") has been
mentioned
before.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
" Detail- ing on admission to the prison some of the robberies and orgies of his gang, Floyd explains that "We had to have money to operate on: We spent $40 or so for our dinner parties.
" .
.
.
Adrian admits that from infancy he "usually got my way.
" "In fact, all I ever had to do was cry about anything.
" At the several boarding schools where his father placed him after his mother's death (when he was 5), "I was incorrigible, left school when I pleased.
I overdrew my charge account .
.
.
" His self-centered definition of reality is made explicit: "When things don't person- ally concern me, they just don't exist for me.
"
Implicit in these men's weak conscience, their infantile-demanding im- pulses, and their egocentric view of the world, is a trait which governs their entire behavior. This is their extreme (personal) opportunism. The disregard of principle in their personal behavior corresponds with the ideological opportunism of their racism and reactionism. The personal opportunism is usually expressed in the service of infantile attitudes of omnipotence, and of trying to deny personal weakness.
Buck's pathological lying has been mentioned. As for his other offenses, he has served time for obtaining money on false pretenses, and for failure to provide for his children. He was arrested on one occasion for "molesting" his own children (girl then age 2-3, boy age 4-5), but it is reported the charges were dropped be- cause the children were too small to testify. . . . Floyd's delinquencies are less dramatic, but equally capricious. They include two jail sentences for disturbing the peace; an Army record of alternating between the guardhouse and repeated A. W. O. L. 's until he was discharged; and a series of armed gang robberies under- taken as an easy way of making a lot of money "to operate on. " Relevant here is Floyd's stated desire to marry a "wealthy woman," who should have "fair physical attractions" but whose personality he will "take as it comes. " . . . Adrian's delin- quencies include his self-styled "incorrigibility" at boarding schools (truancy, re- peatedly overdrawing his charge accounts, etc. ); numerous jail sentences for drunkenness and homosexual prostitution; and robbery. "I had probation, it seems to me, most of my life. " He supported himself mainly by prostitution, and by his own statement "never had any (sexual) relations with anyone that didn't have money connected with it. " He admits that some men attract him more than others, but "I never let preferences stand in the way. . . . The only thing I was ever in- terested in was the rent. "
The essentially frantic nature of these men's approach to life suggests a desperate inner emptiness and lack of moorings. This hollowness may pro- vide part of the basis for their wish to submit to "strong" political "leader- ship. " Further, any religious leanings of these men might be expected to express cravings for authoritarian submission. This would be expected to differ from the religious authoritarian submission of other high scorers in two interrelated aspects. As in other conflicts in the fascists, the craving for religious submission might very well be explicit rather than implicit; and since dominance-submission conflicts are involved, this craving might be
? THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
expressed with open ideological opportunism. It happens that Buck "never did think much about religion," but Adrian and Floyd reveal these very characteristics clearly. Floyd's opportunism takes the form of highly egocen- tric (as well as confused) "criteria" for belief, with no apparent interest in considerations of evidence or truth-falsity.
Floyd states that before he was shot (almost fatally) in his last gang robbery, he was "reaching for something" and "wanted" to believe in God. (He had never had any religious training; his father was a free-thinker, and he had never known his mother. ) But "I just couldn't feature that a human being, an intelligence, could be obliterated so easily. " Having been thus let down "personally" by the God he was "reaching for" (in that his delinquency led to disaster), he could no longer "believe. " . . . Adrian's religious training consisted of very early exposure to the Christian Science of a governess and living in Episcopal boarding schools from the ages of 8 to I 5. At I 5 he tried to submit to what for him seemed clearly to represent religious totalitarianism and voluntary self-emasculation: "I very seriously went into the Church of Rome at I5" to become a priest-not because of any specific religious convictions, but "because I believed and still do . . . that the Catholic Church is the only true church," since "she was the church founded by Christ. " "She was the first" and therefore "the other churches had no real excuse to break away. " His fascistic inclinations are stated openly: "I respect her as a political organization. I think it would be better to have everything under one head". It would save dissension. " Adrian's father forcibly interfered, however, to prevent his entry into the priesthood. Adrian drifted until he became "very interested in Christian Science" with quite practical motives: "I'm not positive I believe in Christian Sci- ence, but there's much in it that seems to help me. . . . I don't try to apply Christian
Science to physical things . . . but my worries, mental things-there's where it helps me most. " In anticipation of parole, he wrote to two Christian Science practitioners for aid in lining up a job (a prerequisite to being granted parole). When both of them criticized him for "trying to manifest a job" instead of relying mystically upon "the Divine Employer," Adrian was "never so disgusted in my life. " But Adrian admittedly has "got to have a God" to submit to, "So what do you think I took up! " The answer is "Hinduism," which "teaches you discipline" such as "cut- ting down on cigarettes. " Adrian summarizes his approach to his latest ideological "manipulandum" in this way: "It's practical. That's the main thing. "
4. LOW SCORERS
The moral-religious ideology of the low-scoring interviewees is quite dif- ferent from that of the prejudiced men. They are relatively free of moralism, and sometimes verbalize explicitly antimoralistic sentiments.
Thus, for Art religion has "nothing to do with keeping laws, except the Golden Rule. " Highly objectionable to Don is the idea of religion as "abiding by a certain set of rules. " Probing reveals no sign of rejection in any of the 4 low scorers toward atheists or non-Christians.
They speak ofreligion primarily in terms of ethical values. Religion is "whatever spiritual qualities you have within yourself" (Art). This orienta- tion is embedded in more individualized relationships to themselves and other people, as compared with the high scorers' impersonalization of such rela-
? Bss
tionships. Different features of this ethical approach are stressed by each. Jim expresses most clearly the aspect of nurturant-affiliative attitudes toward people:
"I look on God as mostly the goodness in all peoples. . . . If everyone . . . carried out the principles that religion expounds, it would be a better world. (How do you mean? ) To treat others as a person would wish to be treated himself, and to help those less fortunate than oneself, and to be a part of the community or society that one is in, to take an active part in it, and being kind and generous, and to more or less have a high regard for your fellow human being. " Art, too, conceives of God, not as a person, but "more a power of good. . . . God is a force. "
Another aspect is the emphasis on full expression of the individual person- ality and "happiness on earth. "
Don declares that his concept of a hereafter was nicely expressed by a girl-friend who said that "if she believed in a hereafter it would mean developing one's unde- veloped talents. " For Jim "the only happiness that we really know of is here on earth; so why not try to enjoy the people and things on this earth, rather than a life somewhere else. "
Further, a rich inner life is a religious value.
