Every high-scoring
interviewee
gave spontaneous fantasies about extreme acquisitiveness as a supposed Jewish trait.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
This is done not merely to multiply illustrations but because each interviewee is followed as an individual case study, on which some material is presented in each section.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
fellow man. . . . They don't have a goal in life. " It is Robert also who ex- presses distaste for Negroes' alleged failure to conform to cultural ideals of cleanliness: "They don't wash themselves as cleanly. " Other characteristics assigned include the following:
Asocial acquisitiveness: "The majority of them have sticky fingers. They can't let things alone" (Clarence). Aggressiveness: Negroes are "troublesome," always starting trouble. . . . They get smart, start a lot of fights. . . . They always try to cause so much trouble-fight, trying to be big shots" (Eugene, who admits to a long record of getting in petty "trouble," especially "fighting" when drunk). Patho- logical lying: "You can't depend on him. . . . He'll lie to you every chance he gets" (Buck, one of the fascists, whose protocol was discovered on checking with his social history chart to be filled with boastful lies on a grand scale). Being over- verbal and grossly exhibitionistic: "Chatter like a bunch of apes when you get three or four in a crowd. Strut around like peacocks. . . . Take a look at their clothes" (Floyd, another fascist, who speaks in abrupt, blurted sentences and might be called "underverbal," is exceptionally vain and preoccupied with his appearance, and even admits that, "Everything I do is an act").
The prejudiced interviewees' attitudes toward Negroes, as distinguished from their stereotypes of what Negroes are like, betray intense status anxiety -a fear lest "the black" rise up and challenge the right of "the white" to suppress him. Negroes must constantly be kept "in their place," i. e. , sub- merged, in order to save the high scorers from feeling severe anxiety. This status fear appears both in invidious comparisons of Negroes vs. whites, and in direct insistence upon Jim Crow policies. The following expressions are typical:
"I don't believe in associating with them. I believe they should have their own schools. I don't believe we should have to eat with them" (Clarence). "I figure they're black and I'm white. . . . I won't work with them. . . . Let them stay in their place" (Eugene). Negroes "should stay in their place . . . not mix with whites" (Wilbur). Robert wants to be "tolerant" by reducing discrimination in employment and living standards, but "by that I don't mean that we should inter- mingle"; "there should be a separate section of town" for Negroes; and we "ought to do away with public office-holding" by Negroes.
Ronald complains: "The hardest thing for me to stomach is (Southern Negroes coming North) and taking advantage of opportunities. . . . They try to get themselves into a spot, not because they want it but just to annoy other people. " He goes on to describe an incident in the Negro section of a midwestern city, in which he forced a Negro to move from the "spot" next to him on a street car, was arrested by a Negro policeman, and subsequently fined. He expresses resentment against "the overbearing attitude they get when the odds are all in their favor. "
Ronald's bitterness toward the "overbearing attitude" of Negroes also illustrates another feature commonly found in prejudiced subjects: an inabil-
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
ity to conceive of genuine equality. This anxiety-laden blind spot leads to some curious distortions by the prejudiced interviewees:
"(Negroes) feel themselves better than the white person" (Clarence). "They think they're better than we are" (Eugene). More fully elaborated: "When white people give them a little rope, they just think they are a little better than whites . . . take a bit too far advantage if you give them a chance" (Wilbur).
Despite the highly antidemocratic attitudes outlined above, 5 of the high-scoring interviewees present the type of pseudodemocratic fac;ade de- scribed in Chapters III and XVII. To convince themselves and others that they conform to the democratic values of "The American Creed," they try to disguise or deny their authoritarian hostility. They show reluctance to approve openly that violence against Negroes to which their inner anxieties predispose them.
"They're human, just as we are. . . . I don't believe we should hold racial hate" (Clarence). "There's a few good ones (who) go out of their way not to cause
trouble" (Eugene).
Robert would even like to equalize some opportunities for Negroes-up to a certain point-so that they may be encouraged to suppress passive wishes and acquire a "goal in life. " It is as if Negroes symbolize for Robert his own suppressed desires to be more passive and pleasure-seeking, desires that he feels compelled to inhibit so as to drive himself to "get up there" and prove his masculinity. Even Ronald admits "there are a few good ones"; and when asked what might have to be done if Negroes continue to demand more equality, he wistfully restrains his vigilante impulses: "It isn't so much what will have to be done as that nothing will be done under our democratic system. " When pushed further, he sums up an attitude implicit in many of the quotations so far-the high scorers' ultimate pessimism as to any real solution of group tensions: "Well, there's a problem I don't think will ever be solved. "
Wilbur, however, shows a kind of transition stage between pseudodemo- cratic fac;ade and open fascist readiness to abandon pretense of democracy. On the one hand he insists, "I have nothing against them if they stay in their place. " But if Negroes organize to demand equal rights, "plenty would have to be done . . . battle just like with the Japs. " Underdogs' demands for equality seem to arouse in Wilbur a persecutory fear of being overwhelmed, so that he feels driven to "fight back" in paranoid desperation.
b. FASCISTS. The three fascist high scorers, Adrian, Buck, and Floyd, reveal essentially the same kinds of anti-Negro stereotypes, with even more intense status-anxiety. In addition, they show two interrelated characteristics that are more openly antidemocratic: undisguised hate combined with explicit readiness to suppress the outgroup by physical force "if necessary. "
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
Buck rages: "Goddam nigger, he's no good at all. . . . I don't want any near me. . . . They ought to be kept in their place. Shouldn't let 'em come over here in the first goddam place! . . . Floyd is even more virulent: "Ignorant ! . . . What ought to be done, but won't be done, is to ship 'em back to Haiti or to Liberia. (What may happen if they continue to encroach on white men? ) There'll be bloodshed if it keeps up! "
Adrian's protective pattern of submissiveness prevents this blustering type of expression of his tremendous hate. But he leaves no doubt as to his approval of violent fascist suppressions: Negroes "keep their place and that's that. (What if the Negro doesn't keep his place? ) He does keep his place. (But if not? ) They learn their place. " Further probing elicits the assertion that if Negroes should insist on seeking political representation, there would have to be "another civil war" to suppress them. Adrian makes clear the symbolic equivalence for him of Negroes and other submerged groups: (Should Negroes work in the same factory with whites? ) "Yes, because if they're working in a factory with whites, they're poor whites anyway. "
c. Low ScoRERS. Despite the unusually high means obtained by the prison group on the three items expressing status-anxiety toward submerged groups, these items have fairly low means for the low quartile and therefore have quite high Discriminatory Powers (Table 2 (XXI)). This indicates the relative freedom of most low scorers from strong anti-Negro prejudice. Of the 4 low-scoring interviewees, however, none were found to be entirely free of prejudice against Negroes. But their attitudes are distinguished from those of the high scorers in several ways.
