Consistent trends in the person can only be revealed by subjecting him to a variety of stimuli, or placing him in a number of different situations, or questioning him on a wide array of topics; but if this is done, then,
according
to the present hypothesis, consistent trends, i.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
) A further attribution of weakness to the New Deal is the idea of Roosevelt's submissiveness toward more powerful leaders-"he would come out second-best in a contest with Winnie," his ideas came from Hoover, and it is implied that he would lose out with Stalin if the latter did not play fair with us.
Parenthetically, it may be noted that there is an apparent inconsistency between Mack's general ethnocentrism and his acceptance of Stalin. This apparent discrepancy may possibly be explained in terms of our subject's attitude toward power: his admiration for power is great enough so that he can accept and momentarily ally himself with a distant outgroup when that group is not seen as a direct threat to himself. It is probably a safe guess that like many who supported cooperation with Russia during the war, this man's attitude has now changed, and Russia is regarded as a threat to the ingroup.
Mack's conception of the relations between the outgroup and the ingroup is simple: the outgroup with its selfish, materialistic, power-seeking -drives, on the one hand, and its inefficiency and weakness on the other, is out to control and exploit the ingroup-to take power from it, to take over its functions, to grab all the credit, to seduce people into its fold by skillful manipulation, in short, to weaken the ingroup and run everything itself, for its own narrow, selfish ends.
When he comes to the political ingroup, Mack speaks only of admired characteristics, and the only political agencies discussed are the man, Dewey, and the army. The ingroup characteristics fall in exactly the same dimensions as do those ascribed to the outgroup, sometimes being identical and some- times the exact opposite. Whether there is identity or reversal seems to follow a simple rule: those outgroup characteristics which have an aspect of power are kept intact in the ingroup, only now they are regarded as good, whereas for each outgroup characteristic signifying weakness or immorality there is an ingroup characteristic signifying the opposite.
To consider the reversals first, the inefficiency of the New Deal is in direct contrast to Dewey's clear-cut, straightforward approach. Roosevelt's "skillful politics" is the opposite of Dewey's frankness and honesty-to-the-
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
47
death. Roosevelt's submission to stronger leaders is in contrast to Dewey's determined overcoming of obstacles and to General Marshall's indomitable firmness. The organizational confusion of ? the outgroup is to be corrected by the concentratimi. of power in a small, closely knit organization having clearly defined levels of authority with a strong leader at the top and a cabinet of carefully chosen lieutenants.
It becomes clear, then, that the only real difference between the ingroup and the outgroup is the greater weakness of the latter. Leaving aside the weaknesses of the outgroup, we find that in all other respects the concep- tions of outgroup and ingroup are identical: both seek to concentrate power in a small, cohesive organization the only purpose of which is to maintain itself. While the outgroup is accused of selfishness and materialism, the only virtues of the ingroup are the honesty and efficiency of its methods; there is no reference to its ends.
Whatever the ingroup aims might be, however, they will presumably benefit the ingroup, for Mack tells us that one of the reasons for supporting Dewey is that "he would think of the average people," with whom the sub- ject seems to be identified. We know from Mack's discussion of ethnic groups that "average" is not an all-inclusive conception, but rather an ingroup from which he excludes a large proportion of the population. We see also that wealthy people are excluded from his concept of average. That this latter is not typical equalitarianism, however, is shown by his desire to become a corporation lawyer, and by his favoring a form of stratified social organization which in the economic sphere would-far from averaging things out-perpetuate the present distribution of wealth. This would seem to place the subject on the conservative side. Certainly, he quotes with ap- proval many of the slogans of contemporary American conservatism, and he tells us that Dewey is to be supported because he is "interested in main- taining the old government traditions. " Yet there is reason to believe that his conservatism is not of the traditional kind. The type of centralized control which he favors is certainly out of keeping with traditional conservative
principles of free competition and restriction of government's functions. Indeed, there is a suggestion that his apparent conservatism is in reality a kind of anticonservatism. We may note his remark "if we maintain our present system of government, and I think we will for a time, some things will have to be altered. " Why should he suggest that our system of govern- ment might not be maintained, and why does he think that at best it will be maintained only for a time? He seems to give us the answer himself, for the changes which he suggests as a means of maintaining the conservative tradi- tion are actually changes which would overthrow it entirely.
The main points considered so far are Mack's attribution of both power and weakness to the outgroup and of only power to the ingroup. It must be noted, however, that weakness, too, is thought of as existing in the ingroup,
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
though in a different form. Thus, when Mack describes the OWl as a power- seeking behemoth, the War Department is pictured in a situation of distress: "And all the time our department was crying for personnel. " Again, Dewey's campaign is seen as a sort of struggle between David and Goliath, in which the clean-cut, straightforward younger man loses only because of the over- whelming power and lack of scruple which opposes him: "It was skilful politics that enabled the old guard to win. Considering his obstacles, Dewey did very well. In ordinary times he would have had a landslide. " This im- agery of persecution is expressed not only in Mack's political thinking but also in his discussion of himself and his life in Washington. There is a clear note of self-pity in his remarks that he "worked many hours overtime for no pay," that when war was declared he "worked for thirty-seven hours straight," and that "living conditions were terrible. "
It is important to note that weakness in Mack and his group is only implied in these statements. What he seems to be trying to tell us is that in so far as the ingroup might appear to be weak at any"time, this is due only to persecu- tion by an outgroup that is momentarily-and unfairly-stronger. It is im- portant to note further that his feelings of being persecuted do not lead to sympathy for other persecuted people nor to any inclination to eliminate persecution generally, but only to the thought that justice would consist in his group becoming the powerful one. Here, as is typical of people with persecution fantasies, Mack believes that he (his group) is essentially strong but is at the same time in a weak position; he can solve this dilemma only by attributing evil (dishonesty, unfairness, and so on) and undeserved power to his opponent. His desire to be attached to the same kind of power which he decries in the outgroup is expressed in his wanting to be "close to the center of things," and "know about the background" of important daily events, to be in on "the secret committees. "
Turning now to Larry, it may be noted that perhaps the most striking aspect of his remarks about politics is their lack of organization and of con- viction. This is in contrast to his ideas in other ideological areas, such as minority questions, which show a relatively high degree of organization and firmness. However, even in his brief, casual utterances about politics we can see a different orientation from that found in Mack. True, there is here, as in their preferences for political labels, a certain amount of surface similarity-both men show general conservatism and the usual conservative accusations against the New Deal. But it is precisely this superficial similarity that makes the differences stand out.
The main over-all difference lies in the absence from Larry's thinking of those features which led us to question Mack's conservatism. Thus, Larry's thinking does not revolve around the ingroup-outgroup distinction: there is no conception of the ingroup as a static homogeneous entity which is
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
49
beyond any criticism; nor ? is the outgroup conceived of as an aggregation of weak and evil people who through plotting and conniving are able to use their undeserved power in persecuting the ingroup. Indeed, he can even identify himself with a man, Wallace, who not only belongs to the outgroup but is, according to the prevalent propaganda, "inefficient" to boot.
As the second main difference between the two men, there is more posi- tive evidence that Larry's conservatism is genuine, in the sense that it is a means for furthering his admitted material motives. Since he intends to become a businessman, he supports the political party which seems to offer the most help to business. This is in contrast to Mack, who stresses the con- ventional ideal of unselfishness in order, we may suppose, to disavow his underlying interest in power.
Larry finds difficulty, to be sure, in reconciling this "realism" with the idealism which he expresses in other areas. But he is aware of this difficulty- and here again he differs from Mack. The latter speaks as if his utterances were sufficiently objective, so that there need be no reference to himself or to the possibility of personal determinants of opinion. Larry, on the other hand, is aware that his views reflect things within himself as well as external reality, and that consequently they are tentative, approximate, and possibly self-contradictory. He feels it necessary to explain the origins of his views, he can admit some inner conflict, and consider the possibility that he may not have acquired his views in the most intelligent way. While these features may prevent this subject from being very militant about anything, they would seem to insure him against reactionism.
If two men whose ideas about politics are as different as those of Mack and Larry nevertheless have the same political alignment (they both agree with the Willkie-type Republicans and the Anti-New Deal Democrats), and if they understand what these party labels mean, then it might be in- quired whether political alignment bears any relationship to ethnocentrism. Or, if the two are related, what ideology concerning minority groups is more typical of the Willkie-type Republicans and the Anti-New Deal Demo- crats, that of Mack or that of Larry?
And what of those who favor the New Deal Democrats or the traditional Republicans? According to theory, we should expect political liberalism to go with relative freedom from prejudice, and political conservatism, at least the extreme form of it, i. e. , reaction, to go with ethnocentrism. Indeed, con- siderable evidence that this is true already exists. A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum. This would permit the determination of the quantitative relations of conservatism to anti-Semitism and to general ethnocentrism. It is apparent from consideration of what Mack and Larry
? so
have to say, however, that (a) conservatism is not a simple, unidimensional attitude but a complex ideological pattern, and (b) that the relations of conservatism to ethnocentrism are by no means one to one.
It cannot be supposed, of course, that all the aspects of conservatism- liberalism have been touched upon in the spontaneous remarks of these two subjects. It will be the task of research not only to determine whether the features expressed here-conservative values. , pro-business attitudes, and the like-commonly go together, but to inquire what other opinions, attitudes, and values might belong to an over-all conservative or liberal pattern. What, in other words, is the composition of conservative (or liberal) politico- economic ideology? Is there a coherent pattern that is broad enough to include what Mack and Larry have in common and at the same time to permit a delineation of such differences as exist between them? And which is more important for the problem of potential fascism, conservatism in general, or the special kind of conservatism seen in Mack but not in Larry?
It could well be argued that Mack's position is not conseryative at all but rather pseudoconservative. Although, as noted above, he professes belief in the tenets of traditional conservatism, it is clear that he considers it "time for a change," and there is a strong implication that the kind of change he desires is one which would abolish the very institutions with which he appears to identify himself. It has frequently been remarked that should fascism become a powerful force in this country, it would parade under the banners of traditional American democracy. Thus, the slogan "rugged individual- ism" which apparently expresses the liberal concept of free competition among independent and daring entrepreneurs, actually refers more often to the uncontrolled and arbitrary politics of the strongest powers in business- those huge combines which as a matter of historical necessity have lowered the number of independent entrepreneurs: It is clear that an investigation of antidemocratic trends must take this phenomenon into account. Is it pos- sible to define pseudoconservatism in objective terms, to diagnose it in the individual and to estimate its strength within a population? Is it true that pseudoconservatism is generally to be found, as in the case of Mack, asso- ciated with ethnocentrism and other antidemocratic trends?
