Item 11-ro, "I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew," is included here because it seems to refer more to an
unpleasant
image than to a clear-cut, hostile attitude.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
In government he sees increasing centralization and regimentation, i.
e.
, more and more control vested in fewer and fewer people, and in eco- nomics, important developments will continue to be in the hands of the big capitalists.
However much objective truth there may be in this view, the significant point is that Mack considers the state of affairs he describes as, if not desirable, inevitable.
Given this kind of social organization, then the thing to do is to "go up," "to open doors," to be "on the inside," and this is the main trend in his vocation-income ideology.
He wants to belong to or be "in with" the ruling group.
It is not so much that he himself wants to dominate, but rather that he wants to serve powerful interests and so partici- pate in their power.
It was seen in his discussion of politics that the power attributes of the ingroup and of the outgroup were, in his mind, the same; it is not too much to hypothesize now that the reason he accuses the Jews, the Civil Service, the OWl, the New Deal of wishing to establish a closely cohesive and selfishly exploitive ingroup is that he wishes to do the same thing himself.
It is necessary to add, of course, that he cannot fully justify to himself such an antidemocratic wish and so, under its sway but unable to admit it, he sees it as existing not in himself but in the world around him.
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
55
Larry, it appears, is also identified with business and would like to go up in the world, but there the similarity between the two subjects ends. Whereas for Larry, going up means improving his lot in the ordinary sociological sense, for Mack it means changing his status in a hierarchy; in other words, Larry thinks of climbing primarily in its individual sense, while Mack thinks of it more in its class sense. Larry does not seem to mind competing, once he has been given support at the start, while Mack would get there by sub- mitting to those who are going to win. Larry is frankly interested in money and a lot of it while Mack is moralistically temperate in this regard; Larry wants pleasure, Mack seems more interested in power; Larry feels that the main object of work and efficiency is that one might the sooner take a vaca- tion and enjoy life; Mack appears to regard these things as ends in them- selves. In general, both subjects express ideas that are closely in accord with their political ideologies.
Another difference between the two men, which may be of considerable importance, lies in Larry's greater awareness of his motivation: he is entirely open about his desire for money and pleasure, his willingness to accept sup- port, his susceptibility to influence by his family, his interest in social prestige. There is little reason to doubt that these motives are just as strong, if not considerably stronger, in Mack, but it is plain that he does not fully accept them as parts of his self. It might be inquired whether this tendency to keep important personality needs out of consciousness, to allow them to remain ego-alien, is not a regular feature of the potential fascist.
In the present area of vocation-income, perhaps more than in any of the others, the subjects' discussion of what they believe is closely bound up with discussion of what, more or less explicitly, they want. Personality needs, in other words, have a central place in the whole picture. To climb socially, to be independent, to have pleasure and security, to attain a sense of power by submitting to those who have it-these are personality needs. The moral- istic depreciation of money, the oversolicitous but unrealistic attitude toward poor people-these may be regarded as defense mechanisms, devices whereby needs which conflict with the stronger need to maintain self-respect are held in check. It is plain that with respect to a number of these variables Mack and Larry are widely different; and it was one of the main hypotheses of the present research that there are numerous such variables with respect to which prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals differ generally and which in individuals at either extreme go together to form a psychologically mean- ingful pattern. In proceeding to test this hypothesis the interview protocols of numerous ethnocentric and anti-ethnocentric subjects-as well as other sources-were combed for just such distinguishing features, and these were then put into the form of questionnaire scale-items for testing with groups of subjects. A liking for "nice equipment," a fondness for hunting and fishing, a preference for living in a small town-numerous such small but
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
suggestive items were given consideration. On the assumption that potential antidemocracy at the personality level is a general trend with respect to which individuals differ quantitatively, a scale for the measurement of this trend was constructed in the manner of those described above. This supplied the means for demonstrating on a mass basis some of the relationships which appear to exist in the two individuals under discussion.
Even if factors of personality did not come explicitly to the fore at par- ticular points in the interviews with these two men, the conception of personality would be forced upon us by observation of the consistency with which the same ideas and thesame modes of thought recur as the discussion turns from one ideological area to another. Since no such consistency could conceivably exist as a matter of sociological fact, we are bound to conceive of central tendencies in the person which express themselves in various areas. The concept of a dynamic factor of personality is made to order for explaining the common trend in diverse surface manifestations. For ex- ample, a need for power in the personality is ready to express itself in any area of social relations. It may be suggested, in this connection, that where social psychologists have not so far given a great deal of attention to person- ality it is because they have not studied total ideology. Specific social atti- tudes if adequately measured will undoubtedly be found to correlate with a variety of external and contemporary factors, and if one studies only spe- cific attitudes he may easily be led to the belief that this is all there is to it. Consistent trends in the person can only be revealed by subjecting him to a variety of stimuli, or placing him in a number of different situations, or questioning him on a wide array of topics; but if this is done, then, according to the present hypothesis, consistent trends, i. e. , personality, will always be revealed.
The varied stimuli to which subjects of the present study were subjected were not limited to questions of attitude, opinion, and value; there were the clinical techniques designed especially for bringing the factors of personal- ity to light. The aim was to go as far as possible toward demonstrating the covariation of personality factors and the ideological trends discussed above, toward discovering as many as possible of the features which distinguished the potentially antidemocratic individual. Given a relationship between a personality variable and an ideological trend, it was usually assumed that the causal sequence was from the former to the latter-on the grounds that the formation of personality was genetically earlier, the most important structures going back to childhood. This led to an attempt to learn some- thing about the determination of the potential fascist in childhood, through investigation of the early social environment. But this is a subject which can- not be considered until much later; not until the several areas of ideology have been analyzed in detail.
? CHAPTER III
THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
Daniel J. Levinson
A. INTRODUCTION
One of the most clearly antidemocratic forms of social ideology is preju- dice, and within this context anti-Semitism provides a fruitful starting point for a social psychological study. As a social movement, organized anti- Semitism presents a major threat to democracy: it is one of the most powerful psychological vehicles for antidemocratic political movements and it pro- vides, for reasons which are largely politico-economic and beyond the scope of this discussion, perhaps the most effective spearhead for a frontal attack on our entire social structure.
From a psychological viewpoint as well, anti-Semitism is particularly important and revealing. Much that psychologically oriented writers have already said about anti-Semitism and about fascism suggests that the deeper psychological sources of these ideologies are very similar. The irrational quality in anti-Semitism stands out even in casual everyday discussions. The fact that people make general statements about "the Jew," when the Jews are actually so heterogeneous-belong to every socioeconomic class and represent every degree of assimilation-is vivid evidence of this irrationality. This striking contrast between the Jews' actual complexity and their sup- posed homogeneity has suggested the hypothesis that what people say against Jews depends more upon their own psychology than upon the actual charac- teristics of Jews. For example, when the belief that Jews possess financial power out of all proportion to their numbers persists in the face of over- whelming evidence to the contrary, one is led to suspect not only that the individual holding this belief has an unusual preoccupation with power but also that he might himself wish to assume the kind of power which he sup- poses Jews to have. It is clear that research into the emotional sources of ideology is required for the understanding of such phenomena as these.
These considerations, which suggest the advantage of making anti- Semitism a point of departure for research, were also some of the hypotheses that guided the research as a whole. The study of anti-Semitism may well
57
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
be, then, the first step in a search for antidemocratic trends in ideology, in personality, and in social movements.
Anti-Semitism is conceived here as an ideology, that is, as a relatively organized, relatively stable system of opinions, values, and attitudes concern- ing Jews and Jewish-Gentile relations. More specifically, it involves negative opinions regarding Jews (that they are unscrupulous, clannish, power- seeking, and so on); hostile attitudes toward them (that they should be ex- cluded, restricted, kept subordinate to Gentiles, and so on); and moral values \vhich permeate the opinions and justify the attitudes.
Numerous questions concerning the structure and content of anti- Semitism were raised in Chapter II. These and other questions guided the construction of an opinion-attitude scale for the measurement of anti- Semitic ideology. The source material for the scale included: the writings of virulent anti-Semites; technical, literary, and reportorial writings on anti- Semitism and fascism; and, most important, everyday American anti-Semitism as revealed in parlor discussion, in the discriminatory practices of many businesses and institutions, and in the literature of various organizations which are trying, with small success, to counter numerous anti-Semitic accusations by means of rational argument.
