No More Learning

? 11. 16. 21. 26. 33. 40. 49. 62. 69. 72.
Item
(Hire Jews) (Businessmen) (Jewish districts) (Get rid of faults) (Jewish leaders) (Marry a Jew)
(Nice neighborhood) (Basically Jewish) (All alike) (Federal agencies)
Over-all mean
3 1 2. 74 6 1 3. 40 5 1 3. 51 6 1 3. 48 3 1 2. 37 7 3 3. 96 5 1 2. 94 5 1 3. 35 3 1 3. 14 3 1 2. 69
4. 6 1. 2 3. 16
3. 61 4. 34 2. 87 3. 89 2. 37 4. 28 4. 12 3. 50 4. 30 3. 48
3. 68
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
In Table I 3(III) are shown the scores of Mack and Larry, the group mean and the D. P. for each of the ten items in the short form of the A-S
TABLE 13 (Ill)
RESPONSES OF MACK AND LARRY ON THE A-8 SCALE
Groupa Groupa
Mack Larry Mean __! 2_,_L
aThe group means and D. P. 's are based on all four groups taking Form 78.
scale (Form 78). Mack's mean score, 4. 6, is definitely, but not extremely far, above the over-all group mean of 3. 16. He was just barely inside the high quartile for the group of Public Speaking Men of which he was a mem- ber. This is in keeping with the moderation which characterized the whole ideological section of his interview, and it forms part of the basis for the statement, in Chapter II, that he is a relatively mild case. His anti-Semitism is fairly general, in that he agrees with six of the ten statements and scores above the group mean on all but one of them; but a study of the responses to individual items reveals a clear pattern, one that can be distinguished from other patterns of anti-Semitism. In disagreeing slightly, and thereby scoring close to the group mean, in the case of Items I I (Hire Jews), 33 (Jewish leaders), and 72 (Federal agencies), he is saying that he would have no serious objection if Jews should participate more fully in American life, that this indeed is what they ought to do. The main trouble, as seen in the positive responses to Items I6 (Businessmen) and 2 I (Jewish districts), is that they would rather stick together and accumulate wealth and power for their own group. Although persecution would be largely eliminated if they should rid themselves of their faults (Item 26), they cannot really become "Americanized" (Item 62) and would still have to be kept at some distance personally and socially (Items 40 and 49).
This is almost exactly what Mack tells us in his interview. It is the main
? THE STUDY OF AXTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
point that he tries to make. "They accent the clannish and the material. . . . If a Jew fails in business, he's helped to get started again. . . . They would be liked and accepted if they would be willing to mix. . . . The Jews won't intermingle. . . . I certainly wouldn't (marry a Jew). . . . I would date that girl in Public Speaking, but she doesn't emphasize her Jewishness. She was accepted by the whole class. I would marry her if she had thrown off her Jewishness, but I wouldn't be able to associate with her class. "
It is interesting that Item 40 (Marry a Jew) is the one about which Mack feels most strongly and on which he deviates most markedly from the group mean. It would appear that he feels safe in saying, in the interview, that he would marry the Jewish girl "if she had thrown off her Jewishness," because he does not really believe that she ever can do this; there would always be "something basically Jewish underneath" (Item 62).
The item on which Mack obtains a score that is slightly below the group mean is 69 (All alike). Here there is a real discrepancy between scale and interview. The analysis of the interview seemed to show that stereotypy was an outstanding characteristic of this subject's thinking, and yet when it comes to the item which pertains most directly to this characteristic, he fails to agree. This is not because the item is a poor one, for its D. P. was next to the highest obtained with this short form of the A-S scale; nor do there appear to be any special features of Mack's stereotypy that would render Item 69 inapplicable. Perhaps it is too much to expect that scale and interview will agree in every particular; these instruments are not that precise, or perhaps most subjects are not that consistent.
It may be noted that Mack, in the interview, where he is allowed free scope, brings into his discussion of the Jews certain ideas, e. g. , Jewish "weak- ness," that are not touched upon in any of the ten statements which comprise the A. . :S scale. This outcome would have been considerably less likely, it seems, if he had responded to the 52 items of the original A-S scale. It is claimed for the short form of the scale that for most research purposes it can be substituted for the long form. In Mack's case there appears to be no reason for dissatisfaction with the measure of the degree of his anti-Semitism which the short form yields; concerning the content of his anti-Semitic ideology it is noteworthy that the pattern which appears in his responses to the scale corresponds to what is central and seemingly most important in his spontaneous discussion. That the ten-item scale should at the same time reveal the more incidental and individualistic features of a subject's ideology concerning Jews would be too much to ask.
