I. Observations on Low-Scoring Subjects
Throughout this chapter, we have concentrated on the phenomena of anti-Semitism and their structural interconnections. We have abstained from a detailed discussion of the minority attitudes of the non-anti-Semite and of the anti-anti-Semite. Obviously, it is more difficult and less promising to analyze the absence of highly specific opinions and attitudes than it is to deal with their existence. We have been able, it seems, in the study as a whole to draw a fairly complete picture of the low scorers, ranging from surface ideology to characterological determinants. Their general tendency to be disinterested in so-called racial questions, however, limits the supply of pertinent information. Moreover, the pragmatic aspect of our study naturally requires a closer scrutiny of the danger zone than of areas which can be discounted as a potential for fascism. By and large, the attitudes of the high scorers suffice to define, e contrario, the attitudes of the »lows« which are, in many respects, set polemically against the anti-Semitic imagery prevailing in our cultural climate.
Yet a number of observations concerning the low scorers may be allowed, not only in order to round out the picture, but also because the low scorers, in their responses to questions about minorities, go beyond a simple negation of the prejudiced person's opinions and attitudes, and throw some additional light upon the nonfascist character.
An over-all characteristic of the low scorer's attitude towards Jews is emphatic rationality. This has a double aspect. On the one hand, the general tendency towards intraceptiveness so characteristic of low scorers expresses itself specifically in the racial area through self-reflection: anti-Semitism presents itself to the low scorers as the problem of the anti-Semite, not of the Jew. On the other hand, racial problems and minority traits are viewed within historical and sociological perspective and thus seen to be open to rational insight and change, instead of being hypostatized in a rigidly irrational manner.
An example of self-reflection in racial matters is M 910, a student-minister, consistently low on all scales, who has strong intellectual leanings and, like most low scorers, a tendency toward hesitation, doubt, and qualifications of his own opinions. He traces back prejudice, in a plain-spoken though some-what primitive manner, to the difficulties of the minority haters, not to the object of their hatred:
(What do you feel are the causes of prejudice?) »Probably the largest reason is the insecurity or fear of insecurity that the person has himself. The people in my community who have talked loudest about the Japs are the ones who have since taken over (the properties left by the Japanese) ... and they're afraid they'll come back ... and they're afraid of them as competitors because they work harder. ...« (You fell it's mainly an economic conflict?) »Well, it isn't altogether economic, and I don't think it will be solved on an economic basis. ... All people have some kind of insecurity. It may be pretty well concealed, and they may not know what it is, and it may not have anything to do with the Japanese, but they'll take it out on them. People are funny (laughs) and are cruel.« (What ought to be done to combat prejudice?) »I think one thing that could be done – kinda regimentation – is to get the facts, it would help, though it wouldn't solve the problem ... e.g., that there is no necessity for separaring Negro and white blood in blood banks, and there are a lot of people who think that the Japanese are a treacherous race, and that it's transmitted through heredity. ... Of course, a lot of it is irrational.«
As to the emphasis on dynamic factors versus supposedly innate qualities, the most striking illustration is provided by M 203, a thoroughly liberal teacher, head of the English department in a junior college. He, too, is low on all scales. His whole philosophy is positivistic, with a strong interest in semantics, though he does not »think they should make a panacea out of semantics.« His general outlook on minority problems is summarized by his statement on the Japanese:
»If the Germans were changed in one generation by the Nazis, then the Japanese can be changed in a democratic way in one or two generations. Anybody can become anything under the proper conditions.«
Consequently, when discussing anti-Semitism, he chooses as an explanation a historical element, the maliciously super-imposed Jewish names. The arbitrariness of the selection of this specific factor can probably be accounted for by the interviewee's semanticist hobby:
»Anti-Semitism is a little different. Semites are not so easily identified. I guess their name is about the main thing. For instance, from your name I guess you're Jewish though I wouldn't know to look at you. Are you?« (Yes.) (Subject is quite open about these things. The only sign of inhibition was that it was hard for him to use the word »Jew« as he preferred the word »Semite« at first, but later he used the word »Jew« also.)