On any ordinary scale for measuring conservatism, the pseudoconserva- tive would probably obtain a high score; he would agree with the usual statements of conservative opinions, attitudes, and values. How to frame scale items that will reflect the c~nservative fa<;ade and at the same time induce the subject to reveal his underlying readiness for radical change is a particularly challenging technical problem. We are confronted here with a clear instance of those different levels of expression which were discussed earlier. The only recourse, it would appear, is to employ clinical techniques that go more or less directly to the deeper tendencies, and give sufficient understanding of them, so that it becomes possible to formulate scale items
THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
which permit the indirect? expression, on the surface, of these deeper ten- dencies.
The Politico-Economic Conservatism (PEC) scale described in Chapter V is designed to give an estimate of the individual's general readiness to express conservative ideology and at the same time to distinguish the pseudo- conservative from the others. For a fuller description of the different pat- terns of conservative ideology, however, other scales and other techniques have in addition to be relied upon. With this approach it becomes possible to investigate the relations of pseudoconservatism to "genuine conservatism" -if, indeed, the distinction can be maintained. The question may be raised as to whether there is any deeply ingrained conservatism, within the indi- vidual, that does not derive its energy in large part from the personal need to curb one's own rebellious tendencies.
In any case, it is clear that Mack's political ideology is different from Larry's. The differences stand out with particular clarity when Mack's dis- cussion of politics is considered in relation to what he has to say about Jews and other ethnic groups. Just as his anti-Semitism could not be understood or evaluated until his ideas about other groups had been examined, so did his politics come into focus when seen against the background of his ethno- centrism. It seems particularly significant that he talks about the New Deal, the Civil Service, and the OWl in the same way that he talks about Jews. This seems strongly to suggest that we are faced here not with a particular set of political convictions and a particular set of opinions about a specific ethnic group but with a way of thinking about groups and group relations generally. Is the manner of this thinking-in rigid categories of unalterable blacks and whites-usually to be found in people who are prejudiced against minority gtoups? Is there any group, save those with which the subject is identified, that is safe from the kind of total rejection and potential hostility that is found here? Is there a general relationship between the manner of thinking and the content of thinking about groups and group relations? In Mack the stereotyped thinking is accompanied by imagery of power versus weakness, moral purity versus moral lowness, and hierarchical organization. Are these trends commonly associated in the general population? If so, is the relationship a dynamic one, and what might be its nature?
It would appear that the more a person's thinking is dominated by such general tendencies as those found in Mack, the less will his attitude toward a particular group depend upon any objective characteristics of that group, or upon any real experience in which members of that gro\lp were involved. It is this observation that draws attention to the importance of personality as a determinant of ideology. And if personality has this crucial role in the broad areas of attitude and opinion that have been considered, might we not expect it to influence a subject's thinking in all areas that are important
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
to him? It would be impossible to know what Mack thinks about everything, but we may examine his ideas about religion, income, and vocation and see if something approaching a total view emerges.
4. RELIGION
The interviewer, in questioning Mack about religion, took into considera- tion the following statement which he had made on his questionnaire. In response to the question, "How important, in your opinion, are religion and the church? " Mack wrote, "Especially important for people who need sustenance or who are highly erratic. I have had to rely too much on my own ability for the necessities of life to devote a great deal of time to the spiritual. " Larry, for his part, wrote, "Very important as the center of moral teachings. "
The question may be raised at once whether rejection of religion is usually associated with an antidemocratic outlook as is the case with Mack, while acceptance of religion, as in Larry, usually goes with relative freedom from prejudice. There would appear to be some reason to expect that the general trend would be the other way around, that freedom from religious dogmas would go with political "liberalism" and hence with freedom from prejadice, while acceptance of religion would go with conservatism and authoritarian- ism and, hence, probably with ethnocentrism. In all likelihood the problem is not so simple. It may be that the mere acceptance or rejection of religion is not so important as how the individual accepts or rejects it, that is to say, the pattern of his ideas about religion. This is a matter upon which the interviews ought to throw some light.
It may be noted in the interviews of Mack and Larry that both men were subjected to a rather usual type of conventional pressure, that in both cases the application of this pressure was mainly a maternal function, and that in the background of both cases there is a mixture of Methodist and Catholic influences. Mack makes more of a distinction between father and mother roles than does Larry, and it seems important to Mack that his father was good without going to church. In the mind of the latter subject, church and mother seem to be rather closely identified and to stand for that which weak or dependent people tum to when they need sustenance. But it may be asked whether, in turning away from the church, Mack has not had to sub- stitute something else in its stead; and that is authority, as represented first by the father and later by a "God who is strictly a man. " It can be supposed that the kind of religious feeling which this "great man" arouses in the subject is like that he experienced when he sat next to General Marshall and heard him talk. Similar deference toward sufficiently high authority can be noted in Mack's respect for the sayings of Christ, which are con- trasted with the "not first hand" words of the apostles.
But Mack's respect for authority comes into conflict with his explicit
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
53
value of independence. How to reconcile the two is the problem with which his religious ideology is mainly concerned. Apparently he can get some feeling of independence by asserting that he is stubborn and hard-headed, and by rejecting people who "need sustenance. " And if the authority is suf- ficiently powerful, it becomes possible to submit without losing altogether the sense of independence. If dependence and passivity are to be accepted, it must be in circumstances that are beyond his control, e. g. , when he is sick.
It is strongly suggested that as much as Mack would like to be inde- pendent he would also like to be dependent. He does admit to liking the music and singing in church; he seems to make a point of telling us how much sickness he has had, and when he emphasizes that he has had to rely upon himself since an early age, we may detect not only a note of pride but a note of self-pity. An underlying need for dependence (passivity, sym- pathy, comfort), in conflict with the desire to maintain masculine pride and self-respect, could give rise to an exaggerated value for independence; and it could at the same time receive a measure of gratification, in a somewhat disguised form, through submission to a powerful authority. This would seem to be a fairly clear instance in which a deeper-level need operates to affect manifest strivings, openly expressed values, and ideas about God and man.
Since Mack does not belong to any organized religious sect, he does not speak of his group versus various religious outgroups. It is to be noted, how- ever, that he seems to regard all religious people as constituting an outgroup, ascribing to them some of the same features-weakness, dependence-which he sees in Jews and in the New Deal.
Larry, for his part, regards religion as a valued part of everyday living rather than something that is called for in a particular situation. For him it has the general function of promoting high ethical standards, good living, and progress rather than the limited function of offering relief in times of acute distress. Moreover, in contrast with Mack, who identifies morals with "the man," Larry conceives that the moral values of religion reside in the church as an institution. A further contrast between the two men lies in the fact that Larry accepts religion in general yet is able to criticize it, while Mack generally rejects it without offering specific criticisms. In criticizing the content of religion on intellectual grounds, Larry shows that he will not be likely to use it for reactionary aims. Mack exhibits his characteristic ali-or- nothing approach to ideological matters, and without any analysis of content concentrates on people-Christ, the apostles, God the man-who are to be totally accepted or totally rejected.
Regardless of whether or not the general acceptance or the general rejec- tion of religion should be found in a larger population to be associated with antidemocratic trends, it will be necessary to inquire whether the distin- guishing features in the thought of Mack and Larry are generally significant.
? 54
THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSO~ALITY
No attempt was made in the present research to measure any variables in the area of religious ideology (although, as noted above, subjects did state in their questionnaires how important they considered religion and the Church); instead, effort was directed to the discovery of patterns of religious thought in the interview discussions of the subjects. How common in our society are the patterns found in Mack and Larry? Do these patterns gener- ally bear the same kinds of relations to thought in other areas as they do in these two cases? What other patterns of religious thought may be discovered and what is their significance for democracy or its opposite? Do the differ- ent religious sects represent systems of belief that are related to prejudice? Do "racial" and "religious prejudice" go together and have the same sig- nificances, as has been so frequently supposed?
In the case of Mack, a deep-lying personality need, dependence, comes into prominence when religion is under discussion. Is it possible to demonstrate dynamic relationships between such needs and ideological systems? In other areas as well as in the area of religion? Also in the case of Mack, there appears to be a close connection between religious ideology and the pattern of family relations. Is this generally the case? It may be that the pattern of family relations is an important determinant not only of religious thought but of ideology in general.
5. VOCA TION AND INCOME
The previous discussion has shown that Mack tends to think of the struc- ture of any group as a hierarchy of power. It is not surprising therefore to find that he thinks of our total society as being organized along the same lines. In government he sees increasing centralization and regimentation, i. e. , more and more control vested in fewer and fewer people, and in eco- nomics, important developments will continue to be in the hands of the big capitalists. However much objective truth there may be in this view, the significant point is that Mack considers the state of affairs he describes as, if not desirable, inevitable. Given this kind of social organization, then the thing to do is to "go up," "to open doors," to be "on the inside," and this is the main trend in his vocation-income ideology. He wants to belong to or be "in with" the ruling group. It is not so much that he himself wants to dominate, but rather that he wants to serve powerful interests and so partici- pate in their power. It was seen in his discussion of politics that the power attributes of the ingroup and of the outgroup were, in his mind, the same; it is not too much to hypothesize now that the reason he accuses the Jews, the Civil Service, the OWl, the New Deal of wishing to establish a closely cohesive and selfishly exploitive ingroup is that he wishes to do the same thing himself. It is necessary to add, of course, that he cannot fully justify to himself such an antidemocratic wish and so, under its sway but unable to admit it, he sees it as existing not in himself but in the world around him.
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
55
Larry, it appears, is also identified with business and would like to go up in the world, but there the similarity between the two subjects ends. Whereas for Larry, going up means improving his lot in the ordinary sociological sense, for Mack it means changing his status in a hierarchy; in other words, Larry thinks of climbing primarily in its individual sense, while Mack thinks of it more in its class sense. Larry does not seem to mind competing, once he has been given support at the start, while Mack would get there by sub- mitting to those who are going to win. Larry is frankly interested in money and a lot of it while Mack is moralistically temperate in this regard; Larry wants pleasure, Mack seems more interested in power; Larry feels that the main object of work and efficiency is that one might the sooner take a vaca- tion and enjoy life; Mack appears to regard these things as ends in them- selves. In general, both subjects express ideas that are closely in accord with their political ideologies.