Larry's responses to the A-S scale are true to form. He obtains the lowest possible score on every item except 40 (Marry a Jew), and even here he disagrees slightly. When it was stated in Chapter II that Larry was not an extreme example of low-scoring men, the reference was to what was known of him from all the diagnostic devices employed in the research. He made it
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
clear enough in his interview that he was strongly opposed to prejudice against minority groups, and had he not come out with an extremely low score on the A-S scale we would have had cause for serious doubt of its validity. That he did not obtain the lowest possible score on Item 40 is evi- dence that he did not respond to the A-S items in an automatic way. It seems that at this point his impulse toward complete social interaction with Jews collided with his conventionalism, a trait which we have seen to be well developed in him, and he could not in honesty go beyond slight disagree- ment with the item.
In general, the responses of these two subjects on the A-S scale are con- sistent with what they say about Jews in their interviews. This consistency appears not only in the degree of anti-Semitism expressed but in the content of the subjects' thinking about Jews. To the extent that these results may be generalized, the A-S scale is a valid index of ideology concerning Jews.
F. DISCUSSION: THE STRUCTURE OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
Perhaps the first conclusion to be drawn from the results presented above is that anti-Semitism is best conceived psychologically not as a specific aver- sion but as an ideology, a general way of thinking about Jews and Jewish- Gentile interaction. This is demonstrated by the high reliability of a scale dealing with so varied a set of ideas, by the reliabilities and intercorrelations of the subscales, and by the high internal consistency of the scale as revealed by the item Discriminatory Powers. The statistical results indicate that a quantitative measure of total anti-Semitic ideology has been obtained. Any individual can be assigned, with a relatively small margin of error, a rank along a dimension ranging from strong support of anti-Semitic ideology at one (high) extreme, to strong opposition at the other (low) extreme. The meaning of middle scores on this dimension is ambiguous, since they may represent indifference, ignorance, or an ambivalent combination of partial support and partial rejection of anti-Semitism. It is noteworthy, however, that individuals making middle scores on one subscale tend to make middle scores on the other subscales as well. Despite item-by-item variability, indi- viduals tend to be highly consistent in their responses to the several subscales.
The fact that an individual's stand on one set of items is similar to his stand on all others does not necessarily imply that all anti-Semitic ideas are of equal psychological importance to each individual. The spontaneous dis- cussions of anti-Semites, whether in an interview or in everyday social life, suggest that for each individual there are certain "nuclear ideas"-imagery of Jews as conniving, or sexual, or radical, and the like, and corresponding primary attitudes-which have primary emotional significance. However,
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
93
these central ideas apparently make the individual receptive to a great variety of other ideas. That is, once the central or nuclear ideas are formed, they tend to "pull in" numerous other opinions and attitudes and thus to form a broad ideological system. This system provides a rationale for any specific idea within it and a basis for meeting and assimilating new social conditions.
This conception of anti-Semitism aids in the understanding of the present results. It also offers an explanation of why an anti-Semitic rumor that is entirely new in its specific details (for example, the wartime accusations that only Jews could get tires or draft exemptions or officer status) is easily believed by anti-Semites: because of a receptivity to negative imagery gen- erally and by means of an ideological system within which the new idea is easily assimilated.
This conception of the inclusiveness of anti-Semitic ideology stands in sharp contrast to numerous theories which conceive of anti-Semitism in terms of certain specific accusations or motives. The notion of anti-Semitism as a form of "racial" prejudice, for example, seems to be based on the idea that the main accusations against Jews involve their "racially inherited" traits
(faults). Another common view, that anti-Semitism is a form of "religious" prejudice, is based on the explicit or implicit assumption that religious dif- ferences, and thus accusations on religious grounds, are the central issues in anti-Semitism. A third "specifistic" view is that anti-Semitism is based pri- marily on distortions of facts which some individuals have mistakenly accepted as true; for example, that Jews are unusually rich, dishonest, radical, and so on. This last theory has led to numerous attempts to fight anti-Semitism by giving the "true facts"-attempts which are distinguished for their lack of success. What this theory has overlooked is the receptivity of many indi- viduals to any hostile imagery of Jews, and the emotional resistance of these individuals to a less hostile and less stereotyped way of thinking. Finally, anti-Semitism is sometimes explained in terms of financial motives and ac- cusations: many people, it is asserted, oppose the Jews on the simple grounds of economic competition and financial self-interest. This theory ignores the other accusations (of power seeking, immorality, and the like) which are made with equal or greater emotional intensity. It also fails to explain why anti-Semites so often violate their own material self-interest in maintaining their prejudices. None of these conceptions of anti-Semitism has adequately grasped its generality, its psychological complexity, and its function in the emotional life of the individual. Nor can they suggest why many individuals oppose anti-Semitism despite their having economic situations, religious backgrounds, sources of information, and so on, which are similar to those of anti-Semites. What is required, in our opinion, is a psychological approach which seeks to grasp both anti-Semitic ideology and anti-anti-Semitic ideol- ogy in their full complexity and scope, and which then attempts to discover
? 94
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
the various sources of each viewpoint in the psychological development and social background of the individuals holding it. l0
Before discussing the major ideas comprising anti-Semitic ideology, a few words regarding the scale and the scale data are necessary. It is believed that most of the major facets of everyday American anti-Semitism have been represented in the scale, though no claim is made that it contains all the anti- Semitic ideas currently in vogue. The scale data provide an empirical basis for the following discussion in the sense: (a) that each of the ideas to be discussed is supported by most anti-Semites (subjects who fall within the highest 25 per cent of scorers on the scale), opposed by most anti-anti- Semites, the differences being statistically significant; and (b) that each anti- Semite supports most of these ideas, while each low scorer opposes most of them. Thus, one can speak of a broad framework of anti-Semitic ideology which is held in its entirety by relatively few individuals but which is sup- ported in varying degrees by many more.
