punish the poor people, pay low wages, make you work too hard. " This suggests that Wilbur's reaction to economic frustra- tions could easily be diverted into the fascist pattern of vigilante attacks against scapegoats.
A final comment on the dependability of Robert's somewhat liberal views may be permitted. Doubt is raised on this point first by the authori- tarian hostility of his racism, but also by his behavior at the close of the inter- view. Consistent with his seemingly universal reputation in childhood and youth as a "good boy" (according to social service reports), Robert sub- missively asks the interviewer, "Do you think I have the right view on things? " He repeatedly rejects the interviewer's explanation that it is not a matter of "right" or "wrong" but of individual evaluations, and insists on being given "the answer. " This excessive need to conform with "the right views" implies a lack of internalized values and a readiness to change his opinions to accord with "the right views" of "the right people. " Such a "detachable" ethic does not augur well for his ability to resist fascist ideology.
4. FASCISTS
The politico-economic ideology of the fascists is consistently reactionary. It also differs from the "politics" of the pseudodemocratic high scorers in the same general way that the fascists' racism was seen to differ from the pseudo- democratic men's racism. This is, namely, in being openly antidemocratic. The fascists show an explicit readiness to use force against labor, toward whom they reveal intense status-anxiety. They also display contempt for ideals of equality; the concept of an elite, implicit in the thinking of the pseudodemocratic inmates, is made articulate by these men.
Floyd's contempt for working men and his persecutory fantasies about unions show the violent anxiety of these attitudes. He fears that "we are going to be ruled by a lot of clowns, by a lot of labor unions. (How do you mean? ) Look at all these
1 7 Eugene was in a C. C. C. camp for a year.
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
working stiffs, that don't know anything else but how to drive a nail. ? ? ? They try to run things, because a few hundred thousand of them g. et together. (What ought to be done about it? ) Straighten them out, show them where they belong. . . . Take away their charters. . . . Abolish them. " Strikes should be handled by "refusing to employ them or fine them. " Characteristically, Floyd wants to "get tough" with other nations, feeling that "we deal too loosely with other powers. (Which ones? ) Oh, Russia, England-communism on the whole. I don't like any place where free. enterprise is not. " . . . Adrian, whose contempt for "poor whites" has been noted earlier, states openly that "I really don't believe in democracy. " Again: "I think the powers should be in a few hands. I'm not a democrat. " He makes clear the antidemocratic meaning of his obsessive fear of "communism": "I've never seen a Communist who came from the right strata of society. " His readiness to support authoritarian aggression is not limited to approval (see pp. 833-34) of Nazi and Japanese-fascist aggressions: "I'd like to do to the Bolsheviks what the Bolsheviks did to the Russians" (i. e. , the Czarists). . . . Buck is less articulate but leaves little doubt as to his elite identifications: he "never did figure much about" labor unions, because "you can't make no money unless you have guys workin' for you. . . . I expect in ten years or so I can retire. As long as I got the money, I can go out and buy cattle and make it (i. e. , money). " His readiness for fascist aggres- sion is plain: "Christ, we licked those other countries and now we're gonna feed 'em. . . . I think we ought to let 'em starve, especially them Japs. . . . Lucky I don't have any relations killed in this war, I'd go out and kill me some Japs! "
These men are consistently fascist in their longing for a "strong" antidemo- cratic government, to maintain monopolistic "free enterprise" by force if necessary against the challenge of democratic equalitarianism. The underly- ing wish to submit to antidemocratic "strength" and "leadership" is implicit in the pseudodemocratic ideology of the other high scorers. In the question- naire, it appears most clearly in Item 30 (see Table 4(XXI)), which hints that ''force may be necessary" to preserve the status quo. This item is quite discriminating even though its group mean is lower than that for most items. Very few low scorers agree with it. Two other items reflect similar attitudes much more indirectly, and discriminate either poorly (Item 2 3) or insig- nificantly (Item 22) (see Table 4(XXI)). But the idea is expressed more directly by the fascist inmates. The aspect of authoritarian suppression was illustrated in the previous paragraph. The Fuhrer idea is also made explicit by these men:
Thus, Adrian: "I believe in government control because . . . if we know some- body's at the helm, we can't have revolutions and things.