This subject's readiness to discuss the interviewer's Jewishness is significant. To him, the word Jew is not a magic word, nor is being Jewish a disgrace: thus he does not feel inhibited about mentioning it in relation to the person with whom he is talking. It is hard to imagine that a high scorer would casually discuss the origins of an interviewer except on occasions when he feels on the defensive and wants to hurt the fellow: »You are a Jew yourself, aren't you?«
The rationality of the unprejudiced subjects expresses itself, above all, in their rejection of anti-minority stereotypes. Frequently, this rejection is of a conscious, articulate nature: they take the concept of individuality seriously. We refer again to M 910. His utterance shows a definite sense of proportion even in his rejection of stereotypy: he does not deny the existence of physical racial characteristics, but regards them as nonessential:
»Well, I wouldn't be tricked into making a statement about any people as a group. The Japanese I've known I've liked very well. I know there are some Japanese who aren't so nice. ... We had a Japanese girl stand up with us at the altar and a Chinese girl too ... in 1942 when there was some pretty tense feeling.« (Do you feel that any racial group has certain distinguishing characteristics?) »No, not at all. Of course you have biological characteristics the height of the bridge of the nose or pigmentation.«
A similar line is followed in the Los Angeles interview 5030, of a 33-year-old Stanford graduate who served for four years in the navy, finally becoming a Lieutenant Commander. His scores on all scales are low. He is judged by the interviewer to be an extremely astute, successful individual:
»The Negroes, Jews, and all minority groups are having a very difficult time. I think many people dislike them because of their physical characteristics. They are really in a very bad spot. Such things as the FEPC help a lot and I favor both state and national laws concerning this issue. So many people are not willing to admit that many Negroes are intelligent, superior, and capable individuals. Their environment has held them back as a race. I have had both good and bad experiences with members of these groups but have never considered the people as belonging to a certain race or religion. I always take them for what they are worth as individuals. Yesterday I had a nice experience. There is a girl in one of my classes who is part Negro. She is a very superior and capable individual and I am sure the most intelligent member of the class. I have often thought I would like to visit with her but a suitable opportunity has never presented itself. Yesterday I, after much hesitation and fumbling, invited her to have a cup of coffee with me. Her acceptance was much more gracious than my invitation and we had a nice visit. I think the reason for my hesitation was simply a fear of what other people might think. I once had a Jewish roommate and he was the best roommate I have ever had.«
An extreme example of fully conscious anti-stereotypy is 5046, an executive secretary in the movie industry, in her late thirties, actively engaged in the labor movement. Her questionnaire scores are low for all scales. If some of her formulations suggest a »ticket low,«8 it should be kept in mind that her rejection of stereotypy even prevents her from building up automatically a pro-Jewish stereotype. She is no »Jew lover,« but seems truly to appraise people as individuals. As a matter of fact, she has just severed a relationship with a Jewish man:
When the interviewer began questioning subject on the Jewish problem, it became apparent immediately that she »knew all the answers.« She stated: »Yes, there is a problem ... but I don't think we should call it a Jewish problem; it really is a Christian problem ... question of educating the Gentiles who practice anti-Semitism.« When given the check list, she laughed and said: »Of course, one can't generalize ... these are the stereotypes used by the anti-Semites to blame the Jews for certain faults ... I don't think one should label any group like this ... it is dangerous, especially in regard to the Jews, because one has to evaluate the individual on his or her own merits.« None of the other questions brought out even a trace of anti-Semitism, and throughout, her answers indicated a consistent, almost militant stand against anti-Semitism. She feels that anti-Semitism is one of the most dangerous trends in this country and feels that only solution must be sought through widespread education along liberal lines and through extensive intermarriage. She feels rather optimistic about the process of assimilation, although she is quite alarmed about the increase of anti-Semitism during recent years. Hitler's race theory and persecution of the Jews should be combatted on every front, in whatever form it may appear. She stated: »I have also known some Jewish people whom I decidedly did not like, and some of them were quite aggressive, but I would never generalize that therefore ›all Jews‹ were aggressive ... if only we could make people see that some people are aggressive for certain reasons, usually because of insecurity, and Jews are not aggressive because they are Jews.«
As pointed out in great detail in the chapters on the personality aspects of the interview material, the low scorers' rationality, their rejection of projective imagery and automatized judgment, does not involve as a rule emotional coldness and detachment. Although they are more rational than the »highs« in so far as their judgment seems to be less determined by repressed unconscious factors, they are simultaneously less blocked in positive cathexes and in the expression of them. This refers not only to their general psychological make-up but also to their specific minority attitudes. The prejudiced person discusses the Jews as an »object« while he actually hates; the unprejudiced person displays sympathy even when he pretends simply to judge objectively. The link between this sympathy and rationality is the idea of justice, which has come to work, in certain people, spontaneously, almost as if it were instinctual. To the low scorer, racial discrimination violates the basic principle of the equality of all men. In the name of human rights he tends to identify himself with those who are discriminated against and who thus appeal to his own spontaneous feeling of solidarity with the oppressed.