What, then, are the major opinions, values, and attitudes comprising anti- Semitic ideology, how are they organized or systematized, and how is this system different from other, non-anti-Semitic points of view?
One striking characteristic of the imagery in anti-Semitic ideology is its stereotypy, which takes several forms. There is, first, a tendency to over- generalize single traits, to subscribe to statements beginning "Jews are . . . " or "The Jews do not . . . " Second, there is a stereotyped negative image of the group as a whole, as if "to know one is to know all," since they are all alike. Third, examination of the specific characteristics comprising the im- agery reveals a basic contradiction in that no single individual or group as a whole could have all these characteristics.
Another aspect of stereotypy which is implied by the scale items and brought out more directly in the interviews may be termed "stereotypy of interpersonal relationships and experiences. " It involves an inability to expe- rience Jews as individuals. Rather, each Jew is seen and reacted to as a sort of sample specimen of the stereotyped, reified image of the group. This form of stereotypy is expressed very clearly in Mack's discussion of Jews
(see Chapter II); while no statistics are available, the other interviews as well as everyday conversations indicate that his approach is not uncommon. This limitation in the experience of individuals has certain implications
10 It may again be emphasized that the present approach is a psychological one. The sociologist, at least during this stage in the development of social science, tends? to proceed along other, perhaps parallel, lines. Thus, a psychological approach in terms of purely religious or purely economic motives is inadequate. However, a sociological approach in terms of religious or politico-economic structures and their relation to anti-Semitism as a sociocultural trend is, in our opinion, both valid and of great significance. What must be opposed, as we see it, is the tendency mechanically to subsume psychology under soci- ology and to confuse basic economic or religious social forces with superficial economic or religious motives in the individual. Sociological forces are considered in Chapters XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
95
for the theory that contact with "good Jews" lessens anti-Semitism. The effectiveness of social contact would seem to depend in large part on the individual's capacity for individuated experience. This capacity is certainly not hereditarily determined, but it may often be difficult to change in adults. When it is lacking, new social experiences are likely to lead, not to new learning and development, but merely to the mechanical reinforcement of established imagery.
Further analysis of stereotypy and other characteristics of anti-Semitic thinking, as well as concrete examples from the interview material, are pre- sented in Chapter XVI.
These considerations raise several questions which are dealt with in later sections of this research. Do anti-Semites express the same stereotypy of thought and experience in relation to other groups and issues, that is, are stereotypy and rigidity aspects of their general psychological functioning? Why is it so important for anti-Semites to reject Jews on any and all grounds? Are the contradictions and oversimplifications primarily surface signs of a deeper-lying anxiety and hostility? If so, what are the personality trends involved, and how are they different from those found in non-anti-Semites?
Let us consider the deeper psychological meaning of the stereotyped nega- tive imagery of Jews. While the specific surface opinions cover a great variety of topics, there seem nevertheless to be certain unifying ideas or themes underlying the opinions and giving them coherence and structure. Perhaps most central is the idea that Jews are threatening. Certainly this idea is present, explicitly or implicitly, in almost all the scale items. It is expressed in the subscale "Offensive," where Jews are described as a moral threat, that is, as violators of important standards and values. These values include: cleanliness, neatness, and conformity; also opposition to sensuality, extrava- gance, prying, social aggressiveness, exhibitionism. The imagery of Jews as value-violators makes them not only offensive but also very disturbing. The anxiety becomes almost explicit in item II-4: "There is something different and strange about Jews . . . "
These values are, of course, not limited to anti-Semites. Indeed, many of them are among the currently prevailing conventional middle-class values- and most Americans are psychologically middle class. It may be that anti- Semites and non-anti-Semites differ regarding certain values such as sensual- ity or conformity. However, it is likely that many unprejudiced individuals have subst~ntially the same values as the anti-Semites do. Why, then, do these values become the basis for anti-Semitic accusations in one group but not in the other? One hypothesis would be that the non-anti-Semites are more flexible in their support of these values, less disturbed by value-violators and less inclined to stereotypy and overgeneralization.