Religion "gives you some access to your thoughts" (Dick). Prayer is conceived not as a mode of securing gratification of personal desires or of paying obeisance to a parent-substitute God. Rather, prayer is something which in and of itself "can help a person" (Dick); which "helps form what you're to be" (Don); "a personal thing that happens when the lights are out before you retire. Not 'I want something or other,' but consciously putting into words so as to place whatever you are look- ing for into a positive plane" (Art).
Opposed to the prejudiced men's authoritarian submission in moral-religi- ous matters is the insistence upon individuality in the credos of the low scorers.
"Religion is a personal thing. . . . Religion is as individual to me as my finger- prints, or as yours are to you" (Art). Dick explains his change from a Baptist to a Christian Scientist partly in terms of his objection to the teachings of a Navy chaplain, and especially the chaplain's efforts to "force us to come to church . . . I believe it's a man's personal affair. " It happened that Dick "got hold of a Christian Science textbook, liked the ideas . . . the idea that they had an explanation for almost everything that happened. " (Contrast Dick's emphasis on "ideas" and the implied internalization of Christian Science, with Adrian's externalized, oppor- tunistic-manipulative approach. ) Dick adds another value, however, which sug- gests some of that antiweakness drive that is usually typical of high scorers: "And another idea-they claimed that if you try to attain a goal, nothing can stop you. "
It will be recalled that those who "believe" show submissiveness toward a God who is essentially dominating (whose "word" they must "abide by") and punitive (toward those who violate his "word"). The low scorers, on
CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
the other hand, show an optimistic and trusting dependence toward a God conceived as kind and nurturant.
Although spoken of as "kind of an infinite being" rather than directly anthropo- morphic, God is "something there you can turn to in case you need someone to turn to" (Dick); "someone to cling to in times of emergency or stress" (Jim). Actually, "I don't know if there is a God," but the most important thing in religion is "a genuine belief and a faith that things would always turn out all right" (Jim). Religion involves "a belief, without academic proof, of a higher power-of some- thing you can depend on, of dependency" (Art).
The ultimate optimism hinted in these statements is consistent with findings about low scorers generally. However, the lack of inner self-reliance implied by their dependence on a supernatural power resembles certain trends found to be more typical of high scorers generally. This latter aspect is consistent with the fact that none of the low-scoring interviewees scored extremely low on any of the questionnaire scales.
E. DEFENSES AGAINST WEAKNESS
1. HIGH SCORERS
Defenses against weakness seem to be especially pronounced in the prej- udiced inmates. All of the high-scoring interviewees show deep-seated fears of weakness in themselves. The meaning of weakness to these men seems to be tied up with intense fears of nonmasculinity. To escape these fears they try to bolster themselves up by various antiweakness or pseudomascu- linity defenses. These can be grouped into four general themes, each of which may be expressed in a certain formula: (I) Power-strivings: "I am not on the bottom, I am one of those on top"; or, "I do not weakly submit, I domi- nate and control, I have power. " (2) "Toughness": "I am not weak, I am strong"; "I am not soft, I am tough"; "I am not passive and feminine, I am active and masculine. " (3) Flight into heterosexual activity: "I am not homo- sexual, I am heterosexual"; or "I do not love him, I love her. " (4) Paranoid reactions: "I do not love him, I hate him because he persecutes me"; i. e. , "I do not feel submissive-homosexual desires, I feel aggressive resentment toward men because they persecute me. "21
The questionnaire item which reflects defensive masculinity attitudes (spe- cifically, "toughness" and power) in purest form is number 26, which stereo- typically divides the world into "the strong" (ingroup) and "the weak" (outgroup). This item has the highest D. P. in the F scale. Other items con- taining antiweakness themes are those exalting "will power" (Item 2), "dis- cipline" and "determination" (Item I 3), an exaggerated notion of "honor"
21 The formulae (3) and (4) are adapted from Freud (40).
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
(Item 19), as well as items a1ready mentioned in another context, especially 14 (PEC), 23, 30, and 45 (E).
The relative emphasis placed on different aspects of masculinity fa~ades, in relation to the fears underneath, differs from individual to individual. Therefore, instead of proceeding variable by variable, we shall discuss the weakness-antiweakness complex separately for each inmate.
Robert has centered his efforts to "prove" his "masculinity" around compulsive status-power strivings. He declares that from an early age "my greatest desire was to be somebody in life. . . . I wanted to be a success in business . . . and sometimes worried whether I would. . . . The future goal that I have set up is to own at least three . . . stores of my own . . . I was on my first store at the time of my arrest. " This concern with status and power gives meaning to his anxious fantasy that Negroes "don't have a goal in life" but "just want to exist," and his envious stereotype of Jewish "drive and ambition to get there. " Robert projects this compulsive power-drive onto others and reveals his inability to imagine any alternative to dominance or submission: "Every man has a certain ego that he has to satisfy. You like to be on top. If you're anybody at all, you don't like to be on the bottom. "
(Italics supplied. )
The submissive dependence behind Robert's power-seeking is shown in
his attitudes toward friends and family. (What do friends offer a person? ) "To me, friends offer satisfaction to myself that I've been doing a job well done, that I'm satisfying those people of their expectations. . . . (Q. ) Well, I was referring to the business viewpoint. " (Note the impersonalized use of people as primarily an external prop for what Robert calls his "ego. ") His main satisfaction with his younger brother was "the satisfaction he gave my ego. . . . He's patterned his life after mine. He's in the - - - business, too. " Robert further expresses pride that "my folks have always classed me as a success in the--- business. " The deference toward the examiner ("Do you think I have the right view of things?
") has been mentioned before.
Robert's power drive has apparently not stopped his fears of femininity, of heterosexual impotence, and possibly of latent homosexuality. Underlying identification with a feminine role is suggested by his own admission that "up until the time I left home, (my mother) always referred to me as her best daughter. " The possibility of conflict over latent homosexuality is raised by several cues: e. g. , by Robert's insistence, despite instructions not to bother with details, on exhibitionistically giving to the examiner (a man) a minutely detailed account of his first experience of intercourse; and by indirect "con-
tact" with other men via a hostile affair with a highly promiscuous woman. This last behavior, which finally broke up Robert's marriage, suggests a common type of defense against homosexual wishes, viz. , compulsive flight into heterosexual relationships which are extremely impersonal and hostile.