In the first place, they are much less hostile and far less rigid in such preju- dice as they do disclose. In particular, they exhibit less status-anxiety toward Negroes. Three of them emphasize that "there should be no discrimination in jobs"; the other, Jim, expresses guilt feelings over his present prejudice on this issue (see below). On the basis of an individualized attitude toward people, these men tend to be more willing to accept Negroes as friends and equals. Thus Don, who was brought up in a Southern state, declares that he chooses friends "mostly on the basis of the individual, not the race. " Dick, raised in another Southern state, describes two Negro doctors whom he en- joys "talking to. " He hesitates "as far as having close friends goes," but de- cides that "that would be all right, too, if they had the same education I had. " (Art's and Jim's views on this matter will be indicated in ensuing paragraphs. ) All four protocols, however, contain evidence of some barriers against com- plete freedom of social relations with Negroes. The clearest barrier, sub- scribed to in some degree by all four, is that they "don't believe in intermar- riage. " But even here these men are more relaxed and flexible than the high-scoring inmates. They typically ascribe to external social pressure the main basis of their own social distance in this respect:
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
This barrier is a custom "bro~ghtdown from years and years in history" (Dick). "I am thinking mostly of the children" who might he "socially ostracized" (Don). "It isn't socially accepted" (Art). The barrier is not regarded as rigid and eternal: "If I'd been raised in New York City (instead of in the South), I might have felt different" (Dick). In countries where intermarriage is generally accepted, it is "okay-not myself, perhaps; but I certainly wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it" (Don). (How would you feel about intermarriage if it were generally accepted socially? ) "I don't know. It isn't now. . . . I never thought about it" (Art).
Most of these men would appear to have genuinely democratic values and yet, as mentioned before, none of them is entirely free of anti-Negro prejudice. One reason for this is suggested by a feature of their ideology it- self. This is a tendency to discount somewhat the seriousness and extent of antidemocratic oppression; a reluctance to assign blame in intergroup con- flict-especially reluctance to identify and to blame those who are more powerful for antidemocratic attitudes or actions toward those who are weaker; and a tendency to adopt a "harmonizing" attitude that urges both sides to be "reasonable" and to avoid impatient extremism-as if both sides were equally at fault. Inferentially, it is as if these men experience a conflict between democratic values and the fear of actively resisting the antidemo- cratic behavior of "respectable" groups "on top. " One way of justifying an inability to mobilize aggressiveness toward what is strong and estab- lished is to "play down" conflicts between stronger and weaker groups, by a kind of false impartiality. Thus, Art declares: "The (Negro-white) prob- lem is highlighted out of all proportion to what it is. " Unable actively to resist conventional antidemocratic sanctions (though he refers to having known a few Negroes casually), he prefers not to "conduct my social life with them-only from one standpoint: It is not socially accepted. " This ex- plains why the "impartiality" is called false: it seems to give way, under pres- sure, to submission to antidemocratic status-quo values and policies. In order to justify this appeasement and maintain self-respect, such a person may turn around to blame the outgroup for being a source of "trouble"-as if it caused the trouble by not submitting quietly. The fact that democratic rights are being denied to the outgroup may be conveniently glossed over or denied. Thus, Art declares: Negroes "have equal rights with me, (but) many of them have set themselves apart. " Asked to elaborate, he pulls back to a more "impartial" position: "I don't feel that they have set themselves apart; publicity has set them apart. " "Publicity" is sufficiently anonymous so that
he can avoid blaming anyone at all. . . . Thus it is clear that even the lowest scorers in the inmate group are not free of "high" trends.
Where definite rejection of Negroes is expressed by the low scorers, they show a readiness to examine their own attitudes with some degree of intra- ceptive and self-critical objectivity. An example is Dick's statement that, "If I'd been raised in New York City (instead of in the South), I might have
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
felt different. " Jim illustrates this trait more clearly. He verbalizes open guilt over having undemocratic attitudes toward Negroes, and describes these attitudes objectively as a psychological part of himself. "I have a kind of natural, instinctive dislike for working with them. My mind tells me that's wrong, not fair . . . but I just feel that way. " Jim sees the conflict as in himself, and conceives the solution as requiring a change not in the outgroup (as the high scorers tend to do) but in the attitudes of himself and the ingroup: "It's certainly unfair according to all human concepts. We just seem to have a natural antipathy toward them that will eventually have to be worked out, because a person can't help being born a Negro any more than a white man can a white man. " Implicit in this last observation is another feature of unprej- udiced thinking in this area: these men seem to have an ultimate optimism as to the solution of intergroup conflict-it will "eventually have to be worked out. " Further: "As far as coming to the time when they won't be segregated,
I think that would have to come naturally. ? ? ? I believe it's becoming solved more and more" (Jim).
Like other low scorers, these men tend, when they do attribute certain character traits to Negroes, to offer sociopsychological explanations for such traits in terms of environmental pressures. (As might be expected, this is inti- mately linked with their ultimate optimism, just as the prejudiced men's hereditarianism is associated with their ultimate pessimism. ) This capacity for sociopsychological thinking is usually combined with a readiness for empathy with the outgroup member's inner feelings. Thus, Dick: "If (a Negro is) kept under supervision, suppressed, naturally he's not going to have any initiative, not going to care. "
3. IDEOLOGY CONCERNING JEWS: A SUPPOSED "DOMINANT" OUTGROUP
a. HIGH ScoRERS. Anti-Semitic stereotypes differ markedly from the quali- ties ascribed to Negroes. Specifically, they seem to reflect the notion of Jews as a "dominant" outgroup. One of the questionnaire items (number 24) which clearly differentiates high and low scorers, condemns Jews for monop- olizing business (see Table 2 (XXI)). This expresses the core of the preju- diced men's typical imagery of "the Jew" and their attitudes toward the latter. Jews are seen as embodying to a singular degree what seems to be a central value-complex of our culture. This set of values revolves around ac- quisitiveness and drive for "success" conceived in terms of "getting on top" and staying there-that is, compulsive drive for status and power.
Every high-scoring interviewee gave spontaneous fantasies about extreme acquisitiveness as a supposed Jewish trait. The following are typical examples:
"They like to be where there's money and take all the money and hang on to it" (Wilbur). "Youput(aJew)onarockandhe'llmakemoney. . . . He'sthriftyand
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
tries to get ahead" (Clarence). Jews have a "special drive" and "have always been after money and capable of making it" (Robert).