This scale, like the others used in the present research, had several func- tions. It yielded a quantitative measure which could be correlated with measures of other, theoretically related, variables. It provided a basis for the selection of criterion groups of extreme high and low scorers, who could then be subjected to intensive clinical study. It permitted, as part of a larger questionnaire, a relatively detailed, quantifiable study of large groups of subjects. Finally, it was constructed in such a way that statistical analysis of its properties might reveal much of the structure, scope, and content of anti- Semitic ideology.
B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANTI-SEMITISM (A-S) SCALE
An opinion-attitude scale is a series of statements dealing with a given topic, in this case anti-Semitic ideology. The subject is asked to respond to each item by agreeing or disagreeing. His responses are converted into scores in such a way that a high score indicates a great amount of what is being measured-for this scale, anti-Semitism-a low score the opposite. The scor- ing procedure is discussed below (Section C).
The Likert method of scaling (73, 84) was used. It is easier to apply and requires fewer items than the Thurstone method (II8), but yields equally high reliabilities and generally comparable results (2 2, 84). It was desired to avoid the assumptions and difficulties in the use of judges which the latter method entails. Also, since it was anticipated that in further stages of the research the items might be modified in wording, it was highly desirable to
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
59
avoid the repeated use of judges. A measure of intensity of optmon and attitudes is obtained, in the Likert method, by having the subject indicate the degree of his agreement or disagreement with each item; this makes possible a more adequate determination of subtle group and individual dif- ferences, and facilitates the qualitative analysis of individual response pat- terns. This method also permits the covering of a wider area of opinions and attitudes. Finally, the Likert technique of item analysis (see below) was particularly suited to the general theoretical approach of this research.
1. GENERAL RULES IN ITEM FORMULA TION
The procedure used for selecting and formulating items, in contrast to a frequent practice, did not involve the testing of several hundred items as a basis for selection of a final short scale. Rather, fifty-two items were formu- lated and all of these were used throughout the statistical analysis of the preliminary form of the scale. (To anticipate a result presented below, only a few items were statistically inadequate, and this inadequacy is interesting in its own right. ) In successive stages of the research there were, however, no qualms about modifying, deleting, or adding items.
The present scale differs from most opinion-attitude scales in that it con- tains only negative items, that is, they all state the anti-Semitic position regarding the issue in question. The reasons for the use of negative items only and an answer to some possible criticisms, presented in detail in a previ- ous publication (71), may be summarized here. One advantage of negative items is that they tend to be more discriminating. Also, negative items can be so phrased that they express subtle hostility without seeming to offend the democratic values which most prejudiced people feel they must main- tain. Since the scale attempts to measure receptivity to anti-Semitic ideology, it seemed reasonable to use only anti-Semitic statements in the scale. The main argument against the present procedure is that it might produce a "set" or mechanical tendency consistently to agree or to disagree. This argument is answered on the ground that (a) most individuals show variability of response, as indicated by item intercorrelations averaging . 3-. 4; (b) there is a tendency to vary in order to avoid an extreme position; (c) very similar results have been obtained in later stages of the present research when an all-negative scale is inserted randomly into a longer series containing positive items; and, most important, (d) since the "set" argument implies that high scorers are not necessarily anti-Semitic nor lows anti-anti-Semitic, the final test is the validity of the scale, that is, the demonstration that high scorers are significantly different from low scorers in a variety of meaningful charac- teristics. The scale does, as will be shown later, have considerable validity.
Since the A-S scale, like the others, was intended not only to provide a quantitative measure of an ideology but also to aid in the qualitative descrip- tion of that ideology (and of individual ideological patterns), its construe-
? 6o THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
tion followed certain general rules. These rules had to do with (a) the formulation of individual items, and (b) the division of the total scale into subscales.
Since the scale should not, for practical reasons, include more than about fifty items (preferably fewer in later forms), each item should be maximally rich in ideas and there should be a minimum of duplication in wording or essential content of items. While the items are therefore often more complex than those of many other scales, this is not considered a fault. At the same time, they should be clear and unambiguous in meaning, so that agreement is ordinarily an expression of anti-Semitism, disagreement an expression of its opposite. It is important to avoid "double-barreled" items, that is, items with two parts such that a subject might agree with one part and disagree with the other, and thus not know how to respond.
Extreme prejudice of a violent and openly antidemocratic sort does not seem to be widespread in this country, especially in the middle class. 1 Since the present scale is intended to measure everyday, "garden variety" anti- Semitism, the items were formulated in such a way as to reflect the prevalent forms in which anti-Semitism now appears.
Most prejudice as one finds it in business, housing, and general social inter- action is pseudodemocratic rather than openly antidemocratic; this distinc- tion plays an important role in the analysis of anti-Semitic ideology which guided the construction of the scale and the formulation of items. An idea may be considered openly antidemocratic when it refers to active hatred, or to violence which has the direct aim of wiping out a minority group or of putting it in a permanently subordinate position. A pseudodemocratic idea, on the other hand, is one in which hostility toward a group is somewhat tempered and disguised by means of a compromise with democratic ideals. Pseudodemocratic statements about Jews are often introduced by qualifying phrases which deny hostility or which attempt to demonstrate the demo- cratic attitude of the speaker, e. g. , "It's not that I'm prejudiced, but. . . . "; "Jews have their rights, but. . . . "
This pseudodemocratic fac;ade is probably relatively untouched by most of the current literature attacking prejudice as "race hatred," "un-Ameri- can," "un-Christian intolerance," and the like. There is no hatred in the surface content of these attitudes and they have been squared with certain democratic values in such a way that the individual holding them apparently feels little if any sense of antidemocracy. And, of course, merely to label this way of thinking as un-American will not change it, first, because labeling is not enough, and second, because such thinking falls within one of the main streams of American social history and can be found to some extent in most sections of American life. It is necessary, rather, to understand its
1 This is shown by various public opinion polls and reportorial studies although compre- hensive and rigorously obtained data are lacking. It is also indicated by results from the present study.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 6r
external sources in American culture and tradition as well as the inner sources which make certain individuals particularly receptive to these cultural pressures.
It is probably an error to regard the pseudodemocratic compromise as a mere surface disguise used deliberately and skillfully by prejudiced people to camouflage their actual, conscious antidemocracy. The person whose approach to social problems is pseudodemocratic is actually different now from one whose approach is now openly antidemocratic. For various reasons -perhaps because he has internalized democratic values, perhaps out of conformity to present social standards-the pseudodemocrat does not now accept ideas of overt violence and active suppression. The concern with democratic values, and the resistance to antidemocratic ones, must be con- sidered as psychologically and socially important facts in any attempt to understand prejudice, American variety. Undoubtedly very many people who are now pseudodemocratic are potentially antidemocratic, that is, are capable in a social crisis of supporting or committing acts of violence against minority groups. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the attempted compromise with democratic values: because it may reveal a democratic potential which might, if supported and strengthened, ultimately gain the upper hand; because it colors the whole fabric of pseudodemocratic social thinking; and, since this comprorllise reflects the prevalent forms of overt discrimination in this country-quotas, segregation, exclusion, denial of op- portunities-to understand the former may help to combat the latter.
If patterns of ideology are conceived as falling on a dimension ranging from democratic to antidemocratic, then the pseudodemocratic ones prob- ably stand somewhere between the center and the antidemocratic extreme. This is, of course, not a simple dimension: there are diverse approaches falling into each of these broad categories, and the dimension is not a simple quantitative one like length or weight. A change of certain trends in an indi- vidual may produce a qualitative reorganization and ideological change from one extreme of this dimension to the other. The task is to understand the total individual and, especially in the case of the pseudodemocrat, to gauge the psychological potential for both democracy and open antidemocracy.
Most of the items of the A-S scale have been formulated as pseudodemo- cratically as possible. This consideration was, in fact, one of the main reasons for the use of negative items only. The following rules have been followed in general: Each item should be made appealing and "easy to fall for" by avoiding or soft-pedaling or morally justifying ideas of violence and obvious antidemocracy. Much use is made of qualifying phrases such as "One trouble with Jewish . . . ";"There are a few exceptions, but . . . "; "It would be to the best interests of all if . . . ," in order to avoid a categorical, aggressive con- demnation. Items are worded so that the person can add at the end: "but I am not anti-Semitic. " Seeming tentativeness is introduced by qualifications such as "it seems that," "probably," "in most cases. " Finally, an attempt is made to
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
give each statement a familiar ring, to formulate it as it has been heard many times in everyday discussions.