Moreover, these values tend, as will be shown later, to be held very strongly by the high-scoring subjects, and they appear frequently in these individuals'
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
thinking about themselves, other people, and social issues generally. In view of the emotional support given these values, and the intensity with which supposed value-violators are rejected, it is reasonable to ask whether the surface opinions and attitudes are motivated by deeper emotional disposi- tions. It is possible, for example, that anti-Semites are unconsciously strug- gling to inhibit in themselves the same tendencies that they find so unbear- able in Jews. Jews may be a convenient object on which they can project their unconscious desires and fears. It is difficult otherwise to explain why anti-Semites feel so threatened by violations of their moral values, and why they develop exaggerated, stereotyped imagery of the "morally impure" Jews as a threat to the "morally pure" Gentiles. It will be significant in this connection whether the categorical distinction between value-violators (ego- alien, morally threatening groups) and value-supporters _(ego-syntonic, morally pure groups) appears generally in the thinking of these individuals regarding the various other ideological areas to be considered in the follow- ing chapters. To the extent that this and other themes underly and unify the entire social thinking of anti-Semites, their specific opinions and attitudes must be regarded in part as expressions of deeper-lying personality needs,
anxieties, and conflicts.
The idea of Jews as a social threat is expressed directly in the subscale
"Threatening," where they are described as having harmful effects in various areas of social life. This concern with supposed Jewish power is a recurrent theme in the sources from which our scale items were taken and in the later interviews of our subjects as well as in the A-S scale itself. In the case of the moral values mentioned above, it is implied that non-Jews are the opposite of Jews: clean, conforming, modest, and the like. It would seem that power, however, while threatening in Jews, is justified and even valued in non-Jews. 11 For example, the attitudes of segregation and exclusion are based on the assumption that Gentiles should be more powerful than Jews in order to enforce these policies. Why does the concern with power recur so often and in so many forms?
Why is the Jewish group, which is actually small and relatively weak, regarded as so threatening, while the really powerful and dominating groups in the status quo are supported rather than feared? Is it actually the weakness of the Jews which is most disturbing to the anti-Semite? If the concern with power and the fear of weakness in the high scorers represent deeper personality trends, these trends should be revealed by the clinical techniques and they should be expressed in the other ideological areas.
The issues of Jewish group loyalty and Jewish assimilation, viewed psy- chologically, reveal several central themes in anti-Semitic ideology. At first glance the criticisms of Jews and the demands on them seem both simple and reasonable. The Jews are, it is asserted, too clannish: they either keep apart in a kind of snobbish seclusion, or, if they do enter community affairs
11 Cf. the "usurper complex" described in Chapter XVII.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
97
they stick together and take advantage of other people. Therefore, the Jews must overcome their pride and clannishness, and their attempts to control other groups. When they have thoroughly assimilated, when they have lost their foreign ways and their clannish, conniving methods of gaining money and power at the expense of others, they can be liked and accepted. Until they change, they can hardly be surprised to find themselves excluded or limited in certain ways. The essential demand is that the Jews liquidate themselves, that they lose entirely their cultural identity and adhere instead to the prevailing cultural ways. Related to this narrowness is a punitive rather than an understanding approach to value-violators; the Jews deserve what- ever hardships they may sometimes undergo since they have brought it on themselves. In this vindictive approach there is no room for more complex explanation, no way of considering discrimination as primarily a cause rather than an effect of Jewish traits. There is an aversion to the idea that the basis for resolution of Jewish-Gentile conflict lies primarily in the total social organization-and therefore in the dominant groups in the society-and only secondarily in Jews themselves.
But this demand for assimilation is not as simple as it seems at first glance. Jews who attempt to assimilate are apparently even more suspect than the others. Accusations of "prying," "power-seeking," and "imitation" are made, and seemingly generous acts by Jews an; attributed to hidden selfish motives
(subscale "Intrusive"). There is no logical basis for urging on the one hand that Jews become like everyone else, and on the other hand, that Jews be limited and excluded in the most important areas of social life.