Another difference between the two men, which may be of considerable importance, lies in Larry's greater awareness of his motivation: he is entirely open about his desire for money and pleasure, his willingness to accept sup- port, his susceptibility to influence by his family, his interest in social prestige. There is little reason to doubt that these motives are just as strong, if not considerably stronger, in Mack, but it is plain that he does not fully accept them as parts of his self. It might be inquired whether this tendency to keep important personality needs out of consciousness, to allow them to remain ego-alien, is not a regular feature of the potential fascist.
In the present area of vocation-income, perhaps more than in any of the others, the subjects' discussion of what they believe is closely bound up with discussion of what, more or less explicitly, they want. Personality needs, in other words, have a central place in the whole picture. To climb socially, to be independent, to have pleasure and security, to attain a sense of power by submitting to those who have it-these are personality needs. The moral- istic depreciation of money, the oversolicitous but unrealistic attitude toward poor people-these may be regarded as defense mechanisms, devices whereby needs which conflict with the stronger need to maintain self-respect are held in check. It is plain that with respect to a number of these variables Mack and Larry are widely different; and it was one of the main hypotheses of the present research that there are numerous such variables with respect to which prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals differ generally and which in individuals at either extreme go together to form a psychologically mean- ingful pattern. In proceeding to test this hypothesis the interview protocols of numerous ethnocentric and anti-ethnocentric subjects-as well as other sources-were combed for just such distinguishing features, and these were then put into the form of questionnaire scale-items for testing with groups of subjects. A liking for "nice equipment," a fondness for hunting and fishing, a preference for living in a small town-numerous such small but
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
suggestive items were given consideration. On the assumption that potential antidemocracy at the personality level is a general trend with respect to which individuals differ quantitatively, a scale for the measurement of this trend was constructed in the manner of those described above. This supplied the means for demonstrating on a mass basis some of the relationships which appear to exist in the two individuals under discussion.
Even if factors of personality did not come explicitly to the fore at par- ticular points in the interviews with these two men, the conception of personality would be forced upon us by observation of the consistency with which the same ideas and thesame modes of thought recur as the discussion turns from one ideological area to another. Since no such consistency could conceivably exist as a matter of sociological fact, we are bound to conceive of central tendencies in the person which express themselves in various areas. The concept of a dynamic factor of personality is made to order for explaining the common trend in diverse surface manifestations. For ex- ample, a need for power in the personality is ready to express itself in any area of social relations. It may be suggested, in this connection, that where social psychologists have not so far given a great deal of attention to person- ality it is because they have not studied total ideology. Specific social atti- tudes if adequately measured will undoubtedly be found to correlate with a variety of external and contemporary factors, and if one studies only spe- cific attitudes he may easily be led to the belief that this is all there is to it.
Consistent trends in the person can only be revealed by subjecting him to a variety of stimuli, or placing him in a number of different situations, or questioning him on a wide array of topics; but if this is done, then, according to the present hypothesis, consistent trends, i. e. , personality, will always be revealed.
The varied stimuli to which subjects of the present study were subjected were not limited to questions of attitude, opinion, and value; there were the clinical techniques designed especially for bringing the factors of personal- ity to light. The aim was to go as far as possible toward demonstrating the covariation of personality factors and the ideological trends discussed above, toward discovering as many as possible of the features which distinguished the potentially antidemocratic individual. Given a relationship between a personality variable and an ideological trend, it was usually assumed that the causal sequence was from the former to the latter-on the grounds that the formation of personality was genetically earlier, the most important structures going back to childhood. This led to an attempt to learn some- thing about the determination of the potential fascist in childhood, through investigation of the early social environment. But this is a subject which can- not be considered until much later; not until the several areas of ideology have been analyzed in detail.
? CHAPTER III
THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
Daniel J. Levinson
A. INTRODUCTION
One of the most clearly antidemocratic forms of social ideology is preju- dice, and within this context anti-Semitism provides a fruitful starting point for a social psychological study. As a social movement, organized anti- Semitism presents a major threat to democracy: it is one of the most powerful psychological vehicles for antidemocratic political movements and it pro- vides, for reasons which are largely politico-economic and beyond the scope of this discussion, perhaps the most effective spearhead for a frontal attack on our entire social structure.
From a psychological viewpoint as well, anti-Semitism is particularly important and revealing. Much that psychologically oriented writers have already said about anti-Semitism and about fascism suggests that the deeper psychological sources of these ideologies are very similar. The irrational quality in anti-Semitism stands out even in casual everyday discussions. The fact that people make general statements about "the Jew," when the Jews are actually so heterogeneous-belong to every socioeconomic class and represent every degree of assimilation-is vivid evidence of this irrationality. This striking contrast between the Jews' actual complexity and their sup- posed homogeneity has suggested the hypothesis that what people say against Jews depends more upon their own psychology than upon the actual charac- teristics of Jews. For example, when the belief that Jews possess financial power out of all proportion to their numbers persists in the face of over- whelming evidence to the contrary, one is led to suspect not only that the individual holding this belief has an unusual preoccupation with power but also that he might himself wish to assume the kind of power which he sup- poses Jews to have. It is clear that research into the emotional sources of ideology is required for the understanding of such phenomena as these.
These considerations, which suggest the advantage of making anti- Semitism a point of departure for research, were also some of the hypotheses that guided the research as a whole. The study of anti-Semitism may well
57
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
be, then, the first step in a search for antidemocratic trends in ideology, in personality, and in social movements.
Anti-Semitism is conceived here as an ideology, that is, as a relatively organized, relatively stable system of opinions, values, and attitudes concern- ing Jews and Jewish-Gentile relations. More specifically, it involves negative opinions regarding Jews (that they are unscrupulous, clannish, power- seeking, and so on); hostile attitudes toward them (that they should be ex- cluded, restricted, kept subordinate to Gentiles, and so on); and moral values \vhich permeate the opinions and justify the attitudes.
Numerous questions concerning the structure and content of anti- Semitism were raised in Chapter II. These and other questions guided the construction of an opinion-attitude scale for the measurement of anti- Semitic ideology. The source material for the scale included: the writings of virulent anti-Semites; technical, literary, and reportorial writings on anti- Semitism and fascism; and, most important, everyday American anti-Semitism as revealed in parlor discussion, in the discriminatory practices of many businesses and institutions, and in the literature of various organizations which are trying, with small success, to counter numerous anti-Semitic accusations by means of rational argument.
This scale, like the others used in the present research, had several func- tions. It yielded a quantitative measure which could be correlated with measures of other, theoretically related, variables. It provided a basis for the selection of criterion groups of extreme high and low scorers, who could then be subjected to intensive clinical study. It permitted, as part of a larger questionnaire, a relatively detailed, quantifiable study of large groups of subjects. Finally, it was constructed in such a way that statistical analysis of its properties might reveal much of the structure, scope, and content of anti- Semitic ideology.
B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANTI-SEMITISM (A-S) SCALE
An opinion-attitude scale is a series of statements dealing with a given topic, in this case anti-Semitic ideology. The subject is asked to respond to each item by agreeing or disagreeing. His responses are converted into scores in such a way that a high score indicates a great amount of what is being measured-for this scale, anti-Semitism-a low score the opposite. The scor- ing procedure is discussed below (Section C).
The Likert method of scaling (73, 84) was used. It is easier to apply and requires fewer items than the Thurstone method (II8), but yields equally high reliabilities and generally comparable results (2 2, 84). It was desired to avoid the assumptions and difficulties in the use of judges which the latter method entails. Also, since it was anticipated that in further stages of the research the items might be modified in wording, it was highly desirable to
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
59
avoid the repeated use of judges. A measure of intensity of optmon and attitudes is obtained, in the Likert method, by having the subject indicate the degree of his agreement or disagreement with each item; this makes possible a more adequate determination of subtle group and individual dif- ferences, and facilitates the qualitative analysis of individual response pat- terns. This method also permits the covering of a wider area of opinions and attitudes. Finally, the Likert technique of item analysis (see below) was particularly suited to the general theoretical approach of this research.
1. GENERAL RULES IN ITEM FORMULA TION
The procedure used for selecting and formulating items, in contrast to a frequent practice, did not involve the testing of several hundred items as a basis for selection of a final short scale. Rather, fifty-two items were formu- lated and all of these were used throughout the statistical analysis of the preliminary form of the scale. (To anticipate a result presented below, only a few items were statistically inadequate, and this inadequacy is interesting in its own right. ) In successive stages of the research there were, however, no qualms about modifying, deleting, or adding items.
The present scale differs from most opinion-attitude scales in that it con- tains only negative items, that is, they all state the anti-Semitic position regarding the issue in question. The reasons for the use of negative items only and an answer to some possible criticisms, presented in detail in a previ- ous publication (71), may be summarized here. One advantage of negative items is that they tend to be more discriminating. Also, negative items can be so phrased that they express subtle hostility without seeming to offend the democratic values which most prejudiced people feel they must main- tain. Since the scale attempts to measure receptivity to anti-Semitic ideology, it seemed reasonable to use only anti-Semitic statements in the scale. The main argument against the present procedure is that it might produce a "set" or mechanical tendency consistently to agree or to disagree. This argument is answered on the ground that (a) most individuals show variability of response, as indicated by item intercorrelations averaging . 3-. 4; (b) there is a tendency to vary in order to avoid an extreme position; (c) very similar results have been obtained in later stages of the present research when an all-negative scale is inserted randomly into a longer series containing positive items; and, most important, (d) since the "set" argument implies that high scorers are not necessarily anti-Semitic nor lows anti-anti-Semitic, the final test is the validity of the scale, that is, the demonstration that high scorers are significantly different from low scorers in a variety of meaningful charac- teristics. The scale does, as will be shown later, have considerable validity.
Since the A-S scale, like the others, was intended not only to provide a quantitative measure of an ideology but also to aid in the qualitative descrip- tion of that ideology (and of individual ideological patterns), its construe-
? 6o THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
tion followed certain general rules. These rules had to do with (a) the formulation of individual items, and (b) the division of the total scale into subscales.