To the extent that the above rules have been followed, pseudodemocratic subjects are likely to make scores on this scale as high, or nearly as high, as those of the antidemocratic ones. It will be the task of later techniques, both questionnaire-style and clinical, to provide further information con- cerning the distinctions between these two groups of subjects.
2. MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS OR AREAS: THE SUBSCALES
The general rules of item formulation just described refer primarily to the formal structure of items and can be applied to each item irrespective of the content of the ideas expressed in it. The content of the items was largely determined by the general conception of anti-Semitic ideology and the specific hypotheses discussed above. Several subscales were formed in order to insure systematic coverage of the various aspects conceived and in order to test certain hypotheses. The subscales cannot be thought of as dealing with components of anti-Semitism in any statistical sense; they are not based on statistical treatment of prior results, nor was any intensive correlational analysis of the present items made. The subscales are, rather, convenient ways of conceiving and grouping items.
The anti-Semitism scale conta1ns five subscales dealing respectively with imagery (opinions) of Jews as personally offensive and as socially threaten- ing; with attitudes concerning what should be done to or against Jews; and with the opposing views that Jews are too seclusive or too intrusive (as- similative). These subscales are probably not entirely independent either in a statistical sense or with respect to the actual content of the items; indeed, there is some question as to whether certain items may not equally well have been placed in a different subscale than the one to which they were assigned. Nevertheless, each subscale as a whole seems to deal with a fairly definite and definable phase of anti-Semitism. The subscales will now be discussed in order.
a. SuBsCALE "OFFENSIVE" (S0 ) . This subscale is presented in T able r (III). (The items are numbered as they appeared in the total scale, which was given in two parts, I and II, with twenty-six items in each part; thus, l-4 is Item 4, part I. ) The items describe various "Jewish traits" which are offensive, unpleasant, and disturbing. Stereotypy is implicit in items ascribing faults to "Jews"-implicitly, "all" or "most" Jews-without recognition of individual differences. It is explicit in item 1-q, which specifically states that "Jews are pretty much alike" and which indicates an image of "the Jews" as a stereo-
typed model of the entire group.
What are the characteristics of this stereotyped image? If the other items
offer an adequate description, "the Jew" is extravagant, sensual, conceited, and overaggressive; but he is also "smelly," shabby, and unconcerned with his personal appearance. Jews are accused of being excessinly Jewish, so to
? 1-I. l-4. I-7.
1-w.
I-I3. I-I6.
II-I. Il-4. II-7.
11-Io. II-I 3?
11-I6.
TABLE I (III) ANTI-sEMITISM SuBsCALE "OFFENsivE"
Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living.
A major fault of the Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their idea that they are a chosen race.
No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always some- thing basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a manner that is never totally changed.
Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, and unattractive.
There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike. The Jews shoud not pry so much into Christian activities and organizations nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians.
The Jews should make sincere efforts to rid themselves of their conspicuous and irritating faults if they really want to stop being persecuted.
There is something different and strange about Jews; one never knows what they are thinking or planning, nor what makes them tick.
The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradu- ally give it a typical Jewish atmosphere.
I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew.
One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding.
Jews should be more concerned with their personal appearance, and not be so dirty and smelly and unkempt.
THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
speak, but their attempts to assimilate into "Christian" activities are re- garded as prying. Jewish faults are considered the main cause of anti- Semitism (Item 11-r ), which would be eliminated if the Jews made sincere efforts to improve. However, there is some doubt that Jews can ever quite manage to be fully Americanized (Item I-7).
Item 11-ro, "I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew," is included here because it seems to refer more to an unpleasant image than to a clear-cut, hostile attitude. It represents a pseudodemocratic equivalent to Item I-rs in the "Attitude" subscale (see below). Are people consistent in their general agreement (or disagreement) with these items? This will be seen in the results presented below.
b. SuBsCALE "THREATENING" (ST)? These items, presented in Table z(lll), describe the Jews as a dangerous, dominating, corrupting social group. They are asserted to have great power economically and politically, and to be unscrupulous and conniving in their dealings with Gentiles. They do not like hard work (Item 11-rr) but at the same time they lower the general standard of living by doing menial work and by living under low standards (Item l-r4). In addition to being simultaneously rich and poor, powerful and parasitic, they are also at once capitalists and revolutionaries. In their lack of patriotism they are a threat to the nation, and in general they are a threat to civilization.
Apart from the enormous complexity of "the Jew" so described, there is something fantastic in the idea that a group so small numerically can be so
? I-2. I-5. 1-8.
I-I 1.
I-I4.
Il-2.
ll-5.
11-8. II-I 1.
II-I4.
TABLE 2 (III)
ANTI-SEMITISM SuBsCALE "THREATENING"
The Jews must be considered a bad influence on Christian culture and civili- zation.
One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and con- nive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition.
Jewish power and control in money matters is far out of proportion to the number of Jews in the total population.
There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. Jews tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness to do the most menial work and to live under standards that are far below average. War shows up the fact that the Jews are not patriotic or willing to make sacrifices for their country.
Jews may have moral standards that they apply in their dealings with each other, but with Christians they are unscrupulous, ruthless, and undependable. The Jew's first loyalty is to Jewry rather than to his country.
Jews seem to have an aversion to plain hard work; they tend to be a parasitic element in society by finding easy, nonproductive jobs.
There seems to be some revolutionary streak in the Jewish make-up as shown by the fact that there are so many Jewish Communists and agitators.
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
powerful and so basic a social threat. This imagery in extreme cases seems to be an ideological expression of underlying paranoid trends; in Mein Kampf, for example, the Jews are regarded not only as "base and inferior" but also as having "germicidal potency" and "devilish cunning. " However, most American anti-Semites are undoubtedly not psychotic or paranoid in the usual psychiatric sense. The personality trends related to this kind of imagery in Americans will be dealt with in later chapters.
c. SuBSCALE "ATTITUDEs" (SA)? All the attitudes contained in this sub- scale (see Table 3(lll)) are regarded as negative or hostile to the Jews as a group, and this hypothesis is generally borne out by the statistical re- sults. These attitudes were intended to represent varying degrees of dis- crimination ranging from simple avoidance to suppression and attack, with intermediate actions of exclusion, quotas (partial exclusion), and segregation. In order to cover many forms of discrimination, a list of the major social areas in which it occurs was used in the formulation of items. These areas are: employment, residence (neighborhoods, apartment houses, hotels), educa- tion and professions, marriage, social organizations, politics, the nation. Item ll-2 I is a good example of pseudodemocracy: it assumes that the Jews are actually a threat (imagery: powerful, offensive, etc. ) and suggests that the Jews solve "their own problem"-implicitly, that if they do not limit them- selves voluntarily, the Gentiles may be forced to more drastic action. A per- son can agree to this, and many have, in the name of tolerance and democracy. It is, nevertheless, essentially an anti-Semitic idea: first, because as a matter of fact, it correlates well with the scale as a whole, and second, because it is based on hostile imagery, suppressive attitudes, and the assumption that anti-
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
TABLE 3 (III) ANTI-SEMITISM SuBsCALE "ATTITUDEs"
l-3. In order to maintain a nice residential neighborhood it is best to prevent Jews from living in it.
1-6. Colleges should adopt a quota system by which they limit the number of Jews in fields which have too many Jews now.
l-9. A step toward solving the Jewish problem would be to prevent Jews from getting into superior, profitable positions in society, for a while at least.
l-12. The Jewish problem is so general and deep that one often doubts that demo- cratic methods can ever solve it.
l-15. It is wrong for Jews and Gentiles to intermarry.
l-18. It is best that Jews should have their own fraternities and sororities, since
they have their own particular interests and activities which they can best engage in together, just as Christians get along best in all-Christian fraterni- ties.
l-21. It is sometimes all right to ban Jews from certain apartment houses.
l-24. Anyone who employs many people should be careful not to hire a large per-
centage of Jews.
ll-3. It would hurt the business of a large concern if it had too many Jewish em-
ployees.