Here are a few examples of this specific configuration. M 113, a »religious low scorer« whose F scale shows higher trends and whose PEC scale was still higher:
(Minority problem?) »In a speech the other day in Public Speaking I said that democracy is mainly respect for minority groups.« (Vague, little verbalized ideas.) »They have gotten a dirty deal, as most minorities do.«
Similarly, in M 320, a consistently low-scoring student of landscape architecture, protest against unfairness works as a »rationalization« for emotional identification which otherwise might not be allowed to come into the open.
»I'm very much pro-Negro, myself. I think I'm in favor of almost any minority that's discriminated against unfairly ...« (What about the Jewish problem?) »I don't see why it should be a problem at all. I think that in Europe the Jews should be allowed to live and have their businesses, etc., the same as anyone else.«
Or the young woman F 129, also low on all scales, a somewhat high-strung person who, according to the interviewer, is moved by any disturbing subject – including race prejudice – to tears and flushes:
(And how do you feel about Jews?) »Why, I don't feel any way about them except upset at the way they are treated. There are good and bad in all races but I am inclined to be even more tolerant about the shortcomings of people who are always persecuted and criticized.« (Could you have married a Jew?) »Why of course, if I had fallen in love with one.« (Why do you think Jews are persecuted?) »I don't know except some people have to hate.«
There are indications that the low scorers' affect-laden sense of justice is not a mere surface ideology, or a means of narcissistic gratification in one's own humanitarianism, but that it has a real basis within the personality and is only presented afterwards, as it were, in theoretical terms. The sympathy for the underdog leads towards action, towards attempts to correct in concrete, individual situations what is felt to be general unfairness. A pertinent case was 5030 (see p. [320]). We give one further illustration: F 126, who is low on E and PEC and only slightly higher on F. She is a good-looking young woman, »very articulate and whimsical, with much charm and humor.« She studies journalism and says that her real desire is to do »creative writing«:
»I remember when I was in junior high, there was only one Jewish boy in our class. We were always having parties and affairs and he was left out. At first I didn't even understand why. He was a very nice boy, smart, and good-looking. But they left him out because he was a Jew. Well, I made it my business to be his special friend, not only invited him to my parties, but paid particular attention to him. That was one time it was really good to be one of the leading kids. The others began to treat him the same way, and he was just one of the crowd from then on. I never have been able to stand to see anyone be mean to anyone else. The same at the shipyards. I always made it a point to get acquainted with Negroes and Jews. They talked frankly with me, too, and I certainly found out what some of their problems are. Whenever I could, I would bring it into a story, too. Not directly about race prejudice, but nice stories about Negroes for instance. People have so many wrong ideas. I sometimes think it is just hopeless.«
The general attitude of the low scorers towards the Jews profoundly affects their evaluation of so-called Jewish traits. It has been said above (pp. [275] ff.) that high scorers perceive the Jew altogether differently: their psychological make-up functions as a frame of reference even for their supposedly »immediate,« everyday experiences. Something similar applies, in reverse, to the unprejudiced. Yet the diffuseness and inarticulateness of the objective »Jewish traits,« complex as they are, is reflected by the low scorers' attitude no less than by the various projections of the high scorers. There is universal sympathy among the unprejudiced subjects, but no unanimity. Sometimes they try to explain Jewish traits; sometimes they simply deny their existence; sometimes they take an emphatically positive, admiring stand towards those traits.
