oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (10/07/86)
From Adorno et. al., THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY Harper & Bros., New
York, 1950, pp. 92-6. (Chapter heading: The Study of Anti-Semitic
Ideology.)
[Readers are hereby notified that the text quoted below begins discus-
sion of a series of psychological profiles, comprising both written
exams and followup interviews, including one or more sessions lasting
several hours each, administered to several disparate series of Ameri-
can subjects (students, service club members, prisoners) in the lat-
ter years of WWII and the early postwar years. The tests were de-
signed to elicit information about people's authoritarian, "potential-
ly fascist" potentials and feelings in general, and anti-Semitic (ano-
malous dislike of Jews, not of Arabs; semantic horseshit such as deli-
berate subsumation of the latter into the former for purposes of pre-
varication lay at least 20 years in the future) in particular. I
suspect that any consistent ideology of opposition to some subgroup,
be it Gays, Blacks, refugees from Southeast Asia, the vanishing Ameri-
can Liberal, or even Fundamentalist preachers (they're not all rich
assholes like the TV personalities, you know,) may be substituted for
anti-Semitism in the passages below without essential loss of valid-
ity. (Meaning that some details become incorrect when you change the
"outgroup" to be persecuted, but the general structure of intolerant
attitudes stays consistent throughout.)
Read it and weep.
This passage was typed in haste and will be repented at leisure.
Please be tolerant of typos and misspellings - in fact, considering
the advanced decrepitude of my orthographic skills, kindly forbear
from noting all but the most egregious spelling errors. Thank you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the first conclusion
to be drawn from the results
presented above is that anti-Se-
mitism is best conceived psycho-
logically not as a specific a-
version but as an ideology, a
general way of thinking about
Jews and Jewish-Gentile interac-
tion. 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 sub-
scales, and by the high inter-
nal consistency of the scale as
revealed by the item Discrimi-
natory Powers. The statistical
results indicate that a quantita-
tive measure of total anti-Semi-
tic ideology has been obtained.
Any individual can be assigned,
with a relatively small margin
of error, a rank along a dimen-
sion ranging from strong support
of anti-Semitic ideology at on
(high) extreme, to strong oppo-
sition at the other (low) ex-
treme. The meaning of middle
scores on this dimension is am-
biguous, since the may represent
indifference, ignorance, or an
ambivalent combination of par-
tial support and partial rejec-
tion of anti-Semitism. It is
noteworthy, however, that indi-
viduals making middle scores on
one subscale tend to make middle
scores on the other subscales as
well. Despite item-by-item var-
iability, individuals tend to be
highly consistent in their re-
sponses to the several sub-
scales.
The fact that an individu-
al's stance on one set of items
is similar to hos stand on all
others does not necessarily im-
ply that all anti-Semitic ideas
are of equal psychological im-
portance to each individual.
The spontaneous discussion of
anti-Semites, whether in an in-
terview or in everyday social
life, suggests that for each in-
dividual there are certain "nu-
clear ideas" -- imagery of Jews
as conniving, or sexual or radi-
cal, and the like, and corre-
sponding primary attitudes --
which have primary emotional
significance. However, 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 sys-
tem. This system provides a ra-
tionale for any specific idea
within it and a basis for meet-
ing and assimilating new social
conditions.
This conception of anti-Se-
mitism aids in the understanding
of the present results. It also
offers an explanation of why an
anti-Semitic rumor (for example,
the wartime accusations that
only Jews could get tires or
draft exemptions or officer sta-
tus) is easily believed by
anti-Semites: because of a re-
ceptivity to negative imagery
generally and by means of an i-
deological system with which the
new idea is easily assimilated.