11-6. The best way to eliminate the Communist menace in this country is to con-
trol the Jewish element which guides it.
ll-9. In order to handle the Jewish problem, Gentiles must meet fire with fire and
use the same ruthless tactics with the Jews that the Jews use with the Gen-
tiles.
ll-12. It is not wise for a Christian to be seen too much with Jews, as he might be
taken for a Jew, or be looked down upon by his Christian friends.
ll-15. One of the first steps to be taken in cleaning up the movies and generally improving the situation in Hollywood is to put an end to Jewish domination
there.
ll-18. Most hotels should deny admittance to Jews, as a general rule.
ll-21. Jewish leaders should encourage Jews to be more inconspicuous, to keep
out of professions and activities already overcrowded with Jews, and to
keep out of the public notice.
ll-24. It would be to the best interests of all if the Jews would form their own na-
tion and keep more to themselves.
Semitism is merely a rational reaction of Gentiles to the intrinsic badness of Jews.
d and e. SuBSCALES "SECLUSivE" (Ss) AND "INTRUSIVE" (S1). It is often stated that the cause of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that "Jews are different," and it has often been suggested that assimilation is the only solution to "the Jewish problem. " Indeed, many Jews have taken the same point of view, attempting in every way possible to take over the prevalent culture of their local American community, and becoming anxious over all signs of "foreign Jewishness" in their family and friends. This is not the place to discuss the problem of the adjustment of Jews and other minorities to American cul- ture. The question raised here concerns instead the psychology of anti- Semites: Is Jewish assimilation what they really want? If Jews behaved in a thoroughly conforming manner, would this satisfy the anti-Semites? One
? 66 THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
indication that these questions will receive negative answers lies in the fact that highly assimilated Jews usually meet the same sort of discrimination that others do. Another sign in the same direction is the stereotypy so com- mon in anti-Semitism. To the extent that a person is reacting to his self- created label or image of "the Jew" rather than to the particular Jewish individual with whom he is dealing, it matters but little what the Jew in question is like. The sign "no Jews wanted" is entirely insensitive to the virtues or faults of the specific individual applying for a job.
l-5. l-17. l-20.
l-23. ll-13. ll-17. ll-20. ll-23.
TABLE 4 (III)
ANTI-sEMITISM SuBsCALEs "SEcLusiVE vs. INTRUSIVE" A. "Seclusive"
One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and con- nive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition.
Much resentment against Jews stems from their tending to keep apart and to exclude Gentiles from Jewish social life.
The Jews should give up their un-Christian religion with all its strange cus- toms (kosher diet, special holidays, etc. ) and participate actively and sin- cerely in the Christian religion.
Jews tend to remain a foreign element in American society, to preserve their old social standards and to resist the American way of life.
One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding.
The Jewish districts in most cities are results of the clannishness and stick- togetherness of Jews.
Jewish millionaires may do a certain amount to help their own people, but little of their money goes into worthwhile American causes.
The Jews keep too much to themselves, instead of taking the proper inter- est in community problems and good government.
B. "Intrusive"
1-11. There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. l-16. The Jews should not pry so much into Christian activities and organiza-
tions nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians.
1-19? One thing that has hindered the Jews in establishing their own nation is the fact that they really have no culture of their own; instead, they tend to copy the things that are important to the native citizens of whatever
country they are in.
l-25. Jews go too far in hiding their Jewishness, especially such extremes as
changing their names, straightening noses, and imitating Christian manners and customs.
It would hurt the business of a large concern if it had too many Jewish employees.
The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they grad-
ually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere.
11-19. The true Christian can never forgive the Jews for their crucifixion of
Christ.
II-25. When Jews create large funds for educational or scientific research
(Rosenwald, Heller, etc. ), it is mainly due to a desire for fame and public notice rather than a really sincere scientific interest.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
In an attempt to quantify attitudes regarding assimilation, two subscales representing opposing sides on this issue were included in the A-S scale (Table 4(III) ). Subscale "Seclusive" (S8 ) takes the stand that Jews are too foreign and unassimilated; it accuses them of being clannish, of keeping apart, and of not being sufficiently concerned with other groups and other ways. The implication of these items is that Jews ought to assimilate more, that they could solve the problem of anti-Semitism themselves by entering more actively into American life and by conforming more closely with American conventions and standards. (Two of these items were also included in other
subscales, Item l-5 being also in ST, and Il-q in S0 ).
Subscale "Intrusive" (S1), on the other hand, accuses the Jews of over-
assimilation and overparticipation. When Jews seem to be conforming in social behavior they are actually just "imitating" and "hiding their Jewish- ness" (Item l-2 5). Their attempts to join organizations are based on prestige- seeking and the desire to pry (Item I-I6). Their admission into the govern- ment or into neighborhoods only leads to attempts by them at control and domination of non-Jews (Items 1-n, Il-7). Their seeming philanthropy is based on selfish motives (Item Il-25). And finally, they lack a culture of their own and must therefore copy or "sponge on" the culture of the country in which they live (Item I-I9)? The implication of these items, in direct contrast to those in the "Seclusive" subscale, is that Jews ought to keep more to themselves and to develop a culture, preferably even a nation, of their own. (Four of these items were also included in other subscales, Item 1-I I being also in ST, I-I6 and Il-7 in S0 , and Il-3 in SA. )
f. "NEUTRAL" ITEMS NoT IN A SUBSCALE (TABLE 5(III)). Four items in the A-S scale were not included in any of the five subscales. This illustrates
TABLE 5 (III)
"NEUTRAL" ITEMS IN THE ANTI-SEMITISM SCALE
I-22. One big trouble with Jews is that they are never contented, but always
I-26. II-22. II-26.
try for the best jobs and the most money.
There is little doubt that Jewish pressure is largely responsible for the U. S. getting into the war with Germany.
There is little hope of correcting the racial defects of the Jews, since these defects are simply in their blood.
On the whole, the Jews have probably contributed less to American life than any other group.
the fact that the subscales represent "components" of anti-Semitism only in a general prestatistical sense. A correlational analysis of the scale would very probably indicate components containing these four items, since they deal with significant aspects of anti-Semitic ideology and since they correlate well with the total scale.
Item Il-22 is worth noting in particular; it takes a hereditarian-racist stand concerning the "defects" of the Jews and, like all hereditarian approaches, is pessimistic regarding improvement of group relations along democratic
? 68 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
lines. To the person who feels that Jews have special and basic faults which cannot be changed, all talk about ending discrimination, about improving Jewish-Gentile relations, and about "what Jews can do to help themselves" is meaningless and irrelevant. The fact that many people who take this "Jewish immutability" viewpoint also tend to tell the Jews how they must change is another sign of the illogicality of anti-Semitism. This idea of the insolubility of the problem is also expressed in Items l-7 and l-1 z.
3. THE TOT AL ANTI-SEMITISM (A-S) SCALE
The total anti-Semitism scale consists of fifty-two items and comprises all the items in the five subscales as well as the four neutral items discussed above. Both parts of the scale are present in Table 6(111), with instructions to sub- jects, just as it was administered.
. ?
TABLE 6 (III)
THE ToTAL ANTI-SEMITISM ScALE Public Opinion Questionnaire A
This is an investigation of general public opinion concerning Jewish people. The following are statements with which some people agree and others disagree. Please mark each one in the left margin, according to the amount of your agree- ment or disagreement, by using the following scale:
+I:
+2:
+3:
_ _ I.
_ _ 2. _ _ 3? _ _ 4? _ _ 5? _ _ 6. _ _ 7?
_ _ 8. _ _ 9?
_ _ Io.
_ _ I I.
slight support, agreement moderate support, " strong support, "
- I : slight opposition, disagreement - 2 : moderate opposition, "
-3: strong opposition,
Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living.
The Jews must be considered a bad influence on Christian culture and civilization.
In order to maintain a nice residential neighborhood it is best to pre- vent Jews from living in it.
A major fault of the Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their idea that they are a chosen race.
One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and connive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition. Colleges should adopt a quota system by which they limit the number of Jews in fields which have too many Jews now.
No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always something basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a man- ner that is never totally changed.
Jewish power and control in money matters is far out of proportion to the number of Jews in the total population.
A step toward solving the Jewish problem would be to prevent Jews from getting into superior, profitable positions i. n society, for a while at least.
Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, and unattractive.
There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in ~ashington, and they have too much control over our national pol- ICies.
? __12.
__13. __14.
___15. ___I6.
___17.
The Jewish proble~ is so general and deep that one often doubts that democratic methods can ever solve it.
There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike.
Jews tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness to do the most menial work and to live under standards that are far below average.