Ronald's ego-alien weakness is more transparent than Robert's. Mentioned
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
earlier was his unsatisfied dependent longing for authoritarian religious belief as "the thing that holds you together. " Similar extreme dependence is shown in his conception of "friends" as "someone that you can . . . talk to about your troubles, and vice versa" and "know that he's there at all times, and if you need any help at any time. " Also, like Robert, he asked the exam- iner to reassure him at the close of the interview that he is not "too radical" in some of his ideas. This "too radical" was apparently a euphemism for "too aggressive" toward outgroups. Ronald has a history of severe chronic bed- wetting until the age of 12, for which he has no explanation to offer beyond an extemalization of the symptom onto "my kidneys. " He has no idea why his enuresis suddenly stopped at the age of 12. That bed-wetting may have represented in part a passive mode of sexual gratification is suggested by his homosexual conflicts. Earlier mention has been made of his righteous condemnation of "sexual perversion" including, explicitly, fellatio. He de- nies that he has ever "felt any desire of any kind" for homosexual relations, yet subsequently admits to having several times had such relations with a fellow inmate. He implicitly denies any "real" homosexuality in this (blam- ing it exclusively on prison sex deprivation), and says that he had no special reaction to the experiences except to lose respect for the other man. Ron- ald's paranoid "toughness" toward Negro men might perhaps be a defense against homosexual excitement aroused by them. Ronald's promiscuous heterosexuality, including several impersonalized, unusual marriage cere- monies, may also be understood as an attempt to deny homosexual impulses. "I always get married spectacularly"-e. g. , "in a taxicab" or "my partner in a dance walkathon-married on the floor-no love, but received money for it from the spectators. " Both weakness and compensatory "toughness" seem to be combined in Ronald's thefts and gang robberies carried out "as a business. "
The chief prop of Eugene's defenses is a fac;ade of toughness. He has repeatedly been involved in petty trouble, especially by fighting when drunk. "I've got quite a temper," and "I like to fight once in a while . . . usually when I'm drinking. " Moreover, "I'm proud of my people," the "Scotch-Irish," whose most prominent characteristic, according to Eugene, is that "most of them like to fight. " When the examiner points out that this is precisely what Eugene resentfully says about Negroes, he differentiates on the basis that Negroes "go around looking" for fights, while he himself merely "likes" to fight (and does so frequently). The psychological reason why he likes to fight and has "quite a temper" seems to be largely uncon- scious; he "can't explain it. " He explains, however, that Negroes "go around picking trouble" because they've "got an inferiority complex" and "try to be big shots"-which may be a projection of his own inferiority feelings and the "big shot" way he tries to compensate for them. The situations which . evoke
Eugene's temper suggest possibly more specific causes, namely homosexual
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
impulses, against which his impulsive aggressiveness may be a paranoid defense: "I was with a girl at a bar, and a guy got a little out of line . . . talkin' dirty-not to her, but he was talkin' loud. . . . "; or "maybe some guy calls me a name. " Eugene himself associates his propensity for "trouble" with fear of heterosexual adjustment: "I'm just a little too wild to get married. I'm scared of it. "
Clarence shows ,more obvious signs of ego-alien "weakness," and has less effective defenses against it. The army, he declares, "makes a man of you," but it did not succeed in overcoming Clarence's fear of rising above a private, because that would have meant "too much responsibility"- although "I'm pretty good at takin' orders. " Discharged for tuberculosis, he drew government compensation for seventeen years and then lived "on the county. " According to the prison physician, Clarence "claimed he still had T. B. , but . . . we failed to find any evidence of any active T. B. whatever. . . . We felt that he was wrongly drawing government compensation for
years. " This avoidance of work contrasts strikingly with Clarence's moralistic glorification of the disciplinary value of hard work. Moreover, to the prison physician Clarence appeared "very neurasthenic and enlarged on minor and rather normal aches and pains; was very feministic. " He did not marry until he was 38, to a woman 39, toward whom he was apparently quite submissive. Although "we weren't much alike in any way . . . we got along good" be- cause "I let her have her own way. Takes two to start an argument. " It was only a few months after her death, eleven years later, that he was arrested for "molesting" four girls, ages 8 to 10, who testified that he felt of their genitals. Such behavior could well be a panicky attempt to deny homosexual impulses by "proving" heterosexual masculinity. Clarence claimed that the girls made up the entire story just to "get even" with him because he "wouldn't give them candy. " Three years later, he was again arrested on a charge of getting two little girls drunk and attempting intercourse with one ot them. He escaped conviction on these two occasions, but two years later the half-sister (age 12) of one of the last two little girls was picked up by the police at Clarence's home. This time he was convicted of attempted rape. Clarence seems to have denied this episode to himself by developing a system of persecutory delusions: He protests that he "worked for the people in politics in order to clean up the city," and that when his candidates were not elected the police "went after" him. This paranoid reaction is consistent with the interpretation that his heterosexual delinquency was a defense against homosexual panic.
1Vilbur has also worked out a rigid system of paranoid delusions, but shows less obvious signs of underlying weakness than Clarence. For him, as for Robert and Ronald, friends mean primarily dependence; they offer "help in lots of needs, sickness, money-well, a friend can just help you in most any way. " He indicates that, like Clarence, he has a very submissive relationship
? 86o THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
to his wife: His wife manages finances, gives the discipline to the children, and, when he and his wife disagree, "I usually do just what she asks me to do. " In view of his reactions to the landlord, Wilbur may well have experi- enced a deep threat to his masculinity and possible homosexual panic directed toward a "persecuting" father figure, when he and his family were evicted following a controversy. He felt compelled to "fight back" in desperation; he sought out the landlord, who happened to be of Greek descent, and attacked him fatally. Apparently unable to face emotional conflicts stirred up by this episode, Wilbur stereotypically impersonalized the relationship by imagining himself as an unfortunate victim of "the Greek people, who like to punish the poor people. "
These men are distinguished not only by the intensity of their conflicts about weakness, but also by a special feature of their defenses against weak- ness in themselves: In addition to the pseudomasculine attitudes which they share with prejudiced men in other groups, the high-scoring inmates express antiweakness themes overtly in delinquent behavior. This behavior has a superficial appearance of being an uninhibited expression of basic impulses. But closer observation reveals that the acts referred to are by no means free or expressive; they have an aspect of desperate compulsion, and can be understood as a defensive attempt to deny weakness. This defensiveness actually conceals intense inhibitions (as is shown elsewhere in this chapter) against genuine heterosexuality and against straightforward aggression against real authority and parent figures. It seems as if these men's uninternalized conscience combines with especially intense disturbance about weakness to produce delinquency, as an extreme type of antiweakness defense. Such actions are perhaps even more unrestrained in those interviewees we have called openly fascist.