Since the scale should not, for practical reasons, include more than about fifty items (preferably fewer in later forms), each item should be maximally rich in ideas and there should be a minimum of duplication in wording or essential content of items. While the items are therefore often more complex than those of many other scales, this is not considered a fault. At the same time, they should be clear and unambiguous in meaning, so that agreement is ordinarily an expression of anti-Semitism, disagreement an expression of its opposite. It is important to avoid "double-barreled" items, that is, items with two parts such that a subject might agree with one part and disagree with the other, and thus not know how to respond.
Extreme prejudice of a violent and openly antidemocratic sort does not seem to be widespread in this country, especially in the middle class. 1 Since the present scale is intended to measure everyday, "garden variety" anti- Semitism, the items were formulated in such a way as to reflect the prevalent forms in which anti-Semitism now appears.
Most prejudice as one finds it in business, housing, and general social inter- action is pseudodemocratic rather than openly antidemocratic; this distinc- tion plays an important role in the analysis of anti-Semitic ideology which guided the construction of the scale and the formulation of items. An idea may be considered openly antidemocratic when it refers to active hatred, or to violence which has the direct aim of wiping out a minority group or of putting it in a permanently subordinate position. A pseudodemocratic idea, on the other hand, is one in which hostility toward a group is somewhat tempered and disguised by means of a compromise with democratic ideals. Pseudodemocratic statements about Jews are often introduced by qualifying phrases which deny hostility or which attempt to demonstrate the demo- cratic attitude of the speaker, e. g. , "It's not that I'm prejudiced, but. . . . "; "Jews have their rights, but. . . . "
This pseudodemocratic fac;ade is probably relatively untouched by most of the current literature attacking prejudice as "race hatred," "un-Ameri- can," "un-Christian intolerance," and the like. There is no hatred in the surface content of these attitudes and they have been squared with certain democratic values in such a way that the individual holding them apparently feels little if any sense of antidemocracy. And, of course, merely to label this way of thinking as un-American will not change it, first, because labeling is not enough, and second, because such thinking falls within one of the main streams of American social history and can be found to some extent in most sections of American life. It is necessary, rather, to understand its
1 This is shown by various public opinion polls and reportorial studies although compre- hensive and rigorously obtained data are lacking. It is also indicated by results from the present study.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 6r
external sources in American culture and tradition as well as the inner sources which make certain individuals particularly receptive to these cultural pressures.
It is probably an error to regard the pseudodemocratic compromise as a mere surface disguise used deliberately and skillfully by prejudiced people to camouflage their actual, conscious antidemocracy. The person whose approach to social problems is pseudodemocratic is actually different now from one whose approach is now openly antidemocratic. For various reasons -perhaps because he has internalized democratic values, perhaps out of conformity to present social standards-the pseudodemocrat does not now accept ideas of overt violence and active suppression. The concern with democratic values, and the resistance to antidemocratic ones, must be con- sidered as psychologically and socially important facts in any attempt to understand prejudice, American variety. Undoubtedly very many people who are now pseudodemocratic are potentially antidemocratic, that is, are capable in a social crisis of supporting or committing acts of violence against minority groups. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the attempted compromise with democratic values: because it may reveal a democratic potential which might, if supported and strengthened, ultimately gain the upper hand; because it colors the whole fabric of pseudodemocratic social thinking; and, since this comprorllise reflects the prevalent forms of overt discrimination in this country-quotas, segregation, exclusion, denial of op- portunities-to understand the former may help to combat the latter.
If patterns of ideology are conceived as falling on a dimension ranging from democratic to antidemocratic, then the pseudodemocratic ones prob- ably stand somewhere between the center and the antidemocratic extreme. This is, of course, not a simple dimension: there are diverse approaches falling into each of these broad categories, and the dimension is not a simple quantitative one like length or weight. A change of certain trends in an indi- vidual may produce a qualitative reorganization and ideological change from one extreme of this dimension to the other. The task is to understand the total individual and, especially in the case of the pseudodemocrat, to gauge the psychological potential for both democracy and open antidemocracy.
Most of the items of the A-S scale have been formulated as pseudodemo- cratically as possible. This consideration was, in fact, one of the main reasons for the use of negative items only. The following rules have been followed in general: Each item should be made appealing and "easy to fall for" by avoiding or soft-pedaling or morally justifying ideas of violence and obvious antidemocracy. Much use is made of qualifying phrases such as "One trouble with Jewish . . . ";"There are a few exceptions, but . . . "; "It would be to the best interests of all if . . . ," in order to avoid a categorical, aggressive con- demnation. Items are worded so that the person can add at the end: "but I am not anti-Semitic. " Seeming tentativeness is introduced by qualifications such as "it seems that," "probably," "in most cases. " Finally, an attempt is made to
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
give each statement a familiar ring, to formulate it as it has been heard many times in everyday discussions.
To the extent that the above rules have been followed, pseudodemocratic subjects are likely to make scores on this scale as high, or nearly as high, as those of the antidemocratic ones. It will be the task of later techniques, both questionnaire-style and clinical, to provide further information con- cerning the distinctions between these two groups of subjects.
2. MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS OR AREAS: THE SUBSCALES
The general rules of item formulation just described refer primarily to the formal structure of items and can be applied to each item irrespective of the content of the ideas expressed in it. The content of the items was largely determined by the general conception of anti-Semitic ideology and the specific hypotheses discussed above. Several subscales were formed in order to insure systematic coverage of the various aspects conceived and in order to test certain hypotheses. The subscales cannot be thought of as dealing with components of anti-Semitism in any statistical sense; they are not based on statistical treatment of prior results, nor was any intensive correlational analysis of the present items made. The subscales are, rather, convenient ways of conceiving and grouping items.
The anti-Semitism scale conta1ns five subscales dealing respectively with imagery (opinions) of Jews as personally offensive and as socially threaten- ing; with attitudes concerning what should be done to or against Jews; and with the opposing views that Jews are too seclusive or too intrusive (as- similative). These subscales are probably not entirely independent either in a statistical sense or with respect to the actual content of the items; indeed, there is some question as to whether certain items may not equally well have been placed in a different subscale than the one to which they were assigned. Nevertheless, each subscale as a whole seems to deal with a fairly definite and definable phase of anti-Semitism. The subscales will now be discussed in order.
a. SuBsCALE "OFFENSIVE" (S0 ) . This subscale is presented in T able r (III). (The items are numbered as they appeared in the total scale, which was given in two parts, I and II, with twenty-six items in each part; thus, l-4 is Item 4, part I. ) The items describe various "Jewish traits" which are offensive, unpleasant, and disturbing. Stereotypy is implicit in items ascribing faults to "Jews"-implicitly, "all" or "most" Jews-without recognition of individual differences. It is explicit in item 1-q, which specifically states that "Jews are pretty much alike" and which indicates an image of "the Jews" as a stereo-
typed model of the entire group.
What are the characteristics of this stereotyped image? If the other items
offer an adequate description, "the Jew" is extravagant, sensual, conceited, and overaggressive; but he is also "smelly," shabby, and unconcerned with his personal appearance. Jews are accused of being excessinly Jewish, so to
? 1-I. l-4. I-7.
1-w.
I-I3. I-I6.
II-I. Il-4. II-7.
11-Io. II-I 3?
11-I6.
TABLE I (III) ANTI-sEMITISM SuBsCALE "OFFENsivE"
Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living.
A major fault of the Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their idea that they are a chosen race.
No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always some- thing basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a manner that is never totally changed.
Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, and unattractive.
There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike. The Jews shoud not pry so much into Christian activities and organizations nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians.
The Jews should make sincere efforts to rid themselves of their conspicuous and irritating faults if they really want to stop being persecuted.
There is something different and strange about Jews; one never knows what they are thinking or planning, nor what makes them tick.
The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradu- ally give it a typical Jewish atmosphere.
I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew.
One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding.
Jews should be more concerned with their personal appearance, and not be so dirty and smelly and unkempt.
THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
speak, but their attempts to assimilate into "Christian" activities are re- garded as prying. Jewish faults are considered the main cause of anti- Semitism (Item 11-r ), which would be eliminated if the Jews made sincere efforts to improve. However, there is some doubt that Jews can ever quite manage to be fully Americanized (Item I-7). Item 11-ro, "I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew," is included here because it seems to refer more to an unpleasant image than to a clear-cut, hostile attitude. It represents a pseudodemocratic equivalent to Item I-rs in the "Attitude" subscale (see below). Are people consistent in their general agreement (or disagreement) with these items? This will be seen in the results presented below.
b. SuBsCALE "THREATENING" (ST)? These items, presented in Table z(lll), describe the Jews as a dangerous, dominating, corrupting social group. They are asserted to have great power economically and politically, and to be unscrupulous and conniving in their dealings with Gentiles. They do not like hard work (Item 11-rr) but at the same time they lower the general standard of living by doing menial work and by living under low standards (Item l-r4). In addition to being simultaneously rich and poor, powerful and parasitic, they are also at once capitalists and revolutionaries. In their lack of patriotism they are a threat to the nation, and in general they are a threat to civilization.
Apart from the enormous complexity of "the Jew" so described, there is something fantastic in the idea that a group so small numerically can be so
? I-2. I-5. 1-8.
I-I 1.
I-I4.
Il-2.
ll-5.
11-8. II-I 1.
II-I4.
TABLE 2 (III)
ANTI-SEMITISM SuBsCALE "THREATENING"
The Jews must be considered a bad influence on Christian culture and civili- zation.
One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and con- nive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition.
Jewish power and control in money matters is far out of proportion to the number of Jews in the total population.
There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. Jews tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness to do the most menial work and to live under standards that are far below average. War shows up the fact that the Jews are not patriotic or willing to make sacrifices for their country.
Jews may have moral standards that they apply in their dealings with each other, but with Christians they are unscrupulous, ruthless, and undependable. The Jew's first loyalty is to Jewry rather than to his country.
Jews seem to have an aversion to plain hard work; they tend to be a parasitic element in society by finding easy, nonproductive jobs.
There seems to be some revolutionary streak in the Jewish make-up as shown by the fact that there are so many Jewish Communists and agitators.
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
powerful and so basic a social threat. This imagery in extreme cases seems to be an ideological expression of underlying paranoid trends; in Mein Kampf, for example, the Jews are regarded not only as "base and inferior" but also as having "germicidal potency" and "devilish cunning. " However, most American anti-Semites are undoubtedly not psychotic or paranoid in the usual psychiatric sense.
