State interference still falls within the
category
of the necessary evil.
Adorno-T-Authoritarian-Personality-Harper-Bros-1950
"
That many statements of forthright hostility to labor can be found in our material is not astonishing. The striking fact, however, is that such, statements occur not only among high scorers but again also among medium and low scorers.
We again limit ourselves to a few examples which will give an idea of the structure of unqualified anti-unionism.
M2o2, a construction engineer, scoring generally very low, is nevertheless strongly identified with the entrepreneurs. His interviewer, as was men- tioned above (p. 649), called him "a person who is conservative but not fas- cist. " His invectives against labor, however, make this evaluation appear to be a little too optimistic. As an interesting deviation, a full account of his antilabor stand should be given.
In connection? with the discussion of his work subject was asked about his atti- tude toward labor unions. His response was, "I am hipped about unions; there you have a hole in me! " He joined a company as a strike-breaker in 1935. He took on a job as a chemist. At that time he was just out of California and there was a depres- sion on. He had no strong feeling about unions then, but just wanted a job. How- ever, he did feel that a man had a right to work if he wanted to, and he had no com- punction about taking another man's job. He continued with the company after the strike was over. He described himself as a "company man," and, consequently, as having the company point of view. When he works for a company he is one hun- dred per cent for that company's interests, otherwise he would not stay with them. He has two objections to unions: (I) their policy of assuming that older men are better than younger men and giving the better jobs to them rather than to new- comers; (2) the closed shop. He thinks men should be allowed to "enjoy their work. " If men. know that they are going to be kept on a job even if they don't work hard, it does not encourage them to do their best. For example, he hired two shop stewards whom he found were no good, so he fired them; but the union demanded that he take them back, which he had to do, as otherwise he would have had no one to work for him. If a man sees that the fellow next to him goes slow on the job and yet makes the same wages, he will have no incentive to work hard and pretty soon he, too, will slow down. The unions should not prevent a man from working who
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
does not want to join a union. The interviewer suggested that the main purpose of the closed shop was to bargain for rates of pay. Subject replied that if a group of men would band together to rate themselves and ask for more pay for the skilled workers, or to work out better means of production, that would be all right. If a company is not willing to pay for skilled work, they don't need to work there. By way of a summary, it may be pointed out that the subject's objections to unions boil down to a feeling that unions not only do not foster hard work, but even discour- age it.
This case seems to be that of a man who, although politically unbiased, became highly antagonistic to labor through concrete experience. It should be emphasized that, in spite of his own description of himself as a "company man," he by no means admires businessmen, thinks that poverty could be done away with by changes in our social system, and favors government control in many respects. His views may be summarized as being torn by a conflict between very progressive general ideology and violent reactionary impulses within the sphere of his own immediate interests-a configuration that may be indicative of a dangerous pattern of potentialities in many "lib- erals. " It seems, however, that the inconsistency of this subject is not so much due to psychological factors as to his professional position. His reactionary traits are derived from his function as a member of the technological hier- archy who has to look out for "efficiency" and finds that union interference tends to lower this efficiency rather than to enhance it. Thus his attitude is not really so inconsistent as it appears on the surface: one might rather say that his over-all progressiveness clashes with his technological progressive- ness because the two kinds of progress by no means harmonize objectively under the present conditions of production.
The zz-year-old woman, Fp6A, is structurally similar. She is a low scoret who turns violently antilabor on account of some grudges she has developed in her work as a junior chemist in an oil development company.
Subject feels that the present labor situation is very bad because of all the stri1<:e~ and that industry is really hamstrung. The big unions are asking too much. (Wha about the union at S. ? ) The S. union (C. I. O. ) is undemocratic because the depart ment heads and the junior chemists make all the decisions, then tell the member about it at meetings, and they are not even members of the union. (You also have : company union at S. , don't you? ) "You mean the Association of Industrial Scien tists? It is not a company union (rather angrily). That was a dirty trick of the C. I. O. -or rather not a dirty trick but a ruse-to accuse it of being a company union because then it could not be registered with the W. P. B. and so could not become: bargaining agent for the employees. They thought if they could prevent it fron being registered for one or two years that it would die. Because it is not the bar
gaining agent it cannot make a contract for the workers, it can only hint to th company what it would like. Although the A. I. S. only has a chapter at S. , I don' think it is company dominated, although I have no proof. (Don't the laborator: assistants get paid almost as much as the junior chemists? ) Yes, when the junio chemists were getting only $170 a month and the C. I. O. secured a raise to $180 fo the laboratory assistants, the company had to raise the junior chemists to $zoo
. .
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 709
month. The C. I. O. complains i:hat they do all the work and yet the junior chemists won't join. (Was not the raise a good thing? ) Yes, but I still would like to see what the A. I. S. could do if it were registered: maybe it wouldn't do anything. "
As to the high scorers, the key theme of their antilabor ideology is that of the racket. They regard the pressure exercised by organized labor as illegiti- mate in a way comparable to organized crime and conspiracy-the latter being one of the high scorers' favorite topics anyway. To them, whose moralism has been emphasized from time to time in this book, the concept of the free market coincides with the moral law, and any factors which introduce, as it were, an extra-economic element into the business sphere are regarded by them as irregular. Incidentally, this suspicion does not pertain to industrial monopolies and their pricing agreements but merely to the supposedly mo- nopolistic structure of unions. Here again the idea of "legitimacy"-of identi- fication with the strong-comes into play. Industrial combines seem, accord- ing to this kind of thinking, to be the outgrowth of a "natural" tendency, labor organizations a banding together of people who want to get more than their due share.
Viewed from a purely psychological angle the idea of "labor racketeering" seems to be of a nature similar to the stereotype of Jewish clannishness. It dates back to the lack of an adequately internalized identification with paternal authority during the Oedipus situation. It is our general assumption that the typical high scorers, above all, fear the father and try to side with him in order to participate in his power. The "racketeers" are those who by demanding too much (though the subject wants as much himself) run the risk of arousing the father's anger-and hence the subject's castration anxiety. This anxiety, reflecting the subject's own guilt feelings, is relieved by pro- jection. Thinking in terms of in- and outgroup, the high scorer who wants to "outgroup" the others is continuously prone to call them the ingroup. The more he tends himself, on account of his pretense to "status," to circum- vent the "normal" channels of free competition, the more he is likely to blame those he deems weak for the very same thing. Workers become "racketeers," criminals to him as soon as they organize. They appear as the guilty ones after the pattern of "peddler bites dog. " Such psychological tendencies are, of course, magnetically attracted by any elements of reality which fit irtto the projective pattern. Here, labor organizations afford a rare opportunity.
M352, a shift foreman who calls himself a "head operator," scores high on all scales.
