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.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
30 5.
72 1.
67 6.
52 2.
70 6.
03 1.
78 6.
59 5.
93
61. 34 27. 82 6. 13 :? . 78
5. 5-7. 0 1. 6-3. 6
Mean/Person
2. 95 5. 18 4. 16 5. 26 2. 79 4. 78 4. 01 5. 16 3. 06 4. 06 3. 77 3. 20 4. 05 3. 49 3. 82 4. 63 4. 25 3. 92 0. 66 6. 38
33. 52 46. 06 3. 35 4. 61
1. 6-7. 0
Total mean/person Mean/person item Range
Standard Deviation: Reliability: . 65
1. 28
CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
B. ETHNOCENTRISM
1. GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE STATISTICS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE
A statistical summary of E-scale results for the prison group is presented in Table 2 (XXI). The prison inmates obtained a higher group mean on the
TABLE 2 (XXI)
RESULTS ON THE E SCALE FROM THE GROUP OF PRISON INMATES
High Quartile Low Quartile D. P. OVer-all
E scale (45)-4. 6 per item-than did any other group tested. 8 Although there are a number of extreme high scorers, there are no extreme low scorers,9 and the low end of the frequency distribution is truncated. This truncation produces the lowest Standard Deviation for theE scale (Fonn 45) distribu- tion found in any group studied. 10 In terms of E-scale item means, the bulk of the differences between the inmates and other groups is accounted for by the inmates' high means on non-Jewish items-a result to be discussed later.
These gross findings point immediately to an important conclusion. The general run of criminals are not to be thought of as genuine rebels who act according to some principle, however dissident, and whose conflict with au- thority is accompanied by some consideration for the weak or oppressed.
s See Table r7(1V).
9 The four lowest scores, in terms of mean per item, are r. 6, r. 8, r. 9, and z. o. 10 See Table r70V).
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
On the contrary, they would appear to be full of hate and fear toward under- dogs. Themselves disfranchised, prisoners and social outcasts, a kind of ulti- mate outgroup, they are yet unable to identify with other outgroups. This is in accordance with the common observation that most inmates do not iden- tify with other inmates, but make moralistic distinctions between themselves and "ordinary criminals. " The predominant tendency is for each inmate to be "an island, entire in itself. " One of the high-scoring interviewees, Eu- gene, expressed this isolationism succinctly in his general attitude to the "race problem": "I'm strictly for havin' all of 'em segregated. "
A second general result is that the (Form 45) E-scale reliability of . 65 is somewhat lower than that for other groups. 11 This can probably be attributed in part to misunderstanding of items and incorrect recording of responses, related to inadequate education and to environmental distractions. More of the reduction, however, is probably traceable to two statistical characteristics of the group results. One is the relative truncation of the lower end of the distribution. It is well known that cutting off either extreme portion of a bivariate distribution (including, of course, a split-half reliability distribution) tends to reduce the correlation. Secondly, the particular split of E-scale items used in computing reliability is such that one of the halves-the A items- includes precisely the five items on which the prison group means are most distinctively higher than those for other groups. The A set, moreover, in- cludes the three items with the poorest D. P. 's (see Table 2 (XXI)). With these "handicaps," a reliability coefficient as high as . 65 would seem to be all that could be expected (see Chapter IV).
The pattern of E-scale item means for the group is interesting (see Table 2 (XXI)). A very high mean was obtained on Item 45, which states that Amer- ica must maintain complete independence in any world organization. Al- though this proposition always yields a high mean, the unusually high value for the inmates suggests that low scorers in prison may submit almost as much as high scorers to sufficiently strong nationalistic propaganda. This item would appear to lend itself particularly well to projection of the most severely frustrated strivings of prison inmates-their need to be free of re- straint. Aside from this statement opposing world organization, the three items with the highest means (numbers 5, 1o, and 20) have one thing in common: each expresses strong status anxiety with respect to outgroups per- ceived as submerged, namely "zootsuiters" or Negroes. The significance of this feature is indicated in the following discussion of interview material on Negroes (the only truly submerged outgroup specifically inquired about).
2. IDEOLOGY CONCERNING NEGROES: A SUBMERGED OUTGROUP
a. HIGH ScoRERS. The content of anti-Negro ideology seems to be related to the fact that Negroes are almost universally perceived as a very submerged
n See Table 17(IV).