The explanatory method is applied to the most widespread idea of a Jewish trait, that of clannishness, by M 202, a 35-year-old construction engineer, with the lowest possible score on E, but with certain deviations from the usual picture of the low scorer with regard to PEC and also to F – a person who, according to the interviewer, »is conservative but not fascist.«
In response to a question about how he would characterize the Jews, subject replied that they were a close-knit family with certain inborn characteristics like any other racial group. For instance, the Germans »must always be right,« the English – here the interviewer interrupted, pointing out that she wished to know what he thought of the Jews. He replied that the Jews had not been accepted in a certain society and that this had led to their becoming a very close-knit family. The reason for this is that they have certain characteristics. On being asked to be more specific, his reply was they have a tendency to sharp dealing. Of course he doesn't blame them because he would probably do the same if he had the chance and if he were smart enough.
In this case, the wish to »explain,« frequently an instrument for rationalizations, seems to mediate between broad-mindedness on the one hand and powerful anti-minority stereotypes, which are still there below the surface, on the other. As a matter of fact, the pro-Jewish apologies of the subject are followed by a rather unfriendly story about a supposed conspiracy among three Jewish bidders for a vast quantity of scrap-iron. The guess that the explanatory attitude may sometimes cover up ambivalence seems to be corroborated by M 310, an assistant manager for an advertising agency, who scored low on all scales. Nevertheless, his theorizing presupposes the acceptance of the stereotype of Jewish money-mindedness:
(Characteristic Jewish traits?) »Well, I think it is true that Jews, as a group, are more concerned with money. ... Perhaps because persecuted for so long. ... It's some small security in a money economy, that is, a money culture. Some security to be able to defend themselves with money. I also think they are better than average Gentiles at making money because forced to be usurers during the Middle Ages, etc.«
Subjects whose scores are at the lowest extreme often tend simply to deny the existence of any Jewish traits, sometimes with a violence that seems to be due more to the impact of their own conscience than to an objective appraisal of the minority members. Here »neurotic« traits, which are often found in extremely unprejudiced subjects, may easily enter the picture. The vehicle by which they try to argue away Jewish traits is insight into the mechanisms of projectivity and stereotypy, i.e., into the subjective factors making for anti-Semitism.
M 112, a »quiet, reserved, well-mannered sophomore of 18 years,« whose scale scores are all low, simply subscribes to the »envy« theory:
(Jews?) »Not an educational problem in this case. People just prejudiced. Want to keep them out of good positions, etc. People make up wild stories, like that the Jews have too much money, control the country, etc.; it's just to keep them back.« (Your contacts?) »No Negroes in my school. Jews were like anyone else. I'd never know they were Jewish if they hadn't told me.«
5041 (whose scale scores are all low), a 59-year-old housewife who had studied to be a professional pianist, combines the denial of Jewish traits with reference to bygone ages and with the rejection of resentful generalizations:
»I think there is a Jewish problem – but I don't think that they are different ... not that there is anything inherent in them that they should be set apart or treated differently. ... There are historical reasons for their persecution ... it is not their fault. Well, you can't apply any of these traits to the Jews as a group. Jews are not a race. ... These terms might apply to some individuals, to Christians as well as Jews ... you have some aggressive people, but they are not aggressive because they are Jewish ... it's usually something that the other person does not like ... say they appear to be more intellectual and some succeed, outdoing others, this causes resentment, and then they are called aggressive. ...«
An extreme of denial is achieved by the »easy-going« low scorer, M 1206a, of the Maritime School Group, who »is a highly introspective person and shows much inhibition against rejecting another person or group, even on the basis of principles founded in reality.« His scores on all the scales are low:
(Most characteristic traits of Negroes?) »Well, I don't think there is such a thing. They have the same traits the white men have. ... I don't believe any nationality has any characteristics. ...«
Sometimes the intense emotions behind the denial of Jewish traits find a somewhat irrational expression. F 125 (low on E and F, but high on PEC) is a student who would like to become a drama teacher and who finds »the movies very stereotyped.« Her indignation was stirred up by our own study.