For example: "There might be no way to get them out except by revolution"
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
(Ronald). \Vilbur reveals, rather pathetically, a similar pogrom mentality in his attitude toward "the Greeks": "If they don't stop (punishing the poor people), there's going to be more American people in the penitentiary. " He feels "they" ought to be sent back to Greece.
b. FAscrsTs. The anti-Semitic stereotypes of the three fascists are fairly similar to those of the pseudodemocratic high scorers. They focus on acquis- itiveness as well as clannishness and monopolization of power. The fascist subjects stress a further trait attributed to Jews, however, which is not men- tioned by the other high scorers, viz. , excessive sensuality.
Buck refers especially to sexual obsessions and homosexuality among Jewish men: (What are Jews like? ) "Most all of them Jews talk about sex mostly, or beatin' a guy out of his money. . . . (What do they talk about sex? ) About what they're
gonna do when they get out, or they're gonna get a 14 tonight. " ? ? ? Floyd, whose ambivalence is peculiarly clear-cut, complains that Jews "won't inter- marry. " An underlying orientation toward Jewish men is suggested by his phras- ing: "Some of their women are really all right" (italics supplied) . . . . Adrian does not himself introduce the topic of Jewish sensuality but does verbalize such fantasies quite readily: (Are Jews somewhat different sexually? ) "They are more amorous than other people. Yes, and I know whereof I speak! More passionate, more romantic. Not that I like it, but they are. "
Like the other high scorers, the fascists reveal a fear of being victimized by Jewish power, along with an ambivalent wish to be accepted into the supposedly "dominant" outgroup. As in their anti-Negro ideology, the fascist inmates' attitudes are distinguished by undisguised hate and by explicit readi- ness to suppress the outgroup by physical force. This goes along with open approval of specifically fascist aggressions against underdogs.
Buck feels that Hitler "done the right thing" to the Jews, who are "lower than a goddam snake. " In this country "they'll have to watch out if they want to eat. " . . . Floyd grimaces with disgust as he speaks of "that harsh guttural voice. " If Floyd had been in Hitler's place, "I'd have done the same thing he did! " . . . Adrian is again too ingratiating to bluster in this way, but is quite open as to his authoritarian hostility: (Is dislike for Jews increasing? ) "No, just the opposite, and I deplore it personally! " He is willing to support fascist persecution in the form of arbitrary deportation of all Jews in America-"send them all to Palestine"-even though he feels compelled to "disapprove of the means (Hitler) took to rid Ger- many of the Jewish problem. Because they did monopolize industry, and something had to be done. " And "the Jews are just as apt to monopolize industry in this coun- try. " While he justifies persecution of Jews for being allegedly too aggressive and powerful, Adrian also "wanted to let the Japs go into Manchuria" because the Chinese are "not aggressive enough! " "They have enough resources and could be a great nation if they had the aggressiveness of the Japs. "
This contradiction throws into relief a further aspect of fascist ideology that can be described as ideological opportunism. By this term is meant a disregard for ethical principles and truth-values, which are replaced by
14 Profane term meaning to have fellatio performed upon oneself.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
opportunistic manipulation of ideas and "facts" in the service of Realpolitik ends. The contexts in which such opportunistic thinking appears are charac- teristically those involving dominance-submission conflicts. The aim of such opportunism is to maintain identification with those on top-whoever they are, whatever they represent-and to avoid at all cost the anxiety of being identified with those below. There is an essential indifference to content, i. e. , indifference to any goals of human happiness. Power for power's sake is the ultimate end; ideological opportunism is one of the means. Such oppor- tunism appears also in the thinking of pseudodemocratic high scorers, but in more disguised forms. (See Chapter XVII. )
Another facet of Adrian's opportunism is revealed by a superficial shift in his identifications which occurred "after the war began in Europe. " His explicit sympathy with the aggressions of fascist Germany and Japan was modified, as American opinion became crystalized against the Axis. He ra- tionalizes that Hitler's aggressions during the war "seemed to be more a matter of conquest than protecting against communism"; and "I certainly didn't expect (the Japanese) to go beyond China. " That Adrian experienced no change in heart but only a superficial realignment so as to avoid conflict with a more dominant ingroup (America), is suggested by his present explicit approval of all aggressions by the Axis nations carried out prior to their open war with the stronger Allied powers.
