) Several of my
relatives
and my father have money, and will suppon me.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
I was the right-hand man of the General there when the OWl was introduced.
They put up this build- ing for $6oo,ooo with little purpose in mind.
They did the same thing that the Army monitoring service was already doing.
The OWl wanted to take it over.
Even after the OWl took it over, the War Department still helped prepare the communiques; but the OWl wanted credit.
All that duplication at a tremendous outlay of money for no purpose.
And all the time our department was crying for personnel.
I worked many hours overtime for no pay because I was in the Civil Service.
I was there from September, 1940, to September, 1942.
I was there when war was declared.
I worked then for thirty-seven hours straight.
It was quite a day in Washington.
I liked living in Washington very much.
I like being close to the center of things.
You can learn a lot about how the government functions.
There
are daily events at your fingertips that by the time it gets here have changed some- how. It was fun knowing about the background, knowing about the secret com- mittees. My salary was $2,ooo a year. Living conditions, of course, were terrible. (What did you like about Dewey especially? ) I liked Dewey's background, his frankness, honesty, his clear-cut way of presenting his case. I think that at heart he is a very honest man, interested in maintaining the old government traditions. (How do you see things shaping up for the future? ) If we maintain our present system of government, and I think we will for a time, some things will have to be altered. The system in Washington has outgrown the limits of one man to control. We have got to eliminate confusion. The man who runs it must pick his lieutenants carefully. The way it is now, there is no clear authority. You have to consult a half a dozen agencies to get anywhere. This will recede very little after the war. Eventually the President will have to appoint a strong Cabinet to run things for him. There is no doubt that the system is becoming more centralized. I doubt that President Roosevelt will be reelected. It depends on the way the war goes. From his speeches, one seems to see that he feels he is necessary to the United States. He has control of the Party and will run as long as he is physically able. The popular vote in the last election was very close. 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. People who had sons in the war effort felt that taking the President out might prolong the war. That was wrong. The Army and the Navy were prepared for the war ten years in advance. General Marshall would have had a lot to say, whoever was elected. I have sat beside him and heard him talk. Nobody could alter his position. A change of presidents might have altered
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
35
our relations to England, but riot to Russia. Recently there has been a lot of oppo- sition to Churchill. He has been OK in war, but how he will be in peace is a ques- tion. There is, of course, close feeling between Roosevelt and Churchill. But Roosevelt would come out second-best in a contest with Winnie. Of course, a lot of Roosevelt's ideas came from Hoover. (Would there be a difference in our rela- tions with Russia? ) No, there would be no difference in our relations with Russia. I think Joe Stalin would play pretty fair with us. And Dewey is honest to the death. He has a good background, though not of the wealthy class, and he would think of the average people. His honesty and straightforwardness appeal to me greatly. But a man has to use some underhandedness to get across the highest ideals. "
Religion: "On my father's side, my folks were Catholic. My father and his brothers and sisters were Catholic. Father was never deeply religious, but he was a good man. He drank but little, and he never smoked. He was very honest and strict in his dealings. He followed the church rules without going to church. It stems back to his not wanting to meet people. He was very retiring, and I can't understand it. The other members of his family were not that way. His sisters are very average. My mother was a Methodist and quite strict up until her death. I was sick much of the time. She brought us up very strictly under this guidance. Her aunt took us in hand when Mother died and saw that we attended Sunday School with her children. That was up until I was twelve or thirteen. Then I got out of the habit. I like church OK, though I disagree with some of its doctrines. I like the music and singing in church. I was so busy since high school that I stopped going. I have gone in for social things in spite of a great dread of them. But I looked at my father and saw that I had to do differently. Yes, the teachings of Sunday School did mean something. But the arbitrary beliefs were too much. I grew up quickly. My father has allowed me to do as I pleased, although he forced some de- cisions upon me. About smoking, he said I must do it in front of him, if I must. He also provided wines and liquors in the ice chest. I soon tired of smoking and never took much to drinking. I have a stubborn nature, and if he had tried to stop me, I probably would have taken it up. (Under what conditions might you turn to re- ligion? ) Yes, under some conditions I might. I have had a lot of sickness, stomach trouble ever since I was twelve. I was in the hospital once for three months. During those periods, I like to turn to the Bible. I like the history and sayings of Christ, principally. I like to consider them and analyze them and figure out how they affect me. I'm not so interested in the apostles' sayings-that's not first-hand, so I don't accept it entirely. I have to be assured of it factually. I have always tried to live according to His Ten Commandments. I like to receive just treatment and to give it to others. (What about your conception of God? ) Well, I have none ~specially. The closest conception I got was when I was in the service, that is, God as strictly man, greater than any on this earth, one that would treat us as a father would his son. I don't think God is terrible in His justice. If one lives justly, his laxness will be overlooked. The thing is to make things happier and juster on the earth. "
Minorities: "My mother comes from an Irish-English-German background. I think of myself as Irish-perhaps because my father is definitely so, and proud of it. He likes the thought of St. Patrick's Day. I have a quick temper like the Irish. If there is a lot of Irish in people, they are very enjoyable. They are easy spenders, even though they never have much. They have the ability to make other people happy. They are often witty. I wish I were more like that. But there is too much of the lackadaisical and laziness in some classes of Irish. (Which groups would you contrast with the Irish? ) The Irish are most different from the Germans or Dutch
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
or maybe the Scandinavians-perhaps Polish or White Russians, where you find a more stolid person in thought and action. The types that I have encountered have a solid build and are not very excitable. (Question about Irish assimilating. ) I like to think of an Irish strain; it is enjoyable. Yet in some people the Irish seems to predominate. It depends on the individual. 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.