"Well, at Standard Oil, no unions recognized. I've never been a union man. Through union there is strength, if it's run okay, but a lot of unions of today have developed into a racket, and a source of political influence. The C. I. O. Political Action Committee particularly . . . politics and unionism shouldn't become too involved. The unions shouldn't become a political organization; and the A. F. L. has
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
developed into a racket for making money. The officers keep themselves in positiom practically until they die, with no strings on how they use the money, and tha1 should be controlled . . . but if the local organization can run itself in an orderly fashion, okay, if the officers are conservative, but the minute they get too liberal use a strike as a first weapon instead of as a last resort . . . etc. "
Here, as in many instances, critique is directed against the largeness of uniom per se; with the romantic idea that purely local organization, being less insti- tutionalized, would be better automatically.
M658, the San Quentin man quoted above, goes so far as plainly to advo- cate the abolition of unions:
(Political trends today? ) "Oh, I think we are going to be ruled by a lot of clowns by a lot of labor unions. . . . Look at all these working stiffs . . . that don't know any- thing else, but how to drive a nail . . . they try to run things, because a few hundrec thousands of them get together. (What ought to be done? ) Straighten them out show them where they belong. . . . Take away their charters. (Meaning? ) Well every union has to have a charter. Abolish them. If necessary, abolish their meetings (What about strikes? ) That's what I'm thinking of . . . they're a detriment to the country. (How should strikes be handled? ) Refuse to reemploy them, or fine them I don't believe in sweat shops either, but this quittin' when you're making $rso: week anyway-kind of silly. Create inflation. " (Subject had earlier made a remarl in discussing vocation and income-which interviewer neglected to record-to the effect that he himself thinks in terms of saving perhaps $500 or so, e. g. , by theatre work, and then quitting for awhile. Note subject's highly exaggerated fantasies o wartime wages. )
A few statements of extreme anti-unionism can be found among the Lo Angeles sample. Perhaps the 2o-year-old boy, 5014, high onE and PEC anc middle on F, represents a certain kind of war veterans' anti-unionism:
When asked about organized labor he says: "I am against it. " He doesn't knov the difference between the A. F. L. and the C. I. O. but he feels "like many of the vet erans, we worked for nothing while the workers at home were on strike and mak ing good money. "
The contrast between this subject's hostility and his complete lack of infor- mation is striking.
5031-5032 are a husband and wife in a very high income group. Both arc high on PEC, low on F, and low-middle on E. For them violent anti-unionisn is concomitant again with contempt for human nature: they regard unionisn simply as a device of the lazy ones to dodge labor.
Both of them are antilabor. The husband is quite vehement about this. Althougl he expects prosperity to continue he feels it will be at the cost of a continual figh against labor's demands. He feels that labor's demands are unreasonable and tha with labor's recent victories that "even if one met labor's demands one certain! ' does not get a day's work out of carpenters, plumbers, etc. " Both of them claim t; be without prejudice with regard to various minorities. It is interesting, howeveJ that they did raise the issue of the acceptance of Jewish children in the schoc where their son went.
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MATERIAL 7I I
F5043, an extremely high-scoring middle-aged housewife, belongs to that school of potential fascists who find that "everything is a mess. " She first creates in true "we-the-mothers" style the imagery of a desperate crisis and then puts the blame on the labor situation.
"I have never seen anything like this," she lamented when asked about the labor situation. "What have our boys been fighting for? Why, they come back to find that they have to go without a lot of things . . . not even a place to live . . . all because of the strikes. " Thus she blames labor for the present crises and resents the growth and strength of labor unions. She also feels that there is an irreconcilable breach between veterans and the workers and fears internal strife. She also blames the strikers for the growing trend of unemployment and is very pessimistic about the possibility of full employment. However, she does not feel that there is too much government interference and is rather vague about the role of big business and free enterprise. In fact, she seems to harbor only very strong antilabor and anti- strike feelings, without any strong convictions on other issues. "It's just a terrible mess," she repeated, and she does not think the layman should get his hands dirty by "messing with politics. "
Whereas the low scorers who generally take a "pro, but" attitude toward unions insist on the soundness of the principle but object that unions are "going too far," getting more, as it were, than their share, the typical high scorers blame them indiscriminately for the supposedly critical social situa- tion, for the standardization of life (5001 and 5003), and for forthright dic- tatorial aims. To the high scorers anti-unionism is no longer an expression of dissatisfaction with concrete conditions from which they might have suf- fered, but a plank in the platform of reactionism which also automatically includes'anti-Semitism, hostility toward foreign countries, hatred of the New Deal, and all those hostile attitudes which are integrated in the negative imagery of American society underlying fascist and semifascist propaganda.
2. BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT
As was to be expected, the general ideological pattern pertaining to govern- ment interference in business is highly consistent with that which pertains to labor. The average opinion-if such a term, without proper quantification, is allowed-seems to be that a certain degree of government control is indis- pensable, particularly in wartime, but that it contradicts basically the prin- ciple of economic liberalism.
State interference still falls within the category of the necessary evil. T o the high scorers in particular the government inter- ference in business is just another aspect of the usurpation complex, a matter of dictatorial arbitrariness jeopardizing the rights of the hard-working money earners. But it should be noted again that there is no sharp line between high and low scorers with regard to government interference, whilst the how, the way in which both groups express their critical attitude, differentiates.
The following examples of a partly positive attitude toward government interference are chosen from medium and high scorers.
? 712 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
F34oA, of the Extension Testing Class, a young clerk, is middle onE but high on F and PEC. She is interesting because of a certain attitude of intellec- tual fairness expressing itself in attempts to see also the other side of the picture: an "antiparanoid" trait of the American frame of mind which, inci- dentally, is among the strongest bulwarks against fascism as far as subjective factors are concerned.
She doesn't believe in government control of industry. Maybe it would be all right for the government to. take over transportation, gas, electricity, and water. (Why? ) Maybe they could do it cheaper; she is not sure about that. Anyway, if there was a strike, like on the Key System they would be holding up everything and the government could make them go back to work. "When the government tells you to do something, you do it. "
The quotation shows an ambiguous element in the affirmation of govern- ment interference: whereas the latter is resented as a violation of liberalism, it is, simultaneously, appreciated as a potential means to keep organized labor at bay. It should be remembered that the National Socialists always com- plained about the "Welfare State" of Weimar but later on surpassed by far any state interference ever attempted by German socialist governments.
The high-scoring parole officer, M109, is reminiscent of F340A in so far as his support for some kind of government interference is authoritarian rather than favorable to any restrictions on the anarchy of free enterprise or to rational planning for the sake of all. (Cf. quotations on pp. 676, 679. )
Those who are outspokenly set against government controls again com- prise both low and high scorers. Here, of course, the low scorers are particu- lar! y interesting.
The already quoted M711, an "easy going" low scorer, is opposed to state interference simply because he feels a fascist potential in it, apparently un~ aware of the progressive function this interference had under Roosevelt:
(Government control? ) "I don't. There, again, that could be a road to a fascist state eventually. Certain controls would have to be exercised. "
In spite of his leftist ideology this man shows symptoms of a confusion which may make him the prey of pseudoprogressive slogans of fascist propa- ganda: it is the same man who justifies his anti-union attitude with the spuri- ous assertion that Hitler was in favor of unions.