Floyd's ideological opportunism is even clearer. He summarizes (and plainly approves) the "harmony" technique exploited by German industrialists, through Hitler, to "solve" class conflict: Hitler's "object wasn't the Jew. He wanted a scapegrace (sic) to get the different classes and provincials together, to fight one thing. . . . To get together instead of having all this bickering and split power. (Was his cause just? ) In the eyes of the German people, yes. (In your eyes? ) Every man for his own country. "
Buck, besides supporting Nazi persecution of Jews, exhibits an interesting " mode of ideological opportunism in his behavior toward the interviewer. The first three inquiries about his views on "the Jewish problem" and "the ' most characteristic Jewish traits" elicited only pseudodemocratic denials of hostility. For example: "They got a right to make a living as much as any- body else. . . . They got a way to make money is all I know. More power to 'em is all I can say. . . . I don't know much about 'em. " But with the fourth question he apparently sensed that he would not be punished for expressing hostility and might (judging from the interviewer's noncommittal attitude) even gain approval for having the "right" view of things: (Can you tell a Jew usually? ) "You're damn right I can tell 'em as soon as I talk to 'em. " From this point on, Buck drops his fac;ade and exhibits intense aggressiveness toward Jews.
c. Low ScoRERS. The low scorers tend to reject anti-Semitic stereotypy as such. Thus Dick retorts that "it doesn't hold true" that there are any "char-
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
acteristic Jewish traits"; for ''the Jews, in my opinion, are not a race but a religion. " Jim declares: "I don't see why they should be picked out as being any different from anyone else. " More positively, these men actively con- demn anti-Semitism.
"When a person gets too far off the base about the Jews or Negroes, I am liable to step in and tell him off" (Don). Art interprets the hostility concealed behind pseudodemocratic anti-Semitism; his own equalitarian ideology is apparent: "I have often heard the expression, 'Some of my best friends are Jews. ' Well, hell, some of my best friends are people! It sounds like you are making a concession to them. " It is of interest that Art's father is described as "a rabid Jew-hater. "
Further, in contrast with the narrow, personalized mythologies that domi- nate the thinking of the high scorers; these men exhibit a broader perspective. They seem to show a greater capacity for surveying human relationships in a detached way, which at the same time reveals compassion and respect for other human beings. One form this takes is empathy with Jews' psychological problems as an outgroup and a tendency to construct sociopsychological interpretations of anti-Semitism.