2. FASCISTS
The antiweakness defenses appear in more extreme form in the fascists, with more unconcealed anxiety about inner weakness. Buck's deep fear that he may be a "sex maniac," his delinquent heterosexual behavior toward a
I 3-year-old girl and toward his own small children, have been discussed. Further hints of an obsessive fear of homosexuality are given in his reply to the questionnaire item asking what are the worst possible crimes. Besides rape and murder, Buck lists homosexual intercourse per anum. In the inter- view, he reveals graphic fantasies suggesting preoccupation with "any man that abuses any part of another man's body. . . . I could never see (he refers in profane language to sodomy and fellatio). Buck exhibits vain blustering in almost complete disregard of reality. He repeatedly interrupted the in- terview to protest, inappropriately, that "I can make money as well as the next guy. " His emotional involvement in these unreal fantasies is sug- gested by his asking the examiner, "Do you think I can make it? "; and
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS 861
by his interview explanation of his response "worry" to the questionnaire item asking "What might drive a person nuts? ": "Well, I'm worryin' here, I gotta make it now, or I'm not gonna make it. I'm gettin' pretty old. Well, not old-but it can't be done by foolin' around in the penitentiary. " His greatest ambition, he declares, is to "buy more cattle, more land. " Buck, as will be recalled, "made it" by leaving a trail of bad checks up and down the state.
Floyd says "I laugh at homosexuals," and he agrees very much with the questionnaire item that "homosexuals . . . ought to be severely punished. " His promiscuous sexuality has already been described. Nonetheless, his feminine identifications are almost conscious. Asked on the question- naire what great people he admires most, he lists "Salome, Madame DuBarry, Mata Hari. " In the interview, he reveals that what he identifies with is their opportunistic rise from feminine submergence to positions of power. "Yeh, they did their share. (How do you mean? ) I am particularly fond of women. . . . I like a woman who is capable. . . . DuBarry came up from a courtesan to be the indirect ruler of the country. " Floyd's feminine-submis- sive-homosexual identifications appear also in his attitude toward his "crime partner," to whom he is deeply attached. Note the peculiar context in which status considerations irrelevantly intrude: "He's 30, but I guess we are intel- lectual equals if nothing else. " And observe the preoccupation with physical relationships, with a consequently inappropriate response: (What sort of person is he? ) "Well, he is short and heavy and light. I'm tall and'lean and dark. We're physical opposites. " Floyd is so preoccupied with his dependent role toward the other man that even further probing fails to elicit any real description of the latter's personality: (What sort of a guy is he? ) "The best. (Can you give an example? ) If he says something, he means it. And the thing that I thought most about him: the night-well, we walked into a police trap. The other fellow ran off, but he tried to come back and get me. . . . He's loyal. " Thus, Floyd's devoted "lieutenant" relationship to his crime partner possibly enabled him indirectly to gratify submissive-homosexual wishes, at the same time as he was bolstering his masculinity as a "big oper- ator" engaged in armed robberies.
For Adrian, the feminine-submissive-homosexual identifications require no inference. Since leaving school, he has lived as a homosexual prostitute, and "I look at all things from a feminine viewpoint. " There is abundant evidence that his homosexuality is an acting-out of hate-filled power conflicts. Not only do "men irritate me by what I think is a superior attitude," but "I never did like homosexual affairs. . . . The actual physical act always repelled me and still does. " It is as if Adrian is driven by some inner compulsion to "prove" to men again and again, by ingratiating effeminate behavior, that he is submissive and self-emasculated. He "could pet all night. " But since he "found you can't get away with that," he submits further by doing "just whatever they want to. " Adrian's resentment against such utter submission
? 862 THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
is expressed in opportunistic exploitation of the men who "kept" him: "I wasn't interested in anything except clothes and the rent. " Frequent disagree- ments arose "about money-1 never had as much money as I thought I ought to have. I'd always threaten to leave and go somewhere else. I usually got my way. " The underlying wish to turn the tables and dominate the very men to whom he submitted is plain: "I ruled those roosts. (How do you mean? ) I cooked what I wanted to cook and did what I wanted to do. "
Adrian's "feminine viewpoint" is thus fundamentally sexless and loveless. He presents an extreme caricature of the fac;ade which helps greatly to dis- tinguish certain high-scoring women (see Chapter XI): exaggerated effem- inacy of manner, ingratiating coyness, flirtatiousness, excessive attention to dress, ostentatious display of physical weakness with vague hypochon- driacal complaining and appeal for pity, etc. The cynical exploitiveness hidden behind this fac;ade is further exemplified in his favorite heroes of fiction-"Becky Sharp, Madame Bovary, and Ivy Lashton. . . . I don't admire anything in any of them. Y ou asked me ? who I liked the best. Because they were all decidedly-what do you call it? -designing women. " The power motif is even clearer in his identification with Mary Baker Eddy, whom he regards as "neurotic" and "I don't have much faith in (her) personally," but "I admire (her) immensely" as a "shrewd business woman. "
Even Adrian, with his self-emasculated homosexual submission, made a stab at compensatory "toughness" in his present offense. While drinking in a bar, "I read in True Detective Stories about a girl who got herself up a bunch of hoodlums and raised herself a lot of hell. . . . And I figured if a little tiny thing like this girl could, I could. " He proceeded to pick out from the customers at the bar the man who seemed "the most mean looking and cor- rupt," and suggested they do a robbery together. "I didn't intend to play the active role. " "I thought he would do the dirty work but he wouldn't. So I had to. " The man got Adrian a cap pistol and, by standing outside, gave
him the moral courage to enter a store, where he held up "a very big man" and escaped with the cash register contents. Referring to this incident in dis- cussing Hitler, Adrian himself formulates its fascistic implications: "I'm no leader, but I can follow. . . . Though I led when I had that gun, didn't I? . . .
