The major con- cern here is with the
potential
for fascism in this country.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
I don't have any desire to be Irish, but I like people who are.
I never met an Irishman I didn't like.
My brother-in-law is very definitely Irish.
(What about groups of people you dislike?
) Principally those I don't understand very well.
Austrians, the Japanese I never cared for; Filipinos-!
don't know-rd just as soon leave them as have them.
Up home there were Austrians and Poles, though I find the Polish people interesting.
I have a
little dislike for Jewish people. I don't think they are as courteous or as interested in humanity as they ought to be. And I resent that, though I have had few dealings with them. They accent the clannish and the material. It may be my imagination, but it seems to me you can see their eyes light up when you hand them a coin. I avoid the Jewish clothiers because they have second-rate stuff. I have to be care- ful about how I dress. I mean, I buy things so seldom I have to be careful I get good things. (Can you tell that a person is a Jew? ) Sometimes; usually only after I get their ideas. Like one of the girls in Public Speaking. She had all the charac- teristics, but she left a favorable impression on me, even though her ideas I dis- agree with. (You mean there are certain ideas which characterize the Jews? ) Yes, to stick together, no matter what; to always be in a group; to have Jewish sororities and Jewish organizations. If a Jew fails in his business, he's helped to get started again. Their attention is directed very greatly toward wealth. Girls at the Jewish sorority house all have fur coats, expensive but no taste. Almost a superiority idea. I resent any show of superiority in people, and I try to keep it down myself. I like to talk with working people. (Do you think the dislike of Jews is increasing? ) No, I think this war has made people closer together in this country. I've come across Jewish soldiers and sailors; they would be liked and accepted if they would be willing to mix, but they would rather be alone, though I would have accepted them the same as anybody. I think they have interesting ideas, but they have to have something in return. (Do you think the Jews have done their part in the war effort? ) Perhaps they have, but they are businessmen, and they have been fully repaid. (Do you think the Jews are a political force in this country? ) Yes, in New York there is an organization for Jewish immigration and comfort of Jews. They are very well organized. This should not be allowed. (What do you think is the danger? ) I don't believe it is a danger except in a concentration of wealth in a certain class. I hate to see people in this country take on the burdens of people who have been misfits in other countries. We have enough problems at home without helping the oppressed of other countries. The Jews won't intermingle. So they are
not a great contribution to our country-though Jewish scientists and doctors have contributed a great deal. I checked on the immigration. Three-quarters of those leaving Europe arrive here. They are very thorough in it. They are businessmen and they will bring pressure to bear on Congress. We ought to prevent further immigration and concentrate on trying to get them to mingle and become a part of our people. (Do you think they would mingle more if they felt there was no prejudice against them? ) If they would mingle more, there would be more will- ingness to break down the barriers on the part of other people. Of course, they have always been downtrodden, but that's no reason for resentment. (I notice you stated you wouldn't marry a Jew. ) I certainly wouldn't. I would date that girl in Public Speaking, but she doesn't emphasize her Jewishness. She was accepted by
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
37
the whole class. I would marry her if she had thrown off her Jewishness, but I wouldn't be able to associate with her class. "
C. LARRY: A MAN LOW ON ETHNOCENTRISM
This subject is a twenty-eight year old college sophomore, a student of Business Administration, with a B- average. Like Mack, his choice of a career was made after he had been out of school for a number of years-working part of the time and spending part of the time in a tuberculosis sanitarium.
He is of "American" extraction and was born in Chicago. Both parents were born in the United States. His father is a cafe and bar owner (a small businessman, working in his own business), whose income is now $rz,ooo as compared with a prewar $3,ooo. The father owns his own home and some other real estate.
The subject, like his parents, is a Methodist, though he attends church seldom. He is a Republican-again like his parents. He "agrees" with the Willkie-type Republicans and "disagrees" with the traditional Republicans; he "disagrees" with the New Deal Democrats, while "agreeing" with the Anti-New Deal Democrats. This pattern of response, on the questionnaire, is the same as that of Mack, the high-scoring man. It will be especially inter- esting therefore to note the contrast in the political ideologies of these two men as given in the interview. It will show how great, sometimes, is the discrepancy between the political party or the "official" ideology of a subject and his actual political tendencies.
Vocation: "I have definite plans; I want to go into real estate and finance. I want to own my own business as an executive. I want to combine real estate and finance, that is lending money, and if successful, I would go into a brokerage business, buying and selling stocks and bonds. (Money? ) Several of my relatives and my father have money, and will suppon me. I worked for them, as assistant manager for my father who is in a cafe and bar business, and he is also in real estate. Then I worked for CPA accounting firms, for several, and I have taken courses where I could pick things up, in accounting and business. I had one year of
junior college, but I didn't take my work seriously. I got fairly good grades, but not as good as I should have gotten. I got a disease; I was in the hospital for four years. (It took several questions to learn that the subject had tuberculosis and was in a sanitarium. ) But I never lost hope. I always planned to return to college. I took correspondence courses during my last two years in the hospital. (Larry always calls it a hospital, never a sanitarium. ) In accounting, business management, etc. , I did reading to improve my mind. I almost memorized Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends . . . because I thought it would help me in business contacts. I planned my whole life, even where I'd settle down, in Los Angeles. That was all I had to do, lying there in bed, was plan my whole future, what I would do, and how I would do it. (What do you like about your planned business? ) My grandmother had a rather successful restaurant; she was a very efficient businesswoman, and I admired her. My whole environment was about business; it glorified it, and I
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
learned the same attitude. Being in business for yourself gives independence, more money, vacations whenever you want, the freedom you don't get in a 365-days-a- year job. I never cared for sciences like chemistry, zoology, dentistry, and stuff like that. (Medicine? ) That would be all right if I thought I could go to the top; but the average one is holed up in a top-floor office, not making more than $zoo a month very often. That's nothing compared to a businessman who hasn't had any education or worked to prepare himself as a doctor has. It's not only the money, but also the general way of living. (However, the money seems to be clearly and focally important. ) I returned to school for three reasons: ( r) knowledge-to be able to philosophize and understand things; (2) security-to get an adequate liv- ing; (3) social prestige. " (This is a good example of Larry's tendency to make everything organized and explicit. He knows just what he wants to do and why he wants to do it, and has even tried to make psychological explanations for this tendency. He enumerated r, z, 1 on his fingertips. )