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
outgroup-as contrasted with an imagined "dominant" outgroup such as Jews are thought to be. In the interviews, the principal traits ascribed to Negroes by high scorers are uninhibited sexuality, "laziness," "dirtiness," crude aggression, asocial acquisitiveness (petty thievery), pathological (in- fantile) lying, and exhibitionism. In a word, Negroes are held to be char- acterized by "untamed instincts," which keep them "primitive" and "child- ish. " This imagery is partly expressed in questionnaire Item p: Negroes are "lazy, ignorant, and without self-control. "
The most conventional of the prejudiced interviewees, Robert, summarizes this idea in general terms: "They have more of a primitive nature . . . just want to exist as the cannibal type of man. " The fascists tend to be more picturesque: "They're very closely linked with the jungle. They're built for it" (Floyd). Or, Negroes "originated from the apes" (Buck), and are "still half-African savage, no matter how dressed up they get" (Adrian)P
Implicit in these statements is the hereditarianism that pervades so much of potentially fascist thinking.
One of the most persistent preoccupations of the prejudiced interviewees has to do with the allegedly unsocialized sexuality of Negroes:
"There is more animalism in them. . . . (Animalism? ) Well, a bitch dog runs down the street and five dogs jump on top of her. . . . Like the Latin race, they're hot-blooded" (Ronald). One of the fascists, though less graphic, seems more bitter: Negroes are "bestial, like animals. Wonder they don't have seasons for their heat" (Floyd). Another fascist affirms that Negroes are "very prolific" (Adrian).
More specific anxiety is expressed about sexual approach to "white women" by Negroes:
"One thing I can't stand is to see a white girl with a nigger" (Ronald). "In here, when they have shows, the colored boys holler out about white women on the screen, 'Oh, what a babe! ' . . . That don't set right with me" (Eugene). "Under no circumstances," of course, should any member of "the white race . . . marry into the colored race" (Clarence). "Don't think a white person should marry one"
(Wilbur).
The other traits stressed vary in specific content. They have in common some reference to asocial instincts, and to Negroes' alleged failure to develop superego restraints and ego-ideal drives. Thus Robert, who has struggled so hard to "make good" in business, is much concerned over the "laziness" of Negroes: "I don't think they try to satisfy their ego. " Then, pulling back-apparently because this phrasing touches a conflict between Robert's own drive to get "up there" and his need to mask this power-seek- ing behind a pretense of "service"-he qualifies: "Not their ego, but their
12 Throughout the chapter, more than one quotation is generally given to illustrate each point. 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.
61. 34 27. 82 6. 13 :? . 78
5. 5-7. 0 1. 6-3. 6
Mean/Person
2. 95 5. 18 4. 16 5. 26 2. 79 4. 78 4. 01 5. 16 3. 06 4. 06 3. 77 3. 20 4. 05 3. 49 3. 82 4. 63 4. 25 3. 92 0. 66 6. 38
33. 52 46. 06 3. 35 4. 61
1. 6-7. 0
Total mean/person Mean/person item Range
Standard Deviation: Reliability: . 65
1. 28
CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
B. ETHNOCENTRISM
1. GENERAL QUESTIONNAIRE STATISTICS AND THEIR SIGNIFICANCE
A statistical summary of E-scale results for the prison group is presented in Table 2 (XXI). The prison inmates obtained a higher group mean on the
TABLE 2 (XXI)
RESULTS ON THE E SCALE FROM THE GROUP OF PRISON INMATES
High Quartile Low Quartile D. P. OVer-all
E scale (45)-4. 6 per item-than did any other group tested. 8 Although there are a number of extreme high scorers, there are no extreme low scorers,9 and the low end of the frequency distribution is truncated. This truncation produces the lowest Standard Deviation for theE scale (Fonn 45) distribu- tion found in any group studied. 10 In terms of E-scale item means, the bulk of the differences between the inmates and other groups is accounted for by the inmates' high means on non-Jewish items-a result to be discussed later.
These gross findings point immediately to an important conclusion. The general run of criminals are not to be thought of as genuine rebels who act according to some principle, however dissident, and whose conflict with au- thority is accompanied by some consideration for the weak or oppressed.
s See Table r7(1V).