Implicit in these men's weak conscience, their infantile-demanding im- pulses, and their egocentric view of the world, is a trait which governs their entire behavior. This is their extreme (personal) opportunism. The disregard of principle in their personal behavior corresponds with the ideological opportunism of their racism and reactionism. The personal opportunism is usually expressed in the service of infantile attitudes of omnipotence, and of trying to deny personal weakness.
Buck's pathological lying has been mentioned. As for his other offenses, he has served time for obtaining money on false pretenses, and for failure to provide for his children. He was arrested on one occasion for "molesting" his own children (girl then age 2-3, boy age 4-5), but it is reported the charges were dropped be- cause the children were too small to testify. . . . Floyd's delinquencies are less dramatic, but equally capricious. They include two jail sentences for disturbing the peace; an Army record of alternating between the guardhouse and repeated A. W. O. L. 's until he was discharged; and a series of armed gang robberies under- taken as an easy way of making a lot of money "to operate on. " Relevant here is Floyd's stated desire to marry a "wealthy woman," who should have "fair physical attractions" but whose personality he will "take as it comes. " . . . Adrian's delin- quencies include his self-styled "incorrigibility" at boarding schools (truancy, re- peatedly overdrawing his charge accounts, etc. ); numerous jail sentences for drunkenness and homosexual prostitution; and robbery. "I had probation, it seems to me, most of my life. " He supported himself mainly by prostitution, and by his own statement "never had any (sexual) relations with anyone that didn't have money connected with it. " He admits that some men attract him more than others, but "I never let preferences stand in the way. . . . The only thing I was ever in- terested in was the rent. "
The essentially frantic nature of these men's approach to life suggests a desperate inner emptiness and lack of moorings. This hollowness may pro- vide part of the basis for their wish to submit to "strong" political "leader- ship. " Further, any religious leanings of these men might be expected to express cravings for authoritarian submission. This would be expected to differ from the religious authoritarian submission of other high scorers in two interrelated aspects. As in other conflicts in the fascists, the craving for religious submission might very well be explicit rather than implicit; and since dominance-submission conflicts are involved, this craving might be
? THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
expressed with open ideological opportunism. It happens that Buck "never did think much about religion," but Adrian and Floyd reveal these very characteristics clearly. Floyd's opportunism takes the form of highly egocen- tric (as well as confused) "criteria" for belief, with no apparent interest in considerations of evidence or truth-falsity.
Floyd states that before he was shot (almost fatally) in his last gang robbery, he was "reaching for something" and "wanted" to believe in God. (He had never had any religious training; his father was a free-thinker, and he had never known his mother. ) But "I just couldn't feature that a human being, an intelligence, could be obliterated so easily. " Having been thus let down "personally" by the God he was "reaching for" (in that his delinquency led to disaster), he could no longer "believe. " . . . Adrian's religious training consisted of very early exposure to the Christian Science of a governess and living in Episcopal boarding schools from the ages of 8 to I 5. At I 5 he tried to submit to what for him seemed clearly to represent religious totalitarianism and voluntary self-emasculation: "I very seriously went into the Church of Rome at I5" to become a priest-not because of any specific religious convictions, but "because I believed and still do . . . that the Catholic Church is the only true church," since "she was the church founded by Christ. " "She was the first" and therefore "the other churches had no real excuse to break away. " His fascistic inclinations are stated openly: "I respect her as a political organization. I think it would be better to have everything under one head". It would save dissension. " Adrian's father forcibly interfered, however, to prevent his entry into the priesthood. Adrian drifted until he became "very interested in Christian Science" with quite practical motives: "I'm not positive I believe in Christian Sci- ence, but there's much in it that seems to help me. . . . I don't try to apply Christian
Science to physical things . . . but my worries, mental things-there's where it helps me most. " In anticipation of parole, he wrote to two Christian Science practitioners for aid in lining up a job (a prerequisite to being granted parole). When both of them criticized him for "trying to manifest a job" instead of relying mystically upon "the Divine Employer," Adrian was "never so disgusted in my life. " But Adrian admittedly has "got to have a God" to submit to, "So what do you think I took up! " The answer is "Hinduism," which "teaches you discipline" such as "cut- ting down on cigarettes. " Adrian summarizes his approach to his latest ideological "manipulandum" in this way: "It's practical. That's the main thing. "
4. LOW SCORERS
The moral-religious ideology of the low-scoring interviewees is quite dif- ferent from that of the prejudiced men. They are relatively free of moralism, and sometimes verbalize explicitly antimoralistic sentiments.
Thus, for Art religion has "nothing to do with keeping laws, except the Golden Rule. " Highly objectionable to Don is the idea of religion as "abiding by a certain set of rules. " Probing reveals no sign of rejection in any of the 4 low scorers toward atheists or non-Christians.
They speak ofreligion primarily in terms of ethical values. Religion is "whatever spiritual qualities you have within yourself" (Art). This orienta- tion is embedded in more individualized relationships to themselves and other people, as compared with the high scorers' impersonalization of such rela-
? Bss
tionships. Different features of this ethical approach are stressed by each. Jim expresses most clearly the aspect of nurturant-affiliative attitudes toward people:
"I look on God as mostly the goodness in all peoples. . . . If everyone . . . carried out the principles that religion expounds, it would be a better world. (How do you mean? ) To treat others as a person would wish to be treated himself, and to help those less fortunate than oneself, and to be a part of the community or society that one is in, to take an active part in it, and being kind and generous, and to more or less have a high regard for your fellow human being. " Art, too, conceives of God, not as a person, but "more a power of good. . . . God is a force. "
Another aspect is the emphasis on full expression of the individual person- ality and "happiness on earth. "
Don declares that his concept of a hereafter was nicely expressed by a girl-friend who said that "if she believed in a hereafter it would mean developing one's unde- veloped talents. " For Jim "the only happiness that we really know of is here on earth; so why not try to enjoy the people and things on this earth, rather than a life somewhere else. "
Further, a rich inner life is a religious value.