Jim remarks that Jews may be "inclined to be egotistical"; and at first a typical anti-Semitic projection is expected, until he goes on to clarify his meaning: "Not exactly a trait, but I think a good many of them feel that they're discriminated against. I think, in view of that, that they strive harder than most people do, and as a race they stick together and cooperate with each other to a large extent. " This is quite unlike Ronald's complaint that "they act like they're better than anyone else, and anyone that doesn't think they are is nothing but a fool. " Don believes that "if they have any objectionable features" as a group (which he doubts), it is because they are "stepchildren of history" in the sense of having been restricted to certain occupations and living conditions. Art is more explicit: "The Jews way back in history were other than Christians, and were limited (by the Christians) in their spheres of endeavor. . . . So they became sharpies in the money department as a defense mechanism. . . . So they had attributed to them those traits that are most despicable: craftiness, greed about money, etc. "
Art says that he is inclined to regard the Jews' "reputation for sharp dealing" as unfounded, but "I don't know whether it is true or not. " The important point is that the matter is not vital to him: he is not driven by inner conflicts to an insistence on projecting ruthless acquisitiveness onto Jews. Dick is more at a loss for ideas to account for anti-Semitism. He can only suggest that it is "just brought down from history. "
C. POLITICO-ECONOMIC A TTITUDES 1. GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE ST A TISTICS
A statistical summary of results from the PEC scale for the prison group is presented in Table 3(XXI). On this scale, the prison group obtained the highest mean, 4. 68, of all groups taking Form 40 or 45 except the Service
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY TABLE 3 (XXI)
RESULTS ON THE PEC SCALE FROM THE GROUP OF PRISON INMATES
Item
3. (Labor unions)
7. (American Way)
11. (Government control) 14. (Ford and Morgan) 17. (Economic security)
Total mean/person Mean/person/item Range
Standard Deviation: . 96
Mean/Person
5. 93 6. 80 5. 30 6. 07 4. 93
29. 03 5. 80
5. 4-7. 0
Mean/Person
2. 74 5. 22 2. 67 3. 33 3. 04
17. 00 3. 40
1. 0-4. 0
Mean/Person
3. 19 4. 16 1. 58 5. 87 2. 63 4. 52 2. 74 4. 94 1. 89 3. 90
12. 03 23. 39 2. 41 4. 68
1. 0-7. 0
High Quartile Low Quartile D. P. Over-all
Club Men. 15 It would seem that criminals tend in general to be conservative i':l their politics. With respect to the PEC scale quartiles, Table 3(XXI) reveals that not only is the high quartile mean fairly high, but the low quar- tile mean is definitely higher than in other groups-so high as to indicate that there could be few if any extreme low scorers on the PEC scale. As a matter of fact, only one inmate (out of 1 10) obtained a PEC score of 5, i. e. , 1. 0 per item. The two next lowest scores were, respectively, 2. 2 and 3. 0 per item. It is not surprising, then, to find that the average D. P. for the PEC scale is only 2-41, the lowest for any group which took Forms 40 or 45? (See Table 9(V). ) Moreover, the correlation between the E and PEC scales for the prison group is only . 14.
How can these results-the inmates' general conservatism, and the low correlation between E and PEC scores-best be explained? First, as to the general conservatism, interview material suggests that antidemocratic emo- tional attitudes play an important determining role. Another factor, partially "caused" by such attitudes, which may favor conservatism, is the lack of an informed and adequate frame of reference within which to evaluate politico- economic events. 16 This phenomenon, the general significance of which has been discussed in Chapter XVII, seems on the basis of interview material more extreme in the inmates than in most other groups. Such a lack could be influenced partly by prison isolation, but also by disinterestedness deriving from preoccupation with private emotional conflicts as well as from the low educational level of many of the inmates.
15 See Table 8(V).
16 The relationship between lack of an informed and adequate frame of reference, on the one hand, and receptiveness to reactionary ideas on the other, has been discussed particularly by Cantril (17).
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
Since the reliability and validity of the PEC scale depends upon at least a minimal information and interest on the part of the subjects, the factor just discussed might help to account also for the low correlation obtained between PEC and E scores. Another factor that would reduce this correlation is the truncation of both distributions at their lower ends-i. e. , the near-absence of very low score~. In addition, two special features of some high-scoring inmates might have helped to lower the E-PEC correlation by lowering their scores on certain items.