This drive is imagined to lead to Jewish dominance and power:
"I guess they run most of the things in this country," and "They run an awful lot of politics" (Eugene). "I believe that the Jews control a lot of the money in this country" (Ronald). Jews have "put themselves up there, where what they say counts" (Robert).
This power is secured, so the fantasies go, by combining acquisitive drive with "clannishness":
Jews are thought of as "stickin' together" (Eugene); as being "self-centered" and acting so that "when one Jews gets in, first thing you know there are about fifty of them" (Ronald); as being "good mixers among their own people, but don't mix much with other people" (Clarence).
It is noteworthy that none of the pseudodemocratic inmates ascribed to Jews a single id (primitive instinct) trait, of the sort described above in the anti-Negro stereotype. This striking difference in fantasies about an out- group imagined to be "dominant," as contrasted with an outgroup perceived as "submerged," was a matter of the spontaneous emphasis of the inmates themselves.
The prejudiced men's attitude toward Jews also differs dearly from their attitude toward Negroes. Their attitude toward Jews seems to be associated with the image of Jewish dominance combined with exclusiveness. This atti- tude centers around fantasies of victimization by Jewish power, and a fear of being overwhelmed by that power. Here the personalization of ideology is even more striking than in the anti-Negro attitudes.
Thus, Eugene: "Say I have a grocery store. They'll come in and start a bigger one. " They "get in a small town" (Eugene was raised in a small town) and "take over the grocery stores. " Or Ronald: "You put a Jew in an office. First thing you know, you haven't got a job. You've got five Jews instead. . . . They act like they're better than anyone else, and anyone that doesn't think they are is nothing but a fool. "
Of special interest is the anti-Greek ideology of Wilbur. He shows the usual anti-Semitic fantasies, but without as intense feelings as those character- izing his anti-Greek ideology, which serves a similar function and is more focal. 13 Thisfact appears to have been precipitated by a specific experience with a Greek landlord. Following an argument over the rent, the landlord evicted Wilbur's family while Wilbur was at work. Wilbur sought him out in a rage, started a fight, and gave him a fatal wound (leading to Wilbur's imprisonment). Wilbur's emotional conflicts (to be discussed later) pre- vented him from merely rejecting the particular individual. Instead he de-
13 Cf. the discussion in Chapter XVI of the functional character of anti-Semitism.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
veloped rigid delusions about "the Greeks," imagining them as "all alike" and as having deliberately "come over here" to "punish the poor people, pay low wages, make you work too hard," etc.
Significant is the fact that the prejudiced men's anti-Semitic resentment seems to have an ambivalent aspect, to be combined with a secret envy of, and longing to be accepted into, the supposedly "dominant" outgroup. Ob- serve in the following examples the reluctant admiration of and implied wish to share in "Jewish power":
"God knows they're good businessmen, but all for the Jew" (Adrian). "'Course they've got to stick together, but why at the expense of others" (Ronald). "Smart people, ain't they? " (Buck). "Still, if they can do it . . . " (Eugene). "Trouble is, they're so goddam clannish . . . won't mix and mingle like other people" (Floyd).
More positive (surface) identification with "Jewish" drive to "get up there" is illustrated in Robert, who seems to have experienced a severe struggle to internalize this same goal in the face of desires to relax and enjoy life (see p. 858). With a kind of inverted anti-Semitism, he expresses ad- miration for Jews' "knack to earn money, to control something," and for their having had "the foresight and drive and ambition to get there. " His envy is plain: "I think it would be better if some white men had something put on their backs to get that drive. " Floyd, a fascist who expresses contempt for himself for never having held a job for more than a few weeks at a time, stresses Jewish "industriousness" which he consciously envies: "They believe in working for what they get. . . . Talk to a little Yid kid, and he is studying for what he's gonna be ten years from now. "
Despite the antidemocratic hostility implicit in their anti-Semitic fantasies, the same five men again maintain a pseudodemocratic fac;ade. They ward off attention to their own hostility as such by focusing rigidly on "what is wrong with the outgroup. "
Hence, it is often possible for them to believe that they are "strictly not preju- diced" (Robert); to declare that Jews have "got to have some place to live-can't run them out of the country" (Clarence); or that "however, I don't think they should be persecuted" (Ronald); or assert that "I don't have no trouble with a person (such as a Jew) if he don't bother me" (Wilbur); or that "I guess they're all right, I never had no run-in. They stay in their place" (Eugene).
Although these men may feel that perhaps Hitler faced a "real problem . . ? with this domineering type" who "possibly controlled Germany quite a bit through big business" (Robert), they reject Nazi persecution of Jews as brutal and unwarranted.
The pseudodemocratic character of this fac;ade is seen not only in the hostile stereotypes of Jews but also in responses to questioning about "what might have to be done if Jewish control goes too far? "
For example: "There might be no way to get them out except by revolution"
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
(Ronald). \Vilbur reveals, rather pathetically, a similar pogrom mentality in his attitude toward "the Greeks": "If they don't stop (punishing the poor people), there's going to be more American people in the penitentiary. " He feels "they" ought to be sent back to Greece.
b. FAscrsTs. The anti-Semitic stereotypes of the three fascists are fairly similar to those of the pseudodemocratic high scorers. They focus on acquis- itiveness as well as clannishness and monopolization of power. The fascist subjects stress a further trait attributed to Jews, however, which is not men- tioned by the other high scorers, viz. , excessive sensuality.
Buck refers especially to sexual obsessions and homosexuality among Jewish men: (What are Jews like? ) "Most all of them Jews talk about sex mostly, or beatin' a guy out of his money. . . . (What do they talk about sex? ) About what they're
gonna do when they get out, or they're gonna get a 14 tonight. " ? ? ? Floyd, whose ambivalence is peculiarly clear-cut, complains that Jews "won't inter- marry. " An underlying orientation toward Jewish men is suggested by his phras- ing: "Some of their women are really all right" (italics supplied) . . . . Adrian does not himself introduce the topic of Jewish sensuality but does verbalize such fantasies quite readily: (Are Jews somewhat different sexually? ) "They are more amorous than other people. Yes, and I know whereof I speak! More passionate, more romantic. Not that I like it, but they are. "
Like the other high scorers, the fascists reveal a fear of being victimized by Jewish power, along with an ambivalent wish to be accepted into the supposedly "dominant" outgroup. As in their anti-Negro ideology, the fascist inmates' attitudes are distinguished by undisguised hate and by explicit readi- ness to suppress the outgroup by physical force. This goes along with open approval of specifically fascist aggressions against underdogs.