Income: "I'd like to earn at least $zs,ooo a year and have a personal capital of $roo,ooo, that is to say, my own money apart from the business, So I could travel, do whatever I want, whatever I see other people do, go to Europe, attend the Kentucky Derby, or whatever. I would travel first class, go by air, see South America, go nearly any place. I've traveled only a litde so far. Or, go to a con- vention in the East if I want to. Not a millionaire, just enough to do these things with full security for the future. (How optimistic or pessimistic are you? ) I'm very optimistic. I don't know exacdy how much, but I'll be at least fairly success- ful, probably as I said before. I've already had a little success. Last year in Chicago I had an opportunity to go into business with some men in the cabaret and bowling- alley business, along that line. But they didn't offer enough money, and I didn't like the bowling business anyway. Besides, I wanted to come back to school, lay a basis for my final plans, and having my own business. (What if you fail? ) I wouldn't commit suicide or get terribly depressed. That sickness (he never calls it by name) taught me to philosophize, to take things as they come with a smile, to start again fresh after every difficulty. (What about your family? ) During the depression my father had a good job, as always; not wealthy, but better than average, about $3,ooo a year, I guess; but we had a large family, six children; I'm in the middle. Then he went into business and did very well; he now has a gold-mine bar. He makes more in a year than he ever expected to make in a lifetime. He has also bought some property on the side and is making a lot at that. He is like his mother, my grandmother. She and he just love their business. He doesn't want vacations, or social prestige, or wealth as such. He just wants to be an efficient, successful businessman, and all his pleasure comes from that. I guess it's wanting to have satisfied customers, having them come in for years and be satisfied and to have well-coordinated employees. (What kind of a boss is he? ) He is kind but firm. He bought homes for two employees; he lets them pay it off to him gradu- ally. He gives them a Christmas bonus, stuff like that, but he also demands effi- ciency and output. He is an ideal employer. In fact, I don't think I'd be as good to my employees as he is, like risking money on their homes and not knowing whether they might run out on me or not. "
Politics: "My father and mother are Republicans. They never voted for Roosevelt. I have voted in two elections, and I voted Republican. But our rela- tives are Democrats and our friends too. The whole family has been Republican for years and I guess that's why I am, and that's why my father is too. Also because businessmen generally don't like the taxes, restrictions, and bureaus, the red tape. Roosevelt is too much of a politician; he hasn't enough principles. Like the way
? CO~TRASTI~G IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE ;vm~
39
he threw over Wallace in the last election. I prefer Jones to Wallace as Secretary of Commerce, because Jones is a better businessman and would be more efficient; in general I like Wallace and Willkie, though I don't like Wallace's farm program. (Who is the best Republican? ) Willkie. I voted for Dewey mostly as a protest against Roosevelt. But Dewey is too young and not experienced enough. (Dewey vs. Wallace? ) Wallace is the better man, and I usually vote for the better man, but I guess I put politics ahead of the man this time, to get the Republicans back. I think it's time for a change of party. "
Minorities: (What do you think about the minority problem in this country? ) "I can say that I haven't any prejudices; I try not to. (Negroes? ) They should be given social equality, any job they are qualified for; should be able to live in any neighborhood, and so on. When I was young, I may have had prejudices, but since the war I've been reading about the whole world, and our minority problems seem so petty compared with the way other countries have worked things out. (Ex- ample? ) Like Russia; I don't like their share-the-wealth economics, but I think they are unified and fighting so wonderfully because everyone is equal. (He then gives a discourse on France, England, the Dutch, etc. , and shows good knowledge of imperialism, exploitation of colonies, and so on, in the minorities aspect. He is less clear about the economics. ) I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness for all. We aren't unified and we don't know what we're fighting for, and the discrimination is at the root of it. Racial and economic questions are at the root of war. I don't believe in the suppression of anyone. I think the Japs are taken off the coast for undemocratic reasons. It's just that a lot of people wanted their farms and businesses. There was no real democratic reason for it. The segregation of one nationality just leads to more segregation, and it gets worse. The discrimination toward Negroes is because they aren't understood and because they are physically different. Towards Jews it's because of their business ability-the fear that they'll take over business control of the country. There should be education in Negro history, for instance, the part Negroes have played in the development of the country; and education in the history of other minorities, too. How the Jews came to be persecuted, and why some of them are successful. "
Religion: "I'm Methodist, and my family is Methodist, except for one brother who is going to be a Catholic priest. He's fifteen. He just likes it-he got into it by himself. Well, my mother was Catholic as a girl, but she became a Methodist when she married, and she didn't try to make any of us Catholics. (Value of religion? ) It teaches the morals of right and wrong; that's the main value. But I question lots of religious teachings, after studying science and philosophy-like Darwin's evolu- tion theory and the fact that man's history goes back to before the Bible. I go to church, I try to beli~ve in religion, but I sometimes question much of it. I enjoy church, a good sermon on morals and good living, and how to progress. That's what's most important about religion (Parents? ) They were church attenders, fairly religious; they sent us to Sunday School; they still say blessing before each meal. But they don't discuss religion or think much about it outside of church. "
D. ANALYSIS OF THE TWO CASES
Before we turn to the analysis of these two interviews, a few words con- cerning their significance for our major research problem may be injected. It will probably be granted that each of these protocols gives a total im-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
pression. Though each contains some contradictions, each appears to be relatively organized and relatively self-consistent psychologically. What is the importance for prejudice or potential fascism of such overall patterns? It may be argued that overt behavior in specific situations forms the crux of social discrimination, and that the most pressing need is for infor1Ilation concerning how many people today will, under given conditions, engage in this or that discriminatory practice. This kind of information is important, but it is not the particular concern of the present research.
The major con- cern here is with the potential for fascism in this country. Since we do not have fascism, and since overt antidemocratic actions are officially frowned upon, surveys of what people actually do at the present time are likely to underestimate the danger. The question asked here is what is the degree of readiness to behave antidemocratically should social conditions change in such a way as to remove or reduce the restraint upon this kind of behavior? This readiness, according to the present theory, is integral with the total mental organization here being considered.
Though each ideological pattern may be regarded as a whole, it is a com- plex whole, one that embraces numerous features with respect to which individuals may differ significantly. It is not enough to say that the one man is "prejudiced" and the other "unprejudiced," and on this basis to make value judgments and to plan for action. What are the distinguishing fea- tures? How is their presence within the individual to be accounted for? What is their role within his over-all adjustment? How do they interact with other features to form an organized totality?