It need not be denied by non-anti-Semites that there are extremely clan- nish and power-seeking individuals in the Jewish as well as in the Gentile group. But why do :the high scorers not oppose all individuals who seek power for themselves or their narrow groups and who would take advantage of others? It is a remarkable fact that most individuals who see clannishness, prying, and power-seeking as "Jewish traits" value the same things, under other names, in Gentiles. It is accepted as "human nature" that each indi- vidual will stand by his group, that "blood is thicker than water," and that each group is therefore unified in its material interests. As long as there is any trace of a Jewish group, therefore, it is expected that each Jew will have primary loyalty to it. While this "clannishness" is deplored, the anti-Semites tend to hold in contempt anyone who lacks "loyalty and pride" in his group, and to put great value on these traits in their own groups.
The imagery described above seems to characterize the thinking of most anti-Semites. Individual differences in the pattern of attitudes (programs of action) supported depend primarily on the strength of adherence to demo- cratic values. Openly antidemocratic individuals have a direct and clear-cut program: violent attack on the Jews leading to total liquidation or to perma- nent suppression and restriction. What to do is, however, a greater psycho-
? THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
logical problem for those who have the same imagery, but who at the same time want to support democratic values of equality, nonviolence, and the like. The negative imagery of Jews, and the accompanying sense of threat, involve two main fears which form the basis for attitudes. There is, first, the fear of contamination: the fear that Jews may, if permitted intimate or inten- sive contact with Gentiles, have a corrupting or degenerating influence. Various forms of corruption may occur: moral, political, intellectual, sensual, and so on. Among the many ideas which have been attributed to "Jewish contamination" are free love, radicalism, atheism, moral relativism, modern trends in art and literature. Gentiles who support ideas such as these tend to be regarded as unwitting victims who have been psychologically contaminated in the same way that one may be organically infected by a disease. The notion that one Jew can "infect" many Gentiles is very useful in rationalizing many apparent contradictions. It permits one to attribute great influence to the Jews and thus to blame most social problems on them, despite their relatively very small number. It justifies one's hostile feelings and discriminatory actions. Furthermore, an idea or social movement can be called "Jewish" even when most of its supporters are Gentile, since the latter are regarded as merely dupes or victims of Jewish contamination. An indi- vidual who accepts this reasoning feels compelled, no matter how great his value for tolerance, to protect the Gentile group by restricting the activities
of the Jewish group.
Viewed psychologically, this way of thinking raises several questions.
Why is it necessary for anti-Semites to regard Jews as the source of all these ideas, that is, why do they regard these ideas as imposed on Gentile but originating in Jews? One hypothesis is that this represents an attempt on the part of the prejudiced individual to resolve an inuer moral conflict by externalizing or projecting his own immoral tendencies; the inner conflict is replaced by a new conflict between groups: the sterotypically moral "we" and the stereotypically immoral "they. " That the inner conflict persists unconsciously in full force is shown by emphasis on external immorality and by the fear that this immorality will corrupt all who are exposed to it. The investigation of this and other hypotheses is reported in later chapters.
In addition to the fear of contamination there is the fear of being over- whelmed. This anxiety is related to the imagery of Jews as prying and power- seeking. If Jews are given the opportunity of free participation in commu- nity affairs then, granted that they have these tendencies, they will form a small sectarian clique interested only in their own power and material inter- ests. To gain these aims they will shrewdly use even the most ruthless and dishonest methods. There is thus great danger that the Gentile group will be persecuted, victimized, exploited-in short, overwhelmed.
It is difficult indeed, for a person with such hostile imagery and such anxiety, to have entirely democratic attitudes regarding Jewish-Gentile
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY
99
interaction. Most pseudodemocratic attitudes ~epresent attempts, conscious or unconscious, at compromise between the tendency to express the under- lying hostility directly (aggressive attack) and the tendency to conform to democratic values (tolerance, equality). The demand for total Jewish assim- ilation represents one such compromise, since total assimilation is, so to speak, a nonviolent way of liquidating the Jews. If there were no Jews then at least one source of anxiety and one object of hostility would be removed. Unfor- tunately, partial assimilation (the phase in which some Jews attempt to assim- ilate while others do not) seems to be more disturbing to anti-Semites than none at all. As long as the anti-Semites have some sense of the presence of a Jewish group-and thus an image of "the Jew" which can be applied stereo- typically to all individual Jews-those Jews who seem to be assimilating will be suspected of evil motives. It is an oft-repeated historical paradox that those who demand total assimilation do the most to prevent it, since their hostility and discrimination tend on the one hand to increase Jewish nation- alism and pride, and on the other hand to provide external barriers repelling those Jews who attempt assimilation into the dominant group. Conversely, Jewish assimilation has proceeded most rapidly in those communities which
have accepted them without totalitarian demands for submission and all-out assimilation.