M2o4, another low scorer, a young man of the Psychiatric Clinic group, suffering from anxiety neurosis, calls himself a socialist and feels that the New Deal was too conservative, but states, nevertheless:
The government should not be completely in control of everything. Favors something like the Scandinavian system: CCF, full employment, labor government, favors cooperatives. "I think it will come that way in this country. Government control can be run wrong. Instead we should preserve individual freedom and work through education. "
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW. MA TERIAL 7I 3
To sum up: the low scorers' criticism of government interference is based on the traditional idea of freedom, the fear of an authoritarian abolition of democratic institutions and an individualistic way of living. This makes for a potential resistance against any attempts at a planned economy. There is a possibility that a good many traditional values of American democratism and liberalism, if naively maintained within the setup of today's society, may radically change their objective functions without the subjects even being aware of it. In an era in which "rugged individualism" actually has resulted in far-reaching social control, all the ideals concomitant with an uncritical individualistic concept of liberty may simply serve to play into the hands of the most powerful groups.
The statements against government control of our high scorers are of a? completely different kind. To them, unionism, New Dealism, government control are all the same, the rule of those who should not rule. Here resent- ment of government interference is fused with the "no pity for the poor" complex.
The San Quentin "tough guy," M664b:
(Political trends today? ) "Well, the way it's agoing now, I think it's a detriment to our country. (How do you mean that? ) I think a person should earn a living instead of expecting the government to give it to him. I don't believe in this New Deal and I don't believe in labor running the country. . . . If a man can't make a profit in his business, he'll close it down. . . . "
The San Quentin murderer, M651a, who is serving a life sentence, is set against government interference, his point of view being that of the business- man who talks "common sense. "
(What about government controls over business? ) "No, I believe in free enter- prise. I believe that business should be able to conduct their own business, except during the war we had to have ceiling prices. . . . But competitive business makes low prices. . . . "
It may be noted that the feeling, even of the high scorers, with regard to government control as such, though it represents to them the hated New Deal, does not seem to be as "violent" as their anti-unionism. This may be partly due to the authoritarian undercurrent which, somehow, makes them respect, to a certain extent, any strong government, even if it is built on lines different from their own, partly from the rational insight into the necessity of some government interference. Many of our interviews were conducted during or shortly after the war, at a time when it was obvious that nothing
could be achieved without government control, and it is this fact to which reference is frequently made, mostly as a qualification of the rejection of government control. This, however, certainly depends largely on the situa- tion, and if interviews should be conducted today, the picture would very probably be different.
? feels;
~/
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
There is one particular issue which deserves some attention in this con- nection, the attitude of our subjects toward monopolism. On the one hand, monopolies are the outgrowth of free enterprise, the consummation of rugged individualism; on the other hand, they tend to assume that kind of noncompetitive control which is rejected when exercised by the government. Probably no "public opinion" concerning monopoly has crystallized so far, mainly because much fewer people are aware of the anonymous and objec- tive power of big combines than are aware of official legal measures of the state. However, a few examples may illustrate how the problem of insti- tutionalized superbusiness is reflected in the minds of some of our subjects.
M IIJ, a conventional but nonfascistic fraternity man, who scores low on
E and F but high on PEC, is set against "this Marxian stuff," but nevertheless,
"Big business should be controlled when it gets too large. In some fields, like Jtransponation, power, etc. , large-scale organization is necessary. The main thing
1
I there is to prevent monopoly, and to have limitations on profits. "
The unresolved contradiction between this man's strongly antisocialist and equally outspoken antimonopoly attitudes, is in all probability charac- teristic of a very large section of the population. In practice, it amounts to an artificial "holding up" of economic developmental tendencies, rather than to a clear-cut economic concept. Those layers of the European middle class which were finally enlisted by fascism were also not infrequently set, in ideology, against the big combines.
Mzz8, a low-scoring man of the University Extension Testing Class, sees the problem but is still so deeply imbued with traditional economic concepts that he is prevented from following his logic to its conclusions.
"The emphasis now is on 'free enterprise,' but that often results in monopoly, the big concerns squeezing the little guys to death. There is too much of a gap between the rich and the poor. People climb up by pushing others down, with no regulation. For this reason, government should have more influence economically, whether or not it goes as far as socialism. "
The same man criticizes Wallace for being "too impractical. " One cannot escape the impression that monopolism is used as a vague negative formula but that very few subjects are actually aware of the impact of monopoliza- tion on their lives. The union issue, in particular, plays a much bigger role in over-all ideology.
3. POLITICAL ISSUES CLOSE TO THE SUBJECTS
It has been pointed out in the early part of this chapter that political con- fusion and ignorance, and the gap between surface ideology and concrete reactions, are partly due to the fact that the political sphere, even today, seems to most Americans too far away from their own experiences and their
. .
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 7I 5
own pressing interests. Here we go briefly into a discussion of some political and economic topics of the interview schedule which, for imaginary or actual reasons, are closer to the hearts of our subjects, in order to form at least an impression on how they behave with regard to these matters, and whether their behavior differs markedly from that in the field of "high politics. "
First, an illustration of what may be called "imaginary closeness. " Our interview schedule contained at least one question which was, in the middle of its realistic surroundings, of a "projective" nature. It was concerned with the $z5,ooo income limit. Neither is this question a pressing political issue nor could many of our interviewees be expected to have any immediate personal interest in limitations of income on such a high level. The answers to this question, which would deserve a thoroughgoing analysis of its own, are indicative of an element of the American dream much more than of political attitudes. There were exceedingly few among our subjects who wanted to accept such an income limitation. The utmost concession they made was the acknowledgment that one can live on this amount. The pre- vailing view, however, was that, in a free country, every person should be allowed. to earn as much as he can, notwithstanding the fact that the chance to make as much today has become largely illusory. It is as if the American kind of utopia was still much more that of the shoeshine boy who becomes a railroad king, than that of a world without poverty. The dream of unre- stricted happiness has found its refuge, one might almost say its sole refuge, in the somewhat infantile fantasy of infinite wealth to be gathered by the individual. It goes without saying that this dream works in favor of the status quo; that the identification of the individual with the tycoon, in terms of the chance to become one himself, helps to perpetuate big business control.
Among those subjects who are outspokenly in favor of the income limit is the San Quentin check-writer, M664C, a high-scoring man, so full of fury and envy against everything that he does not even like the wealthy.
(What about $zs,ooo limit on salaries? ) "What the hell is that for? That's no more than fair; hell, that's too much money anyway. "
The apparent radicalism of this man can be appreciated only if one recol- lects that it is he who is outraged by the idea of feeding starving countries. The very widespread feeling of our subjects on the $z5,ooo income limit can be summed up in the eager plea of M62zA, of the San Quentin Group,
a low scorer on E and F but a high scorer on PEC.