Parenthetically, it may be noted that there is an apparent inconsistency between Mack's general ethnocentrism and his acceptance of Stalin. This apparent discrepancy may possibly be explained in terms of our subject's attitude toward power: his admiration for power is great enough so that he can accept and momentarily ally himself with a distant outgroup when that group is not seen as a direct threat to himself. It is probably a safe guess that like many who supported cooperation with Russia during the war, this man's attitude has now changed, and Russia is regarded as a threat to the ingroup.
Mack's conception of the relations between the outgroup and the ingroup is simple: the outgroup with its selfish, materialistic, power-seeking -drives, on the one hand, and its inefficiency and weakness on the other, is out to control and exploit the ingroup-to take power from it, to take over its functions, to grab all the credit, to seduce people into its fold by skillful manipulation, in short, to weaken the ingroup and run everything itself, for its own narrow, selfish ends.
When he comes to the political ingroup, Mack speaks only of admired characteristics, and the only political agencies discussed are the man, Dewey, and the army. The ingroup characteristics fall in exactly the same dimensions as do those ascribed to the outgroup, sometimes being identical and some- times the exact opposite. Whether there is identity or reversal seems to follow a simple rule: those outgroup characteristics which have an aspect of power are kept intact in the ingroup, only now they are regarded as good, whereas for each outgroup characteristic signifying weakness or immorality there is an ingroup characteristic signifying the opposite.
To consider the reversals first, the inefficiency of the New Deal is in direct contrast to Dewey's clear-cut, straightforward approach. Roosevelt's "skillful politics" is the opposite of Dewey's frankness and honesty-to-the-
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
47
death. Roosevelt's submission to stronger leaders is in contrast to Dewey's determined overcoming of obstacles and to General Marshall's indomitable firmness. The organizational confusion of ? the outgroup is to be corrected by the concentratimi. of power in a small, closely knit organization having clearly defined levels of authority with a strong leader at the top and a cabinet of carefully chosen lieutenants.
It becomes clear, then, that the only real difference between the ingroup and the outgroup is the greater weakness of the latter. Leaving aside the weaknesses of the outgroup, we find that in all other respects the concep- tions of outgroup and ingroup are identical: both seek to concentrate power in a small, cohesive organization the only purpose of which is to maintain itself. While the outgroup is accused of selfishness and materialism, the only virtues of the ingroup are the honesty and efficiency of its methods; there is no reference to its ends.
Whatever the ingroup aims might be, however, they will presumably benefit the ingroup, for Mack tells us that one of the reasons for supporting Dewey is that "he would think of the average people," with whom the sub- ject seems to be identified. We know from Mack's discussion of ethnic groups that "average" is not an all-inclusive conception, but rather an ingroup from which he excludes a large proportion of the population. We see also that wealthy people are excluded from his concept of average. That this latter is not typical equalitarianism, however, is shown by his desire to become a corporation lawyer, and by his favoring a form of stratified social organization which in the economic sphere would-far from averaging things out-perpetuate the present distribution of wealth. This would seem to place the subject on the conservative side. Certainly, he quotes with ap- proval many of the slogans of contemporary American conservatism, and he tells us that Dewey is to be supported because he is "interested in main- taining the old government traditions. " Yet there is reason to believe that his conservatism is not of the traditional kind. The type of centralized control which he favors is certainly out of keeping with traditional conservative
principles of free competition and restriction of government's functions. Indeed, there is a suggestion that his apparent conservatism is in reality a kind of anticonservatism. We may note his remark "if we maintain our present system of government, and I think we will for a time, some things will have to be altered. " Why should he suggest that our system of govern- ment might not be maintained, and why does he think that at best it will be maintained only for a time? He seems to give us the answer himself, for the changes which he suggests as a means of maintaining the conservative tradi- tion are actually changes which would overthrow it entirely.
The main points considered so far are Mack's attribution of both power and weakness to the outgroup and of only power to the ingroup. It must be noted, however, that weakness, too, is thought of as existing in the ingroup,
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
though in a different form. Thus, when Mack describes the OWl as a power- seeking behemoth, the War Department is pictured in a situation of distress: "And all the time our department was crying for personnel. " Again, Dewey's campaign is seen as a sort of struggle between David and Goliath, in which the clean-cut, straightforward younger man loses only because of the over- whelming power and lack of scruple which opposes him: "It was skilful politics that enabled the old guard to win. Considering his obstacles, Dewey did very well. In ordinary times he would have had a landslide. " This im- agery of persecution is expressed not only in Mack's political thinking but also in his discussion of himself and his life in Washington. There is a clear note of self-pity in his remarks that he "worked many hours overtime for no pay," that when war was declared he "worked for thirty-seven hours straight," and that "living conditions were terrible. "
It is important to note that weakness in Mack and his group is only implied in these statements. What he seems to be trying to tell us is that in so far as the ingroup might appear to be weak at any"time, this is due only to persecu- tion by an outgroup that is momentarily-and unfairly-stronger. It is im- portant to note further that his feelings of being persecuted do not lead to sympathy for other persecuted people nor to any inclination to eliminate persecution generally, but only to the thought that justice would consist in his group becoming the powerful one. Here, as is typical of people with persecution fantasies, Mack believes that he (his group) is essentially strong but is at the same time in a weak position; he can solve this dilemma only by attributing evil (dishonesty, unfairness, and so on) and undeserved power to his opponent. His desire to be attached to the same kind of power which he decries in the outgroup is expressed in his wanting to be "close to the center of things," and "know about the background" of important daily events, to be in on "the secret committees. "
Turning now to Larry, it may be noted that perhaps the most striking aspect of his remarks about politics is their lack of organization and of con- viction. This is in contrast to his ideas in other ideological areas, such as minority questions, which show a relatively high degree of organization and firmness. However, even in his brief, casual utterances about politics we can see a different orientation from that found in Mack. True, there is here, as in their preferences for political labels, a certain amount of surface similarity-both men show general conservatism and the usual conservative accusations against the New Deal. But it is precisely this superficial similarity that makes the differences stand out.
The main over-all difference lies in the absence from Larry's thinking of those features which led us to question Mack's conservatism. Thus, Larry's thinking does not revolve around the ingroup-outgroup distinction: there is no conception of the ingroup as a static homogeneous entity which is
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
49
beyond any criticism; nor ? is the outgroup conceived of as an aggregation of weak and evil people who through plotting and conniving are able to use their undeserved power in persecuting the ingroup. Indeed, he can even identify himself with a man, Wallace, who not only belongs to the outgroup but is, according to the prevalent propaganda, "inefficient" to boot.
As the second main difference between the two men, there is more posi- tive evidence that Larry's conservatism is genuine, in the sense that it is a means for furthering his admitted material motives. Since he intends to become a businessman, he supports the political party which seems to offer the most help to business. This is in contrast to Mack, who stresses the con- ventional ideal of unselfishness in order, we may suppose, to disavow his underlying interest in power.
Larry finds difficulty, to be sure, in reconciling this "realism" with the idealism which he expresses in other areas. But he is aware of this difficulty- and here again he differs from Mack. The latter speaks as if his utterances were sufficiently objective, so that there need be no reference to himself or to the possibility of personal determinants of opinion. Larry, on the other hand, is aware that his views reflect things within himself as well as external reality, and that consequently they are tentative, approximate, and possibly self-contradictory. He feels it necessary to explain the origins of his views, he can admit some inner conflict, and consider the possibility that he may not have acquired his views in the most intelligent way. While these features may prevent this subject from being very militant about anything, they would seem to insure him against reactionism.
If two men whose ideas about politics are as different as those of Mack and Larry nevertheless have the same political alignment (they both agree with the Willkie-type Republicans and the Anti-New Deal Democrats), and if they understand what these party labels mean, then it might be in- quired whether political alignment bears any relationship to ethnocentrism. Or, if the two are related, what ideology concerning minority groups is more typical of the Willkie-type Republicans and the Anti-New Deal Demo- crats, that of Mack or that of Larry?
And what of those who favor the New Deal Democrats or the traditional Republicans? According to theory, we should expect political liberalism to go with relative freedom from prejudice, and political conservatism, at least the extreme form of it, i. e. , reaction, to go with ethnocentrism. Indeed, con- siderable evidence that this is true already exists. A natural step in the present study, therefore, was to conceive of a continuum extending from extreme conservatism to extreme liberalism and to construct a scale which would place individuals along this continuum. This would permit the determination of the quantitative relations of conservatism to anti-Semitism and to general ethnocentrism. It is apparent from consideration of what Mack and Larry
? so
have to say, however, that (a) conservatism is not a simple, unidimensional attitude but a complex ideological pattern, and (b) that the relations of conservatism to ethnocentrism are by no means one to one.
It cannot be supposed, of course, that all the aspects of conservatism- liberalism have been touched upon in the spontaneous remarks of these two subjects. It will be the task of research not only to determine whether the features expressed here-conservative values. , pro-business attitudes, and the like-commonly go together, but to inquire what other opinions, attitudes, and values might belong to an over-all conservative or liberal pattern. What, in other words, is the composition of conservative (or liberal) politico- economic ideology? Is there a coherent pattern that is broad enough to include what Mack and Larry have in common and at the same time to permit a delineation of such differences as exist between them? And which is more important for the problem of potential fascism, conservatism in general, or the special kind of conservatism seen in Mack but not in Larry?
It could well be argued that Mack's position is not conseryative at all but rather pseudoconservative. Although, as noted above, he professes belief in the tenets of traditional conservatism, it is clear that he considers it "time for a change," and there is a strong implication that the kind of change he desires is one which would abolish the very institutions with which he appears to identify himself. It has frequently been remarked that should fascism become a powerful force in this country, it would parade under the banners of traditional American democracy. Thus, the slogan "rugged individual- ism" which apparently expresses the liberal concept of free competition among independent and daring entrepreneurs, actually refers more often to the uncontrolled and arbitrary politics of the strongest powers in business- those huge combines which as a matter of historical necessity have lowered the number of independent entrepreneurs: It is clear that an investigation of antidemocratic trends must take this phenomenon into account. Is it pos- sible to define pseudoconservatism in objective terms, to diagnose it in the individual and to estimate its strength within a population? Is it true that pseudoconservatism is generally to be found, as in the case of Mack, asso- ciated with ethnocentrism and other antidemocratic trends?