One is superficially liberal attitudes among some high scorers (exemplified in interview material). These would seem to be related in part to reality factors such as marginal socioeconomic status, greater first- hand experience of economic insecurity, and so forth. The lack of genuine- ness in these attitudes is revealed in their personalized-persecutory tone, and in a readiness for antidemocratic approaches to politico-economic conflicts. A second special feature is the greater frequency among these high-scoring inmates of openly fascist politico-economic attitudes. Not only are these not measured directly by the PEC scale (see Chapter V) but to the extent that they are consistently fascist, they actually tend to lower scores on PEC Item
1 1. For while fascists share the conservative antilabor, pro-business approach, they differ from traditional laissez-faire conservatives in desiring "strong" government control (not, of course, social control over business, but control by business over labor).
The pattern of specific PEC item means and D. P. 's is consistent with the above interpretations of general conservatism among the inmates and of the slight relationship between PEC and E scores (see Table 3(XXI)). The reactionary implications of Item 7 (American way) are probably not easy to grasp without a rather positive liberal-internationalist political orientation. This item, as might be expected, has an exceptionally high mean and a rather low D. P. On the other hand, Item 17, condemning economic security, would be expected to have a relatively low mean because it touches the personal experience of both high- and low-scoring inmates; and this factor should also lower its D. P. These expectations are borne out. Finally, Item 3, urging stronger labor unions, should discriminate most clearly between high and low scorers: it presents in a fairly pure form the issue of political liberalism- conservatism and little sophistication is required to understand what it implies. This PEC item is in fact the most differentiating of all.
2. INTERVIEWEES GENERALLY
The interviews tend to confirm the supposition that most of the inmates are politically uninformed. The above-average intelligence and education of most of the particular inmates interviewed makes this fact even more strik- ing, In addition to revealing general ignorance and confusion in discussing politico-economic affairs, a number of the interviewees directly admit their ignorance and lack of interest in this area.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
"I don't know about politics. I never studied that much and I never talk about it. . . . I don't think much-only what I hear over the radio" (Wilbur). "That's some- thing I don't know nothing about: politics" (Eugene). "I'm not a political-minded man" (Robert). "Don't know much about" the Roosevelt New Deal (Floyd). "I never did pay much attention about political things" (Buck). "I pay very little attention to it"; "I don't understand those things, but I pr~fer to do what the Republicans do, whatever that is" (Adrian). "A subject I never gave a lot of atten- tion to" (Dick).
There are nonetheless important differences among the interviewees in their degree of political awareness (or lack of it), as well as in some of their general attitudt;s.
3. HIGH SCORERS
Differences between the politico-economic attitudes of the low-scoring
interviewees and those of the pseudodemocratic prejudiced interviewees are not clear-cut. Four of the 5pseudodemocratic men-Robert, Eugene, Wilbur, and Ronald-exhibit some pro-labor attitudes, though these are not consistent. For instance, in late 1945 or early 1946, all of these men believed that wage increases were justified by high prices and by the ability of employers to pay more wages. Each of them, however, revealed indecision as to how far trade union activity should go, especially where strikes might be involved. Typical is Robert's view that "the unions demand just a little more than they have a right to. " All of these men condemned political activity by organized labor. In varying degrees, however, they support some social security legislation. Robert even endorses such measures as public health insurance and the gen- eral idea of government economic planning, But all of them oppose such equalizing restrictions as wartime salary limitations.