It is wrong for Jews and Gentiles to intermarry.
The Jews should not pry so much into Christian acnvmes and or- ganizations nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians.
? CONTRASTING IDEOLOGIES OF TWO COLLEGE MEN
55
Larry, it appears, is also identified with business and would like to go up in the world, but there the similarity between the two subjects ends. Whereas for Larry, going up means improving his lot in the ordinary sociological sense, for Mack it means changing his status in a hierarchy; in other words, Larry thinks of climbing primarily in its individual sense, while Mack thinks of it more in its class sense. Larry does not seem to mind competing, once he has been given support at the start, while Mack would get there by sub- mitting to those who are going to win. Larry is frankly interested in money and a lot of it while Mack is moralistically temperate in this regard; Larry wants pleasure, Mack seems more interested in power; Larry feels that the main object of work and efficiency is that one might the sooner take a vaca- tion and enjoy life; Mack appears to regard these things as ends in them- selves. In general, both subjects express ideas that are closely in accord with their political ideologies.
Another difference between the two men, which may be of considerable importance, lies in Larry's greater awareness of his motivation: he is entirely open about his desire for money and pleasure, his willingness to accept sup- port, his susceptibility to influence by his family, his interest in social prestige. There is little reason to doubt that these motives are just as strong, if not considerably stronger, in Mack, but it is plain that he does not fully accept them as parts of his self. It might be inquired whether this tendency to keep important personality needs out of consciousness, to allow them to remain ego-alien, is not a regular feature of the potential fascist.
In the present area of vocation-income, perhaps more than in any of the others, the subjects' discussion of what they believe is closely bound up with discussion of what, more or less explicitly, they want. Personality needs, in other words, have a central place in the whole picture. To climb socially, to be independent, to have pleasure and security, to attain a sense of power by submitting to those who have it-these are personality needs. The moral- istic depreciation of money, the oversolicitous but unrealistic attitude toward poor people-these may be regarded as defense mechanisms, devices whereby needs which conflict with the stronger need to maintain self-respect are held in check. It is plain that with respect to a number of these variables Mack and Larry are widely different; and it was one of the main hypotheses of the present research that there are numerous such variables with respect to which prejudiced and unprejudiced individuals differ generally and which in individuals at either extreme go together to form a psychologically mean- ingful pattern. In proceeding to test this hypothesis the interview protocols of numerous ethnocentric and anti-ethnocentric subjects-as well as other sources-were combed for just such distinguishing features, and these were then put into the form of questionnaire scale-items for testing with groups of subjects. A liking for "nice equipment," a fondness for hunting and fishing, a preference for living in a small town-numerous such small but
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
suggestive items were given consideration. On the assumption that potential antidemocracy at the personality level is a general trend with respect to which individuals differ quantitatively, a scale for the measurement of this trend was constructed in the manner of those described above. This supplied the means for demonstrating on a mass basis some of the relationships which appear to exist in the two individuals under discussion.
Even if factors of personality did not come explicitly to the fore at par- ticular points in the interviews with these two men, the conception of personality would be forced upon us by observation of the consistency with which the same ideas and thesame modes of thought recur as the discussion turns from one ideological area to another. Since no such consistency could conceivably exist as a matter of sociological fact, we are bound to conceive of central tendencies in the person which express themselves in various areas. The concept of a dynamic factor of personality is made to order for explaining the common trend in diverse surface manifestations. For ex- ample, a need for power in the personality is ready to express itself in any area of social relations. It may be suggested, in this connection, that where social psychologists have not so far given a great deal of attention to person- ality it is because they have not studied total ideology. Specific social atti- tudes if adequately measured will undoubtedly be found to correlate with a variety of external and contemporary factors, and if one studies only spe- cific attitudes he may easily be led to the belief that this is all there is to it. Consistent trends in the person can only be revealed by subjecting him to a variety of stimuli, or placing him in a number of different situations, or questioning him on a wide array of topics; but if this is done, then, according to the present hypothesis, consistent trends, i. e. , personality, will always be revealed.
The varied stimuli to which subjects of the present study were subjected were not limited to questions of attitude, opinion, and value; there were the clinical techniques designed especially for bringing the factors of personal- ity to light. The aim was to go as far as possible toward demonstrating the covariation of personality factors and the ideological trends discussed above, toward discovering as many as possible of the features which distinguished the potentially antidemocratic individual. Given a relationship between a personality variable and an ideological trend, it was usually assumed that the causal sequence was from the former to the latter-on the grounds that the formation of personality was genetically earlier, the most important structures going back to childhood. This led to an attempt to learn some- thing about the determination of the potential fascist in childhood, through investigation of the early social environment. But this is a subject which can- not be considered until much later; not until the several areas of ideology have been analyzed in detail.
? CHAPTER III
THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
Daniel J. Levinson
A. INTRODUCTION
One of the most clearly antidemocratic forms of social ideology is preju- dice, and within this context anti-Semitism provides a fruitful starting point for a social psychological study. As a social movement, organized anti- Semitism presents a major threat to democracy: it is one of the most powerful psychological vehicles for antidemocratic political movements and it pro- vides, for reasons which are largely politico-economic and beyond the scope of this discussion, perhaps the most effective spearhead for a frontal attack on our entire social structure.
From a psychological viewpoint as well, anti-Semitism is particularly important and revealing. Much that psychologically oriented writers have already said about anti-Semitism and about fascism suggests that the deeper psychological sources of these ideologies are very similar. The irrational quality in anti-Semitism stands out even in casual everyday discussions. The fact that people make general statements about "the Jew," when the Jews are actually so heterogeneous-belong to every socioeconomic class and represent every degree of assimilation-is vivid evidence of this irrationality. This striking contrast between the Jews' actual complexity and their sup- posed homogeneity has suggested the hypothesis that what people say against Jews depends more upon their own psychology than upon the actual charac- teristics of Jews. For example, when the belief that Jews possess financial power out of all proportion to their numbers persists in the face of over- whelming evidence to the contrary, one is led to suspect not only that the individual holding this belief has an unusual preoccupation with power but also that he might himself wish to assume the kind of power which he sup- poses Jews to have. It is clear that research into the emotional sources of ideology is required for the understanding of such phenomena as these.
These considerations, which suggest the advantage of making anti- Semitism a point of departure for research, were also some of the hypotheses that guided the research as a whole. The study of anti-Semitism may well
57
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
be, then, the first step in a search for antidemocratic trends in ideology, in personality, and in social movements.
Anti-Semitism is conceived here as an ideology, that is, as a relatively organized, relatively stable system of opinions, values, and attitudes concern- ing Jews and Jewish-Gentile relations. More specifically, it involves negative opinions regarding Jews (that they are unscrupulous, clannish, power- seeking, and so on); hostile attitudes toward them (that they should be ex- cluded, restricted, kept subordinate to Gentiles, and so on); and moral values \vhich permeate the opinions and justify the attitudes.
Numerous questions concerning the structure and content of anti- Semitism were raised in Chapter II. These and other questions guided the construction of an opinion-attitude scale for the measurement of anti- Semitic ideology. The source material for the scale included: the writings of virulent anti-Semites; technical, literary, and reportorial writings on anti- Semitism and fascism; and, most important, everyday American anti-Semitism as revealed in parlor discussion, in the discriminatory practices of many businesses and institutions, and in the literature of various organizations which are trying, with small success, to counter numerous anti-Semitic accusations by means of rational argument.
This scale, like the others used in the present research, had several func- tions. It yielded a quantitative measure which could be correlated with measures of other, theoretically related, variables. It provided a basis for the selection of criterion groups of extreme high and low scorers, who could then be subjected to intensive clinical study. It permitted, as part of a larger questionnaire, a relatively detailed, quantifiable study of large groups of subjects. Finally, it was constructed in such a way that statistical analysis of its properties might reveal much of the structure, scope, and content of anti- Semitic ideology.
B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ANTI-SEMITISM (A-S) SCALE
An opinion-attitude scale is a series of statements dealing with a given topic, in this case anti-Semitic ideology. The subject is asked to respond to each item by agreeing or disagreeing. His responses are converted into scores in such a way that a high score indicates a great amount of what is being measured-for this scale, anti-Semitism-a low score the opposite. The scor- ing procedure is discussed below (Section C).