A second way of nonviolently eliminating the Jews, and thus of solving the problem of interaction by simply not having any, is for them to "stay on their side of the fence and we stay on ours. " If they cannot be entirely absorbed-and, despite their demand for total assimilation, most anti-Semites seem to feel that the "basic Jewishness" is permanent-then they should. be totallyseparate. The separation could be made complete if the Jews would "form a nation of their own and keep more to themselves" (Item II-24). ! 2
Some individuals, including Jews, have supported the idea of separation (fraternal organizations, neighborhoods, and the like) on grounds of differ- ences in interests and culture. There can be no objection, from a democratic
point of view, to an organization devoted primarily to Jewish culture and conducted in the Yiddish language, nor to one concerned mainly with Chris-
12 The idea of a Jewish nation, particularly the important issue of Jewish settlement in Palestine, has been supponed by various ideological camps. Much suppon in America has come from open or pseudodemocratic anti-Semites who wish that all Jews would settle there and who are afraid that, if the doors of Palestine are closed, America would have to open its doors to the refugees.
Many non-anti-Semites have also supponed the idea of a Jewish homeland, but not for reasons of separation and exclusion. The main democratic reasoning, in general, is that there should be a geographical-political unit in which Jewish culture can be the primary one, that this nation should be a pan of the family of nations, and that all indi- viduals should be free to settle in whatever nation they choose, without the demand for total assimilation or the threat of exclusion. Since the Jewish group contains the same diversity of ideologies and personalities as any other major grouping, it is not surprising that there is much disagreement on this issue among Jews. In the present discussion, how- ever, the main concern is with non-Jews.
? IOO THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
tian religion or any other cultural form. But consistency with democratic values does require that, once the primary aims and functions of the organi- zation are laid down, membership be open to any individual who accepts its principles and meets its requirements. It is undemocratic to exclude any group as a whole, that is, to be unwilling to consider any applicant on the basis of his individual merits and faults. The exclusionism of some Jewish groups, while understandable as a defensive "pride" reaction, is no more justified than the equivalent policy in other groups. The total exclusion of one group by another, whether on ethnic, religious, social class, skin color, or other grounds, is necessarily based on stereotypy, hostility and anxiety, conscious or not. It is sometimes said that "a Jew (or Negro or Catholic) would not be comfortable here. " This usually means that he would be ex- posed to some degree of prejudice, subtle or crude, and it is the others who would be uncomfortable.
Discrimination takes a variety of other forms, all designed to limit Jewish- Gentile interaction by restricting the full participation of Jews in community and national affairs. All forms of discrimination (exclusion, segregation, sup- pression, and so forth) against all groups have the double function of restrict- ing intergroup contact and of maintaining the dominant social position of the group doing the discriminating.
There are many economic, political, religious, and other institutional forces involved in the subordination of various American groups. These broader social forces were, however, beyond the scope of this research. We were concerned, as stated in Chapter I, with the problem of the consumption of ideology by the individual: granted that various ideologies are present in the social environment, why is it that some individuals consume (assimilate, accept) the more undemocratic forms while others consume the more demo- cratic forms? The general assumption made was that, granted the possibility
of choice, an individual will be most receptive to that ideology which has most psychological meaning for him and the most significant function within his over-all adjustment. Accordingly, there was much concern with the psychological content of anti-Semitic ideology in an attempt to form hypotheses regarding the deeper psychological trends, if any, which underlie and motivate the surface opinions and attitudes.
Numerous trends underlying anti-Semitic ideology are suggested by the present scale results: stereotypy; rigid adherence to middle-class values; the tendency to regard one's own group as morally pure in contrast to the immoral outgroup; opposition to and exaggeration of prying and sensuality; extreme concern with dominance and power (fear of Jewish power and desire for Gentile power); fear of moral contamination; fear of being over- whelmed and victimized; the desire to erect social barriers in order to separate one group from another and to maintain the morality and the dominance of one's own group.
? THE STUDY OF ANTI-SEMITIC IDEOLOGY 101
Can it be demol1Strated that these personality trends are actually present in anti-Semitic individuals? In the chapters which follow, there are several lines of evidence bearing on this question: (a) If these trends are present, then they should also be found in various other ideological areas. (b) These trends should be expressed in nonideological forms as well, that is, in ways of thinking about people and life generally. (c) Intensive clinical study should reveal these and other trends directly, as well as their organization and function in the total personality, and their course of development. ?