"They shouldn't do that. If a man has the ability, more power to him. "
The next few topics are characteristic of the aforementioned tendency of our subjects to become more rational and "progressive" as soon as institutions or measures of a supposedly "socialistic" nature, from which the individual feels he can draw immediate benefits, are brought into the discussion. OPA and health insurance are examples.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
Our interviews seem to show that OPA, also a "bureaucratic" agency of government interference, is very generally accepted. Here are a few exam- ples, picked at random:
Again M621A:
(OPA? ) "I think it's done a very wonderful thing in this country. May have gone too far, e. g. , in the housing situation in San Diego. " (Subject thinks the OPA should have solved the housing situation. )
One of the few exceptions is the wealthy Los Angeles couple, 5031 and 5032, who are "disgusted and fed up with the New Deal, priorities, and all this damn red tape created by OPA. "
Most others are in favor of OPA, sometimes, however, with a certain strain of punitiveness, such as the San Quentin low scorer, M627, already quoted:
"Well, the OPA is doing a good job if they control this black market. "
This comes out most strongly in the interview of the San Quentin high
scorer M658, the man who wants to abolish labor unions.
"If (the OP A) had an iron glove underneath their kid gloves, be all right. They
fine a guy $wo-for making $wo,ooo. "
The general appreciation of OPA is the more interesting since this insti- tution has been under constant newspaper attacks for many years. But here the advantages, particularly with regard to the housing situation, are so obvi- ous that ideological invectives apparently lose some of their impact on the population. To demand the abolition of OPA because of the "damn red tape" in Washington may mean that one has no roof over one's head.
Something similar holds true of health insurance. High and low scorers, with very few exceptions, concur in its appreciation. M656A, a high scorer of the San Quentin Group, serving a term for second-degree murder, after having stated that a person can live on $2s,ooo a year but should be allowed to make what he is capable of making, and who certainly cannot be called a socialist, answers to the question about public health insurance, "I'm for it. "
The above quoted easy-going, low-scoring man, M711, is enthusiastic: "Public health insurance? Unqualifiedly yes . . . important as almost any meas-
ure of ideal society. "
Finally, our attention should be directed toward an economic area which is of the utmost importance for the formative processes of fascism. This is taxes. It is perhaps the point at which pent-up social fury is most freely given vent. With the high scorers, this fury is never directed overtly against basic con- ditions but has nevertheless the undertone of desired violent action. The man who bangs his fist on the table and complains about heavy taxation is a "natural candidate" for totalitarian movements. Not only are taxes associated with a supposedly spendthrift democratic government giving away millions to idlers and bureaucrats, but it is the very point where people feel, to put it
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 7 I7
in the words of one of oui subjects, that this world does not really belong to the people. Here they feel immediately that they are required to make sacrifices for which they do not get any visible returns, just as one of our subjects complains that he cannot see what he can get out of the war. The indirect advantages each individual may draw from taxes paid are obscure to him. He can only see that he has to give something without getting anything back, and this, in itself, seems to contradict the concept of exchange upon which the free market idea of liberalism is built. However, the extraordinary amount of libido attached to the complex of taxes, even in a boom period, such as the years when our subjects were interviewed, seems to confirm the hypothesis that it draws on deeper sources of the personality as much as on the surface resentment of being deprived of a considerable part of one's income without visible advantages to the individual. The rage against the rational tax system is an explosion of the irrational hatred against the irrational taxation of the individual by society. The Nazis knew very well how to exploit the complex of the "taxpayer's money. " They went so far as to grant, during the first years of their rule, a kind of tax amnesty, publicized by Goering. When they had to resort to heavier taxation than ever before they camouflaged it most skilfully as charity, voluntary donations, and so forth, and collected large amounts of money by illegal threats, rather than by offi- cial tax legislation.
Here are a few examples of the antitaxation complex:
The high-scoring man, M 105, who is violently anti-Semitic and associated with the "lunatic fringe," says:
"It is the taxpayer's money that has been put into South America; other countries will think we are fools. "
M345, a radar engineer of the Extension Testing Class, who scores middle onE, low on F, but high on PEC, believes:
(What about government control of business? ) "It has gotten to the point where it is requiring too much of the citizens' tax money and time. "
Again, the taxpayer's complex is not limited to high scorers. The low- scoring man, Mzz6, the deviate case of a conformist, conventional conserva- tive definitely opposed to prejudice, strongly identified with his father, accepts his Republican views:
". . . also because businessmen generally don't like the taxes. "
In case of a new economic crisis, where unemployment would necessitate high taxation of people whose incomes have shrunk, this complex would un- doubtedly play an exceptionally dangerous role. The threat is the more seri- ous since, in such a situation, a government which would not impose taxes would fail, while one which would take steps in this direction would invari-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
ably antagonize the very same group from which totalitarian movements most likely draw their support.
4. FOREIGN POLICY AND RUSSIA
Lack of information on the part of our subjects prevails, even more than anywhere else, in the area of foreign politics. There are usually rather vague and misty ideas about international conflicts, interspersed with morsels of information on some individual topics with which the subjects either happen to be familiar or to which they have taken a fancy. The general mood is one of disappointment, anxiety, and vague discontent, as symbolically epitomized by the medium-scoring woman, F340B: "Seems we haven't got any foreign policy. "
This may easily be a mere echo of newspaper statements frequently made at the time of the study by columnists such as Walter Lippman and Dorothy Thompson. Repeating them transforms the feeling of insecurity and dis- orientation of many of our subjects into the semblance of critical superiority. More than in any other political sphere, our subjects live "from hand to mouth" in the area of international affairs.
There is a striking lack of a sense of proportion, of balanced judgment, considering the importance or unimportance of topics of foreign politics.
One illustration, stemming from the "easy going" low scorer M7zz:
(Major problems facing country? ) "Hard question to answer . . . Perhaps the main one is how we're going to fit in with the rest of the world. . . . I'm a little concerned about what we seem to be doing in China. . . . If we are a carrier of the torch of the Four Freedoms, I think we are a little inconsistent in our maneuver- ings in China and Indonesia. "
This statement seems to be a "day residue" of continuous newspaper read- ing rather than the expression of autonomous thinking. Yet it should be noted that it remains within the anti-imperialist frame of reference of the low scorer.
The symbol of political uneasiness is the atom bomb which is dreaded everywhere. The stand taken toward the atom bomb seems to differentiate the high from the low scorers. As is to be expected, also for psychological reasons, the high scorers are all out for secrecy. Here, as elsewhere, "they want to keep what we have. "
M662A, the San Quentin "tough guy," high on all scales:
(Threats to present form of government? ) "Atom bomb. If these other countries get it, they're going to use it on us and we're going to have to look out for Russia. . . .