This conception of the <in-
clusiveness> of anti-Semitic i-
deology stands in sharp contrast
to numerous theories which con-
ceive 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 inherit-
ed" traits (faults). Another
common view, that anti-Semitism
is a form of "religious" preju-
dice, is based on the explicit
or implicit assumption that reli-
gious differences, and thus ac-
cusations on religious grounds,
are the central issues in anti-
Semitism. A third "specifistic"
view is that anti-Semitism is
based primarily on distortions
of facts which some individuals
have mistakenly accepted as
true; for example, that Jews are
unusually rich, dishonest, radi-
cal, and so on. This last theo-
ry has led to numerous attempts
to fight anti-Semitism by giv-
ing 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 <re-
sistance> of these individuals
to a less hostile and less ste-
reotyped way of thinking. Fin-
ally, anti-Semitism is some-
times explained in terms of fi-
nancial motives and accusations:
many people, it is asserted, op-
pose 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 an-
ti-Semitism has adequately
grasped its generality, its psy-
chological complexity, and its
function in the emotional life
of the individual. Nor can they
suggest why many individuals op-
pose anti-Semitism despite their
having economic situations, re-
ligious backgrounds, sources of
information, and so on, which
are similar to those of anti-Se-
mites. What is required, in our
opinion, is a psychological ap-
proach which seeks to grasp both
anti-Semitic ideology and <an-
ti>-anti-Semitic ideology in
their full complexity and scope,
and which then attempts to dis-
cover the various sources of
each viewpoint in the psycholo-
gical development and social
background of the individuals
holding it. 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
supported in varying degrees by
many more.
What then, are the major
opinions, values, and attitudes
comprising anti-Semitic ideolo-
gy, 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 <stereotype>,
which takes several forms.
There is, first, a tendency to
over-generalize single traits to
subscribe to statements begin-
ning "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, ex-
amination of the specific char-
teristics comprising the imagery
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 i-
tems and brought out more di-
rectly in the interviews may be
termed "stereotype of interper-
sonal relationships and experi-
ences." It involves an inabili-
ty to experience Jews as indi-
viduals. Rather, each Jew is
seen and reacted to as a sort of
sample specimen of the stereo-
typed, reified image of the
group. This form of stereotypy
is expressed very clearly in
Mack's (a college man who scored
high on the ethnocentrism scale
and was selected for a followup
interview on that basis.) While
no statistics are available, the
other interviews as well as ev-
eryday conversations indicate
that his approach is not uncom-
mon.
This limitation in the ex-
perience of individuals has cer-
tain implications for the theory
that contact with "good Jews"
lessens anti-Semitism. The ef-
fectiveness of social contact
would seem to depend in large
part on the individual's <capa-
city for individuated experi-
ence.> This capacity is certain-
ly 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 rein-
forcement of established image-
ry.
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 rela-
tion to other groups and issues,
that is, are stereotypy and ri-
gidity aspects of their general
psychological functioning? Why
is it so important for anti-Sem-
ites to reject Jews on any and
all grounds? Are the contra-
dictions and oversimplifications
primarily surface signs of a
deeper-lying anxiety and hostil-
ity? If so, what are the perso-
nality trends involved, and how
are they different from those
found in non-anti-Semites?
Let us consider the deeper psy-
chological meaning of the stere-
otyped negative imagery of Jews.
While the specific surface opin-
ions 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 val-
ues. These values include:
cleanliness, neatness and con-
formity; also opposition to sen-
suality, prying, social aggres-
siveness, exhibitionism. The
imagery of Jews as value-viola-
tors makes them not only
offensive but also very disturb-
ing. 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 con-
ventional middle-class values --
and most Americans are <psycho-
logically> middle class. It may
be that anti-Semites and non-an-
ti-Semites differ regarding
certain values such as sensual-
ity or conformity. However, it
is likely that many unprejudiced
individuals have substantially
the same values as the anti-Sem-
ites do. Why, then, do these
values become the basis for an-
ti-Semitic accusations in one
group but not in the other? One
hypothesis would be that then
non-anti-Semites are more flex-
ible in their support of these
values, less disturbed by val-
ue-violators and less inclined
to stereotypy and over-generali-
zation.
Moreover, these values tend,
as will be shown later, to be
held very strongly by the high-
scoring subjects, and they ap-
pear frequently in these indi-
viduals' thinking about them-
selves, other people, and social
issues generally. In view of
the emotional support given
these values, and the intensity
with which supposed value-vio-
lators are rejected, it is rea-
sonable to ask whether the
surface opinions and attitudes
are motivated by deeper emotion-
al dispositions. It is pos-
sible, for example, that
anti-Semites are unconsciously
struggling to inhibit in them-
selves the same tendencies that
they find so unbearable in Jews.
Jews may be a convenient object
on which they can project their
unconscious desires and fears.