9 The four lowest scores, in terms of mean per item, are r. 6, r. 8, r. 9, and z. o. 10 See Table r70V).
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
On the contrary, they would appear to be full of hate and fear toward under- dogs. Themselves disfranchised, prisoners and social outcasts, a kind of ulti- mate outgroup, they are yet unable to identify with other outgroups. This is in accordance with the common observation that most inmates do not iden- tify with other inmates, but make moralistic distinctions between themselves and "ordinary criminals. " The predominant tendency is for each inmate to be "an island, entire in itself. " One of the high-scoring interviewees, Eu- gene, expressed this isolationism succinctly in his general attitude to the "race problem": "I'm strictly for havin' all of 'em segregated. "
A second general result is that the (Form 45) E-scale reliability of . 65 is somewhat lower than that for other groups. 11 This can probably be attributed in part to misunderstanding of items and incorrect recording of responses, related to inadequate education and to environmental distractions. More of the reduction, however, is probably traceable to two statistical characteristics of the group results. One is the relative truncation of the lower end of the distribution. It is well known that cutting off either extreme portion of a bivariate distribution (including, of course, a split-half reliability distribution) tends to reduce the correlation. Secondly, the particular split of E-scale items used in computing reliability is such that one of the halves-the A items- includes precisely the five items on which the prison group means are most distinctively higher than those for other groups. The A set, moreover, in- cludes the three items with the poorest D. P. 's (see Table 2 (XXI)). With these "handicaps," a reliability coefficient as high as . 65 would seem to be all that could be expected (see Chapter IV).
The pattern of E-scale item means for the group is interesting (see Table 2 (XXI)). A very high mean was obtained on Item 45, which states that Amer- ica must maintain complete independence in any world organization. Al- though this proposition always yields a high mean, the unusually high value for the inmates suggests that low scorers in prison may submit almost as much as high scorers to sufficiently strong nationalistic propaganda. This item would appear to lend itself particularly well to projection of the most severely frustrated strivings of prison inmates-their need to be free of re- straint. Aside from this statement opposing world organization, the three items with the highest means (numbers 5, 1o, and 20) have one thing in common: each expresses strong status anxiety with respect to outgroups per- ceived as submerged, namely "zootsuiters" or Negroes. The significance of this feature is indicated in the following discussion of interview material on Negroes (the only truly submerged outgroup specifically inquired about).
2. IDEOLOGY CONCERNING NEGROES: A SUBMERGED OUTGROUP
a. HIGH ScoRERS. The content of anti-Negro ideology seems to be related to the fact that Negroes are almost universally perceived as a very submerged
n See Table 17(IV).
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
outgroup-as contrasted with an imagined "dominant" outgroup such as Jews are thought to be. In the interviews, the principal traits ascribed to Negroes by high scorers are uninhibited sexuality, "laziness," "dirtiness," crude aggression, asocial acquisitiveness (petty thievery), pathological (in- fantile) lying, and exhibitionism. In a word, Negroes are held to be char- acterized by "untamed instincts," which keep them "primitive" and "child- ish. " This imagery is partly expressed in questionnaire Item p: Negroes are "lazy, ignorant, and without self-control. "
The most conventional of the prejudiced interviewees, Robert, summarizes this idea in general terms: "They have more of a primitive nature . . . just want to exist as the cannibal type of man. " The fascists tend to be more picturesque: "They're very closely linked with the jungle. They're built for it" (Floyd). Or, Negroes "originated from the apes" (Buck), and are "still half-African savage, no matter how dressed up they get" (Adrian)P
Implicit in these statements is the hereditarianism that pervades so much of potentially fascist thinking.
One of the most persistent preoccupations of the prejudiced interviewees has to do with the allegedly unsocialized sexuality of Negroes:
"There is more animalism in them. . . . (Animalism? ) Well, a bitch dog runs down the street and five dogs jump on top of her. . . . Like the Latin race, they're hot-blooded" (Ronald). One of the fascists, though less graphic, seems more bitter: Negroes are "bestial, like animals. Wonder they don't have seasons for their heat" (Floyd). Another fascist affirms that Negroes are "very prolific" (Adrian).
More specific anxiety is expressed about sexual approach to "white women" by Negroes:
"One thing I can't stand is to see a white girl with a nigger" (Ronald). "In here, when they have shows, the colored boys holler out about white women on the screen, 'Oh, what a babe! ' . . . That don't set right with me" (Eugene). "Under no circumstances," of course, should any member of "the white race . . . marry into the colored race" (Clarence). "Don't think a white person should marry one"
(Wilbur).
The other traits stressed vary in specific content. They have in common some reference to asocial instincts, and to Negroes' alleged failure to develop superego restraints and ego-ideal drives. Thus Robert, who has struggled so hard to "make good" in business, is much concerned over the "laziness" of Negroes: "I don't think they try to satisfy their ego. " Then, pulling back-apparently because this phrasing touches a conflict between Robert's own drive to get "up there" and his need to mask this power-seek- ing behind a pretense of "service"-he qualifies: "Not their ego, but their
12 Throughout the chapter, more than one quotation is generally given to illustrate each point. 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.