Clarence, on the other hand, is consistently reactionary. He seems to sup- port the more hard-boiled policies of big business. Objecting strenuously to trade union activity and identifying with employer "toughness," he declares with satisfaction: "If a man can't make a profit in his business, he'll close it down. " He complains that "it's the corporation they blame all the trouble on. " Ronald asserts a similar view: "I believe in free enterprise. I believe that business should be able to conduct their own business. " Clarence, Ronald, and Eugene, despite their own (pre-prison) submerged economic status, ex- press marked status anxiety toward politico-economic outgroups and a perse- cutory fear of being overwhelmed by such groups becoming dominant- specifically, organized labor, "the Communists," and Russia. (Recall the problem of status-anxiety toward Negroes, and the fear of being over- whelmed by the latter if they should succeed in rising nearer to democratic equality. )
Clarence is afraid that "if labor keeps getting more power we'll be like Russia. That's what causes wars! . . . You take the C. I. O. The majority of the C. I. O. is communism (sic)! . . . Anyone who believes in communism ought to be deported! "
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
Ronald complains that labor unions are "so strong now that they're trying to run the government. " Eugene fears that our government could become threatened by "the strikes" but even more by Russia: "We're going to have to look out for Russia. . . . I think sooner or later we're going to go to war with them. "
For 4 of these men (all except Robert), there is definite evidence that such liberal attitudes as they do express may be undependable. For these attitudes seem to be based not on genuinely democratic principles but on the same kind of personalization of ideology that was seen in their racism. On one side are fantasies of actual or threatened victimization, in which politico- economic processes are oversimplified into an imagined, purely personal con- flict between forces of "good" and forces of "evil. " Thus, Clarence's attitude toward unions seems to be determined by his fear of criticizing business power and by an overcompensatory "rugged individualism": "I've worked all my life and I wouldn't let no organization tell me when I worked and when I couldn't. " His ambivalent attitude toward what he calls "the best form of government" is equally devoid of any reference to issues, and reflects a "good man, bad man" theory of society: "Of course, sometimes we get rotten politicians. " . . . Ronald's paranoid interpretations of political events are suggestive of the kind of thinking we came to expect from Hitler and Mus- solini. His first response to inquiry about his political views is that "We've got a persecutor in California for governor. " Declining to explain this, he goes on instead to attack President Roosevelt as another "persecutor. " He tells of how his father was "pushed out of a job" by the N. R. A. Then, making it clear first that "I don't believe in communism," he complains that "there's so many little people who never have anything. " This prefaces another per- sonal story-of his grandmother's inadequate old-age pension, from which
he concludes that the law ought to be changed to grant more liberal allow- ances. (He objects, however, to public health insurance because "there are plenty of private insurance companies. ") Asked his opinion of the then cur- rent 30 per cent wage increase demands, Ronald again personalizes the matter by referring bitterly to high prices in the prison canteen. He attributes these to prison "graft" and hints darkly at various people "getting theirs. " Prompted to return to the question, in one breath he denounces unions, rejects the idea of any government controls over business, and concludes that by "agree- ment" with business "the government should arrange higher wages without the union. " This is an unwitting description of the "impartial," big-business- controlled fascist state. It is consistent also with his feeling that while "democracy is the best type of government," it is "inefficient. "
Intimately linked with feelings of victimization by "forces of evil" are similarly personalized attitudes to the "forces of good," viz. , submissive- dependent leader worship. This is well exemplified by Eugene's conception of President Roosevelt as a paternal hero who single-handedly saved Amer- ica: "Just everything good about him. Took this country out of a rut. He
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
took guys on the street without a job and put them in the C. C. C. 17 In other words, he's just tops, that's all. " . . . Wilbur, who is one of "the poor people," also admires Roosevelt in a personalized way because "he fixed it so that people could have jobs and get food for their families. " Neither of these men shows any conception of the New Deal as a social reform movement induced by mass democratic pressure. Wilbur expressed as follows his concern (in December, 1945) over high prices and relatively low wages: "They're trying to cut the little fellow off. " On the face of it this sounds like a strong identification with the economically oppressed. Such an identification is rendered suspect, however, by the personalization of Wil- bur's attitudes toward Roosevelt and by his lack of any generalized demo- cratic philosophy. His persecutory anti-Greek delusions and general ethno- centrism increase this suspicion. It is not any economic circumstance but "the Greeks" which "punish the poor people, pay low wages, make you work too hard. " This suggests that Wilbur's reaction to economic frustra- tions could easily be diverted into the fascist pattern of vigilante attacks against scapegoats.