In order to arrive at answers to these questions, the first task, it appears, is one of description. It is necessary to inquire, first, what are the trends or themes which run through an individual's discussion of each ideological area and through his discussion of ideology in general and, second, in what respect are these contents (variables) similar to and how do they differ from those found in another subject.
The following examination of the interview protocols just presented is designed to illustrate the kinds of descriptive concepts used in the present study, and to show the manner of their derivation. The analysis was guided by a theoretical approach, and it is to be recognized that another approach might draw attention to other aspects of the cases; there seems little reason to doubt, however, that the features here distinguished are among the most important ones.
As the descriptive concepts are brought forward, it will be possible to raise concrete questions for research. These questions concern (a) the de- terminants of consistent trends within the individual and of differences from one individual to another, and (b) the generality in larger populations of the variables and the explanatory relationships formulated on the basis of a few case studies.
The order of topics in the interview protocols was determined by consid-
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
41
erations of interviewing technique: one should start with what the subject finds it easiest to talk about and leave the more affect-laden questions, such as those concerning minorities, until the end. It is convenient here, however, to take up the topics in an order which is more in keeping with the develop- ment of the study and the general plan of the present volume: anti-Semitism, then ethnocentrism, and then ideology in general.
1. IDEOLOGY CONCERNING THE JEWS
Mack's accusations against the Jews may be grouped under three main headings: (a) violations of conventional values, (b) ingroup characteristics (clannish and power-seeking), and (c) burdens and misfits. The Jews are said to violate conventional values in that they are "not courteous or inter- ested in humanity" but, instead, are materialistic and money-minded. As businessmen they have "second-class stuff" and are given to cheating; in social contacts the accent is on what is expensive but lacking in taste.
The Jews as a whole are conceived of as constituting a closely knit group, the members of which are blindly loyal and stick together for mutual com- fort and help. They have their own organizations because they are unwill- ing to mix with Gentiles. By sticking together they accumulate wealth and power which will be used to benefit no one but themselves.
But if there is Jewish power there is also Jewish weakness, for among them are burdens and misfits, and as a group, they have always been down- trodden. Why this should be true, in view of their capacity to stick together and accumulate wealth, remains unexplained by the subject. He seems to feel that it is their own fault, for they "should not resent" what has befallen them. Weak Jews are left in a particularly hopeless position; it is not only that non-Jews cannot be expected to help them but strong Jews should use their wealth and power, not to support weak members of their group, but to help non-Jews. Strong Jews could thus escape the accusation of clannish- ness and lack of interest in humanity. In general, Jews should throw off their Jewishness and mix with the rest of the population; then the social dis- tance between the subject and them may be diminished. (It may be sug- gested, however, that there is probably nothing the girl in the public speaking class could do to bring complete acceptance by the subject. Her Jewishness would probably remain as something to intrigue as well as to repel him. )
Whereas Mack spent most of his time talking about "what's wrong with the Jews" and "what the Jews should do about it," Larry spent most of his time talking about "what's wrong with non-Jews" and "what non-Jews should do about it. " Larry opposes the idea that Jews want power and control; he wants to educate people about what Jews are really like. One of the most important differences between the two subjects is that Larry focuses on why these problems exist, while Mack does not seriously consider this question. Larry says he believes in completely open interaction with every-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
body equal. Discrimination is at the root of war; it is a threat for all groups and a problem they must all attack.
These discussions afford suitable examples of what is meant by ideology concerning Jews. It seems plain that what one has to deal with here is not a single specific attitude but a system that has content, scope, and structure.
It may be noted at once that Mack expresses negative opinions concerning what the Jews are like (they are clannish, materialistic, etc. ), hostile attitudes toward them (it is up to them to do the changing), and definite values (for courtesy, honesty, good taste, etc. ) which shape the opinions and justify the attitudes. In contrast, Larry reveals no negative opinions about Jews, expresses attitudes that are favorable to them (nondiscrimination, understand- ing), and speaks of different values (freedom from prejudice, social equal- ity, etc. ).
Questions for research immediately come to mind. How common in larger populations are the kinds of accusations made by Mack? What other kinds of accusations may be found and with what frequency? What, within our society, are the most characteristic features of imagery concerning Jews? How general is the readiness to accept negative opinions, that is to say, to what extent would an individual who, like Mack, expresses spontaneously a set of negative opinions, agree with others that were proposed to him? In what sense, and to what extent, is anti-Semitic ideology irrational? (For example, are there other irrational features similar to those exhibited by our prejudiced subject: to speak of Jews as if they were all alike and then to ascribe to them traits which could not possibly coexist in the same person, to insist that the thing for them to do is to assimilate and then to make it clear that he cannot accept them if they do? Are these irrational trends typical of high scorers? ) Are the attitudes toward Jews expressed by the present subjects typical of prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals? What are the main attitudes to be found in our society? Do people with negative opinions usually have hostile attitudes as well? Is there a general readiness to. accept or oppose a broad pattern of anti-Semitic attitudes and opinions?
All of the above questions concern the content of anti-Semitic ideology; questions may likewise be directed to its intensity. If there is in each in- dividual a general readiness to accept or oppose anti-Semitic opinions and attitudes, is it not possible roughly to rank individuals on a dimension rang- ing from extreme to mild anti-Semitism, to a middle point representing in- difference, ignorance or mixed feelings, to mild and then to extreme anti-anti-Semitism? The belief that this was possible led to the construction of a scale for measuring anti-Semitism, a scale that was at the same time broad enough to include most of the main content of anti-Semitic ideology. And the success of this scale made it possible to investigate quantitative rela-
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE 1\'lEN
43
tions of anti-Semitism and numerous other variables, including factors con- ceived to have a determining role.
Various explanations for such talk against the Jews as that found in Mack's interview have been suggested: that this is largely a true appraisal of the Jews, that he has had specific unpleasant experiences from which he has overgeneralized, that he is merely repeating what is common talk among his associates, particularly those who have prestige for him, that he feels more or less frustrated in his economic, social, and professional aspiratio~s and takes it out on the Jews, that he seeks to rationalize his own failures and weaknesses by placing responsibility on a suitable outgroup, and so on. While giving due attention to these hypotneses, the procedure in the present study was to postpone questions of determination and, instead of asking why he talks this way about Jews, to discover first how he talks about other people. The aim was to understand as fully as possible the nature of the readiness in the subject before inquiring into its sources. If the features found in his discussion of anti-Semitism are not found in his discussion of other groups, then his anti-Semitism has to be explained in and of itself. If, on the other hand, trends found in his thinking about Jews are found also in his thinking about other groups, then it is these trends which have to be ac- counted for, and any theory which explained only the anti-Semitism would
be inadequate.