are daily events at your fingertips that by the time it gets here have changed some- how. It was fun knowing about the background, knowing about the secret com- mittees. My salary was $2,ooo a year. Living conditions, of course, were terrible. (What did you like about Dewey especially? ) I liked Dewey's background, his frankness, honesty, his clear-cut way of presenting his case. I think that at heart he is a very honest man, interested in maintaining the old government traditions. (How do you see things shaping up for the future? ) If we maintain our present system of government, and I think we will for a time, some things will have to be altered. The system in Washington has outgrown the limits of one man to control. We have got to eliminate confusion. The man who runs it must pick his lieutenants carefully. The way it is now, there is no clear authority. You have to consult a half a dozen agencies to get anywhere. This will recede very little after the war. Eventually the President will have to appoint a strong Cabinet to run things for him. There is no doubt that the system is becoming more centralized. I doubt that President Roosevelt will be reelected. It depends on the way the war goes. From his speeches, one seems to see that he feels he is necessary to the United States. He has control of the Party and will run as long as he is physically able. The popular vote in the last election was very close. 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. People who had sons in the war effort felt that taking the President out might prolong the war. That was wrong. The Army and the Navy were prepared for the war ten years in advance. General Marshall would have had a lot to say, whoever was elected. I have sat beside him and heard him talk. Nobody could alter his position. A change of presidents might have altered
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
35
our relations to England, but riot to Russia. Recently there has been a lot of oppo- sition to Churchill. He has been OK in war, but how he will be in peace is a ques- tion. There is, of course, close feeling between Roosevelt and Churchill. But Roosevelt would come out second-best in a contest with Winnie. Of course, a lot of Roosevelt's ideas came from Hoover. (Would there be a difference in our rela- tions with Russia? ) No, there would be no difference in our relations with Russia. I think Joe Stalin would play pretty fair with us. And Dewey is honest to the death. He has a good background, though not of the wealthy class, and he would think of the average people. His honesty and straightforwardness appeal to me greatly. But a man has to use some underhandedness to get across the highest ideals. "
Religion: "On my father's side, my folks were Catholic. My father and his brothers and sisters were Catholic. Father was never deeply religious, but he was a good man. He drank but little, and he never smoked. He was very honest and strict in his dealings. He followed the church rules without going to church. It stems back to his not wanting to meet people. He was very retiring, and I can't understand it. The other members of his family were not that way. His sisters are very average. My mother was a Methodist and quite strict up until her death. I was sick much of the time. She brought us up very strictly under this guidance. Her aunt took us in hand when Mother died and saw that we attended Sunday School with her children. That was up until I was twelve or thirteen. Then I got out of the habit. I like church OK, though I disagree with some of its doctrines. I like the music and singing in church. I was so busy since high school that I stopped going. I have gone in for social things in spite of a great dread of them. But I looked at my father and saw that I had to do differently. Yes, the teachings of Sunday School did mean something. But the arbitrary beliefs were too much. I grew up quickly. My father has allowed me to do as I pleased, although he forced some de- cisions upon me. About smoking, he said I must do it in front of him, if I must. He also provided wines and liquors in the ice chest. I soon tired of smoking and never took much to drinking. I have a stubborn nature, and if he had tried to stop me, I probably would have taken it up. (Under what conditions might you turn to re- ligion? ) Yes, under some conditions I might. I have had a lot of sickness, stomach trouble ever since I was twelve. I was in the hospital once for three months. During those periods, I like to turn to the Bible. I like the history and sayings of Christ, principally. I like to consider them and analyze them and figure out how they affect me. I'm not so interested in the apostles' sayings-that's not first-hand, so I don't accept it entirely. I have to be assured of it factually. I have always tried to live according to His Ten Commandments. I like to receive just treatment and to give it to others. (What about your conception of God? ) Well, I have none ~specially. The closest conception I got was when I was in the service, that is, God as strictly man, greater than any on this earth, one that would treat us as a father would his son. I don't think God is terrible in His justice. If one lives justly, his laxness will be overlooked. The thing is to make things happier and juster on the earth. "
Minorities: "My mother comes from an Irish-English-German background. I think of myself as Irish-perhaps because my father is definitely so, and proud of it. He likes the thought of St. Patrick's Day. I have a quick temper like the Irish. If there is a lot of Irish in people, they are very enjoyable. They are easy spenders, even though they never have much. They have the ability to make other people happy. They are often witty. I wish I were more like that. But there is too much of the lackadaisical and laziness in some classes of Irish. (Which groups would you contrast with the Irish? ) The Irish are most different from the Germans or Dutch
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
or maybe the Scandinavians-perhaps Polish or White Russians, where you find a more stolid person in thought and action. The types that I have encountered have a solid build and are not very excitable. (Question about Irish assimilating. ) I like to think of an Irish strain; it is enjoyable. Yet in some people the Irish seems to predominate. It depends on the individual. 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.