The Likert method of scaling (73, 84) was used. It is easier to apply and requires fewer items than the Thurstone method (II8), but yields equally high reliabilities and generally comparable results (2 2, 84). It was desired to avoid the assumptions and difficulties in the use of judges which the latter method entails. Also, since it was anticipated that in further stages of the research the items might be modified in wording, it was highly desirable to
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
59
avoid the repeated use of judges. A measure of intensity of optmon and attitudes is obtained, in the Likert method, by having the subject indicate the degree of his agreement or disagreement with each item; this makes possible a more adequate determination of subtle group and individual dif- ferences, and facilitates the qualitative analysis of individual response pat- terns. This method also permits the covering of a wider area of opinions and attitudes. Finally, the Likert technique of item analysis (see below) was particularly suited to the general theoretical approach of this research.
1. GENERAL RULES IN ITEM FORMULA TION
The procedure used for selecting and formulating items, in contrast to a frequent practice, did not involve the testing of several hundred items as a basis for selection of a final short scale. Rather, fifty-two items were formu- lated and all of these were used throughout the statistical analysis of the preliminary form of the scale. (To anticipate a result presented below, only a few items were statistically inadequate, and this inadequacy is interesting in its own right. ) In successive stages of the research there were, however, no qualms about modifying, deleting, or adding items.
The present scale differs from most opinion-attitude scales in that it con- tains only negative items, that is, they all state the anti-Semitic position regarding the issue in question. The reasons for the use of negative items only and an answer to some possible criticisms, presented in detail in a previ- ous publication (71), may be summarized here. One advantage of negative items is that they tend to be more discriminating. Also, negative items can be so phrased that they express subtle hostility without seeming to offend the democratic values which most prejudiced people feel they must main- tain. Since the scale attempts to measure receptivity to anti-Semitic ideology, it seemed reasonable to use only anti-Semitic statements in the scale. The main argument against the present procedure is that it might produce a "set" or mechanical tendency consistently to agree or to disagree. This argument is answered on the ground that (a) most individuals show variability of response, as indicated by item intercorrelations averaging . 3-. 4; (b) there is a tendency to vary in order to avoid an extreme position; (c) very similar results have been obtained in later stages of the present research when an all-negative scale is inserted randomly into a longer series containing positive items; and, most important, (d) since the "set" argument implies that high scorers are not necessarily anti-Semitic nor lows anti-anti-Semitic, the final test is the validity of the scale, that is, the demonstration that high scorers are significantly different from low scorers in a variety of meaningful charac- teristics. The scale does, as will be shown later, have considerable validity.
Since the A-S scale, like the others, was intended not only to provide a quantitative measure of an ideology but also to aid in the qualitative descrip- tion of that ideology (and of individual ideological patterns), its construe-
? 6o THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
tion followed certain general rules. These rules had to do with (a) the formulation of individual items, and (b) the division of the total scale into subscales.
Since the scale should not, for practical reasons, include more than about fifty items (preferably fewer in later forms), each item should be maximally rich in ideas and there should be a minimum of duplication in wording or essential content of items. While the items are therefore often more complex than those of many other scales, this is not considered a fault. At the same time, they should be clear and unambiguous in meaning, so that agreement is ordinarily an expression of anti-Semitism, disagreement an expression of its opposite. It is important to avoid "double-barreled" items, that is, items with two parts such that a subject might agree with one part and disagree with the other, and thus not know how to respond.
Extreme prejudice of a violent and openly antidemocratic sort does not seem to be widespread in this country, especially in the middle class. 1 Since the present scale is intended to measure everyday, "garden variety" anti- Semitism, the items were formulated in such a way as to reflect the prevalent forms in which anti-Semitism now appears.
Most prejudice as one finds it in business, housing, and general social inter- action is pseudodemocratic rather than openly antidemocratic; this distinc- tion plays an important role in the analysis of anti-Semitic ideology which guided the construction of the scale and the formulation of items. An idea may be considered openly antidemocratic when it refers to active hatred, or to violence which has the direct aim of wiping out a minority group or of putting it in a permanently subordinate position. A pseudodemocratic idea, on the other hand, is one in which hostility toward a group is somewhat tempered and disguised by means of a compromise with democratic ideals. Pseudodemocratic statements about Jews are often introduced by qualifying phrases which deny hostility or which attempt to demonstrate the demo- cratic attitude of the speaker, e. g. , "It's not that I'm prejudiced, but. . . . "; "Jews have their rights, but. . . . "
This pseudodemocratic fac;ade is probably relatively untouched by most of the current literature attacking prejudice as "race hatred," "un-Ameri- can," "un-Christian intolerance," and the like. There is no hatred in the surface content of these attitudes and they have been squared with certain democratic values in such a way that the individual holding them apparently feels little if any sense of antidemocracy. And, of course, merely to label this way of thinking as un-American will not change it, first, because labeling is not enough, and second, because such thinking falls within one of the main streams of American social history and can be found to some extent in most sections of American life. It is necessary, rather, to understand its
1 This is shown by various public opinion polls and reportorial studies although compre- hensive and rigorously obtained data are lacking. It is also indicated by results from the present study.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 6r
external sources in American culture and tradition as well as the inner sources which make certain individuals particularly receptive to these cultural pressures.
It is probably an error to regard the pseudodemocratic compromise as a mere surface disguise used deliberately and skillfully by prejudiced people to camouflage their actual, conscious antidemocracy. The person whose approach to social problems is pseudodemocratic is actually different now from one whose approach is now openly antidemocratic. For various reasons -perhaps because he has internalized democratic values, perhaps out of conformity to present social standards-the pseudodemocrat does not now accept ideas of overt violence and active suppression. The concern with democratic values, and the resistance to antidemocratic ones, must be con- sidered as psychologically and socially important facts in any attempt to understand prejudice, American variety. Undoubtedly very many people who are now pseudodemocratic are potentially antidemocratic, that is, are capable in a social crisis of supporting or committing acts of violence against minority groups. Nevertheless, it is important to understand the attempted compromise with democratic values: because it may reveal a democratic potential which might, if supported and strengthened, ultimately gain the upper hand; because it colors the whole fabric of pseudodemocratic social thinking; and, since this comprorllise reflects the prevalent forms of overt discrimination in this country-quotas, segregation, exclusion, denial of op- portunities-to understand the former may help to combat the latter.
If patterns of ideology are conceived as falling on a dimension ranging from democratic to antidemocratic, then the pseudodemocratic ones prob- ably stand somewhere between the center and the antidemocratic extreme. This is, of course, not a simple dimension: there are diverse approaches falling into each of these broad categories, and the dimension is not a simple quantitative one like length or weight. A change of certain trends in an indi- vidual may produce a qualitative reorganization and ideological change from one extreme of this dimension to the other. The task is to understand the total individual and, especially in the case of the pseudodemocrat, to gauge the psychological potential for both democracy and open antidemocracy.
Most of the items of the A-S scale have been formulated as pseudodemo- cratically as possible. This consideration was, in fact, one of the main reasons for the use of negative items only. The following rules have been followed in general: Each item should be made appealing and "easy to fall for" by avoiding or soft-pedaling or morally justifying ideas of violence and obvious antidemocracy. Much use is made of qualifying phrases such as "One trouble with Jewish . . . ";"There are a few exceptions, but . . . "; "It would be to the best interests of all if . . . ," in order to avoid a categorical, aggressive con- demnation. Items are worded so that the person can add at the end: "but I am not anti-Semitic. " Seeming tentativeness is introduced by qualifications such as "it seems that," "probably," "in most cases. " Finally, an attempt is made to
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
give each statement a familiar ring, to formulate it as it has been heard many times in everyday discussions.
To the extent that the above rules have been followed, pseudodemocratic subjects are likely to make scores on this scale as high, or nearly as high, as those of the antidemocratic ones. It will be the task of later techniques, both questionnaire-style and clinical, to provide further information con- cerning the distinctions between these two groups of subjects.
2. MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS OR AREAS: THE SUBSCALES
The general rules of item formulation just described refer primarily to the formal structure of items and can be applied to each item irrespective of the content of the ideas expressed in it. The content of the items was largely determined by the general conception of anti-Semitic ideology and the specific hypotheses discussed above. Several subscales were formed in order to insure systematic coverage of the various aspects conceived and in order to test certain hypotheses. The subscales cannot be thought of as dealing with components of anti-Semitism in any statistical sense; they are not based on statistical treatment of prior results, nor was any intensive correlational analysis of the present items made. The subscales are, rather, convenient ways of conceiving and grouping items.