2. GENERAL ETHNOCENTRISM
It was noted in Mack's discussion of Jews that he tends to think in ingroup- outgroup terms: he seems to think of the Jews as constituting a relatively homogeneous group that is categorically different from the group to which he feels that he belongs. A logical next step was to explore further his con- ception of his own group, and to inquire into his opinions and attitudes con- cerning various other groups.
In the interview with this man the general topic of imagery and attitudes concerning minority groups was introduced by inviting him to discuss his own ingroup belongingness. Most striking in this discussion is the stereo- typed way in which he speaks of the Irish and of the groups with which they are contrasted. Each ethnic group is regarded as a homogeneous entity, and little mention is made of exceptions. There is no attempt to explain how the groups came to be as they are, beyond the assumption of different "blood strains. " What a person is like depends on how much "Irish" or other "strain" he has in him. The Irish have certain approved traits-quick temper, easy spending, ability to make people laugh and be happy-and certain traits which he regards as faults-lackadaisicalness and laziness.
It is interesting to compare this ingroup appraisal with his appraisal of the Jews, who are described in the same terms but who are conceived of as
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
44
lacking the good traits of the Irish. Also noteworthy is the contradiction in his attitude toward ambition and power: whereas he criticizes it in the out- group, he regrets its lack in the ingroup. The problem for him is not how to eliminate an unequal distribution of power, but how to make sure that the bulk of power is in the right (ingroup) hands. Whereas a major fault of the Jews as noted above is their "clannishness" and their failure to assimilate, the existence of an unassimilated Irish strain is "enjoyable. " Once again, some- thing for which Jews are blamed is seen as a virtue in the ingroup. Both in- groups and outgroups are thought of in the same general terms; the same evaluative criteria are applied to groups generally, and a given characteristic, such as clannishness or power, is good or bad depending on what group has it.
Unfortunately, there was not time to explore the subject's ideas concern- ing the other groups which he mentions among his dislikes-Austrians, Jap- anese, Filipinos-nor to inquire how far this list might have been expanded. Even by itself, however, the fact that the subject rejects other groups just as he rejects the Jews is important.
Larry's first remark calls attention to the fact that views about people and groups may be distorted or at least influenced by personal factors. Mack, on the other hand, shows little such self-orientation or self-awareness; he does not suggest that his confident generalizations might have any of the possible inaccuracies of personal opinions, nor does he feel obliged to account for them on the basis of real experience. One might ask whether such differences in the degree of intraception, i. e. , the inclination to adopt a subjective, psychological, human approach to personal and social problems, do not as a general rule distinguish nonethnocentric from ethnocentric individuals.
Characteristics notable in Mack's ideology concerning minorities but rela- tively lacking in that of Larry might be described as follows: (a) Stereo- typy-the tendency mechanically to subsume things under rigid categories.
(b) The idea that groups are homogeneous units which more or less totally determine the nature of their numbers. This places the responsibility for intergroup tensions entirely on outgroups as independent entities. The only question asked is how outgroups can change in order to make themselves acceptable to the ingroup; there is no suggestion that the ingroup might need to modify its behavior and attitudes. Larry, in contrast, places the re- sponsibilities primarily on the ingroup and urges understanding and educa- tion within the ingroup as the basis for solving the problem. (c) The tendency to explain group differences in terms of "blood strain"-how quick a temper a man has depends on how much Irish he has in him. This is in contrast to Larry's attempt at explanation in social, psychological, and his- torical terms. (d) Mack favors total assimilation_ by outgroups, as well as total segregation of those outgroup members who refuse to assimilate. Larry, for his part, seems neither to threaten segregation nor demand assimilation.
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
45
He says he wants full "social equality" and interaction, rather than dominance by the ingroup and submission by outgroups. (e) Since he is relatively free of the stereotypes about ingroups and outgroups, and since groups are not his units of social description, Larry stands in opposition to Mack's tendency to think of groups in terms of their coherence and in terms of a hierarchical arrangement with powerful ingroups at the top and weak oi. Itgroups at the bottom.
The question, raised earlier, of whether an individual who is against Jews tends to be hostile to other minority groups as well is answered in the case of one man at least. Mack rejects a variety of ethnic groups. And Larry, for his part, is opposed to all such "prejudice. " The first question for research, then, would be: Is it generally true that a person who rejects one minority group tends to reject all or most of them? Or, is it to be found more frequently that there is a tendency to have a special group against which most of the individual's hostility is directed? How broad is the ethno- centric rejection, that is to say, how many different groups are brought within the conception of outgroup? Are they extranational as well as intra- national? What are the main objective characteristics of these groups? What traits are most commonly assigned to them by ethnocentric individuals? What imagery, if any, applies to all outgroups, and what is reserved for par- ticular outgroups? Is the tendency, found in Mack but not in Larry, to make a rigid distinction between the ingroup and the outgroup, common in the population at large? Are Mack's ways of thinking about groups-rigid categories, always placing blame on the outgroup, and so forth-typical of ethnocentric individuals?
If ethnocentrism is conceived of as the tendency to express opinions and attitudes that are hostile toward a variety of ethnic groups and uncritically favorable to the group with which the individual is identified, then is it pos- sible to rank individuals according to the degree of their ethnocentrism, as was proposed in the case of anti-Semitism? This would make it possible to determine the quantitative relations of ethnocentrism to numerous other factors-in the contemporary social situation of the individual, in his history, and in his personality. But, to pursue the general approach outlined above, it seems best first to explore further the outlook of the ethnocentric individual before raising fundamental questions of determination. What of his opinions and attitudes concerning other groups than ethnic or national ones? How does he approach social problems generally?