? CHAPTER IV
THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY
Daniel f. Levinson
A. INTRODUCTION
Our attention turns now to the problem of prejudice, broadly conceived. The term "prejudice" is not entirely adequate, since it has num~rous mean- ings and connotations which might obscure or distort the ideas guiding this research. The term "ethnocentrism" is preferable because its traditional meaning comes much closer to that used here. First introduced and used descriptively by Sumner (II5) in 1906, the term had the general meaning of provincialism or cultural narrowness; it meant a tendency in the individual to be "ethnically centered," to be rigid in his acceptance of the culturally "alike" and in his rejection of the "unlike. "
The traditional conception of ethnocentrism, from which the present one is derived, differs in several important respects from the usual notion of prejudice. Prejudice is commonly regarded as a feeling of dislike against a specific group; ethnocentrism, on the other hand, refers to a relatively con- sistent frame of mind concerning "aliens" generally. Usually, in discussions of prejudice against groups there is specific reference to "race prejudice" or "prejudice against racial and religious minorities. " This terminology is used even by people who know that "race" is a socially harmful idea as ordinarily understood, and who know that many groups (zootsuiters, "Okies," and so forth) are discriminated against on neither racial nor religious grounds. Ethnocentrism refers to group relations generally; it has to do not only with numerous groups toward which the individual has hostile opinions and atti- tudes but, equally important, with groups toward which he is positively disposed.
A theory of ethnocentrism offers a starting point for the understanding of the psychological aspect of group relations-why individuals are inclined toward competition, or conflict, or harmonious interaction, and so on. It is concerned with such questions as: What kinds of general attitudes do indi- viduals have about their own and other groups? What underlying ideas or themes run through an individual's thinking about groups and group rela-
102
? THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 103
tions? How do these ideas develop? How are they related to trends in the individual's thinking about other social processes? What personality trends, if any, are they related to, and in what way? How are they related to mem- bership in class, church, political party, and so forth?
The term "ethnocentrism" shifts the emphasis from "race" to "ethnic group. " The everyday use of the term "race" has been criticized from many sides and on many grounds. It was originally suggested as one type of broad classification of human beings on the basis of skin color. Other anthropo- metric measures such as head shape and blood type were also suggested. Each of these organic bases of classification divides human beings (also known as the human "race") into groups which are mixed with respect to the other organic characteristics. Thus, the Negroes, a "race" according to the skin color criterion, are mixed with respect to head shape and blood type. But, apart from the arbitrariness of the organic basis of classification, the greatest dangers of the race concept lie in its hereditarian psychological implications and in its misapplication to cultures. Psychologically, the race theory implies, whether or not this is always made explicit, that people of a given race (e. g. , skin color) are also very similar psychologically because they have a common hereditary family tree. This notion has been contro- verted in the past few decades by work in psychology on the problem of "heredity vs. environment" and by work in cultural anthropology on the tremendous psychological variations within any given culture. Furthermore, the term "race" is often applied to groups which are not races at all in the technical sense. Sometimes this term is applied to nations, e. g. , "the German race" or even "the American race. " Sometimes it is misused in connection with American ethnic minorities, such as Italians or Greeks. There is no adequate term, other than "ethnic," by which to describe cultures (that is, systems of social ways, institutions, traditions, language, and so forth) which are not nations, that is, which do not form politico-geographical entities. This confusion, which is more than merely terminological and which per- meates much thinking on social problems, has plagued the Jews particularly; they are a good example of an ethnic group which is neither a formal nation nor a race. From the point of view of sociology, cultural anthropology, and social psychology, the important concepts are not race and heredity but social organization (national, regional, subcultural, communal) and the interaction of social forms and individual personalities. To the extent that relative uniformities in psychological characteristics are found within any cultural grouping, these uniformities must be explained primarily in terms of social organization rather than "racial heredity. " The use and develop- ment of the concept of "ethnic group," as part of a broad educational pro-
gram dealing with individual development and social change, 'can do much to clarify everyday thinking about social processes and problems.
The conception of ideology presented in earlier chapters has been utilized
? 104
THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
here. Ethnocentrism is conceived as an ideological system perta1mng to groups and group relations. A distinction is made between ingroups (those groups with which the individual identifies himself) and outgroups (with which he does not have a sense of belonging and which are regarded as antithetical to the ingroups). Outgroups are the objects of negative opinions and hostile attitudes; ingroups are the objects of positive opinions and un- critically supportive attitudes; and it is considered that outgroups should be socially subordinate to ingroups.
The basic questions for research were raised in Chapter II. They concern the inclusiveness of ideas regarding a given group, the generality of out- group rejection, the content of ideas about ingroups and outgroups, and the amount of stereotypy in thinking about groups generally.