Religion "gives you some access to your thoughts" (Dick). Prayer is conceived not as a mode of securing gratification of personal desires or of paying obeisance to a parent-substitute God. Rather, prayer is something which in and of itself "can help a person" (Dick); which "helps form what you're to be" (Don); "a personal thing that happens when the lights are out before you retire. Not 'I want something or other,' but consciously putting into words so as to place whatever you are look- ing for into a positive plane" (Art).
Opposed to the prejudiced men's authoritarian submission in moral-religi- ous matters is the insistence upon individuality in the credos of the low scorers.
"Religion is a personal thing. . . . Religion is as individual to me as my finger- prints, or as yours are to you" (Art). Dick explains his change from a Baptist to a Christian Scientist partly in terms of his objection to the teachings of a Navy chaplain, and especially the chaplain's efforts to "force us to come to church . . . I believe it's a man's personal affair. " It happened that Dick "got hold of a Christian Science textbook, liked the ideas . . . the idea that they had an explanation for almost everything that happened. " (Contrast Dick's emphasis on "ideas" and the implied internalization of Christian Science, with Adrian's externalized, oppor- tunistic-manipulative approach. ) Dick adds another value, however, which sug- gests some of that antiweakness drive that is usually typical of high scorers: "And another idea-they claimed that if you try to attain a goal, nothing can stop you. "
It will be recalled that those who "believe" show submissiveness toward a God who is essentially dominating (whose "word" they must "abide by") and punitive (toward those who violate his "word"). The low scorers, on
CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
the other hand, show an optimistic and trusting dependence toward a God conceived as kind and nurturant.
Although spoken of as "kind of an infinite being" rather than directly anthropo- morphic, God is "something there you can turn to in case you need someone to turn to" (Dick); "someone to cling to in times of emergency or stress" (Jim). Actually, "I don't know if there is a God," but the most important thing in religion is "a genuine belief and a faith that things would always turn out all right" (Jim). Religion involves "a belief, without academic proof, of a higher power-of some- thing you can depend on, of dependency" (Art).
The ultimate optimism hinted in these statements is consistent with findings about low scorers generally. However, the lack of inner self-reliance implied by their dependence on a supernatural power resembles certain trends found to be more typical of high scorers generally. This latter aspect is consistent with the fact that none of the low-scoring interviewees scored extremely low on any of the questionnaire scales.
E. DEFENSES AGAINST WEAKNESS
1. HIGH SCORERS
Defenses against weakness seem to be especially pronounced in the prej- udiced inmates. All of the high-scoring interviewees show deep-seated fears of weakness in themselves. The meaning of weakness to these men seems to be tied up with intense fears of nonmasculinity. To escape these fears they try to bolster themselves up by various antiweakness or pseudomascu- linity defenses. These can be grouped into four general themes, each of which may be expressed in a certain formula: (I) Power-strivings: "I am not on the bottom, I am one of those on top"; or, "I do not weakly submit, I domi- nate and control, I have power. " (2) "Toughness": "I am not weak, I am strong"; "I am not soft, I am tough"; "I am not passive and feminine, I am active and masculine. " (3) Flight into heterosexual activity: "I am not homo- sexual, I am heterosexual"; or "I do not love him, I love her. " (4) Paranoid reactions: "I do not love him, I hate him because he persecutes me"; i. e. , "I do not feel submissive-homosexual desires, I feel aggressive resentment toward men because they persecute me. "21
The questionnaire item which reflects defensive masculinity attitudes (spe- cifically, "toughness" and power) in purest form is number 26, which stereo- typically divides the world into "the strong" (ingroup) and "the weak" (outgroup). This item has the highest D. P. in the F scale. Other items con- taining antiweakness themes are those exalting "will power" (Item 2), "dis- cipline" and "determination" (Item I 3), an exaggerated notion of "honor"
21 The formulae (3) and (4) are adapted from Freud (40).
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
(Item 19), as well as items a1ready mentioned in another context, especially 14 (PEC), 23, 30, and 45 (E).
The relative emphasis placed on different aspects of masculinity fa~ades, in relation to the fears underneath, differs from individual to individual. Therefore, instead of proceeding variable by variable, we shall discuss the weakness-antiweakness complex separately for each inmate.
Robert has centered his efforts to "prove" his "masculinity" around compulsive status-power strivings. He declares that from an early age "my greatest desire was to be somebody in life. . . . I wanted to be a success in business . . . and sometimes worried whether I would. . . . The future goal that I have set up is to own at least three . . . stores of my own . . . I was on my first store at the time of my arrest. " This concern with status and power gives meaning to his anxious fantasy that Negroes "don't have a goal in life" but "just want to exist," and his envious stereotype of Jewish "drive and ambition to get there. " Robert projects this compulsive power-drive onto others and reveals his inability to imagine any alternative to dominance or submission: "Every man has a certain ego that he has to satisfy. You like to be on top. If you're anybody at all, you don't like to be on the bottom. "
(Italics supplied. )
The submissive dependence behind Robert's power-seeking is shown in
his attitudes toward friends and family. (What do friends offer a person? ) "To me, friends offer satisfaction to myself that I've been doing a job well done, that I'm satisfying those people of their expectations. . . . (Q. ) Well, I was referring to the business viewpoint. " (Note the impersonalized use of people as primarily an external prop for what Robert calls his "ego. ") His main satisfaction with his younger brother was "the satisfaction he gave my ego. . . . He's patterned his life after mine. He's in the - - - business, too. " Robert further expresses pride that "my folks have always classed me as a success in the--- business. " The deference toward the examiner ("Do you think I have the right view of things?
") has been mentioned before.
Robert's power drive has apparently not stopped his fears of femininity, of heterosexual impotence, and possibly of latent homosexuality. Underlying identification with a feminine role is suggested by his own admission that "up until the time I left home, (my mother) always referred to me as her best daughter. " The possibility of conflict over latent homosexuality is raised by several cues: e. g. , by Robert's insistence, despite instructions not to bother with details, on exhibitionistically giving to the examiner (a man) a minutely detailed account of his first experience of intercourse; and by indirect "con-
tact" with other men via a hostile affair with a highly promiscuous woman. This last behavior, which finally broke up Robert's marriage, suggests a common type of defense against homosexual wishes, viz. , compulsive flight into heterosexual relationships which are extremely impersonal and hostile.