3. POLITICS
In his discussion of politics Mack deals at considerable length with the attributes of what for him is the outgroup. The structure and dynamics of the outgroup are conceived as follows. It is closely cohesive and power- seeking. Power is sought as an end in itself, and to attain it any means may
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
be employed, no matter how wasteful or harmful to others. Selfishness and money-mindedness are important aspects of this power drive. At the same time, however, he ascribes to the outgroup characteristics which are the opposite of powerful: it is inefficient (shows bungling and confusion), waste- ful and poorly organized; this inadequacy is attributed to the "fact" that the power arrangements within it are inadequate, with no clear authority and with lieutenants who are both too few and too carelessly selected. In addition to organizational weakness there is also physical weakness. (The reference to Roosevelt's physical ability brings to mind the argument of his political opposition that he was physically too weak to carry the burdens of a wartime president. ) 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.
little dislike for Jewish people. I don't think they are as courteous or as interested in humanity as they ought to be. And I resent that, though I have had few dealings with them. They accent the clannish and the material. It may be my imagination, but it seems to me you can see their eyes light up when you hand them a coin. I avoid the Jewish clothiers because they have second-rate stuff. I have to be care- ful about how I dress. I mean, I buy things so seldom I have to be careful I get good things. (Can you tell that a person is a Jew? ) Sometimes; usually only after I get their ideas. Like one of the girls in Public Speaking. She had all the charac- teristics, but she left a favorable impression on me, even though her ideas I dis- agree with. (You mean there are certain ideas which characterize the Jews? ) Yes, to stick together, no matter what; to always be in a group; to have Jewish sororities and Jewish organizations. If a Jew fails in his business, he's helped to get started again. Their attention is directed very greatly toward wealth. Girls at the Jewish sorority house all have fur coats, expensive but no taste. Almost a superiority idea. I resent any show of superiority in people, and I try to keep it down myself. I like to talk with working people. (Do you think the dislike of Jews is increasing? ) No, I think this war has made people closer together in this country. I've come across Jewish soldiers and sailors; they would be liked and accepted if they would be willing to mix, but they would rather be alone, though I would have accepted them the same as anybody. I think they have interesting ideas, but they have to have something in return. (Do you think the Jews have done their part in the war effort? ) Perhaps they have, but they are businessmen, and they have been fully repaid. (Do you think the Jews are a political force in this country? ) Yes, in New York there is an organization for Jewish immigration and comfort of Jews. They are very well organized. This should not be allowed. (What do you think is the danger? ) I don't believe it is a danger except in a concentration of wealth in a certain class. I hate to see people in this country take on the burdens of people who have been misfits in other countries. We have enough problems at home without helping the oppressed of other countries. The Jews won't intermingle. So they are
not a great contribution to our country-though Jewish scientists and doctors have contributed a great deal. I checked on the immigration. Three-quarters of those leaving Europe arrive here. They are very thorough in it. They are businessmen and they will bring pressure to bear on Congress. We ought to prevent further immigration and concentrate on trying to get them to mingle and become a part of our people. (Do you think they would mingle more if they felt there was no prejudice against them? ) If they would mingle more, there would be more will- ingness to break down the barriers on the part of other people. Of course, they have always been downtrodden, but that's no reason for resentment. (I notice you stated you wouldn't marry a Jew. ) I certainly wouldn't. I would date that girl in Public Speaking, but she doesn't emphasize her Jewishness. She was accepted by
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
37
the whole class. I would marry her if she had thrown off her Jewishness, but I wouldn't be able to associate with her class. "
C. LARRY: A MAN LOW ON ETHNOCENTRISM
This subject is a twenty-eight year old college sophomore, a student of Business Administration, with a B- average. Like Mack, his choice of a career was made after he had been out of school for a number of years-working part of the time and spending part of the time in a tuberculosis sanitarium.
He is of "American" extraction and was born in Chicago. Both parents were born in the United States. His father is a cafe and bar owner (a small businessman, working in his own business), whose income is now $rz,ooo as compared with a prewar $3,ooo. The father owns his own home and some other real estate.
The subject, like his parents, is a Methodist, though he attends church seldom. He is a Republican-again like his parents. He "agrees" with the Willkie-type Republicans and "disagrees" with the traditional Republicans; he "disagrees" with the New Deal Democrats, while "agreeing" with the Anti-New Deal Democrats. This pattern of response, on the questionnaire, is the same as that of Mack, the high-scoring man. It will be especially inter- esting therefore to note the contrast in the political ideologies of these two men as given in the interview. It will show how great, sometimes, is the discrepancy between the political party or the "official" ideology of a subject and his actual political tendencies.
Vocation: "I have definite plans; I want to go into real estate and finance. I want to own my own business as an executive. I want to combine real estate and finance, that is lending money, and if successful, I would go into a brokerage business, buying and selling stocks and bonds. (Money? ) Several of my relatives and my father have money, and will suppon me. I worked for them, as assistant manager for my father who is in a cafe and bar business, and he is also in real estate. Then I worked for CPA accounting firms, for several, and I have taken courses where I could pick things up, in accounting and business. I had one year of
junior college, but I didn't take my work seriously. I got fairly good grades, but not as good as I should have gotten. I got a disease; I was in the hospital for four years. (It took several questions to learn that the subject had tuberculosis and was in a sanitarium. ) But I never lost hope. I always planned to return to college. I took correspondence courses during my last two years in the hospital. (Larry always calls it a hospital, never a sanitarium. ) In accounting, business management, etc. , I did reading to improve my mind. I almost memorized Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends . . . because I thought it would help me in business contacts. I planned my whole life, even where I'd settle down, in Los Angeles. That was all I had to do, lying there in bed, was plan my whole future, what I would do, and how I would do it. (What do you like about your planned business? ) My grandmother had a rather successful restaurant; she was a very efficient businesswoman, and I admired her. My whole environment was about business; it glorified it, and I
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
learned the same attitude. Being in business for yourself gives independence, more money, vacations whenever you want, the freedom you don't get in a 365-days-a- year job. I never cared for sciences like chemistry, zoology, dentistry, and stuff like that. (Medicine? ) That would be all right if I thought I could go to the top; but the average one is holed up in a top-floor office, not making more than $zoo a month very often. That's nothing compared to a businessman who hasn't had any education or worked to prepare himself as a doctor has. It's not only the money, but also the general way of living. (However, the money seems to be clearly and focally important. ) I returned to school for three reasons: ( r) knowledge-to be able to philosophize and understand things; (2) security-to get an adequate liv- ing; (3) social prestige. " (This is a good example of Larry's tendency to make everything organized and explicit. He knows just what he wants to do and why he wants to do it, and has even tried to make psychological explanations for this tendency. He enumerated r, z, 1 on his fingertips. )