It is difficult otherwise to ex-
plain 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 sig-
nificant in this connection whe-
ther the categorical distinction
between <value-violators> (ego-a-
lien, morally threatening
groups) and <value-supporters>
(Ego-syntonic, morally pure
groups) appears generally in the
thinking of these individuals
regarding the various other ide-
ological areas to be considered
in the following chapters. To
the extent that this and other
themes underly and unify the en-
tire social thinking of anti-
Semites, their specific opinions
and attitudes must be regarded
in part as expressions of deep-
er-lying personality needs, an-
xieties, and conflicts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By now, someone in the studio audience or among the folks back
home may have started to wonder just why I typed this long, 40-year-
old diatribe from a buncha (Kike) psychologists who are probably dead
by now. One person doing such wondering is me.
The best answer I can give is that this book is speaking to me; it
indicates that people have thought rather carefully about what consti-
tutes the underpinning of certain behavior patterns, and the relation-
ship between peculiar people's perverse personalities and the apparent
preponderance of folly as a primary determinant in human affairs, whe-
ther at the individual or national scales. It offers partial explana-
tion of things that otherwise don't make sense to me, such as the
world's callous and collective refusal to feed starving humans in Af-
rica, while the US grain surplus exceeds our ability to shake a stick
at it.
In particular, my dissociative mind tends to substitute words into
existing sentences, and check the believability of the result. So I
replace anti-Gays for anti-Semites in the paragraphs above, and cer-
tain well-known net personalities snap into focus. Substitute anti-
Arabs and other names become prominent. Get a little cute, replace
Jews with Zionists or Arabs with Moslems as the object of hatred, and
yet other people appear to have been perfectly described by those
aging psychologists (Though it's my opinion that anti-Zionism and an-
ti-Islamism(!) are fig leaves behind which we hide good old anti-Jew
or anti-Arab hatreds. Not only mine - there are sections in the book
which describe the inconsistent requirements anti-Semites place on
Jews for the latter to be worthy of admission into the human race -
they include assimilating into the larger population (for the Arabs I
suppose that would work out to "demonstrating they can live in a civi-
lized world,") though at the same time they advocate separation, ex-
clusion, even oppression or extermination of the same groups. So
they're damned for trying to assimilate at the same time they're
damned for sticking together in the face of deliberate oppression at
the hands of anti-Semites. Heh heh - gotcha!) We can even push our
luck and write Communists or Humanists into the scapegoat billing -
there's no shortage of people to bash them the same damn way the oth-
ers are treated. Even something as innocent(?) and discretionary as
music comes in for its share of lumps. (Wasn't there someone who cri-
ticized Frank Zappa as Zapparoni, ascribing to him the balefulness and
destructiveness to young minds we normally reserve for dope pushers,
tax evaders and seat-belt law advocates?) Of course, anti-Semitism
itself is alive and kicking, and we have a few contributors willing to
cop to it publicly, as well as crude anti-Black racism (nature es-
thetics, anyone?)
What does it say about us, that we tend so easily to project our
secret desires-cum-fears onto stereotyped external classes of victim,
and abandon our reasoning faculties to the irresistible charms of
misdirected hate? If we really wish to represent the "Free World" as
the last best hope of humanity in its struggle with - er, Communism? -
Humanism? - Pornographers? - Ayatollahs? - whatever, what chance do we
have to do so if we fall into the self-indulgent trap of fobbing off
our critical (and introspective) faculties for the pleasures of
two-minutes-hate? Hannah Arendt's EICHMANM IN JERUSALEM; THE BANALITY
OF EVIL almost says it all right in the title line. Once we let some-
one else do our thinking for us, be it God, anyone claiming to speak
for What God Wants, a politician or corporate entity of politicians
(yes, I mean the Commie party, this time) or even the nice banker or
investor who will make us rich if we let him have his way, or even our
subliminal fears and wishes, we have abandoned direction of our lives
to those whose mercies are self-selected not to be too tender.
As far as I can tell, that's the wrong way to go. All the inde-
pendent iconoclastic individualists must immediately line up behind
me, and I will show you the solution to all your problems, verily up
to and including the dread ring around the collar, in my next few
postings. (Your tax-deductible contribution will go a long way toward
facilitating this excellent work, and assure you a place in heaven
besides.)
--
Oded A. Feingold MIT AI Lab 545 Tech Square Cambridge, Mass. 02139
{allegra|ihnp4!mit-eddie}!mit-vax!oaf OAF@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU 617-253-8598