That many statements of forthright hostility to labor can be found in our material is not astonishing. The striking fact, however, is that such, statements occur not only among high scorers but again also among medium and low scorers.
We again limit ourselves to a few examples which will give an idea of the structure of unqualified anti-unionism.
M2o2, a construction engineer, scoring generally very low, is nevertheless strongly identified with the entrepreneurs. His interviewer, as was men- tioned above (p. 649), called him "a person who is conservative but not fas- cist. " His invectives against labor, however, make this evaluation appear to be a little too optimistic. As an interesting deviation, a full account of his antilabor stand should be given.
In connection? with the discussion of his work subject was asked about his atti- tude toward labor unions. His response was, "I am hipped about unions; there you have a hole in me! " He joined a company as a strike-breaker in 1935. He took on a job as a chemist. At that time he was just out of California and there was a depres- sion on. He had no strong feeling about unions then, but just wanted a job. How- ever, he did feel that a man had a right to work if he wanted to, and he had no com- punction about taking another man's job. He continued with the company after the strike was over. He described himself as a "company man," and, consequently, as having the company point of view. When he works for a company he is one hun- dred per cent for that company's interests, otherwise he would not stay with them. He has two objections to unions: (I) their policy of assuming that older men are better than younger men and giving the better jobs to them rather than to new- comers; (2) the closed shop. He thinks men should be allowed to "enjoy their work. " If men. know that they are going to be kept on a job even if they don't work hard, it does not encourage them to do their best. For example, he hired two shop stewards whom he found were no good, so he fired them; but the union demanded that he take them back, which he had to do, as otherwise he would have had no one to work for him. If a man sees that the fellow next to him goes slow on the job and yet makes the same wages, he will have no incentive to work hard and pretty soon he, too, will slow down. The unions should not prevent a man from working who
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
does not want to join a union. The interviewer suggested that the main purpose of the closed shop was to bargain for rates of pay. Subject replied that if a group of men would band together to rate themselves and ask for more pay for the skilled workers, or to work out better means of production, that would be all right. If a company is not willing to pay for skilled work, they don't need to work there. By way of a summary, it may be pointed out that the subject's objections to unions boil down to a feeling that unions not only do not foster hard work, but even discour- age it.
This case seems to be that of a man who, although politically unbiased, became highly antagonistic to labor through concrete experience. It should be emphasized that, in spite of his own description of himself as a "company man," he by no means admires businessmen, thinks that poverty could be done away with by changes in our social system, and favors government control in many respects. His views may be summarized as being torn by a conflict between very progressive general ideology and violent reactionary impulses within the sphere of his own immediate interests-a configuration that may be indicative of a dangerous pattern of potentialities in many "lib- erals. " It seems, however, that the inconsistency of this subject is not so much due to psychological factors as to his professional position. His reactionary traits are derived from his function as a member of the technological hier- archy who has to look out for "efficiency" and finds that union interference tends to lower this efficiency rather than to enhance it. Thus his attitude is not really so inconsistent as it appears on the surface: one might rather say that his over-all progressiveness clashes with his technological progressive- ness because the two kinds of progress by no means harmonize objectively under the present conditions of production.
The zz-year-old woman, Fp6A, is structurally similar. She is a low scoret who turns violently antilabor on account of some grudges she has developed in her work as a junior chemist in an oil development company.
Subject feels that the present labor situation is very bad because of all the stri1<:e~ and that industry is really hamstrung. The big unions are asking too much. (Wha about the union at S. ? ) The S. union (C. I. O. ) is undemocratic because the depart ment heads and the junior chemists make all the decisions, then tell the member about it at meetings, and they are not even members of the union. (You also have : company union at S. , don't you? ) "You mean the Association of Industrial Scien tists? It is not a company union (rather angrily). That was a dirty trick of the C. I. O. -or rather not a dirty trick but a ruse-to accuse it of being a company union because then it could not be registered with the W. P. B. and so could not become: bargaining agent for the employees. They thought if they could prevent it fron being registered for one or two years that it would die. Because it is not the bar
gaining agent it cannot make a contract for the workers, it can only hint to th company what it would like. Although the A. I. S. only has a chapter at S. , I don' think it is company dominated, although I have no proof. (Don't the laborator: assistants get paid almost as much as the junior chemists? ) Yes, when the junio chemists were getting only $170 a month and the C. I. O. secured a raise to $180 fo the laboratory assistants, the company had to raise the junior chemists to $zoo
. .
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 709
month. The C. I. O. complains i:hat they do all the work and yet the junior chemists won't join. (Was not the raise a good thing? ) Yes, but I still would like to see what the A. I. S. could do if it were registered: maybe it wouldn't do anything. "
As to the high scorers, the key theme of their antilabor ideology is that of the racket. They regard the pressure exercised by organized labor as illegiti- mate in a way comparable to organized crime and conspiracy-the latter being one of the high scorers' favorite topics anyway. To them, whose moralism has been emphasized from time to time in this book, the concept of the free market coincides with the moral law, and any factors which introduce, as it were, an extra-economic element into the business sphere are regarded by them as irregular. Incidentally, this suspicion does not pertain to industrial monopolies and their pricing agreements but merely to the supposedly mo- nopolistic structure of unions. Here again the idea of "legitimacy"-of identi- fication with the strong-comes into play. Industrial combines seem, accord- ing to this kind of thinking, to be the outgrowth of a "natural" tendency, labor organizations a banding together of people who want to get more than their due share.
Viewed from a purely psychological angle the idea of "labor racketeering" seems to be of a nature similar to the stereotype of Jewish clannishness. It dates back to the lack of an adequately internalized identification with paternal authority during the Oedipus situation. It is our general assumption that the typical high scorers, above all, fear the father and try to side with him in order to participate in his power. The "racketeers" are those who by demanding too much (though the subject wants as much himself) run the risk of arousing the father's anger-and hence the subject's castration anxiety. This anxiety, reflecting the subject's own guilt feelings, is relieved by pro- jection. Thinking in terms of in- and outgroup, the high scorer who wants to "outgroup" the others is continuously prone to call them the ingroup. The more he tends himself, on account of his pretense to "status," to circum- vent the "normal" channels of free competition, the more he is likely to blame those he deems weak for the very same thing. Workers become "racketeers," criminals to him as soon as they organize. They appear as the guilty ones after the pattern of "peddler bites dog. " Such psychological tendencies are, of course, magnetically attracted by any elements of reality which fit irtto the projective pattern. Here, labor organizations afford a rare opportunity.
M352, a shift foreman who calls himself a "head operator," scores high on all scales.