Income: "I'd like to earn at least $zs,ooo a year and have a personal capital of $roo,ooo, that is to say, my own money apart from the business, So I could travel, do whatever I want, whatever I see other people do, go to Europe, attend the Kentucky Derby, or whatever. I would travel first class, go by air, see South America, go nearly any place. I've traveled only a litde so far. Or, go to a con- vention in the East if I want to. Not a millionaire, just enough to do these things with full security for the future. (How optimistic or pessimistic are you? ) I'm very optimistic. I don't know exacdy how much, but I'll be at least fairly success- ful, probably as I said before. I've already had a little success. Last year in Chicago I had an opportunity to go into business with some men in the cabaret and bowling- alley business, along that line. But they didn't offer enough money, and I didn't like the bowling business anyway. Besides, I wanted to come back to school, lay a basis for my final plans, and having my own business. (What if you fail? ) I wouldn't commit suicide or get terribly depressed. That sickness (he never calls it by name) taught me to philosophize, to take things as they come with a smile, to start again fresh after every difficulty. (What about your family? ) During the depression my father had a good job, as always; not wealthy, but better than average, about $3,ooo a year, I guess; but we had a large family, six children; I'm in the middle. Then he went into business and did very well; he now has a gold-mine bar. He makes more in a year than he ever expected to make in a lifetime. He has also bought some property on the side and is making a lot at that. He is like his mother, my grandmother. She and he just love their business. He doesn't want vacations, or social prestige, or wealth as such. He just wants to be an efficient, successful businessman, and all his pleasure comes from that. I guess it's wanting to have satisfied customers, having them come in for years and be satisfied and to have well-coordinated employees. (What kind of a boss is he? ) He is kind but firm. He bought homes for two employees; he lets them pay it off to him gradu- ally. He gives them a Christmas bonus, stuff like that, but he also demands effi- ciency and output. He is an ideal employer. In fact, I don't think I'd be as good to my employees as he is, like risking money on their homes and not knowing whether they might run out on me or not. "
Politics: "My father and mother are Republicans. They never voted for Roosevelt. I have voted in two elections, and I voted Republican. But our rela- tives are Democrats and our friends too. The whole family has been Republican for years and I guess that's why I am, and that's why my father is too. Also because businessmen generally don't like the taxes, restrictions, and bureaus, the red tape. Roosevelt is too much of a politician; he hasn't enough principles. Like the way
? CO~TRASTI~G IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE ;vm~
39
he threw over Wallace in the last election. I prefer Jones to Wallace as Secretary of Commerce, because Jones is a better businessman and would be more efficient; in general I like Wallace and Willkie, though I don't like Wallace's farm program. (Who is the best Republican? ) Willkie. I voted for Dewey mostly as a protest against Roosevelt. But Dewey is too young and not experienced enough. (Dewey vs. Wallace? ) Wallace is the better man, and I usually vote for the better man, but I guess I put politics ahead of the man this time, to get the Republicans back. I think it's time for a change of party. "
Minorities: (What do you think about the minority problem in this country? ) "I can say that I haven't any prejudices; I try not to. (Negroes? ) They should be given social equality, any job they are qualified for; should be able to live in any neighborhood, and so on. When I was young, I may have had prejudices, but since the war I've been reading about the whole world, and our minority problems seem so petty compared with the way other countries have worked things out. (Ex- ample? ) Like Russia; I don't like their share-the-wealth economics, but I think they are unified and fighting so wonderfully because everyone is equal. (He then gives a discourse on France, England, the Dutch, etc. , and shows good knowledge of imperialism, exploitation of colonies, and so on, in the minorities aspect. He is less clear about the economics. ) I believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- ness for all. We aren't unified and we don't know what we're fighting for, and the discrimination is at the root of it. Racial and economic questions are at the root of war. I don't believe in the suppression of anyone. I think the Japs are taken off the coast for undemocratic reasons. It's just that a lot of people wanted their farms and businesses. There was no real democratic reason for it. The segregation of one nationality just leads to more segregation, and it gets worse. The discrimination toward Negroes is because they aren't understood and because they are physically different. Towards Jews it's because of their business ability-the fear that they'll take over business control of the country. There should be education in Negro history, for instance, the part Negroes have played in the development of the country; and education in the history of other minorities, too. How the Jews came to be persecuted, and why some of them are successful. "
Religion: "I'm Methodist, and my family is Methodist, except for one brother who is going to be a Catholic priest. He's fifteen. He just likes it-he got into it by himself. Well, my mother was Catholic as a girl, but she became a Methodist when she married, and she didn't try to make any of us Catholics. (Value of religion? ) It teaches the morals of right and wrong; that's the main value. But I question lots of religious teachings, after studying science and philosophy-like Darwin's evolu- tion theory and the fact that man's history goes back to before the Bible. I go to church, I try to beli~ve in religion, but I sometimes question much of it. I enjoy church, a good sermon on morals and good living, and how to progress. That's what's most important about religion (Parents? ) They were church attenders, fairly religious; they sent us to Sunday School; they still say blessing before each meal. But they don't discuss religion or think much about it outside of church. "
D. ANALYSIS OF THE TWO CASES
Before we turn to the analysis of these two interviews, a few words con- cerning their significance for our major research problem may be injected. It will probably be granted that each of these protocols gives a total im-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
pression. Though each contains some contradictions, each appears to be relatively organized and relatively self-consistent psychologically. What is the importance for prejudice or potential fascism of such overall patterns? It may be argued that overt behavior in specific situations forms the crux of social discrimination, and that the most pressing need is for infor1Ilation concerning how many people today will, under given conditions, engage in this or that discriminatory practice. This kind of information is important, but it is not the particular concern of the present research.
The major con- cern here is with the potential for fascism in this country. Since we do not have fascism, and since overt antidemocratic actions are officially frowned upon, surveys of what people actually do at the present time are likely to underestimate the danger. The question asked here is what is the degree of readiness to behave antidemocratically should social conditions change in such a way as to remove or reduce the restraint upon this kind of behavior? This readiness, according to the present theory, is integral with the total mental organization here being considered.
Though each ideological pattern may be regarded as a whole, it is a com- plex whole, one that embraces numerous features with respect to which individuals may differ significantly. It is not enough to say that the one man is "prejudiced" and the other "unprejudiced," and on this basis to make value judgments and to plan for action. What are the distinguishing fea- tures? How is their presence within the individual to be accounted for? What is their role within his over-all adjustment? How do they interact with other features to form an organized totality?
In order to arrive at answers to these questions, the first task, it appears, is one of description. It is necessary to inquire, first, what are the trends or themes which run through an individual's discussion of each ideological area and through his discussion of ideology in general and, second, in what respect are these contents (variables) similar to and how do they differ from those found in another subject.