On any ordinary scale for measuring conservatism, the pseudoconserva- tive would probably obtain a high score; he would agree with the usual statements of conservative opinions, attitudes, and values. How to frame scale items that will reflect the c~nservative fa<;ade and at the same time induce the subject to reveal his underlying readiness for radical change is a particularly challenging technical problem. We are confronted here with a clear instance of those different levels of expression which were discussed earlier. The only recourse, it would appear, is to employ clinical techniques that go more or less directly to the deeper tendencies, and give sufficient understanding of them, so that it becomes possible to formulate scale items
THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
which permit the indirect? expression, on the surface, of these deeper ten- dencies.
The Politico-Economic Conservatism (PEC) scale described in Chapter V is designed to give an estimate of the individual's general readiness to express conservative ideology and at the same time to distinguish the pseudo- conservative from the others. For a fuller description of the different pat- terns of conservative ideology, however, other scales and other techniques have in addition to be relied upon. With this approach it becomes possible to investigate the relations of pseudoconservatism to "genuine conservatism" -if, indeed, the distinction can be maintained. The question may be raised as to whether there is any deeply ingrained conservatism, within the indi- vidual, that does not derive its energy in large part from the personal need to curb one's own rebellious tendencies.
In any case, it is clear that Mack's political ideology is different from Larry's. The differences stand out with particular clarity when Mack's dis- cussion of politics is considered in relation to what he has to say about Jews and other ethnic groups. Just as his anti-Semitism could not be understood or evaluated until his ideas about other groups had been examined, so did his politics come into focus when seen against the background of his ethno- centrism. It seems particularly significant that he talks about the New Deal, the Civil Service, and the OWl in the same way that he talks about Jews. This seems strongly to suggest that we are faced here not with a particular set of political convictions and a particular set of opinions about a specific ethnic group but with a way of thinking about groups and group relations generally. Is the manner of this thinking-in rigid categories of unalterable blacks and whites-usually to be found in people who are prejudiced against minority gtoups? Is there any group, save those with which the subject is identified, that is safe from the kind of total rejection and potential hostility that is found here? Is there a general relationship between the manner of thinking and the content of thinking about groups and group relations? In Mack the stereotyped thinking is accompanied by imagery of power versus weakness, moral purity versus moral lowness, and hierarchical organization. Are these trends commonly associated in the general population? If so, is the relationship a dynamic one, and what might be its nature?
It would appear that the more a person's thinking is dominated by such general tendencies as those found in Mack, the less will his attitude toward a particular group depend upon any objective characteristics of that group, or upon any real experience in which members of that gro\lp were involved. It is this observation that draws attention to the importance of personality as a determinant of ideology. And if personality has this crucial role in the broad areas of attitude and opinion that have been considered, might we not expect it to influence a subject's thinking in all areas that are important
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
to him? It would be impossible to know what Mack thinks about everything, but we may examine his ideas about religion, income, and vocation and see if something approaching a total view emerges.
4. RELIGION
The interviewer, in questioning Mack about religion, took into considera- tion the following statement which he had made on his questionnaire. In response to the question, "How important, in your opinion, are religion and the church? " Mack wrote, "Especially important for people who need sustenance or who are highly erratic. I have had to rely too much on my own ability for the necessities of life to devote a great deal of time to the spiritual. " Larry, for his part, wrote, "Very important as the center of moral teachings. "
The question may be raised at once whether rejection of religion is usually associated with an antidemocratic outlook as is the case with Mack, while acceptance of religion, as in Larry, usually goes with relative freedom from prejudice. There would appear to be some reason to expect that the general trend would be the other way around, that freedom from religious dogmas would go with political "liberalism" and hence with freedom from prejadice, while acceptance of religion would go with conservatism and authoritarian- ism and, hence, probably with ethnocentrism. In all likelihood the problem is not so simple. It may be that the mere acceptance or rejection of religion is not so important as how the individual accepts or rejects it, that is to say, the pattern of his ideas about religion. This is a matter upon which the interviews ought to throw some light.
It may be noted in the interviews of Mack and Larry that both men were subjected to a rather usual type of conventional pressure, that in both cases the application of this pressure was mainly a maternal function, and that in the background of both cases there is a mixture of Methodist and Catholic influences. Mack makes more of a distinction between father and mother roles than does Larry, and it seems important to Mack that his father was good without going to church. In the mind of the latter subject, church and mother seem to be rather closely identified and to stand for that which weak or dependent people tum to when they need sustenance. But it may be asked whether, in turning away from the church, Mack has not had to sub- stitute something else in its stead; and that is authority, as represented first by the father and later by a "God who is strictly a man. " It can be supposed that the kind of religious feeling which this "great man" arouses in the subject is like that he experienced when he sat next to General Marshall and heard him talk. Similar deference toward sufficiently high authority can be noted in Mack's respect for the sayings of Christ, which are con- trasted with the "not first hand" words of the apostles.
But Mack's respect for authority comes into conflict with his explicit
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
53
value of independence. How to reconcile the two is the problem with which his religious ideology is mainly concerned. Apparently he can get some feeling of independence by asserting that he is stubborn and hard-headed, and by rejecting people who "need sustenance. " And if the authority is suf- ficiently powerful, it becomes possible to submit without losing altogether the sense of independence. If dependence and passivity are to be accepted, it must be in circumstances that are beyond his control, e. g. , when he is sick.
It is strongly suggested that as much as Mack would like to be inde- pendent he would also like to be dependent. He does admit to liking the music and singing in church; he seems to make a point of telling us how much sickness he has had, and when he emphasizes that he has had to rely upon himself since an early age, we may detect not only a note of pride but a note of self-pity. An underlying need for dependence (passivity, sym- pathy, comfort), in conflict with the desire to maintain masculine pride and self-respect, could give rise to an exaggerated value for independence; and it could at the same time receive a measure of gratification, in a somewhat disguised form, through submission to a powerful authority. This would seem to be a fairly clear instance in which a deeper-level need operates to affect manifest strivings, openly expressed values, and ideas about God and man.
Since Mack does not belong to any organized religious sect, he does not speak of his group versus various religious outgroups. It is to be noted, how- ever, that he seems to regard all religious people as constituting an outgroup, ascribing to them some of the same features-weakness, dependence-which he sees in Jews and in the New Deal.
Larry, for his part, regards religion as a valued part of everyday living rather than something that is called for in a particular situation. For him it has the general function of promoting high ethical standards, good living, and progress rather than the limited function of offering relief in times of acute distress. Moreover, in contrast with Mack, who identifies morals with "the man," Larry conceives that the moral values of religion reside in the church as an institution. A further contrast between the two men lies in the fact that Larry accepts religion in general yet is able to criticize it, while Mack generally rejects it without offering specific criticisms. In criticizing the content of religion on intellectual grounds, Larry shows that he will not be likely to use it for reactionary aims. Mack exhibits his characteristic ali-or- nothing approach to ideological matters, and without any analysis of content concentrates on people-Christ, the apostles, God the man-who are to be totally accepted or totally rejected.
Regardless of whether or not the general acceptance or the general rejec- tion of religion should be found in a larger population to be associated with antidemocratic trends, it will be necessary to inquire whether the distin- guishing features in the thought of Mack and Larry are generally significant.
? 54
THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSO~ALITY
No attempt was made in the present research to measure any variables in the area of religious ideology (although, as noted above, subjects did state in their questionnaires how important they considered religion and the Church); instead, effort was directed to the discovery of patterns of religious thought in the interview discussions of the subjects. How common in our society are the patterns found in Mack and Larry? Do these patterns gener- ally bear the same kinds of relations to thought in other areas as they do in these two cases? What other patterns of religious thought may be discovered and what is their significance for democracy or its opposite? Do the differ- ent religious sects represent systems of belief that are related to prejudice? Do "racial" and "religious prejudice" go together and have the same sig- nificances, as has been so frequently supposed?
In the case of Mack, a deep-lying personality need, dependence, comes into prominence when religion is under discussion. Is it possible to demonstrate dynamic relationships between such needs and ideological systems? In other areas as well as in the area of religion? Also in the case of Mack, there appears to be a close connection between religious ideology and the pattern of family relations. Is this generally the case? It may be that the pattern of family relations is an important determinant not only of religious thought but of ideology in general.
5. VOCA TION AND INCOME
The previous discussion has shown that Mack tends to think of the struc- ture of any group as a hierarchy of power. It is not surprising therefore to find that he thinks of our total society as being organized along the same lines. In government he sees increasing centralization and regimentation, i. e. , more and more control vested in fewer and fewer people, and in eco- nomics, important developments will continue to be in the hands of the big capitalists. However much objective truth there may be in this view, the significant point is that Mack considers the state of affairs he describes as, if not desirable, inevitable. Given this kind of social organization, then the thing to do is to "go up," "to open doors," to be "on the inside," and this is the main trend in his vocation-income ideology. He wants to belong to or be "in with" the ruling group. It is not so much that he himself wants to dominate, but rather that he wants to serve powerful interests and so partici- pate in their power. It was seen in his discussion of politics that the power attributes of the ingroup and of the outgroup were, in his mind, the same; it is not too much to hypothesize now that the reason he accuses the Jews, the Civil Service, the OWl, the New Deal of wishing to establish a closely cohesive and selfishly exploitive ingroup is that he wishes to do the same thing himself. It is necessary to add, of course, that he cannot fully justify to himself such an antidemocratic wish and so, under its sway but unable to admit it, he sees it as existing not in himself but in the world around him.
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
55
Larry, it appears, is also identified with business and would like to go up in the world, but there the similarity between the two subjects ends. Whereas for Larry, going up means improving his lot in the ordinary sociological sense, for Mack it means changing his status in a hierarchy; in other words, Larry thinks of climbing primarily in its individual sense, while Mack thinks of it more in its class sense. Larry does not seem to mind competing, once he has been given support at the start, while Mack would get there by sub- mitting to those who are going to win. Larry is frankly interested in money and a lot of it while Mack is moralistically temperate in this regard; Larry wants pleasure, Mack seems more interested in power; Larry feels that the main object of work and efficiency is that one might the sooner take a vaca- tion and enjoy life; Mack appears to regard these things as ends in them- selves. In general, both subjects express ideas that are closely in accord with their political ideologies.