Buck feels that Hitler "done the right thing" to the Jews, who are "lower than a goddam snake. " In this country "they'll have to watch out if they want to eat. " . . . Floyd grimaces with disgust as he speaks of "that harsh guttural voice. " If Floyd had been in Hitler's place, "I'd have done the same thing he did! " . . . Adrian is again too ingratiating to bluster in this way, but is quite open as to his authoritarian hostility: (Is dislike for Jews increasing? ) "No, just the opposite, and I deplore it personally! " He is willing to support fascist persecution in the form of arbitrary deportation of all Jews in America-"send them all to Palestine"-even though he feels compelled to "disapprove of the means (Hitler) took to rid Ger- many of the Jewish problem. Because they did monopolize industry, and something had to be done. " And "the Jews are just as apt to monopolize industry in this coun- try. " While he justifies persecution of Jews for being allegedly too aggressive and powerful, Adrian also "wanted to let the Japs go into Manchuria" because the Chinese are "not aggressive enough! " "They have enough resources and could be a great nation if they had the aggressiveness of the Japs. "
This contradiction throws into relief a further aspect of fascist ideology that can be described as ideological opportunism. By this term is meant a disregard for ethical principles and truth-values, which are replaced by
14 Profane term meaning to have fellatio performed upon oneself.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
opportunistic manipulation of ideas and "facts" in the service of Realpolitik ends. The contexts in which such opportunistic thinking appears are charac- teristically those involving dominance-submission conflicts. The aim of such opportunism is to maintain identification with those on top-whoever they are, whatever they represent-and to avoid at all cost the anxiety of being identified with those below. There is an essential indifference to content, i. e. , indifference to any goals of human happiness. Power for power's sake is the ultimate end; ideological opportunism is one of the means. Such oppor- tunism appears also in the thinking of pseudodemocratic high scorers, but in more disguised forms. (See Chapter XVII. )
Another facet of Adrian's opportunism is revealed by a superficial shift in his identifications which occurred "after the war began in Europe. " His explicit sympathy with the aggressions of fascist Germany and Japan was modified, as American opinion became crystalized against the Axis. He ra- tionalizes that Hitler's aggressions during the war "seemed to be more a matter of conquest than protecting against communism"; and "I certainly didn't expect (the Japanese) to go beyond China. " That Adrian experienced no change in heart but only a superficial realignment so as to avoid conflict with a more dominant ingroup (America), is suggested by his present explicit approval of all aggressions by the Axis nations carried out prior to their open war with the stronger Allied powers.
Floyd's ideological opportunism is even clearer. He summarizes (and plainly approves) the "harmony" technique exploited by German industrialists, through Hitler, to "solve" class conflict: Hitler's "object wasn't the Jew. He wanted a scapegrace (sic) to get the different classes and provincials together, to fight one thing. . . . To get together instead of having all this bickering and split power. (Was his cause just? ) In the eyes of the German people, yes. (In your eyes? ) Every man for his own country. "
Buck, besides supporting Nazi persecution of Jews, exhibits an interesting " mode of ideological opportunism in his behavior toward the interviewer. The first three inquiries about his views on "the Jewish problem" and "the ' most characteristic Jewish traits" elicited only pseudodemocratic denials of hostility. For example: "They got a right to make a living as much as any- body else. . . . They got a way to make money is all I know. More power to 'em is all I can say. . . . I don't know much about 'em. " But with the fourth question he apparently sensed that he would not be punished for expressing hostility and might (judging from the interviewer's noncommittal attitude) even gain approval for having the "right" view of things: (Can you tell a Jew usually? ) "You're damn right I can tell 'em as soon as I talk to 'em. " From this point on, Buck drops his fac;ade and exhibits intense aggressiveness toward Jews.
c. Low ScoRERS. The low scorers tend to reject anti-Semitic stereotypy as such. Thus Dick retorts that "it doesn't hold true" that there are any "char-
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
acteristic Jewish traits"; for ''the Jews, in my opinion, are not a race but a religion. " Jim declares: "I don't see why they should be picked out as being any different from anyone else. " More positively, these men actively con- demn anti-Semitism.
"When a person gets too far off the base about the Jews or Negroes, I am liable to step in and tell him off" (Don). Art interprets the hostility concealed behind pseudodemocratic anti-Semitism; his own equalitarian ideology is apparent: "I have often heard the expression, 'Some of my best friends are Jews. ' Well, hell, some of my best friends are people! It sounds like you are making a concession to them. " It is of interest that Art's father is described as "a rabid Jew-hater. "
Further, in contrast with the narrow, personalized mythologies that domi- nate the thinking of the high scorers; these men exhibit a broader perspective. They seem to show a greater capacity for surveying human relationships in a detached way, which at the same time reveals compassion and respect for other human beings. One form this takes is empathy with Jews' psychological problems as an outgroup and a tendency to construct sociopsychological interpretations of anti-Semitism.
Jim remarks that Jews may be "inclined to be egotistical"; and at first a typical anti-Semitic projection is expected, until he goes on to clarify his meaning: "Not exactly a trait, but I think a good many of them feel that they're discriminated against. I think, in view of that, that they strive harder than most people do, and as a race they stick together and cooperate with each other to a large extent. " This is quite unlike Ronald's complaint that "they act like they're better than anyone else, and anyone that doesn't think they are is nothing but a fool. " Don believes that "if they have any objectionable features" as a group (which he doubts), it is because they are "stepchildren of history" in the sense of having been restricted to certain occupations and living conditions. Art is more explicit: "The Jews way back in history were other than Christians, and were limited (by the Christians) in their spheres of endeavor. . . . So they became sharpies in the money department as a defense mechanism. . . . So they had attributed to them those traits that are most despicable: craftiness, greed about money, etc. "
Art says that he is inclined to regard the Jews' "reputation for sharp dealing" as unfounded, but "I don't know whether it is true or not. " The important point is that the matter is not vital to him: he is not driven by inner conflicts to an insistence on projecting ruthless acquisitiveness onto Jews. Dick is more at a loss for ideas to account for anti-Semitism. He can only suggest that it is "just brought down from history. "
C. POLITICO-ECONOMIC A TTITUDES 1. GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE ST A TISTICS
A statistical summary of results from the PEC scale for the prison group is presented in Table 3(XXI). On this scale, the prison group obtained the highest mean, 4. 68, of all groups taking Form 40 or 45 except the Service
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY TABLE 3 (XXI)
RESULTS ON THE PEC SCALE FROM THE GROUP OF PRISON INMATES
Item
3. (Labor unions)
7.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
fellow man. . . . They don't have a goal in life. " It is Robert also who ex- presses distaste for Negroes' alleged failure to conform to cultural ideals of cleanliness: "They don't wash themselves as cleanly. " Other characteristics assigned include the following:
Asocial acquisitiveness: "The majority of them have sticky fingers. They can't let things alone" (Clarence). Aggressiveness: Negroes are "troublesome," always starting trouble. . . . They get smart, start a lot of fights. . . . They always try to cause so much trouble-fight, trying to be big shots" (Eugene, who admits to a long record of getting in petty "trouble," especially "fighting" when drunk). Patho- logical lying: "You can't depend on him. . . . He'll lie to you every chance he gets" (Buck, one of the fascists, whose protocol was discovered on checking with his social history chart to be filled with boastful lies on a grand scale). Being over- verbal and grossly exhibitionistic: "Chatter like a bunch of apes when you get three or four in a crowd. Strut around like peacocks. . . . Take a look at their clothes" (Floyd, another fascist, who speaks in abrupt, blurted sentences and might be called "underverbal," is exceptionally vain and preoccupied with his appearance, and even admits that, "Everything I do is an act").