Ronald's ego-alien weakness is more transparent than Robert's. Mentioned
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
earlier was his unsatisfied dependent longing for authoritarian religious belief as "the thing that holds you together. " Similar extreme dependence is shown in his conception of "friends" as "someone that you can . . . talk to about your troubles, and vice versa" and "know that he's there at all times, and if you need any help at any time. " Also, like Robert, he asked the exam- iner to reassure him at the close of the interview that he is not "too radical" in some of his ideas. This "too radical" was apparently a euphemism for "too aggressive" toward outgroups. Ronald has a history of severe chronic bed- wetting until the age of 12, for which he has no explanation to offer beyond an extemalization of the symptom onto "my kidneys. " He has no idea why his enuresis suddenly stopped at the age of 12. That bed-wetting may have represented in part a passive mode of sexual gratification is suggested by his homosexual conflicts. Earlier mention has been made of his righteous condemnation of "sexual perversion" including, explicitly, fellatio. He de- nies that he has ever "felt any desire of any kind" for homosexual relations, yet subsequently admits to having several times had such relations with a fellow inmate. He implicitly denies any "real" homosexuality in this (blam- ing it exclusively on prison sex deprivation), and says that he had no special reaction to the experiences except to lose respect for the other man. Ron- ald's paranoid "toughness" toward Negro men might perhaps be a defense against homosexual excitement aroused by them. Ronald's promiscuous heterosexuality, including several impersonalized, unusual marriage cere- monies, may also be understood as an attempt to deny homosexual impulses. "I always get married spectacularly"-e. g. , "in a taxicab" or "my partner in a dance walkathon-married on the floor-no love, but received money for it from the spectators. " Both weakness and compensatory "toughness" seem to be combined in Ronald's thefts and gang robberies carried out "as a business. "
The chief prop of Eugene's defenses is a fac;ade of toughness. He has repeatedly been involved in petty trouble, especially by fighting when drunk. "I've got quite a temper," and "I like to fight once in a while . . . usually when I'm drinking. " Moreover, "I'm proud of my people," the "Scotch-Irish," whose most prominent characteristic, according to Eugene, is that "most of them like to fight. " When the examiner points out that this is precisely what Eugene resentfully says about Negroes, he differentiates on the basis that Negroes "go around looking" for fights, while he himself merely "likes" to fight (and does so frequently). The psychological reason why he likes to fight and has "quite a temper" seems to be largely uncon- scious; he "can't explain it. " He explains, however, that Negroes "go around picking trouble" because they've "got an inferiority complex" and "try to be big shots"-which may be a projection of his own inferiority feelings and the "big shot" way he tries to compensate for them. The situations which . evoke
Eugene's temper suggest possibly more specific causes, namely homosexual
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS
impulses, against which his impulsive aggressiveness may be a paranoid defense: "I was with a girl at a bar, and a guy got a little out of line . . . talkin' dirty-not to her, but he was talkin' loud. . . . "; or "maybe some guy calls me a name. " Eugene himself associates his propensity for "trouble" with fear of heterosexual adjustment: "I'm just a little too wild to get married. I'm scared of it. "
Clarence shows ,more obvious signs of ego-alien "weakness," and has less effective defenses against it. The army, he declares, "makes a man of you," but it did not succeed in overcoming Clarence's fear of rising above a private, because that would have meant "too much responsibility"- although "I'm pretty good at takin' orders. " Discharged for tuberculosis, he drew government compensation for seventeen years and then lived "on the county. " According to the prison physician, Clarence "claimed he still had T. B. , but . . . we failed to find any evidence of any active T. B. whatever. . . . We felt that he was wrongly drawing government compensation for
years. " This avoidance of work contrasts strikingly with Clarence's moralistic glorification of the disciplinary value of hard work. Moreover, to the prison physician Clarence appeared "very neurasthenic and enlarged on minor and rather normal aches and pains; was very feministic. " He did not marry until he was 38, to a woman 39, toward whom he was apparently quite submissive. Although "we weren't much alike in any way . . . we got along good" be- cause "I let her have her own way. Takes two to start an argument. " It was only a few months after her death, eleven years later, that he was arrested for "molesting" four girls, ages 8 to 10, who testified that he felt of their genitals. Such behavior could well be a panicky attempt to deny homosexual impulses by "proving" heterosexual masculinity. Clarence claimed that the girls made up the entire story just to "get even" with him because he "wouldn't give them candy. " Three years later, he was again arrested on a charge of getting two little girls drunk and attempting intercourse with one ot them. He escaped conviction on these two occasions, but two years later the half-sister (age 12) of one of the last two little girls was picked up by the police at Clarence's home. This time he was convicted of attempted rape. Clarence seems to have denied this episode to himself by developing a system of persecutory delusions: He protests that he "worked for the people in politics in order to clean up the city," and that when his candidates were not elected the police "went after" him. This paranoid reaction is consistent with the interpretation that his heterosexual delinquency was a defense against homosexual panic.
1Vilbur has also worked out a rigid system of paranoid delusions, but shows less obvious signs of underlying weakness than Clarence. For him, as for Robert and Ronald, friends mean primarily dependence; they offer "help in lots of needs, sickness, money-well, a friend can just help you in most any way. " He indicates that, like Clarence, he has a very submissive relationship
? 86o THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
to his wife: His wife manages finances, gives the discipline to the children, and, when he and his wife disagree, "I usually do just what she asks me to do. " In view of his reactions to the landlord, Wilbur may well have experi- enced a deep threat to his masculinity and possible homosexual panic directed toward a "persecuting" father figure, when he and his family were evicted following a controversy. He felt compelled to "fight back" in desperation; he sought out the landlord, who happened to be of Greek descent, and attacked him fatally. Apparently unable to face emotional conflicts stirred up by this episode, Wilbur stereotypically impersonalized the relationship by imagining himself as an unfortunate victim of "the Greek people, who like to punish the poor people. "
These men are distinguished not only by the intensity of their conflicts about weakness, but also by a special feature of their defenses against weak- ness in themselves: In addition to the pseudomasculine attitudes which they share with prejudiced men in other groups, the high-scoring inmates express antiweakness themes overtly in delinquent behavior. This behavior has a superficial appearance of being an uninhibited expression of basic impulses. But closer observation reveals that the acts referred to are by no means free or expressive; they have an aspect of desperate compulsion, and can be understood as a defensive attempt to deny weakness. This defensiveness actually conceals intense inhibitions (as is shown elsewhere in this chapter) against genuine heterosexuality and against straightforward aggression against real authority and parent figures. It seems as if these men's uninternalized conscience combines with especially intense disturbance about weakness to produce delinquency, as an extreme type of antiweakness defense. Such actions are perhaps even more unrestrained in those interviewees we have called openly fascist.