The anti-Semitism scale conta1ns five subscales dealing respectively with imagery (opinions) of Jews as personally offensive and as socially threaten- ing; with attitudes concerning what should be done to or against Jews; and with the opposing views that Jews are too seclusive or too intrusive (as- similative). These subscales are probably not entirely independent either in a statistical sense or with respect to the actual content of the items; indeed, there is some question as to whether certain items may not equally well have been placed in a different subscale than the one to which they were assigned. Nevertheless, each subscale as a whole seems to deal with a fairly definite and definable phase of anti-Semitism. The subscales will now be discussed in order.
a. SuBsCALE "OFFENSIVE" (S0 ) . This subscale is presented in T able r (III). (The items are numbered as they appeared in the total scale, which was given in two parts, I and II, with twenty-six items in each part; thus, l-4 is Item 4, part I. ) The items describe various "Jewish traits" which are offensive, unpleasant, and disturbing. Stereotypy is implicit in items ascribing faults to "Jews"-implicitly, "all" or "most" Jews-without recognition of individual differences. It is explicit in item 1-q, which specifically states that "Jews are pretty much alike" and which indicates an image of "the Jews" as a stereo-
typed model of the entire group.
What are the characteristics of this stereotyped image? If the other items
offer an adequate description, "the Jew" is extravagant, sensual, conceited, and overaggressive; but he is also "smelly," shabby, and unconcerned with his personal appearance. Jews are accused of being excessinly Jewish, so to
? 1-I. l-4. I-7.
1-w.
I-I3. I-I6.
II-I. Il-4. II-7.
11-Io. II-I 3?
11-I6.
TABLE I (III) ANTI-sEMITISM SuBsCALE "OFFENsivE"
Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living.
A major fault of the Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their idea that they are a chosen race.
No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always some- thing basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a manner that is never totally changed.
Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, and unattractive.
There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike. The Jews shoud not pry so much into Christian activities and organizations nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians.
The Jews should make sincere efforts to rid themselves of their conspicuous and irritating faults if they really want to stop being persecuted.
There is something different and strange about Jews; one never knows what they are thinking or planning, nor what makes them tick.
The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they gradu- ally give it a typical Jewish atmosphere.
I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew.
One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding.
Jews should be more concerned with their personal appearance, and not be so dirty and smelly and unkempt.
THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
speak, but their attempts to assimilate into "Christian" activities are re- garded as prying. Jewish faults are considered the main cause of anti- Semitism (Item 11-r ), which would be eliminated if the Jews made sincere efforts to improve. However, there is some doubt that Jews can ever quite manage to be fully Americanized (Item I-7).
Item 11-ro, "I can hardly imagine myself marrying a Jew," is included here because it seems to refer more to an unpleasant image than to a clear-cut, hostile attitude. It represents a pseudodemocratic equivalent to Item I-rs in the "Attitude" subscale (see below). Are people consistent in their general agreement (or disagreement) with these items? This will be seen in the results presented below.
b. SuBsCALE "THREATENING" (ST)? These items, presented in Table z(lll), describe the Jews as a dangerous, dominating, corrupting social group. They are asserted to have great power economically and politically, and to be unscrupulous and conniving in their dealings with Gentiles. They do not like hard work (Item 11-rr) but at the same time they lower the general standard of living by doing menial work and by living under low standards (Item l-r4). In addition to being simultaneously rich and poor, powerful and parasitic, they are also at once capitalists and revolutionaries. In their lack of patriotism they are a threat to the nation, and in general they are a threat to civilization.
Apart from the enormous complexity of "the Jew" so described, there is something fantastic in the idea that a group so small numerically can be so
? I-2. I-5. 1-8.
I-I 1.
I-I4.
Il-2.
ll-5.
11-8. II-I 1.
II-I4.
TABLE 2 (III)
ANTI-SEMITISM SuBsCALE "THREATENING"
The Jews must be considered a bad influence on Christian culture and civili- zation.
One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and con- nive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition.
Jewish power and control in money matters is far out of proportion to the number of Jews in the total population.
There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. Jews tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness to do the most menial work and to live under standards that are far below average. War shows up the fact that the Jews are not patriotic or willing to make sacrifices for their country.
Jews may have moral standards that they apply in their dealings with each other, but with Christians they are unscrupulous, ruthless, and undependable. The Jew's first loyalty is to Jewry rather than to his country.
Jews seem to have an aversion to plain hard work; they tend to be a parasitic element in society by finding easy, nonproductive jobs.
There seems to be some revolutionary streak in the Jewish make-up as shown by the fact that there are so many Jewish Communists and agitators.
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
powerful and so basic a social threat. This imagery in extreme cases seems to be an ideological expression of underlying paranoid trends; in Mein Kampf, for example, the Jews are regarded not only as "base and inferior" but also as having "germicidal potency" and "devilish cunning. " However, most American anti-Semites are undoubtedly not psychotic or paranoid in the usual psychiatric sense. The personality trends related to this kind of imagery in Americans will be dealt with in later chapters.
c. SuBSCALE "ATTITUDEs" (SA)? All the attitudes contained in this sub- scale (see Table 3(lll)) are regarded as negative or hostile to the Jews as a group, and this hypothesis is generally borne out by the statistical re- sults. These attitudes were intended to represent varying degrees of dis- crimination ranging from simple avoidance to suppression and attack, with intermediate actions of exclusion, quotas (partial exclusion), and segregation. In order to cover many forms of discrimination, a list of the major social areas in which it occurs was used in the formulation of items. These areas are: employment, residence (neighborhoods, apartment houses, hotels), educa- tion and professions, marriage, social organizations, politics, the nation. Item ll-2 I is a good example of pseudodemocracy: it assumes that the Jews are actually a threat (imagery: powerful, offensive, etc. ) and suggests that the Jews solve "their own problem"-implicitly, that if they do not limit them- selves voluntarily, the Gentiles may be forced to more drastic action. A per- son can agree to this, and many have, in the name of tolerance and democracy. It is, nevertheless, essentially an anti-Semitic idea: first, because as a matter of fact, it correlates well with the scale as a whole, and second, because it is based on hostile imagery, suppressive attitudes, and the assumption that anti-
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
TABLE 3 (III) ANTI-SEMITISM SuBsCALE "ATTITUDEs"
l-3. In order to maintain a nice residential neighborhood it is best to prevent Jews from living in it.
1-6. Colleges should adopt a quota system by which they limit the number of Jews in fields which have too many Jews now.
l-9. A step toward solving the Jewish problem would be to prevent Jews from getting into superior, profitable positions in society, for a while at least.
l-12. The Jewish problem is so general and deep that one often doubts that demo- cratic methods can ever solve it.
l-15. It is wrong for Jews and Gentiles to intermarry.
l-18. It is best that Jews should have their own fraternities and sororities, since
they have their own particular interests and activities which they can best engage in together, just as Christians get along best in all-Christian fraterni- ties.
l-21. It is sometimes all right to ban Jews from certain apartment houses.
l-24. Anyone who employs many people should be careful not to hire a large per-
centage of Jews.
ll-3. It would hurt the business of a large concern if it had too many Jewish em-
ployees.
11-6. The best way to eliminate the Communist menace in this country is to con-
trol the Jewish element which guides it.
ll-9. In order to handle the Jewish problem, Gentiles must meet fire with fire and
use the same ruthless tactics with the Jews that the Jews use with the Gen-
tiles.
ll-12. It is not wise for a Christian to be seen too much with Jews, as he might be
taken for a Jew, or be looked down upon by his Christian friends.
ll-15. One of the first steps to be taken in cleaning up the movies and generally improving the situation in Hollywood is to put an end to Jewish domination
there.
ll-18. Most hotels should deny admittance to Jews, as a general rule.
ll-21. Jewish leaders should encourage Jews to be more inconspicuous, to keep
out of professions and activities already overcrowded with Jews, and to
keep out of the public notice.
ll-24. It would be to the best interests of all if the Jews would form their own na-
tion and keep more to themselves.