"Well, at Standard Oil, no unions recognized. I've never been a union man. Through union there is strength, if it's run okay, but a lot of unions of today have developed into a racket, and a source of political influence. The C. I. O. Political Action Committee particularly . . . politics and unionism shouldn't become too involved. The unions shouldn't become a political organization; and the A. F. L. has
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
developed into a racket for making money. The officers keep themselves in positiom practically until they die, with no strings on how they use the money, and tha1 should be controlled . . . but if the local organization can run itself in an orderly fashion, okay, if the officers are conservative, but the minute they get too liberal use a strike as a first weapon instead of as a last resort . . . etc. "
Here, as in many instances, critique is directed against the largeness of uniom per se; with the romantic idea that purely local organization, being less insti- tutionalized, would be better automatically.
M658, the San Quentin man quoted above, goes so far as plainly to advo- cate the abolition of unions:
(Political trends today? ) "Oh, I think we are going to be ruled by a lot of clowns by a lot of labor unions. . . . Look at all these working stiffs . . . that don't know any- thing else, but how to drive a nail . . . they try to run things, because a few hundrec thousands of them get together. (What ought to be done? ) Straighten them out show them where they belong. . . . Take away their charters. (Meaning? ) Well every union has to have a charter. Abolish them. If necessary, abolish their meetings (What about strikes? ) That's what I'm thinking of . . . they're a detriment to the country. (How should strikes be handled? ) Refuse to reemploy them, or fine them I don't believe in sweat shops either, but this quittin' when you're making $rso: week anyway-kind of silly. Create inflation. " (Subject had earlier made a remarl in discussing vocation and income-which interviewer neglected to record-to the effect that he himself thinks in terms of saving perhaps $500 or so, e. g. , by theatre work, and then quitting for awhile. Note subject's highly exaggerated fantasies o wartime wages. )
A few statements of extreme anti-unionism can be found among the Lo Angeles sample. Perhaps the 2o-year-old boy, 5014, high onE and PEC anc middle on F, represents a certain kind of war veterans' anti-unionism:
When asked about organized labor he says: "I am against it. " He doesn't knov the difference between the A. F. L. and the C. I. O. but he feels "like many of the vet erans, we worked for nothing while the workers at home were on strike and mak ing good money. "
The contrast between this subject's hostility and his complete lack of infor- mation is striking.
5031-5032 are a husband and wife in a very high income group. Both arc high on PEC, low on F, and low-middle on E. For them violent anti-unionisn is concomitant again with contempt for human nature: they regard unionisn simply as a device of the lazy ones to dodge labor.
Both of them are antilabor. The husband is quite vehement about this. Althougl he expects prosperity to continue he feels it will be at the cost of a continual figh against labor's demands. He feels that labor's demands are unreasonable and tha with labor's recent victories that "even if one met labor's demands one certain! ' does not get a day's work out of carpenters, plumbers, etc. " Both of them claim t; be without prejudice with regard to various minorities. It is interesting, howeveJ that they did raise the issue of the acceptance of Jewish children in the schoc where their son went.
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MATERIAL 7I I
F5043, an extremely high-scoring middle-aged housewife, belongs to that school of potential fascists who find that "everything is a mess. " She first creates in true "we-the-mothers" style the imagery of a desperate crisis and then puts the blame on the labor situation.
"I have never seen anything like this," she lamented when asked about the labor situation. "What have our boys been fighting for? Why, they come back to find that they have to go without a lot of things . . . not even a place to live . . . all because of the strikes. " Thus she blames labor for the present crises and resents the growth and strength of labor unions. She also feels that there is an irreconcilable breach between veterans and the workers and fears internal strife. She also blames the strikers for the growing trend of unemployment and is very pessimistic about the possibility of full employment. However, she does not feel that there is too much government interference and is rather vague about the role of big business and free enterprise. In fact, she seems to harbor only very strong antilabor and anti- strike feelings, without any strong convictions on other issues. "It's just a terrible mess," she repeated, and she does not think the layman should get his hands dirty by "messing with politics. "
Whereas the low scorers who generally take a "pro, but" attitude toward unions insist on the soundness of the principle but object that unions are "going too far," getting more, as it were, than their share, the typical high scorers blame them indiscriminately for the supposedly critical social situa- tion, for the standardization of life (5001 and 5003), and for forthright dic- tatorial aims. To the high scorers anti-unionism is no longer an expression of dissatisfaction with concrete conditions from which they might have suf- fered, but a plank in the platform of reactionism which also automatically includes'anti-Semitism, hostility toward foreign countries, hatred of the New Deal, and all those hostile attitudes which are integrated in the negative imagery of American society underlying fascist and semifascist propaganda.
2. BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT
As was to be expected, the general ideological pattern pertaining to govern- ment interference in business is highly consistent with that which pertains to labor. The average opinion-if such a term, without proper quantification, is allowed-seems to be that a certain degree of government control is indis- pensable, particularly in wartime, but that it contradicts basically the prin- ciple of economic liberalism.
State interference still falls within the category of the necessary evil. T o the high scorers in particular the government inter- ference in business is just another aspect of the usurpation complex, a matter of dictatorial arbitrariness jeopardizing the rights of the hard-working money earners. But it should be noted again that there is no sharp line between high and low scorers with regard to government interference, whilst the how, the way in which both groups express their critical attitude, differentiates.
The following examples of a partly positive attitude toward government interference are chosen from medium and high scorers.
? 712 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
F34oA, of the Extension Testing Class, a young clerk, is middle onE but high on F and PEC. She is interesting because of a certain attitude of intellec- tual fairness expressing itself in attempts to see also the other side of the picture: an "antiparanoid" trait of the American frame of mind which, inci- dentally, is among the strongest bulwarks against fascism as far as subjective factors are concerned.
She doesn't believe in government control of industry. Maybe it would be all right for the government to. take over transportation, gas, electricity, and water. (Why? ) Maybe they could do it cheaper; she is not sure about that. Anyway, if there was a strike, like on the Key System they would be holding up everything and the government could make them go back to work. "When the government tells you to do something, you do it. "
The quotation shows an ambiguous element in the affirmation of govern- ment interference: whereas the latter is resented as a violation of liberalism, it is, simultaneously, appreciated as a potential means to keep organized labor at bay. It should be remembered that the National Socialists always com- plained about the "Welfare State" of Weimar but later on surpassed by far any state interference ever attempted by German socialist governments.
The high-scoring parole officer, M109, is reminiscent of F340A in so far as his support for some kind of government interference is authoritarian rather than favorable to any restrictions on the anarchy of free enterprise or to rational planning for the sake of all. (Cf. quotations on pp. 676, 679. )
Those who are outspokenly set against government controls again com- prise both low and high scorers. Here, of course, the low scorers are particu- lar! y interesting.
The already quoted M711, an "easy going" low scorer, is opposed to state interference simply because he feels a fascist potential in it, apparently un~ aware of the progressive function this interference had under Roosevelt:
(Government control? ) "I don't. There, again, that could be a road to a fascist state eventually. Certain controls would have to be exercised. "
In spite of his leftist ideology this man shows symptoms of a confusion which may make him the prey of pseudoprogressive slogans of fascist propa- ganda: it is the same man who justifies his anti-union attitude with the spuri- ous assertion that Hitler was in favor of unions.