The following examination of the interview protocols just presented is designed to illustrate the kinds of descriptive concepts used in the present study, and to show the manner of their derivation. The analysis was guided by a theoretical approach, and it is to be recognized that another approach might draw attention to other aspects of the cases; there seems little reason to doubt, however, that the features here distinguished are among the most important ones.
As the descriptive concepts are brought forward, it will be possible to raise concrete questions for research. These questions concern (a) the de- terminants of consistent trends within the individual and of differences from one individual to another, and (b) the generality in larger populations of the variables and the explanatory relationships formulated on the basis of a few case studies.
The order of topics in the interview protocols was determined by consid-
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
41
erations of interviewing technique: one should start with what the subject finds it easiest to talk about and leave the more affect-laden questions, such as those concerning minorities, until the end. It is convenient here, however, to take up the topics in an order which is more in keeping with the develop- ment of the study and the general plan of the present volume: anti-Semitism, then ethnocentrism, and then ideology in general.
1. IDEOLOGY CONCERNING THE JEWS
Mack's accusations against the Jews may be grouped under three main headings: (a) violations of conventional values, (b) ingroup characteristics (clannish and power-seeking), and (c) burdens and misfits. The Jews are said to violate conventional values in that they are "not courteous or inter- ested in humanity" but, instead, are materialistic and money-minded. As businessmen they have "second-class stuff" and are given to cheating; in social contacts the accent is on what is expensive but lacking in taste.
The Jews as a whole are conceived of as constituting a closely knit group, the members of which are blindly loyal and stick together for mutual com- fort and help. They have their own organizations because they are unwill- ing to mix with Gentiles. By sticking together they accumulate wealth and power which will be used to benefit no one but themselves.
But if there is Jewish power there is also Jewish weakness, for among them are burdens and misfits, and as a group, they have always been down- trodden. Why this should be true, in view of their capacity to stick together and accumulate wealth, remains unexplained by the subject. He seems to feel that it is their own fault, for they "should not resent" what has befallen them. Weak Jews are left in a particularly hopeless position; it is not only that non-Jews cannot be expected to help them but strong Jews should use their wealth and power, not to support weak members of their group, but to help non-Jews. Strong Jews could thus escape the accusation of clannish- ness and lack of interest in humanity. In general, Jews should throw off their Jewishness and mix with the rest of the population; then the social dis- tance between the subject and them may be diminished. (It may be sug- gested, however, that there is probably nothing the girl in the public speaking class could do to bring complete acceptance by the subject. Her Jewishness would probably remain as something to intrigue as well as to repel him. )
Whereas Mack spent most of his time talking about "what's wrong with the Jews" and "what the Jews should do about it," Larry spent most of his time talking about "what's wrong with non-Jews" and "what non-Jews should do about it. " Larry opposes the idea that Jews want power and control; he wants to educate people about what Jews are really like. One of the most important differences between the two subjects is that Larry focuses on why these problems exist, while Mack does not seriously consider this question. Larry says he believes in completely open interaction with every-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
body equal. Discrimination is at the root of war; it is a threat for all groups and a problem they must all attack.
These discussions afford suitable examples of what is meant by ideology concerning Jews. It seems plain that what one has to deal with here is not a single specific attitude but a system that has content, scope, and structure.
It may be noted at once that Mack expresses negative opinions concerning what the Jews are like (they are clannish, materialistic, etc. ), hostile attitudes toward them (it is up to them to do the changing), and definite values (for courtesy, honesty, good taste, etc. ) which shape the opinions and justify the attitudes. In contrast, Larry reveals no negative opinions about Jews, expresses attitudes that are favorable to them (nondiscrimination, understand- ing), and speaks of different values (freedom from prejudice, social equal- ity, etc. ).
Questions for research immediately come to mind. How common in larger populations are the kinds of accusations made by Mack? What other kinds of accusations may be found and with what frequency? What, within our society, are the most characteristic features of imagery concerning Jews? How general is the readiness to accept negative opinions, that is to say, to what extent would an individual who, like Mack, expresses spontaneously a set of negative opinions, agree with others that were proposed to him? In what sense, and to what extent, is anti-Semitic ideology irrational? (For example, are there other irrational features similar to those exhibited by our prejudiced subject: to speak of Jews as if they were all alike and then to ascribe to them traits which could not possibly coexist in the same person, to insist that the thing for them to do is to assimilate and then to make it clear that he cannot accept them if they do? Are these irrational trends typical of high scorers? ) Are the attitudes toward Jews expressed by the present subjects typical of prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals? What are the main attitudes to be found in our society? Do people with negative opinions usually have hostile attitudes as well? Is there a general readiness to. accept or oppose a broad pattern of anti-Semitic attitudes and opinions?
All of the above questions concern the content of anti-Semitic ideology; questions may likewise be directed to its intensity. If there is in each in- dividual a general readiness to accept or oppose anti-Semitic opinions and attitudes, is it not possible roughly to rank individuals on a dimension rang- ing from extreme to mild anti-Semitism, to a middle point representing in- difference, ignorance or mixed feelings, to mild and then to extreme anti-anti-Semitism? The belief that this was possible led to the construction of a scale for measuring anti-Semitism, a scale that was at the same time broad enough to include most of the main content of anti-Semitic ideology. And the success of this scale made it possible to investigate quantitative rela-
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE 1\'lEN
43
tions of anti-Semitism and numerous other variables, including factors con- ceived to have a determining role.
Various explanations for such talk against the Jews as that found in Mack's interview have been suggested: that this is largely a true appraisal of the Jews, that he has had specific unpleasant experiences from which he has overgeneralized, that he is merely repeating what is common talk among his associates, particularly those who have prestige for him, that he feels more or less frustrated in his economic, social, and professional aspiratio~s and takes it out on the Jews, that he seeks to rationalize his own failures and weaknesses by placing responsibility on a suitable outgroup, and so on. While giving due attention to these hypotneses, the procedure in the present study was to postpone questions of determination and, instead of asking why he talks this way about Jews, to discover first how he talks about other people. The aim was to understand as fully as possible the nature of the readiness in the subject before inquiring into its sources. If the features found in his discussion of anti-Semitism are not found in his discussion of other groups, then his anti-Semitism has to be explained in and of itself. If, on the other hand, trends found in his thinking about Jews are found also in his thinking about other groups, then it is these trends which have to be ac- counted for, and any theory which explained only the anti-Semitism would
be inadequate.