The prejudiced interviewees' attitudes toward Negroes, as distinguished from their stereotypes of what Negroes are like, betray intense status anxiety -a fear lest "the black" rise up and challenge the right of "the white" to suppress him. Negroes must constantly be kept "in their place," i. e. , sub- merged, in order to save the high scorers from feeling severe anxiety. This status fear appears both in invidious comparisons of Negroes vs. whites, and in direct insistence upon Jim Crow policies. The following expressions are typical:
"I don't believe in associating with them. I believe they should have their own schools. I don't believe we should have to eat with them" (Clarence). "I figure they're black and I'm white. . . . I won't work with them. . . . Let them stay in their place" (Eugene). Negroes "should stay in their place . . . not mix with whites" (Wilbur). Robert wants to be "tolerant" by reducing discrimination in employment and living standards, but "by that I don't mean that we should inter- mingle"; "there should be a separate section of town" for Negroes; and we "ought to do away with public office-holding" by Negroes.
Ronald complains: "The hardest thing for me to stomach is (Southern Negroes coming North) and taking advantage of opportunities. . . . They try to get themselves into a spot, not because they want it but just to annoy other people. " He goes on to describe an incident in the Negro section of a midwestern city, in which he forced a Negro to move from the "spot" next to him on a street car, was arrested by a Negro policeman, and subsequently fined. He expresses resentment against "the overbearing attitude they get when the odds are all in their favor. "
Ronald's bitterness toward the "overbearing attitude" of Negroes also illustrates another feature commonly found in prejudiced subjects: an inabil-
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
ity to conceive of genuine equality. This anxiety-laden blind spot leads to some curious distortions by the prejudiced interviewees:
"(Negroes) feel themselves better than the white person" (Clarence). "They think they're better than we are" (Eugene). More fully elaborated: "When white people give them a little rope, they just think they are a little better than whites . . . take a bit too far advantage if you give them a chance" (Wilbur).
Despite the highly antidemocratic attitudes outlined above, 5 of the high-scoring interviewees present the type of pseudodemocratic fac;ade de- scribed in Chapters III and XVII. To convince themselves and others that they conform to the democratic values of "The American Creed," they try to disguise or deny their authoritarian hostility. They show reluctance to approve openly that violence against Negroes to which their inner anxieties predispose them.
"They're human, just as we are. . . . I don't believe we should hold racial hate" (Clarence). "There's a few good ones (who) go out of their way not to cause
trouble" (Eugene).
Robert would even like to equalize some opportunities for Negroes-up to a certain point-so that they may be encouraged to suppress passive wishes and acquire a "goal in life. " It is as if Negroes symbolize for Robert his own suppressed desires to be more passive and pleasure-seeking, desires that he feels compelled to inhibit so as to drive himself to "get up there" and prove his masculinity. Even Ronald admits "there are a few good ones"; and when asked what might have to be done if Negroes continue to demand more equality, he wistfully restrains his vigilante impulses: "It isn't so much what will have to be done as that nothing will be done under our democratic system. " When pushed further, he sums up an attitude implicit in many of the quotations so far-the high scorers' ultimate pessimism as to any real solution of group tensions: "Well, there's a problem I don't think will ever be solved. "
Wilbur, however, shows a kind of transition stage between pseudodemo- cratic fac;ade and open fascist readiness to abandon pretense of democracy. On the one hand he insists, "I have nothing against them if they stay in their place. " But if Negroes organize to demand equal rights, "plenty would have to be done . . . battle just like with the Japs. " Underdogs' demands for equality seem to arouse in Wilbur a persecutory fear of being overwhelmed, so that he feels driven to "fight back" in paranoid desperation.
b. FASCISTS. The three fascist high scorers, Adrian, Buck, and Floyd, reveal essentially the same kinds of anti-Negro stereotypes, with even more intense status-anxiety. In addition, they show two interrelated characteristics that are more openly antidemocratic: undisguised hate combined with explicit readiness to suppress the outgroup by physical force "if necessary. "
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
Buck rages: "Goddam nigger, he's no good at all. . . . I don't want any near me. . . . They ought to be kept in their place. Shouldn't let 'em come over here in the first goddam place! . . . Floyd is even more virulent: "Ignorant ! . . . What ought to be done, but won't be done, is to ship 'em back to Haiti or to Liberia. (What may happen if they continue to encroach on white men? ) There'll be bloodshed if it keeps up! "
Adrian's protective pattern of submissiveness prevents this blustering type of expression of his tremendous hate. But he leaves no doubt as to his approval of violent fascist suppressions: Negroes "keep their place and that's that. (What if the Negro doesn't keep his place? ) He does keep his place. (But if not? ) They learn their place. " Further probing elicits the assertion that if Negroes should insist on seeking political representation, there would have to be "another civil war" to suppress them. Adrian makes clear the symbolic equivalence for him of Negroes and other submerged groups: (Should Negroes work in the same factory with whites? ) "Yes, because if they're working in a factory with whites, they're poor whites anyway. "
c. Low ScoRERS. Despite the unusually high means obtained by the prison group on the three items expressing status-anxiety toward submerged groups, these items have fairly low means for the low quartile and therefore have quite high Discriminatory Powers (Table 2 (XXI)). This indicates the relative freedom of most low scorers from strong anti-Negro prejudice. Of the 4 low-scoring interviewees, however, none were found to be entirely free of prejudice against Negroes. But their attitudes are distinguished from those of the high scorers in several ways.