M2o4, another low scorer, a young man of the Psychiatric Clinic group, suffering from anxiety neurosis, calls himself a socialist and feels that the New Deal was too conservative, but states, nevertheless:
The government should not be completely in control of everything. Favors something like the Scandinavian system: CCF, full employment, labor government, favors cooperatives. "I think it will come that way in this country. Government control can be run wrong. Instead we should preserve individual freedom and work through education. "
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW. MA TERIAL 7I 3
To sum up: the low scorers' criticism of government interference is based on the traditional idea of freedom, the fear of an authoritarian abolition of democratic institutions and an individualistic way of living. This makes for a potential resistance against any attempts at a planned economy. There is a possibility that a good many traditional values of American democratism and liberalism, if naively maintained within the setup of today's society, may radically change their objective functions without the subjects even being aware of it. In an era in which "rugged individualism" actually has resulted in far-reaching social control, all the ideals concomitant with an uncritical individualistic concept of liberty may simply serve to play into the hands of the most powerful groups.
The statements against government control of our high scorers are of a? completely different kind. To them, unionism, New Dealism, government control are all the same, the rule of those who should not rule. Here resent- ment of government interference is fused with the "no pity for the poor" complex.
The San Quentin "tough guy," M664b:
(Political trends today? ) "Well, the way it's agoing now, I think it's a detriment to our country. (How do you mean that? ) I think a person should earn a living instead of expecting the government to give it to him. I don't believe in this New Deal and I don't believe in labor running the country. . . . If a man can't make a profit in his business, he'll close it down. . . . "
The San Quentin murderer, M651a, who is serving a life sentence, is set against government interference, his point of view being that of the business- man who talks "common sense. "
(What about government controls over business? ) "No, I believe in free enter- prise. I believe that business should be able to conduct their own business, except during the war we had to have ceiling prices. . . . But competitive business makes low prices. . . . "
It may be noted that the feeling, even of the high scorers, with regard to government control as such, though it represents to them the hated New Deal, does not seem to be as "violent" as their anti-unionism. This may be partly due to the authoritarian undercurrent which, somehow, makes them respect, to a certain extent, any strong government, even if it is built on lines different from their own, partly from the rational insight into the necessity of some government interference. Many of our interviews were conducted during or shortly after the war, at a time when it was obvious that nothing
could be achieved without government control, and it is this fact to which reference is frequently made, mostly as a qualification of the rejection of government control. This, however, certainly depends largely on the situa- tion, and if interviews should be conducted today, the picture would very probably be different.
? feels;
~/
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
There is one particular issue which deserves some attention in this con- nection, the attitude of our subjects toward monopolism. On the one hand, monopolies are the outgrowth of free enterprise, the consummation of rugged individualism; on the other hand, they tend to assume that kind of noncompetitive control which is rejected when exercised by the government. Probably no "public opinion" concerning monopoly has crystallized so far, mainly because much fewer people are aware of the anonymous and objec- tive power of big combines than are aware of official legal measures of the state. However, a few examples may illustrate how the problem of insti- tutionalized superbusiness is reflected in the minds of some of our subjects.
M IIJ, a conventional but nonfascistic fraternity man, who scores low on
E and F but high on PEC, is set against "this Marxian stuff," but nevertheless,
"Big business should be controlled when it gets too large. In some fields, like Jtransponation, power, etc. , large-scale organization is necessary. The main thing
1
I there is to prevent monopoly, and to have limitations on profits. "
The unresolved contradiction between this man's strongly antisocialist and equally outspoken antimonopoly attitudes, is in all probability charac- teristic of a very large section of the population. In practice, it amounts to an artificial "holding up" of economic developmental tendencies, rather than to a clear-cut economic concept. Those layers of the European middle class which were finally enlisted by fascism were also not infrequently set, in ideology, against the big combines.
Mzz8, a low-scoring man of the University Extension Testing Class, sees the problem but is still so deeply imbued with traditional economic concepts that he is prevented from following his logic to its conclusions.
"The emphasis now is on 'free enterprise,' but that often results in monopoly, the big concerns squeezing the little guys to death. There is too much of a gap between the rich and the poor. People climb up by pushing others down, with no regulation. For this reason, government should have more influence economically, whether or not it goes as far as socialism. "
The same man criticizes Wallace for being "too impractical. " One cannot escape the impression that monopolism is used as a vague negative formula but that very few subjects are actually aware of the impact of monopoliza- tion on their lives. The union issue, in particular, plays a much bigger role in over-all ideology.
3. POLITICAL ISSUES CLOSE TO THE SUBJECTS
It has been pointed out in the early part of this chapter that political con- fusion and ignorance, and the gap between surface ideology and concrete reactions, are partly due to the fact that the political sphere, even today, seems to most Americans too far away from their own experiences and their
. .
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 7I 5
own pressing interests. Here we go briefly into a discussion of some political and economic topics of the interview schedule which, for imaginary or actual reasons, are closer to the hearts of our subjects, in order to form at least an impression on how they behave with regard to these matters, and whether their behavior differs markedly from that in the field of "high politics. "
First, an illustration of what may be called "imaginary closeness. " Our interview schedule contained at least one question which was, in the middle of its realistic surroundings, of a "projective" nature. It was concerned with the $z5,ooo income limit. Neither is this question a pressing political issue nor could many of our interviewees be expected to have any immediate personal interest in limitations of income on such a high level. The answers to this question, which would deserve a thoroughgoing analysis of its own, are indicative of an element of the American dream much more than of political attitudes. There were exceedingly few among our subjects who wanted to accept such an income limitation. The utmost concession they made was the acknowledgment that one can live on this amount. The pre- vailing view, however, was that, in a free country, every person should be allowed. to earn as much as he can, notwithstanding the fact that the chance to make as much today has become largely illusory. It is as if the American kind of utopia was still much more that of the shoeshine boy who becomes a railroad king, than that of a world without poverty. The dream of unre- stricted happiness has found its refuge, one might almost say its sole refuge, in the somewhat infantile fantasy of infinite wealth to be gathered by the individual. It goes without saying that this dream works in favor of the status quo; that the identification of the individual with the tycoon, in terms of the chance to become one himself, helps to perpetuate big business control.
Among those subjects who are outspokenly in favor of the income limit is the San Quentin check-writer, M664C, a high-scoring man, so full of fury and envy against everything that he does not even like the wealthy.
(What about $zs,ooo limit on salaries? ) "What the hell is that for? That's no more than fair; hell, that's too much money anyway. "
The apparent radicalism of this man can be appreciated only if one recol- lects that it is he who is outraged by the idea of feeding starving countries. The very widespread feeling of our subjects on the $z5,ooo income limit can be summed up in the eager plea of M62zA, of the San Quentin Group,
a low scorer on E and F but a high scorer on PEC.