2. FASCISTS
The antiweakness defenses appear in more extreme form in the fascists, with more unconcealed anxiety about inner weakness. Buck's deep fear that he may be a "sex maniac," his delinquent heterosexual behavior toward a
I 3-year-old girl and toward his own small children, have been discussed. Further hints of an obsessive fear of homosexuality are given in his reply to the questionnaire item asking what are the worst possible crimes. Besides rape and murder, Buck lists homosexual intercourse per anum. In the inter- view, he reveals graphic fantasies suggesting preoccupation with "any man that abuses any part of another man's body. . . . I could never see (he refers in profane language to sodomy and fellatio). Buck exhibits vain blustering in almost complete disregard of reality. He repeatedly interrupted the in- terview to protest, inappropriately, that "I can make money as well as the next guy. " His emotional involvement in these unreal fantasies is sug- gested by his asking the examiner, "Do you think I can make it? "; and
? CRIMINALITY AND ANTIDEMOCRA TIC TRENDS 861
by his interview explanation of his response "worry" to the questionnaire item asking "What might drive a person nuts? ": "Well, I'm worryin' here, I gotta make it now, or I'm not gonna make it. I'm gettin' pretty old. Well, not old-but it can't be done by foolin' around in the penitentiary. " His greatest ambition, he declares, is to "buy more cattle, more land. " Buck, as will be recalled, "made it" by leaving a trail of bad checks up and down the state.
Floyd says "I laugh at homosexuals," and he agrees very much with the questionnaire item that "homosexuals . . . ought to be severely punished. " His promiscuous sexuality has already been described. Nonetheless, his feminine identifications are almost conscious. Asked on the question- naire what great people he admires most, he lists "Salome, Madame DuBarry, Mata Hari. " In the interview, he reveals that what he identifies with is their opportunistic rise from feminine submergence to positions of power. "Yeh, they did their share. (How do you mean? ) I am particularly fond of women. . . . I like a woman who is capable. . . . DuBarry came up from a courtesan to be the indirect ruler of the country. " Floyd's feminine-submis- sive-homosexual identifications appear also in his attitude toward his "crime partner," to whom he is deeply attached. Note the peculiar context in which status considerations irrelevantly intrude: "He's 30, but I guess we are intel- lectual equals if nothing else. " And observe the preoccupation with physical relationships, with a consequently inappropriate response: (What sort of person is he? ) "Well, he is short and heavy and light. I'm tall and'lean and dark. We're physical opposites. " Floyd is so preoccupied with his dependent role toward the other man that even further probing fails to elicit any real description of the latter's personality: (What sort of a guy is he? ) "The best. (Can you give an example? ) If he says something, he means it. And the thing that I thought most about him: the night-well, we walked into a police trap. The other fellow ran off, but he tried to come back and get me. . . . He's loyal. " Thus, Floyd's devoted "lieutenant" relationship to his crime partner possibly enabled him indirectly to gratify submissive-homosexual wishes, at the same time as he was bolstering his masculinity as a "big oper- ator" engaged in armed robberies.
For Adrian, the feminine-submissive-homosexual identifications require no inference. Since leaving school, he has lived as a homosexual prostitute, and "I look at all things from a feminine viewpoint. " There is abundant evidence that his homosexuality is an acting-out of hate-filled power conflicts. Not only do "men irritate me by what I think is a superior attitude," but "I never did like homosexual affairs. . . . The actual physical act always repelled me and still does. " It is as if Adrian is driven by some inner compulsion to "prove" to men again and again, by ingratiating effeminate behavior, that he is submissive and self-emasculated. He "could pet all night. " But since he "found you can't get away with that," he submits further by doing "just whatever they want to. " Adrian's resentment against such utter submission
? 862 THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
is expressed in opportunistic exploitation of the men who "kept" him: "I wasn't interested in anything except clothes and the rent. " Frequent disagree- ments arose "about money-1 never had as much money as I thought I ought to have. I'd always threaten to leave and go somewhere else. I usually got my way. " The underlying wish to turn the tables and dominate the very men to whom he submitted is plain: "I ruled those roosts. (How do you mean? ) I cooked what I wanted to cook and did what I wanted to do. "
Adrian's "feminine viewpoint" is thus fundamentally sexless and loveless. He presents an extreme caricature of the fac;ade which helps greatly to dis- tinguish certain high-scoring women (see Chapter XI): exaggerated effem- inacy of manner, ingratiating coyness, flirtatiousness, excessive attention to dress, ostentatious display of physical weakness with vague hypochon- driacal complaining and appeal for pity, etc. The cynical exploitiveness hidden behind this fac;ade is further exemplified in his favorite heroes of fiction-"Becky Sharp, Madame Bovary, and Ivy Lashton. . . . I don't admire anything in any of them. Y ou asked me ? who I liked the best. Because they were all decidedly-what do you call it? -designing women. " The power motif is even clearer in his identification with Mary Baker Eddy, whom he regards as "neurotic" and "I don't have much faith in (her) personally," but "I admire (her) immensely" as a "shrewd business woman. "
Even Adrian, with his self-emasculated homosexual submission, made a stab at compensatory "toughness" in his present offense. While drinking in a bar, "I read in True Detective Stories about a girl who got herself up a bunch of hoodlums and raised herself a lot of hell. . . . And I figured if a little tiny thing like this girl could, I could. " He proceeded to pick out from the customers at the bar the man who seemed "the most mean looking and cor- rupt," and suggested they do a robbery together. "I didn't intend to play the active role. " "I thought he would do the dirty work but he wouldn't. So I had to. " The man got Adrian a cap pistol and, by standing outside, gave
him the moral courage to enter a store, where he held up "a very big man" and escaped with the cash register contents. Referring to this incident in dis- cussing Hitler, Adrian himself formulates its fascistic implications: "I'm no leader, but I can follow. . . . Though I led when I had that gun, didn't I? . . .