In the first place, they are much less hostile and far less rigid in such preju- dice as they do disclose. In particular, they exhibit less status-anxiety toward Negroes. Three of them emphasize that "there should be no discrimination in jobs"; the other, Jim, expresses guilt feelings over his present prejudice on this issue (see below). On the basis of an individualized attitude toward people, these men tend to be more willing to accept Negroes as friends and equals. Thus Don, who was brought up in a Southern state, declares that he chooses friends "mostly on the basis of the individual, not the race. " Dick, raised in another Southern state, describes two Negro doctors whom he en- joys "talking to. " He hesitates "as far as having close friends goes," but de- cides that "that would be all right, too, if they had the same education I had. " (Art's and Jim's views on this matter will be indicated in ensuing paragraphs. ) All four protocols, however, contain evidence of some barriers against com- plete freedom of social relations with Negroes. The clearest barrier, sub- scribed to in some degree by all four, is that they "don't believe in intermar- riage. " But even here these men are more relaxed and flexible than the high-scoring inmates. They typically ascribe to external social pressure the main basis of their own social distance in this respect:
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
This barrier is a custom "bro~ghtdown from years and years in history" (Dick). "I am thinking mostly of the children" who might he "socially ostracized" (Don). "It isn't socially accepted" (Art). The barrier is not regarded as rigid and eternal: "If I'd been raised in New York City (instead of in the South), I might have felt different" (Dick). In countries where intermarriage is generally accepted, it is "okay-not myself, perhaps; but I certainly wouldn't want to be dogmatic about it" (Don). (How would you feel about intermarriage if it were generally accepted socially? ) "I don't know. It isn't now. . . . I never thought about it" (Art).
Most of these men would appear to have genuinely democratic values and yet, as mentioned before, none of them is entirely free of anti-Negro prejudice. One reason for this is suggested by a feature of their ideology it- self. This is a tendency to discount somewhat the seriousness and extent of antidemocratic oppression; a reluctance to assign blame in intergroup con- flict-especially reluctance to identify and to blame those who are more powerful for antidemocratic attitudes or actions toward those who are weaker; and a tendency to adopt a "harmonizing" attitude that urges both sides to be "reasonable" and to avoid impatient extremism-as if both sides were equally at fault. Inferentially, it is as if these men experience a conflict between democratic values and the fear of actively resisting the antidemo- cratic behavior of "respectable" groups "on top. " One way of justifying an inability to mobilize aggressiveness toward what is strong and estab- lished is to "play down" conflicts between stronger and weaker groups, by a kind of false impartiality. Thus, Art declares: "The (Negro-white) prob- lem is highlighted out of all proportion to what it is. " Unable actively to resist conventional antidemocratic sanctions (though he refers to having known a few Negroes casually), he prefers not to "conduct my social life with them-only from one standpoint: It is not socially accepted. " This ex- plains why the "impartiality" is called false: it seems to give way, under pres- sure, to submission to antidemocratic status-quo values and policies. In order to justify this appeasement and maintain self-respect, such a person may turn around to blame the outgroup for being a source of "trouble"-as if it caused the trouble by not submitting quietly. The fact that democratic rights are being denied to the outgroup may be conveniently glossed over or denied. Thus, Art declares: Negroes "have equal rights with me, (but) many of them have set themselves apart. " Asked to elaborate, he pulls back to a more "impartial" position: "I don't feel that they have set themselves apart; publicity has set them apart. " "Publicity" is sufficiently anonymous so that
he can avoid blaming anyone at all. . . . Thus it is clear that even the lowest scorers in the inmate group are not free of "high" trends.
Where definite rejection of Negroes is expressed by the low scorers, they show a readiness to examine their own attitudes with some degree of intra- ceptive and self-critical objectivity. An example is Dick's statement that, "If I'd been raised in New York City (instead of in the South), I might have
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
felt different. " Jim illustrates this trait more clearly. He verbalizes open guilt over having undemocratic attitudes toward Negroes, and describes these attitudes objectively as a psychological part of himself. "I have a kind of natural, instinctive dislike for working with them. My mind tells me that's wrong, not fair . . . but I just feel that way. " Jim sees the conflict as in himself, and conceives the solution as requiring a change not in the outgroup (as the high scorers tend to do) but in the attitudes of himself and the ingroup: "It's certainly unfair according to all human concepts. We just seem to have a natural antipathy toward them that will eventually have to be worked out, because a person can't help being born a Negro any more than a white man can a white man. " Implicit in this last observation is another feature of unprej- udiced thinking in this area: these men seem to have an ultimate optimism as to the solution of intergroup conflict-it will "eventually have to be worked out. " Further: "As far as coming to the time when they won't be segregated,
I think that would have to come naturally. ? ? ? I believe it's becoming solved more and more" (Jim).
Like other low scorers, these men tend, when they do attribute certain character traits to Negroes, to offer sociopsychological explanations for such traits in terms of environmental pressures. (As might be expected, this is inti- mately linked with their ultimate optimism, just as the prejudiced men's hereditarianism is associated with their ultimate pessimism. ) This capacity for sociopsychological thinking is usually combined with a readiness for empathy with the outgroup member's inner feelings. Thus, Dick: "If (a Negro is) kept under supervision, suppressed, naturally he's not going to have any initiative, not going to care. "
3. IDEOLOGY CONCERNING JEWS: A SUPPOSED "DOMINANT" OUTGROUP
a. HIGH ScoRERS. Anti-Semitic stereotypes differ markedly from the quali- ties ascribed to Negroes. Specifically, they seem to reflect the notion of Jews as a "dominant" outgroup. One of the questionnaire items (number 24) which clearly differentiates high and low scorers, condemns Jews for monop- olizing business (see Table 2 (XXI)). This expresses the core of the preju- diced men's typical imagery of "the Jew" and their attitudes toward the latter. Jews are seen as embodying to a singular degree what seems to be a central value-complex of our culture. This set of values revolves around ac- quisitiveness and drive for "success" conceived in terms of "getting on top" and staying there-that is, compulsive drive for status and power.
Every high-scoring interviewee gave spontaneous fantasies about extreme acquisitiveness as a supposed Jewish trait. The following are typical examples:
"They like to be where there's money and take all the money and hang on to it" (Wilbur). "Youput(aJew)onarockandhe'llmakemoney. . . . He'sthriftyand
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
tries to get ahead" (Clarence). Jews have a "special drive" and "have always been after money and capable of making it" (Robert).