Another difference between the two men, which may be of considerable importance, lies in Larry's greater awareness of his motivation: he is entirely open about his desire for money and pleasure, his willingness to accept sup- port, his susceptibility to influence by his family, his interest in social prestige. There is little reason to doubt that these motives are just as strong, if not considerably stronger, in Mack, but it is plain that he does not fully accept them as parts of his self. It might be inquired whether this tendency to keep important personality needs out of consciousness, to allow them to remain ego-alien, is not a regular feature of the potential fascist.
In the present area of vocation-income, perhaps more than in any of the others, the subjects' discussion of what they believe is closely bound up with discussion of what, more or less explicitly, they want. Personality needs, in other words, have a central place in the whole picture. To climb socially, to be independent, to have pleasure and security, to attain a sense of power by submitting to those who have it-these are personality needs. The moral- istic depreciation of money, the oversolicitous but unrealistic attitude toward poor people-these may be regarded as defense mechanisms, devices whereby needs which conflict with the stronger need to maintain self-respect are held in check. It is plain that with respect to a number of these variables Mack and Larry are widely different; and it was one of the main hypotheses of the present research that there are numerous such variables with respect to which prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals differ generally and which in individuals at either extreme go together to form a psychologically mean- ingful pattern. In proceeding to test this hypothesis the interview protocols of numerous ethnocentric and anti-ethnocentric subjects-as well as other sources-were combed for just such distinguishing features, and these were then put into the form of questionnaire scale-items for testing with groups of subjects. A liking for "nice equipment," a fondness for hunting and fishing, a preference for living in a small town-numerous such small but
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
suggestive items were given consideration. On the assumption that potential antidemocracy at the personality level is a general trend with respect to which individuals differ quantitatively, a scale for the measurement of this trend was constructed in the manner of those described above. This supplied the means for demonstrating on a mass basis some of the relationships which appear to exist in the two individuals under discussion.
Even if factors of personality did not come explicitly to the fore at par- ticular points in the interviews with these two men, the conception of personality would be forced upon us by observation of the consistency with which the same ideas and thesame modes of thought recur as the discussion turns from one ideological area to another. Since no such consistency could conceivably exist as a matter of sociological fact, we are bound to conceive of central tendencies in the person which express themselves in various areas. The concept of a dynamic factor of personality is made to order for explaining the common trend in diverse surface manifestations. For ex- ample, a need for power in the personality is ready to express itself in any area of social relations. It may be suggested, in this connection, that where social psychologists have not so far given a great deal of attention to person- ality it is because they have not studied total ideology. Specific social atti- tudes if adequately measured will undoubtedly be found to correlate with a variety of external and contemporary factors, and if one studies only spe- cific attitudes he may easily be led to the belief that this is all there is to it.
Consistent trends in the person can only be revealed by subjecting him to a variety of stimuli, or placing him in a number of different situations, or questioning him on a wide array of topics; but if this is done, then, according to the present hypothesis, consistent trends, i. e. , personality, will always be revealed.
The varied stimuli to which subjects of the present study were subjected were not limited to questions of attitude, opinion, and value; there were the clinical techniques designed especially for bringing the factors of personal- ity to light. The aim was to go as far as possible toward demonstrating the covariation of personality factors and the ideological trends discussed above, toward discovering as many as possible of the features which distinguished the potentially antidemocratic individual. Given a relationship between a personality variable and an ideological trend, it was usually assumed that the causal sequence was from the former to the latter-on the grounds that the formation of personality was genetically earlier, the most important structures going back to childhood. This led to an attempt to learn some- thing about the determination of the potential fascist in childhood, through investigation of the early social environment. But this is a subject which can- not be considered until much later; not until the several areas of ideology have been analyzed in detail.
? CHAPTER III
THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
Daniel J. Levinson
A. INTRODUCTION
One of the most clearly antidemocratic forms of social ideology is preju- dice, and within this context anti-Semitism provides a fruitful starting point for a social psychological study. As a social movement, organized anti- Semitism presents a major threat to democracy: it is one of the most powerful psychological vehicles for antidemocratic political movements and it pro- vides, for reasons which are largely politico-economic and beyond the scope of this discussion, perhaps the most effective spearhead for a frontal attack on our entire social structure.
From a psychological viewpoint as well, anti-Semitism is particularly important and revealing. Much that psychologically oriented writers have already said about anti-Semitism and about fascism suggests that the deeper psychological sources of these ideologies are very similar. The irrational quality in anti-Semitism stands out even in casual everyday discussions. The fact that people make general statements about "the Jew," when the Jews are actually so heterogeneous-belong to every socioeconomic class and represent every degree of assimilation-is vivid evidence of this irrationality. This striking contrast between the Jews' actual complexity and their sup- posed homogeneity has suggested the hypothesis that what people say against Jews depends more upon their own psychology than upon the actual charac- teristics of Jews. For example, when the belief that Jews possess financial power out of all proportion to their numbers persists in the face of over- whelming evidence to the contrary, one is led to suspect not only that the individual holding this belief has an unusual preoccupation with power but also that he might himself wish to assume the kind of power which he sup- poses Jews to have. It is clear that research into the emotional sources of ideology is required for the understanding of such phenomena as these.
These considerations, which suggest the advantage of making anti- Semitism a point of departure for research, were also some of the hypotheses that guided the research as a whole. The study of anti-Semitism may well
57
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
be, then, the first step in a search for antidemocratic trends in ideology, in personality, and in social movements.
Anti-Semitism is conceived here as an ideology, that is, as a relatively organized, relatively stable system of opinions, values, and attitudes concern- ing Jews and Jewish-Gentile relations. More specifically, it involves negative opinions regarding Jews (that they are unscrupulous, clannish, power- seeking, and so on); hostile attitudes toward them (that they should be ex- cluded, restricted, kept subordinate to Gentiles, and so on); and moral values \vhich permeate the opinions and justify the attitudes.
Numerous questions concerning the structure and content of anti- Semitism were raised in Chapter II. These and other questions guided the construction of an opinion-attitude scale for the measurement of anti- Semitic ideology. The source material for the scale included: the writings of virulent anti-Semites; technical, literary, and reportorial writings on anti- Semitism and fascism; and, most important, everyday American anti-Semitism as revealed in parlor discussion, in the discriminatory practices of many businesses and institutions, and in the literature of various organizations which are trying, with small success, to counter numerous anti-Semitic accusations by means of rational argument.
This scale, like the others used in the present research, had several func- tions. It yielded a quantitative measure which could be correlated with measures of other, theoretically related, variables. It provided a basis for the selection of criterion groups of extreme high and low scorers, who could then be subjected to intensive clinical study. It permitted, as part of a larger questionnaire, a relatively detailed, quantifiable study of large groups of subjects. Finally, it was constructed in such a way that statistical analysis of its properties might reveal much of the structure, scope, and content of anti- Semitic ideology.
B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANTI-SEMITISM (A-S) SCALE
An opinion-attitude scale is a series of statements dealing with a given topic, in this case anti-Semitic ideology. The subject is asked to respond to each item by agreeing or disagreeing. His responses are converted into scores in such a way that a high score indicates a great amount of what is being measured-for this scale, anti-Semitism-a low score the opposite. The scor- ing procedure is discussed below (Section C).
The Likert method of scaling (73, 84) was used. It is easier to apply and requires fewer items than the Thurstone method (II8), but yields equally high reliabilities and generally comparable results (2 2, 84). It was desired to avoid the assumptions and difficulties in the use of judges which the latter method entails. Also, since it was anticipated that in further stages of the research the items might be modified in wording, it was highly desirable to
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
59
avoid the repeated use of judges. A measure of intensity of optmon and attitudes is obtained, in the Likert method, by having the subject indicate the degree of his agreement or disagreement with each item; this makes possible a more adequate determination of subtle group and individual dif- ferences, and facilitates the qualitative analysis of individual response pat- terns. This method also permits the covering of a wider area of opinions and attitudes. Finally, the Likert technique of item analysis (see below) was particularly suited to the general theoretical approach of this research.
1. GENERAL RULES IN ITEM FORMULA TION
The procedure used for selecting and formulating items, in contrast to a frequent practice, did not involve the testing of several hundred items as a basis for selection of a final short scale. Rather, fifty-two items were formu- lated and all of these were used throughout the statistical analysis of the preliminary form of the scale. (To anticipate a result presented below, only a few items were statistically inadequate, and this inadequacy is interesting in its own right. ) In successive stages of the research there were, however, no qualms about modifying, deleting, or adding items.
The present scale differs from most opinion-attitude scales in that it con- tains only negative items, that is, they all state the anti-Semitic position regarding the issue in question. The reasons for the use of negative items only and an answer to some possible criticisms, presented in detail in a previ- ous publication (71), may be summarized here. One advantage of negative items is that they tend to be more discriminating. Also, negative items can be so phrased that they express subtle hostility without seeming to offend the democratic values which most prejudiced people feel they must main- tain. Since the scale attempts to measure receptivity to anti-Semitic ideology, it seemed reasonable to use only anti-Semitic statements in the scale. The main argument against the present procedure is that it might produce a "set" or mechanical tendency consistently to agree or to disagree. This argument is answered on the ground that (a) most individuals show variability of response, as indicated by item intercorrelations averaging . 3-. 4; (b) there is a tendency to vary in order to avoid an extreme position; (c) very similar results have been obtained in later stages of the present research when an all-negative scale is inserted randomly into a longer series containing positive items; and, most important, (d) since the "set" argument implies that high scorers are not necessarily anti-Semitic nor lows anti-anti-Semitic, the final test is the validity of the scale, that is, the demonstration that high scorers are significantly different from low scorers in a variety of meaningful charac- teristics. The scale does, as will be shown later, have considerable validity.
Since the A-S scale, like the others, was intended not only to provide a quantitative measure of an ideology but also to aid in the qualitative descrip- tion of that ideology (and of individual ideological patterns), its construe-
? 6o THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
tion followed certain general rules. These rules had to do with (a) the formulation of individual items, and (b) the division of the total scale into subscales.