Semitism is merely a rational reaction of Gentiles to the intrinsic badness of Jews.
d and e. SuBSCALES "SECLUSivE" (Ss) AND "INTRUSIVE" (S1). It is often stated that the cause of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that "Jews are different," and it has often been suggested that assimilation is the only solution to "the Jewish problem. " Indeed, many Jews have taken the same point of view, attempting in every way possible to take over the prevalent culture of their local American community, and becoming anxious over all signs of "foreign Jewishness" in their family and friends. This is not the place to discuss the problem of the adjustment of Jews and other minorities to American cul- ture. The question raised here concerns instead the psychology of anti- Semites: Is Jewish assimilation what they really want? If Jews behaved in a thoroughly conforming manner, would this satisfy the anti-Semites? One
? 66 THE AUTHORIT ARIAN PERSONALITY
indication that these questions will receive negative answers lies in the fact that highly assimilated Jews usually meet the same sort of discrimination that others do. Another sign in the same direction is the stereotypy so com- mon in anti-Semitism. To the extent that a person is reacting to his self- created label or image of "the Jew" rather than to the particular Jewish individual with whom he is dealing, it matters but little what the Jew in question is like. The sign "no Jews wanted" is entirely insensitive to the virtues or faults of the specific individual applying for a job.
l-5. l-17. l-20.
l-23. ll-13. ll-17. ll-20. ll-23.
TABLE 4 (III)
ANTI-sEMITISM SuBsCALEs "SEcLusiVE vs. INTRUSIVE" A. "Seclusive"
One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and con- nive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition.
Much resentment against Jews stems from their tending to keep apart and to exclude Gentiles from Jewish social life.
The Jews should give up their un-Christian religion with all its strange cus- toms (kosher diet, special holidays, etc. ) and participate actively and sin- cerely in the Christian religion.
Jews tend to remain a foreign element in American society, to preserve their old social standards and to resist the American way of life.
One general fault of Jews is their overaggressiveness, a strong tendency always to display their Jewish looks, manners, and breeding.
The Jewish districts in most cities are results of the clannishness and stick- togetherness of Jews.
Jewish millionaires may do a certain amount to help their own people, but little of their money goes into worthwhile American causes.
The Jews keep too much to themselves, instead of taking the proper inter- est in community problems and good government.
B. "Intrusive"
1-11. There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in Washington, and they have too much control over our national policies. l-16. The Jews should not pry so much into Christian activities and organiza-
tions nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians.
1-19? One thing that has hindered the Jews in establishing their own nation is the fact that they really have no culture of their own; instead, they tend to copy the things that are important to the native citizens of whatever
country they are in.
l-25. Jews go too far in hiding their Jewishness, especially such extremes as
changing their names, straightening noses, and imitating Christian manners and customs.
It would hurt the business of a large concern if it had too many Jewish employees.
The trouble with letting Jews into a nice neighborhood is that they grad-
ually give it a typical Jewish atmosphere.
11-19. The true Christian can never forgive the Jews for their crucifixion of
Christ.
II-25. When Jews create large funds for educational or scientific research
(Rosenwald, Heller, etc. ), it is mainly due to a desire for fame and public notice rather than a really sincere scientific interest.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
In an attempt to quantify attitudes regarding assimilation, two subscales representing opposing sides on this issue were included in the A-S scale (Table 4(III) ). Subscale "Seclusive" (S8 ) takes the stand that Jews are too foreign and unassimilated; it accuses them of being clannish, of keeping apart, and of not being sufficiently concerned with other groups and other ways. The implication of these items is that Jews ought to assimilate more, that they could solve the problem of anti-Semitism themselves by entering more actively into American life and by conforming more closely with American conventions and standards. (Two of these items were also included in other
subscales, Item l-5 being also in ST, and Il-q in S0 ).
Subscale "Intrusive" (S1), on the other hand, accuses the Jews of over-
assimilation and overparticipation. When Jews seem to be conforming in social behavior they are actually just "imitating" and "hiding their Jewish- ness" (Item l-2 5). Their attempts to join organizations are based on prestige- seeking and the desire to pry (Item I-I6). Their admission into the govern- ment or into neighborhoods only leads to attempts by them at control and domination of non-Jews (Items 1-n, Il-7). Their seeming philanthropy is based on selfish motives (Item Il-25). And finally, they lack a culture of their own and must therefore copy or "sponge on" the culture of the country in which they live (Item I-I9)? The implication of these items, in direct contrast to those in the "Seclusive" subscale, is that Jews ought to keep more to themselves and to develop a culture, preferably even a nation, of their own. (Four of these items were also included in other subscales, Item 1-I I being also in ST, I-I6 and Il-7 in S0 , and Il-3 in SA. )
f. "NEUTRAL" ITEMS NoT IN A SUBSCALE (TABLE 5(III)). Four items in the A-S scale were not included in any of the five subscales. This illustrates
TABLE 5 (III)
"NEUTRAL" ITEMS IN THE ANTI-SEMITISM SCALE
I-22. One big trouble with Jews is that they are never contented, but always
I-26. II-22. II-26.
try for the best jobs and the most money.
There is little doubt that Jewish pressure is largely responsible for the U. S. getting into the war with Germany.
There is little hope of correcting the racial defects of the Jews, since these defects are simply in their blood.
On the whole, the Jews have probably contributed less to American life than any other group.
the fact that the subscales represent "components" of anti-Semitism only in a general prestatistical sense. A correlational analysis of the scale would very probably indicate components containing these four items, since they deal with significant aspects of anti-Semitic ideology and since they correlate well with the total scale.
Item Il-22 is worth noting in particular; it takes a hereditarian-racist stand concerning the "defects" of the Jews and, like all hereditarian approaches, is pessimistic regarding improvement of group relations along democratic
? 68 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
lines. To the person who feels that Jews have special and basic faults which cannot be changed, all talk about ending discrimination, about improving Jewish-Gentile relations, and about "what Jews can do to help themselves" is meaningless and irrelevant. The fact that many people who take this "Jewish immutability" viewpoint also tend to tell the Jews how they must change is another sign of the illogicality of anti-Semitism. This idea of the insolubility of the problem is also expressed in Items l-7 and l-1 z.
3. THE TOT AL ANTI-SEMITISM (A-S) SCALE
The total anti-Semitism scale consists of fifty-two items and comprises all the items in the five subscales as well as the four neutral items discussed above. Both parts of the scale are present in Table 6(111), with instructions to sub- jects, just as it was administered.
. ?
TABLE 6 (III)
THE ToTAL ANTI-SEMITISM ScALE Public Opinion Questionnaire A
This is an investigation of general public opinion concerning Jewish people. The following are statements with which some people agree and others disagree. Please mark each one in the left margin, according to the amount of your agree- ment or disagreement, by using the following scale:
+I:
+2:
+3:
_ _ I.
_ _ 2. _ _ 3? _ _ 4? _ _ 5? _ _ 6. _ _ 7?
_ _ 8. _ _ 9?
_ _ Io.
_ _ I I.
slight support, agreement moderate support, " strong support, "
- I : slight opposition, disagreement - 2 : moderate opposition, "
-3: strong opposition,
Jews seem to prefer the most luxurious, extravagant, and sensual way of living.
The Jews must be considered a bad influence on Christian culture and civilization.
In order to maintain a nice residential neighborhood it is best to pre- vent Jews from living in it.
A major fault of the Jews is their conceit, overbearing pride, and their idea that they are a chosen race.
One trouble with Jewish businessmen is that they stick together and connive, so that a Gentile doesn't have a fair chance in competition. Colleges should adopt a quota system by which they limit the number of Jews in fields which have too many Jews now.
No matter how Americanized a Jew may seem to be, there is always something basically Jewish underneath, a loyalty to Jewry and a man- ner that is never totally changed.
Jewish power and control in money matters is far out of proportion to the number of Jews in the total population.
A step toward solving the Jewish problem would be to prevent Jews from getting into superior, profitable positions i. n society, for a while at least.
Districts containing many Jews always seem to be smelly, dirty, shabby, and unattractive.
There are too many Jews in the various federal agencies and bureaus in ~ashington, and they have too much control over our national pol- ICies.
? __12.
__13. __14.
___15. ___I6.
___17.
The Jewish proble~ is so general and deep that one often doubts that democratic methods can ever solve it.
There are a few exceptions, but in general Jews are pretty much alike.
Jews tend to lower the general standard of living by their willingness to do the most menial work and to live under standards that are far below average.
It is wrong for Jews and Gentiles to intermarry.
The Jews should not pry so much into Christian acnvmes and or- ganizations nor seek so much recognition and prestige from Christians.