This drive is imagined to lead to Jewish dominance and power:
"I guess they run most of the things in this country," and "They run an awful lot of politics" (Eugene). "I believe that the Jews control a lot of the money in this country" (Ronald). Jews have "put themselves up there, where what they say counts" (Robert).
This power is secured, so the fantasies go, by combining acquisitive drive with "clannishness":
Jews are thought of as "stickin' together" (Eugene); as being "self-centered" and acting so that "when one Jews gets in, first thing you know there are about fifty of them" (Ronald); as being "good mixers among their own people, but don't mix much with other people" (Clarence).
It is noteworthy that none of the pseudodemocratic inmates ascribed to Jews a single id (primitive instinct) trait, of the sort described above in the anti-Negro stereotype. This striking difference in fantasies about an out- group imagined to be "dominant," as contrasted with an outgroup perceived as "submerged," was a matter of the spontaneous emphasis of the inmates themselves.
The prejudiced men's attitude toward Jews also differs dearly from their attitude toward Negroes. Their attitude toward Jews seems to be associated with the image of Jewish dominance combined with exclusiveness. This atti- tude centers around fantasies of victimization by Jewish power, and a fear of being overwhelmed by that power. Here the personalization of ideology is even more striking than in the anti-Negro attitudes.
Thus, Eugene: "Say I have a grocery store. They'll come in and start a bigger one. " They "get in a small town" (Eugene was raised in a small town) and "take over the grocery stores. " Or Ronald: "You put a Jew in an office. First thing you know, you haven't got a job. You've got five Jews instead. . . . They act like they're better than anyone else, and anyone that doesn't think they are is nothing but a fool. "
Of special interest is the anti-Greek ideology of Wilbur. He shows the usual anti-Semitic fantasies, but without as intense feelings as those character- izing his anti-Greek ideology, which serves a similar function and is more focal. 13 Thisfact appears to have been precipitated by a specific experience with a Greek landlord. Following an argument over the rent, the landlord evicted Wilbur's family while Wilbur was at work. Wilbur sought him out in a rage, started a fight, and gave him a fatal wound (leading to Wilbur's imprisonment). Wilbur's emotional conflicts (to be discussed later) pre- vented him from merely rejecting the particular individual. Instead he de-
13 Cf. the discussion in Chapter XVI of the functional character of anti-Semitism.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
veloped rigid delusions about "the Greeks," imagining them as "all alike" and as having deliberately "come over here" to "punish the poor people, pay low wages, make you work too hard," etc.
Significant is the fact that the prejudiced men's anti-Semitic resentment seems to have an ambivalent aspect, to be combined with a secret envy of, and longing to be accepted into, the supposedly "dominant" outgroup. Ob- serve in the following examples the reluctant admiration of and implied wish to share in "Jewish power":
"God knows they're good businessmen, but all for the Jew" (Adrian). "'Course they've got to stick together, but why at the expense of others" (Ronald). "Smart people, ain't they? " (Buck). "Still, if they can do it . . . " (Eugene). "Trouble is, they're so goddam clannish . . . won't mix and mingle like other people" (Floyd).
More positive (surface) identification with "Jewish" drive to "get up there" is illustrated in Robert, who seems to have experienced a severe struggle to internalize this same goal in the face of desires to relax and enjoy life (see p. 858). With a kind of inverted anti-Semitism, he expresses ad- miration for Jews' "knack to earn money, to control something," and for their having had "the foresight and drive and ambition to get there. " His envy is plain: "I think it would be better if some white men had something put on their backs to get that drive. " Floyd, a fascist who expresses contempt for himself for never having held a job for more than a few weeks at a time, stresses Jewish "industriousness" which he consciously envies: "They believe in working for what they get. . . . Talk to a little Yid kid, and he is studying for what he's gonna be ten years from now. "
Despite the antidemocratic hostility implicit in their anti-Semitic fantasies, the same five men again maintain a pseudodemocratic fac;ade. They ward off attention to their own hostility as such by focusing rigidly on "what is wrong with the outgroup. "
Hence, it is often possible for them to believe that they are "strictly not preju- diced" (Robert); to declare that Jews have "got to have some place to live-can't run them out of the country" (Clarence); or that "however, I don't think they should be persecuted" (Ronald); or assert that "I don't have no trouble with a person (such as a Jew) if he don't bother me" (Wilbur); or that "I guess they're all right, I never had no run-in. They stay in their place" (Eugene).
Although these men may feel that perhaps Hitler faced a "real problem . . ? with this domineering type" who "possibly controlled Germany quite a bit through big business" (Robert), they reject Nazi persecution of Jews as brutal and unwarranted.
The pseudodemocratic character of this fac;ade is seen not only in the hostile stereotypes of Jews but also in responses to questioning about "what might have to be done if Jewish control goes too far? "
For example: "There might be no way to get them out except by revolution"
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
(Ronald). \Vilbur reveals, rather pathetically, a similar pogrom mentality in his attitude toward "the Greeks": "If they don't stop (punishing the poor people), there's going to be more American people in the penitentiary. " He feels "they" ought to be sent back to Greece.
b. FAscrsTs. The anti-Semitic stereotypes of the three fascists are fairly similar to those of the pseudodemocratic high scorers. They focus on acquis- itiveness as well as clannishness and monopolization of power. The fascist subjects stress a further trait attributed to Jews, however, which is not men- tioned by the other high scorers, viz. , excessive sensuality.
Buck refers especially to sexual obsessions and homosexuality among Jewish men: (What are Jews like? ) "Most all of them Jews talk about sex mostly, or beatin' a guy out of his money. . . . (What do they talk about sex? ) About what they're
gonna do when they get out, or they're gonna get a 14 tonight. " ? ? ? Floyd, whose ambivalence is peculiarly clear-cut, complains that Jews "won't inter- marry. " An underlying orientation toward Jewish men is suggested by his phras- ing: "Some of their women are really all right" (italics supplied) . . . . Adrian does not himself introduce the topic of Jewish sensuality but does verbalize such fantasies quite readily: (Are Jews somewhat different sexually? ) "They are more amorous than other people. Yes, and I know whereof I speak! More passionate, more romantic. Not that I like it, but they are. "
Like the other high scorers, the fascists reveal a fear of being victimized by Jewish power, along with an ambivalent wish to be accepted into the supposedly "dominant" outgroup. As in their anti-Negro ideology, the fascist inmates' attitudes are distinguished by undisguised hate and by explicit readi- ness to suppress the outgroup by physical force. This goes along with open approval of specifically fascist aggressions against underdogs.