Since the scale should not, for practical reasons, include more than about fifty items (preferably fewer in later forms), each item should be maximally rich in ideas and there should be a minimum of duplication in wording or essential content of items. While the items are therefore often more complex than those of many other scales, this is not considered a fault. At the same time, they should be clear and unambiguous in meaning, so that agreement is ordinarily an expression of anti-Semitism, disagreement an expression of its opposite. It is important to avoid "double-barreled" items, that is, items with two parts such that a subject might agree with one part and disagree with the other, and thus not know how to respond.
Extreme prejudice of a violent and openly antidemocratic sort does not seem to be widespread in this country, especially in the middle class. 1 Since the present scale is intended to measure everyday, "garden variety" anti- Semitism, the items were formulated in such a way as to reflect the prevalent forms in which anti-Semitism now appears.
Most prejudice as one finds it in business, housing, and general social inter- action is pseudodemocratic rather than openly antidemocratic; this distinc- tion plays an important role in the analysis of anti-Semitic ideology which guided the construction of the scale and the formulation of items. An idea may be considered openly antidemocratic when it refers to active hatred, or to violence which has the direct aim of wiping out a minority group or of putting it in a permanently subordinate position. A pseudodemocratic idea, on the other hand, is one in which hostility toward a group is somewhat tempered and disguised by means of a compromise with democratic ideals. Pseudodemocratic statements about Jews are often introduced by qualifying phrases which deny hostility or which attempt to demonstrate the demo- cratic attitude of the speaker, e. g. , "It's not that I'm prejudiced, but. . . . "; "Jews have their rights, but. . . . "
This pseudodemocratic fac;ade is probably relatively untouched by most of the current literature attacking prejudice as "race hatred," "un-Ameri- can," "un-Christian intolerance," and the like. There is no hatred in the surface content of these attitudes and they have been squared with certain democratic values in such a way that the individual holding them apparently feels little if any sense of antidemocracy. And, of course, merely to label this way of thinking as un-American will not change it, first, because labeling is not enough, and second, because such thinking falls within one of the main streams of American social history and can be found to some extent in most sections of American life. It is necessary, rather, to understand its
1 This is shown by various public opinion polls and reportorial studies although compre- hensive and rigorously obtained data are lacking. It is also indicated by results from the present study.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 6r
external sources in American culture and tradition as well as the inner sources which make certain individuals particularly receptive to these cultural pressures.
It is probably an error to regard the pseudodemocratic compromise as a mere surface disguise used deliberately and skillfully by prejudiced people to camouflage their actual, conscious antidemocracy. The person whose approach to social problems is pseudodemocratic is actually different now from one whose approach is now openly antidemocratic. For various reasons -perhaps because he has internalized democratic values, perhaps out of conformity to present social standards-the pseudodemocrat does not now accept ideas of overt violence and active suppression. The concern with democratic values, and the resistance to antidemocratic ones, must be con- sidered as psychologically and socially important facts in any attempt to understand prejudice, American variety. Undoubtedly very many people who are now pseudodemocratic are potentially antidemocratic, that is, are capable in a social crisis of supporting or committing acts of violence against minority groups. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the attempted compromise with democratic values: because it may reveal a democratic potential which might, if supported and strengthened, ultimately gain the upper hand; because it colors the whole fabric of pseudodemocratic social thinking; and, since this comprorllise reflects the prevalent forms of overt discrimination in this country-quotas, segregation, exclusion, denial of op- portunities-to understand the former may help to combat the latter.
If patterns of ideology are conceived as falling on a dimension ranging from democratic to antidemocratic, then the pseudodemocratic ones prob- ably stand somewhere between the center and the antidemocratic extreme. This is, of course, not a simple dimension: there are diverse approaches falling into each of these broad categories, and the dimension is not a simple quantitative one like length or weight. A change of certain trends in an indi- vidual may produce a qualitative reorganization and ideological change from one extreme of this dimension to the other. The task is to understand the total individual and, especially in the case of the pseudodemocrat, to gauge the psychological potential for both democracy and open antidemocracy.
Most of the items of the A-S scale have been formulated as pseudodemo- cratically as possible. This consideration was, in fact, one of the main reasons for the use of negative items only. The following rules have been followed in general: Each item should be made appealing and "easy to fall for" by avoiding or soft-pedaling or morally justifying ideas of violence and obvious antidemocracy. Much use is made of qualifying phrases such as "One trouble with Jewish . . . ";"There are a few exceptions, but . . . "; "It would be to the best interests of all if . . . ," in order to avoid a categorical, aggressive con- demnation. Items are worded so that the person can add at the end: "but I am not anti-Semitic. " Seeming tentativeness is introduced by qualifications such as "it seems that," "probably," "in most cases. " Finally, an attempt is made to
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
give each statement a familiar ring, to formulate it as it has been heard many times in everyday discussions.
To the extent that the above rules have been followed, pseudodemocratic subjects are likely to make scores on this scale as high, or nearly as high, as those of the antidemocratic ones. It will be the task of later techniques, both questionnaire-style and clinical, to provide further information con- cerning the distinctions between these two groups of subjects.
2. MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS OR AREAS: THE SUBSCALES
The general rules of item formulation just described refer primarily to the formal structure of items and can be applied to each item irrespective of the content of the ideas expressed in it. The content of the items was largely determined by the general conception of anti-Semitic ideology and the specific hypotheses discussed above. Several subscales were formed in order to insure systematic coverage of the various aspects conceived and in order to test certain hypotheses. The subscales cannot be thought of as dealing with components of anti-Semitism in any statistical sense; they are not based on statistical treatment of prior results, nor was any intensive correlational analysis of the present items made. The subscales are, rather, convenient ways of conceiving and grouping items.
The anti-Semitism scale conta1ns five subscales dealing respectively with imagery (opinions) of Jews as personally offensive and as socially threaten- ing; with attitudes concerning what should be done to or against Jews; and with the opposing views that Jews are too seclusive or too intrusive (as- similative). These subscales are probably not entirely independent either in a statistical sense or with respect to the actual content of the items; indeed, there is some question as to whether certain items may not equally well have been placed in a different subscale than the one to which they were assigned. Nevertheless, each subscale as a whole seems to deal with a fairly definite and definable phase of anti-Semitism. The subscales will now be discussed in order.
a. SuBsCALE "OFFENSIVE" (S0 ) . This subscale is presented in T able r (III). (The items are numbered as they appeared in the total scale, which was given in two parts, I and II, with twenty-six items in each part; thus, l-4 is Item 4, part I. ) The items describe various "Jewish traits" which are offensive, unpleasant, and disturbing. Stereotypy is implicit in items ascribing faults to "Jews"-implicitly, "all" or "most" Jews-without recognition of individual differences. It is explicit in item 1-q, which specifically states that "Jews are pretty much alike" and which indicates an image of "the Jews" as a stereo-
typed model of the entire group.
What are the characteristics of this stereotyped image? If the other items
offer an adequate description, "the Jew" is extravagant, sensual, conceited, and overaggressive; but he is also "smelly," shabby, and unconcerned with his personal appearance. Jews are accused of being excessinly Jewish, so to
? 1-I. l-4. I-7.
1-w.
I-I3. I-I6.
II-I. Il-4. II-7.
11-Io. II-I 3?
11-I6.
TABLE I (III) ANTI-sEMITISM SuBsCALE "OFFENsivE"
Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living.
A major fault of the Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their idea that they are a chosen race.
No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always some- thing basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a manner that is never totally changed.
Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, and unattractive.
There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike. The Jews shoud not pry so much into Christian activities and organizations nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians.
The Jews should make sincere efforts to rid themselves of their conspicuous and irritating faults if they really want to stop being persecuted.
There is something different and strange about Jews; one never knows what they are thinking or planning, nor what makes them tick.
The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradu- ally give it a typical Jewish atmosphere.
I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew.
One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding.
Jews should be more concerned with their personal appearance, and not be so dirty and smelly and unkempt.
THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
speak, but their attempts to assimilate into "Christian" activities are re- garded as prying. Jewish faults are considered the main cause of anti- Semitism (Item 11-r ), which would be eliminated if the Jews made sincere efforts to improve. However, there is some doubt that Jews can ever quite manage to be fully Americanized (Item I-7). Item 11-ro, "I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew," is included here because it seems to refer more to an unpleasant image than to a clear-cut, hostile attitude. It represents a pseudodemocratic equivalent to Item I-rs in the "Attitude" subscale (see below). Are people consistent in their general agreement (or disagreement) with these items? This will be seen in the results presented below.
b. SuBsCALE "THREATENING" (ST)? These items, presented in Table z(lll), describe the Jews as a dangerous, dominating, corrupting social group. They are asserted to have great power economically and politically, and to be unscrupulous and conniving in their dealings with Gentiles. They do not like hard work (Item 11-rr) but at the same time they lower the general standard of living by doing menial work and by living under low standards (Item l-r4). In addition to being simultaneously rich and poor, powerful and parasitic, they are also at once capitalists and revolutionaries. In their lack of patriotism they are a threat to the nation, and in general they are a threat to civilization.
Apart from the enormous complexity of "the Jew" so described, there is something fantastic in the idea that a group so small numerically can be so
? I-2. I-5. 1-8.
I-I 1.
I-I4.
Il-2.
ll-5.
11-8. II-I 1.
II-I4.
TABLE 2 (III)
ANTI-SEMITISM SuBsCALE "THREATENING"
The Jews must be considered a bad influence on Christian culture and civili- zation.
One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and con- nive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition.
Jewish power and control in money matters is far out of proportion to the number of Jews in the total population.
There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. Jews tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness to do the most menial work and to live under standards that are far below average. War shows up the fact that the Jews are not patriotic or willing to make sacrifices for their country.
Jews may have moral standards that they apply in their dealings with each other, but with Christians they are unscrupulous, ruthless, and undependable. The Jew's first loyalty is to Jewry rather than to his country.
Jews seem to have an aversion to plain hard work; they tend to be a parasitic element in society by finding easy, nonproductive jobs.
There seems to be some revolutionary streak in the Jewish make-up as shown by the fact that there are so many Jewish Communists and agitators.
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
powerful and so basic a social threat. This imagery in extreme cases seems to be an ideological expression of underlying paranoid trends; in Mein Kampf, for example, the Jews are regarded not only as "base and inferior" but also as having "germicidal potency" and "devilish cunning. " However, most American anti-Semites are undoubtedly not psychotic or paranoid in the usual psychiatric sense.