There were numerous indications that some generality of ingroup and outgroup ideology within the individual would be found (I 3, 25, 85, 90). Sumner found such consistency in his anthropological studies. Fascistic social movements have shown consistent tendencies to oppose a variety of minority groups. Many historians, literary men, and political analysts have, in a nontechnical, nonquantitative way, had this conception of ideology (2I, 69, 72, 92, 93, 95, IOI). One meets consistent outgroup rejection in everyday parlor and street-corner discussions.
A quantitative indication of consistency was found in a previous study of anti-Semitism (7I). Increasing degrees of anti-Semitism were shown to be closely related to increasing opposition to labor unions and racial equality, and to increasing support of Father Coughlin. Members of college sororities -which tend to have a strong ingroup ideology-were significantly more anti-Semitic on the average than nonmembers. And subjects reporting some ideological friction with parents-indicating ability to criticize the family, a major ingroup-were significantly less anti-Semitic than those reporting no such friction.
To obtain a more conclusive answer to the questions raised in Chapter II, it seemed that the best method-in terms of rigor and quantification-was an opinion-attitude scale for the measurement of ethnocentrism. The construc- tion of this scale was, therefore, the first step taken. It was constructed in such a way that an analysis of its statistical properties and internal relation- ships might help to answer the major questions concerning the structure of ethnocentric ideology.
B. CONSTRUCTION OF THE ETHNOCENTRISM (E) SCALE
The procedure followed in the construction of the E scale was the same as that for the anti-Semitism scale (Chapter III). Once again, and by the same reasoning, the Likert method of scaling was used. Again, all items were nega-
? THE STUDY OF ETHNOCENTRIC IDEOLOGY 105
tive, that is, hostile to the group in question, and finally, the same general rules of item formulation were followed.
1. MAJOR SUBDIVISIONS OR AREAS: THE SUBSCALES
Subscales were used in order to insure broad coverage of the total field and to permit statistical analysis of certain relationships with ethnocentric ideology. Since one of the primary research questions concerned the gener- ality of ethnocentrism, each subscale dealt with a different set of ingroup- outgroup rel~tions. Within each subscale an attempt was made to cover a variety of common pseudodemocratic-and a few openly antidemocratic- opinions and attitudes.
The E scale in its initial forms did not include items about Jews; rather, the initial anti-Semitism scale was included separately in the questionnaire
TABLE 1 (IV) ETHNOCENTRISM ScALE Negro Subscale (N)
2. If there are enough Negroes who want to attend dances at a local dance hall featuring a colored band, a good way to arrange this would be to have one all-Negro night, and then the whites could dance in peace the rest of the time.
5? The Negroes would solve many of their social problems by not being so ir- responsible, lazy, and ignorant.
8. Negro musicians are sometimes as good as white musicians at swing music and jazz, but it is a mistake to have mixed Negro-white bands.
11. It would be a mistake to have Negroes for foremen and leaders over whites. 14. Negroes may have a part to play in white civilization, but it is best to keep them in their own districts and schools and to prevent too much intermixing
with whites.
16. Manual labor and menial jobs seem to fit the Negro mentality and ability
better than more skilled or responsible work.
19. In a community of r,ooo whites and 50 Negroes, a drunken Negro shoots and
kills an officer who is trying to arrest him. The white population should im-
mediately drive all the Negroes out of town.
22. The people who raise all the talk about putting Negroes on the same level
as whites and giving them the same privileges are mostly radical agitators
trying to stir up conflicts.
25. An occasional lynching in the South is a good thing because there is a large
percentage of Negroes in many communities and they need a scare once in a
while to prevent them from starting riots and disturbances.
28. It would be best to limit Negroes to grammar and trade school education since more schooling just gives them ambition and desires which they are
unable to fulfill in white competition.
31. There is something inherently primitive and uncivilized in the Negro, as
shown in his music and his extreme aggressiveness.
34? Most Negroes would become officious, overbearing, and disagreeable if not
kept in their place.
? Io6 THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY
so that correlations between the two scales might be obtained. The develop- ment of a more complete E scale, including items about Jews, will be reported later in this chapter.
The initial E scale consists of thirty-four items arranged in three subscales dealing respectively with Negroes, various other minorities, and patriotism (extranational outgroups). Tnese will now be discussed.
a. NEGROES. Since Negroes are a large and severely oppressed group and since imagery of "the Negro" has become so elaborated in American cultural mythology, they merited a subscale of their own. The twelve items presented in Table I (IV) constitute the Negro subscale. (The items are numbered as they appear in the total scale. )
These items attempt to cover most of the current ideology regarding Negroes and Negro-white relations. Negroes are described as lazy and igno- rant (Item 5) and as not really wanting equality with whites (Item 2 2: it is "radical agitators" who stir them up).