"They shouldn't do that. If a man has the ability, more power to him. "
The next few topics are characteristic of the aforementioned tendency of our subjects to become more rational and "progressive" as soon as institutions or measures of a supposedly "socialistic" nature, from which the individual feels he can draw immediate benefits, are brought into the discussion. OPA and health insurance are examples.
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
Our interviews seem to show that OPA, also a "bureaucratic" agency of government interference, is very generally accepted. Here are a few exam- ples, picked at random:
Again M621A:
(OPA? ) "I think it's done a very wonderful thing in this country. May have gone too far, e. g. , in the housing situation in San Diego. " (Subject thinks the OPA should have solved the housing situation. )
One of the few exceptions is the wealthy Los Angeles couple, 5031 and 5032, who are "disgusted and fed up with the New Deal, priorities, and all this damn red tape created by OPA. "
Most others are in favor of OPA, sometimes, however, with a certain strain of punitiveness, such as the San Quentin low scorer, M627, already quoted:
"Well, the OPA is doing a good job if they control this black market. "
This comes out most strongly in the interview of the San Quentin high
scorer M658, the man who wants to abolish labor unions.
"If (the OP A) had an iron glove underneath their kid gloves, be all right. They
fine a guy $wo-for making $wo,ooo. "
The general appreciation of OPA is the more interesting since this insti- tution has been under constant newspaper attacks for many years. But here the advantages, particularly with regard to the housing situation, are so obvi- ous that ideological invectives apparently lose some of their impact on the population. To demand the abolition of OPA because of the "damn red tape" in Washington may mean that one has no roof over one's head.
Something similar holds true of health insurance. High and low scorers, with very few exceptions, concur in its appreciation. M656A, a high scorer of the San Quentin Group, serving a term for second-degree murder, after having stated that a person can live on $2s,ooo a year but should be allowed to make what he is capable of making, and who certainly cannot be called a socialist, answers to the question about public health insurance, "I'm for it. "
The above quoted easy-going, low-scoring man, M711, is enthusiastic: "Public health insurance? Unqualifiedly yes . . . important as almost any meas-
ure of ideal society. "
Finally, our attention should be directed toward an economic area which is of the utmost importance for the formative processes of fascism. This is taxes. It is perhaps the point at which pent-up social fury is most freely given vent. With the high scorers, this fury is never directed overtly against basic con- ditions but has nevertheless the undertone of desired violent action. The man who bangs his fist on the table and complains about heavy taxation is a "natural candidate" for totalitarian movements. Not only are taxes associated with a supposedly spendthrift democratic government giving away millions to idlers and bureaucrats, but it is the very point where people feel, to put it
? POLITICS AND ECONOMICS IN INTERVIEW MA TERIAL 7 I7
in the words of one of oui subjects, that this world does not really belong to the people. Here they feel immediately that they are required to make sacrifices for which they do not get any visible returns, just as one of our subjects complains that he cannot see what he can get out of the war. The indirect advantages each individual may draw from taxes paid are obscure to him. He can only see that he has to give something without getting anything back, and this, in itself, seems to contradict the concept of exchange upon which the free market idea of liberalism is built. However, the extraordinary amount of libido attached to the complex of taxes, even in a boom period, such as the years when our subjects were interviewed, seems to confirm the hypothesis that it draws on deeper sources of the personality as much as on the surface resentment of being deprived of a considerable part of one's income without visible advantages to the individual. The rage against the rational tax system is an explosion of the irrational hatred against the irrational taxation of the individual by society. The Nazis knew very well how to exploit the complex of the "taxpayer's money. " They went so far as to grant, during the first years of their rule, a kind of tax amnesty, publicized by Goering. When they had to resort to heavier taxation than ever before they camouflaged it most skilfully as charity, voluntary donations, and so forth, and collected large amounts of money by illegal threats, rather than by offi- cial tax legislation.
Here are a few examples of the antitaxation complex:
The high-scoring man, M 105, who is violently anti-Semitic and associated with the "lunatic fringe," says:
"It is the taxpayer's money that has been put into South America; other countries will think we are fools. "
M345, a radar engineer of the Extension Testing Class, who scores middle onE, low on F, but high on PEC, believes:
(What about government control of business? ) "It has gotten to the point where it is requiring too much of the citizens' tax money and time. "
Again, the taxpayer's complex is not limited to high scorers. The low- scoring man, Mzz6, the deviate case of a conformist, conventional conserva- tive definitely opposed to prejudice, strongly identified with his father, accepts his Republican views:
". . . also because businessmen generally don't like the taxes. "
In case of a new economic crisis, where unemployment would necessitate high taxation of people whose incomes have shrunk, this complex would un- doubtedly play an exceptionally dangerous role. The threat is the more seri- ous since, in such a situation, a government which would not impose taxes would fail, while one which would take steps in this direction would invari-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
ably antagonize the very same group from which totalitarian movements most likely draw their support.
4. FOREIGN POLICY AND RUSSIA
Lack of information on the part of our subjects prevails, even more than anywhere else, in the area of foreign politics. There are usually rather vague and misty ideas about international conflicts, interspersed with morsels of information on some individual topics with which the subjects either happen to be familiar or to which they have taken a fancy. The general mood is one of disappointment, anxiety, and vague discontent, as symbolically epitomized by the medium-scoring woman, F340B: "Seems we haven't got any foreign policy. "
This may easily be a mere echo of newspaper statements frequently made at the time of the study by columnists such as Walter Lippman and Dorothy Thompson. Repeating them transforms the feeling of insecurity and dis- orientation of many of our subjects into the semblance of critical superiority. More than in any other political sphere, our subjects live "from hand to mouth" in the area of international affairs.
There is a striking lack of a sense of proportion, of balanced judgment, considering the importance or unimportance of topics of foreign politics.
One illustration, stemming from the "easy going" low scorer M7zz:
(Major problems facing country? ) "Hard question to answer . . . Perhaps the main one is how we're going to fit in with the rest of the world. . . . I'm a little concerned about what we seem to be doing in China. . . . If we are a carrier of the torch of the Four Freedoms, I think we are a little inconsistent in our maneuver- ings in China and Indonesia. "
This statement seems to be a "day residue" of continuous newspaper read- ing rather than the expression of autonomous thinking. Yet it should be noted that it remains within the anti-imperialist frame of reference of the low scorer.
The symbol of political uneasiness is the atom bomb which is dreaded everywhere. The stand taken toward the atom bomb seems to differentiate the high from the low scorers. As is to be expected, also for psychological reasons, the high scorers are all out for secrecy. Here, as elsewhere, "they want to keep what we have. "
M662A, the San Quentin "tough guy," high on all scales:
(Threats to present form of government? ) "Atom bomb. If these other countries get it, they're going to use it on us and we're going to have to look out for Russia. . . .