2. GENERAL ETHNOCENTRISM
It was noted in Mack's discussion of Jews that he tends to think in ingroup- outgroup terms: he seems to think of the Jews as constituting a relatively homogeneous group that is categorically different from the group to which he feels that he belongs. A logical next step was to explore further his con- ception of his own group, and to inquire into his opinions and attitudes con- cerning various other groups.
In the interview with this man the general topic of imagery and attitudes concerning minority groups was introduced by inviting him to discuss his own ingroup belongingness. Most striking in this discussion is the stereo- typed way in which he speaks of the Irish and of the groups with which they are contrasted. Each ethnic group is regarded as a homogeneous entity, and little mention is made of exceptions. There is no attempt to explain how the groups came to be as they are, beyond the assumption of different "blood strains. " What a person is like depends on how much "Irish" or other "strain" he has in him. The Irish have certain approved traits-quick temper, easy spending, ability to make people laugh and be happy-and certain traits which he regards as faults-lackadaisicalness and laziness.
It is interesting to compare this ingroup appraisal with his appraisal of the Jews, who are described in the same terms but who are conceived of as
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
44
lacking the good traits of the Irish. Also noteworthy is the contradiction in his attitude toward ambition and power: whereas he criticizes it in the out- group, he regrets its lack in the ingroup. The problem for him is not how to eliminate an unequal distribution of power, but how to make sure that the bulk of power is in the right (ingroup) hands. Whereas a major fault of the Jews as noted above is their "clannishness" and their failure to assimilate, the existence of an unassimilated Irish strain is "enjoyable. " Once again, some- thing for which Jews are blamed is seen as a virtue in the ingroup. Both in- groups and outgroups are thought of in the same general terms; the same evaluative criteria are applied to groups generally, and a given characteristic, such as clannishness or power, is good or bad depending on what group has it.
Unfortunately, there was not time to explore the subject's ideas concern- ing the other groups which he mentions among his dislikes-Austrians, Jap- anese, Filipinos-nor to inquire how far this list might have been expanded. Even by itself, however, the fact that the subject rejects other groups just as he rejects the Jews is important.
Larry's first remark calls attention to the fact that views about people and groups may be distorted or at least influenced by personal factors. Mack, on the other hand, shows little such self-orientation or self-awareness; he does not suggest that his confident generalizations might have any of the possible inaccuracies of personal opinions, nor does he feel obliged to account for them on the basis of real experience. One might ask whether such differences in the degree of intraception, i. e. , the inclination to adopt a subjective, psychological, human approach to personal and social problems, do not as a general rule distinguish nonethnocentric from ethnocentric individuals.
Characteristics notable in Mack's ideology concerning minorities but rela- tively lacking in that of Larry might be described as follows: (a) Stereo- typy-the tendency mechanically to subsume things under rigid categories.
(b) The idea that groups are homogeneous units which more or less totally determine the nature of their numbers. This places the responsibility for intergroup tensions entirely on outgroups as independent entities. The only question asked is how outgroups can change in order to make themselves acceptable to the ingroup; there is no suggestion that the ingroup might need to modify its behavior and attitudes. Larry, in contrast, places the re- sponsibilities primarily on the ingroup and urges understanding and educa- tion within the ingroup as the basis for solving the problem. (c) The tendency to explain group differences in terms of "blood strain"-how quick a temper a man has depends on how much Irish he has in him. This is in contrast to Larry's attempt at explanation in social, psychological, and his- torical terms. (d) Mack favors total assimilation_ by outgroups, as well as total segregation of those outgroup members who refuse to assimilate. Larry, for his part, seems neither to threaten segregation nor demand assimilation.
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
45
He says he wants full "social equality" and interaction, rather than dominance by the ingroup and submission by outgroups. (e) Since he is relatively free of the stereotypes about ingroups and outgroups, and since groups are not his units of social description, Larry stands in opposition to Mack's tendency to think of groups in terms of their coherence and in terms of a hierarchical arrangement with powerful ingroups at the top and weak oi. Itgroups at the bottom.
The question, raised earlier, of whether an individual who is against Jews tends to be hostile to other minority groups as well is answered in the case of one man at least. Mack rejects a variety of ethnic groups. And Larry, for his part, is opposed to all such "prejudice. " The first question for research, then, would be: Is it generally true that a person who rejects one minority group tends to reject all or most of them? Or, is it to be found more frequently that there is a tendency to have a special group against which most of the individual's hostility is directed? How broad is the ethno- centric rejection, that is to say, how many different groups are brought within the conception of outgroup? Are they extranational as well as intra- national? What are the main objective characteristics of these groups? What traits are most commonly assigned to them by ethnocentric individuals? What imagery, if any, applies to all outgroups, and what is reserved for par- ticular outgroups? Is the tendency, found in Mack but not in Larry, to make a rigid distinction between the ingroup and the outgroup, common in the population at large? Are Mack's ways of thinking about groups-rigid categories, always placing blame on the outgroup, and so forth-typical of ethnocentric individuals?
If ethnocentrism is conceived of as the tendency to express opinions and attitudes that are hostile toward a variety of ethnic groups and uncritically favorable to the group with which the individual is identified, then is it pos- sible to rank individuals according to the degree of their ethnocentrism, as was proposed in the case of anti-Semitism? This would make it possible to determine the quantitative relations of ethnocentrism to numerous other factors-in the contemporary social situation of the individual, in his history, and in his personality. But, to pursue the general approach outlined above, it seems best first to explore further the outlook of the ethnocentric individual before raising fundamental questions of determination. What of his opinions and attitudes concerning other groups than ethnic or national ones? How does he approach social problems generally?
3. POLITICS
In his discussion of politics Mack deals at considerable length with the attributes of what for him is the outgroup. The structure and dynamics of the outgroup are conceived as follows. It is closely cohesive and power- seeking. Power is sought as an end in itself, and to attain it any means may
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
be employed, no matter how wasteful or harmful to others. Selfishness and money-mindedness are important aspects of this power drive. At the same time, however, he ascribes to the outgroup characteristics which are the opposite of powerful: it is inefficient (shows bungling and confusion), waste- ful and poorly organized; this inadequacy is attributed to the "fact" that the power arrangements within it are inadequate, with no clear authority and with lieutenants who are both too few and too carelessly selected. In addition to organizational weakness there is also physical weakness. (The reference to Roosevelt's physical ability brings to mind the argument of his political opposition that he was physically too weak to carry the burdens of a wartime president. ) 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.