A final comment on the dependability of Robert's somewhat liberal views may be permitted. Doubt is raised on this point first by the authori- tarian hostility of his racism, but also by his behavior at the close of the inter- view. Consistent with his seemingly universal reputation in childhood and youth as a "good boy" (according to social service reports), Robert sub- missively asks the interviewer, "Do you think I have the right view on things? " He repeatedly rejects the interviewer's explanation that it is not a matter of "right" or "wrong" but of individual evaluations, and insists on being given "the answer. " This excessive need to conform with "the right views" implies a lack of internalized values and a readiness to change his opinions to accord with "the right views" of "the right people. " Such a "detachable" ethic does not augur well for his ability to resist fascist ideology.
4. FASCISTS
The politico-economic ideology of the fascists is consistently reactionary. It also differs from the "politics" of the pseudodemocratic high scorers in the same general way that the fascists' racism was seen to differ from the pseudo- democratic men's racism. This is, namely, in being openly antidemocratic. The fascists show an explicit readiness to use force against labor, toward whom they reveal intense status-anxiety. They also display contempt for ideals of equality; the concept of an elite, implicit in the thinking of the pseudodemocratic inmates, is made articulate by these men.
Floyd's contempt for working men and his persecutory fantasies about unions show the violent anxiety of these attitudes. He fears that "we are going to be ruled by a lot of clowns, by a lot of labor unions. (How do you mean? ) Look at all these
1 7 Eugene was in a C. C. C. camp for a year.
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
working stiffs, that don't know anything else but how to drive a nail. ? ? ? They try to run things, because a few hundred thousand of them g. et together. (What ought to be done about it? ) Straighten them out, show them where they belong. . . . Take away their charters. . . . Abolish them. " Strikes should be handled by "refusing to employ them or fine them. " Characteristically, Floyd wants to "get tough" with other nations, feeling that "we deal too loosely with other powers. (Which ones? ) Oh, Russia, England-communism on the whole. I don't like any place where free. enterprise is not. " . . . Adrian, whose contempt for "poor whites" has been noted earlier, states openly that "I really don't believe in democracy. " Again: "I think the powers should be in a few hands. I'm not a democrat. " He makes clear the antidemocratic meaning of his obsessive fear of "communism": "I've never seen a Communist who came from the right strata of society. " His readiness to support authoritarian aggression is not limited to approval (see pp. 833-34) of Nazi and Japanese-fascist aggressions: "I'd like to do to the Bolsheviks what the Bolsheviks did to the Russians" (i. e. , the Czarists). . . . Buck is less articulate but leaves little doubt as to his elite identifications: he "never did figure much about" labor unions, because "you can't make no money unless you have guys workin' for you. . . . I expect in ten years or so I can retire. As long as I got the money, I can go out and buy cattle and make it (i. e. , money). " His readiness for fascist aggres- sion is plain: "Christ, we licked those other countries and now we're gonna feed 'em. . . . I think we ought to let 'em starve, especially them Japs. . . . Lucky I don't have any relations killed in this war, I'd go out and kill me some Japs! "
These men are consistently fascist in their longing for a "strong" antidemo- cratic government, to maintain monopolistic "free enterprise" by force if necessary against the challenge of democratic equalitarianism. The underly- ing wish to submit to antidemocratic "strength" and "leadership" is implicit in the pseudodemocratic ideology of the other high scorers. In the question- naire, it appears most clearly in Item 30 (see Table 4(XXI)), which hints that ''force may be necessary" to preserve the status quo. This item is quite discriminating even though its group mean is lower than that for most items. Very few low scorers agree with it. Two other items reflect similar attitudes much more indirectly, and discriminate either poorly (Item 2 3) or insig- nificantly (Item 22) (see Table 4(XXI)). But the idea is expressed more directly by the fascist inmates. The aspect of authoritarian suppression was illustrated in the previous paragraph. The Fuhrer idea is also made explicit by these men:
Thus, Adrian: "I believe in government control because . . . if we know some- body's at the helm, we can't have revolutions and things.