Buck feels that Hitler "done the right thing" to the Jews, who are "lower than a goddam snake. " In this country "they'll have to watch out if they want to eat. " . . . Floyd grimaces with disgust as he speaks of "that harsh guttural voice. " If Floyd had been in Hitler's place, "I'd have done the same thing he did! " . . . Adrian is again too ingratiating to bluster in this way, but is quite open as to his authoritarian hostility: (Is dislike for Jews increasing? ) "No, just the opposite, and I deplore it personally! " He is willing to support fascist persecution in the form of arbitrary deportation of all Jews in America-"send them all to Palestine"-even though he feels compelled to "disapprove of the means (Hitler) took to rid Ger- many of the Jewish problem. Because they did monopolize industry, and something had to be done. " And "the Jews are just as apt to monopolize industry in this coun- try. " While he justifies persecution of Jews for being allegedly too aggressive and powerful, Adrian also "wanted to let the Japs go into Manchuria" because the Chinese are "not aggressive enough! " "They have enough resources and could be a great nation if they had the aggressiveness of the Japs. "
This contradiction throws into relief a further aspect of fascist ideology that can be described as ideological opportunism. By this term is meant a disregard for ethical principles and truth-values, which are replaced by
14 Profane term meaning to have fellatio performed upon oneself.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
opportunistic manipulation of ideas and "facts" in the service of Realpolitik ends. The contexts in which such opportunistic thinking appears are charac- teristically those involving dominance-submission conflicts. The aim of such opportunism is to maintain identification with those on top-whoever they are, whatever they represent-and to avoid at all cost the anxiety of being identified with those below. There is an essential indifference to content, i. e. , indifference to any goals of human happiness. Power for power's sake is the ultimate end; ideological opportunism is one of the means. Such oppor- tunism appears also in the thinking of pseudodemocratic high scorers, but in more disguised forms. (See Chapter XVII. )
Another facet of Adrian's opportunism is revealed by a superficial shift in his identifications which occurred "after the war began in Europe. " His explicit sympathy with the aggressions of fascist Germany and Japan was modified, as American opinion became crystalized against the Axis. He ra- tionalizes that Hitler's aggressions during the war "seemed to be more a matter of conquest than protecting against communism"; and "I certainly didn't expect (the Japanese) to go beyond China. " That Adrian experienced no change in heart but only a superficial realignment so as to avoid conflict with a more dominant ingroup (America), is suggested by his present explicit approval of all aggressions by the Axis nations carried out prior to their open war with the stronger Allied powers.
Floyd's ideological opportunism is even clearer. He summarizes (and plainly approves) the "harmony" technique exploited by German industrialists, through Hitler, to "solve" class conflict: Hitler's "object wasn't the Jew. He wanted a scapegrace (sic) to get the different classes and provincials together, to fight one thing. . . . To get together instead of having all this bickering and split power. (Was his cause just? ) In the eyes of the German people, yes. (In your eyes? ) Every man for his own country. "
Buck, besides supporting Nazi persecution of Jews, exhibits an interesting " mode of ideological opportunism in his behavior toward the interviewer. The first three inquiries about his views on "the Jewish problem" and "the ' most characteristic Jewish traits" elicited only pseudodemocratic denials of hostility. For example: "They got a right to make a living as much as any- body else. . . . They got a way to make money is all I know. More power to 'em is all I can say. . . . I don't know much about 'em. " But with the fourth question he apparently sensed that he would not be punished for expressing hostility and might (judging from the interviewer's noncommittal attitude) even gain approval for having the "right" view of things: (Can you tell a Jew usually? ) "You're damn right I can tell 'em as soon as I talk to 'em. " From this point on, Buck drops his fac;ade and exhibits intense aggressiveness toward Jews.
c. Low ScoRERS. The low scorers tend to reject anti-Semitic stereotypy as such. Thus Dick retorts that "it doesn't hold true" that there are any "char-
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
acteristic Jewish traits"; for ''the Jews, in my opinion, are not a race but a religion. " Jim declares: "I don't see why they should be picked out as being any different from anyone else. " More positively, these men actively con- demn anti-Semitism.
"When a person gets too far off the base about the Jews or Negroes, I am liable to step in and tell him off" (Don). Art interprets the hostility concealed behind pseudodemocratic anti-Semitism; his own equalitarian ideology is apparent: "I have often heard the expression, 'Some of my best friends are Jews. ' Well, hell, some of my best friends are people! It sounds like you are making a concession to them. " It is of interest that Art's father is described as "a rabid Jew-hater. "
Further, in contrast with the narrow, personalized mythologies that domi- nate the thinking of the high scorers; these men exhibit a broader perspective. They seem to show a greater capacity for surveying human relationships in a detached way, which at the same time reveals compassion and respect for other human beings. One form this takes is empathy with Jews' psychological problems as an outgroup and a tendency to construct sociopsychological interpretations of anti-Semitism.
Jim remarks that Jews may be "inclined to be egotistical"; and at first a typical anti-Semitic projection is expected, until he goes on to clarify his meaning: "Not exactly a trait, but I think a good many of them feel that they're discriminated against. I think, in view of that, that they strive harder than most people do, and as a race they stick together and cooperate with each other to a large extent. " This is quite unlike Ronald's complaint that "they act like they're better than anyone else, and anyone that doesn't think they are is nothing but a fool. " Don believes that "if they have any objectionable features" as a group (which he doubts), it is because they are "stepchildren of history" in the sense of having been restricted to certain occupations and living conditions. Art is more explicit: "The Jews way back in history were other than Christians, and were limited (by the Christians) in their spheres of endeavor. . . . So they became sharpies in the money department as a defense mechanism. . . . So they had attributed to them those traits that are most despicable: craftiness, greed about money, etc. "
Art says that he is inclined to regard the Jews' "reputation for sharp dealing" as unfounded, but "I don't know whether it is true or not. " The important point is that the matter is not vital to him: he is not driven by inner conflicts to an insistence on projecting ruthless acquisitiveness onto Jews. Dick is more at a loss for ideas to account for anti-Semitism. He can only suggest that it is "just brought down from history. "
C. POLITICO-ECONOMIC A TTITUDES 1. GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE ST A TISTICS
A statistical summary of results from the PEC scale for the prison group is presented in Table 3(XXI). On this scale, the prison group obtained the highest mean, 4. 68, of all groups taking Form 40 or 45 except the Service
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY TABLE 3 (XXI)
RESULTS ON THE PEC SCALE FROM THE GROUP OF PRISON INMATES
Item
3. (Labor unions)
7.