»I was mad at some questions in your questionnaire, especially about the Jewish atmosphere. The Irish people and other national groups give an atmosphere to the place in which they live, but only the Jewish atmosphere is stamped as something bad. I don't find that the ways of living of the Jews are different at all.«
If the prejudiced subjects, for reasons of general conformity and in order to obtain »social confirmation,« frequently stress that practically everybody is anti-Semitic, some low scorers go so far as not only to deny the existence of Jewish traits, but even of anti-Semitism. A case in point is the somewhat muddle-headed M 115, characterized as a typical conventional and conservative fraternity man who, however, is within the low quartile on the F scale though in the middle quartile on E and in the high quartile on PEC:
(What about the Jewish problem?) »There's not much persecution now in the United States. There shouldn't be any. The only reason for persecuting the Jew is that he is smarter than the next guy, as far as I can see.«
As to the appreciation of the specific qualities of Jews and of other minorities, we content ourselves with two examples which may throw light on significant areas. F 128, a 17-year-old girl, is low on F and PEC but slightly higher on E. She is studying social work and is interested in child welfare, but not »in any kind of a career«:
»I guess I have had a better education than many people. We have entertained Negroes in our home as long as I can remember. I have known all sorts of people – lots of them very eccentric people – in music and art groups. The first good friends I ever had were Jewish boys and girls. I don't know why some people hate Negroes and Jews. With Jewish people perhaps they are a little afraid, because lots of Jews are smarter than other people.«
The interesting element of this statement is contained in the word »eccentric.« It refers to what is »different,« to what is branded as slightly abnormal by standards of conformity, but which expresses individualization, the development of human traits which have not been performed, as it were, by the social machinery of contemporary civilization. To this subject, the very »alienness« of minorities with respect to the rigid patterns of the highly organized mass society of today, represents the human, which she otherwise might feel to be lacking among the »right people.« The Jewish »failure« to become completely absorbed by the American cultural climate presents itself to this subject as a merit, as a triumph of autonomy and resistance against the leveling impact of the »melting pot.«
5050, a radio news commentator with progressive political affiliations, who is low on all three scales, denies the existence of Jewish traits but emphasizes a point rarely acknowledged: the patience of the minorities in the face of persecution. His praise of this attitude actually contains a critical element which may, by the implication of cowardice, be indicative of some hidden hostility. He blames the minorities for political reasons because they do not take a more energetic stand against American reaction:
He tries at all times to show that there are no so-called »Jewish traits,« and that people such as described by Budd Schulberg in »What Makes Sammy Run« can and do occur quite as frequently among Gentiles. Then he usually points to a man like Rankin or Bilbo as an example of an obnoxious »Gentile.« »I admire both the Negro and the Jewish people for their great patience in swallowing discrimination. ... If I were in their shoes, I would start a really militant fight against the oppressors.« He still feels that too many Jews and Negroes are too apathetic and rather let the other fellow do the fighting. ... he feels that had the Jews been more alert, Hitler might have been stopped, or at least prevented from perpetrating the extreme atrocities. Again and again he stated that all forms of discrimination can and must be wiped out by direct political action.
One last characteristic of the unprejudiced attitude toward minority questions should be mentioned: the absence of fatalism. Not only do unprejudiced subjects, in the realm of their conscious convictions, appear to be set against ideas such as those of the inevitability of human badness or the perennial nature of any character traits, but on a deeper level, as suggested in Chapters XIV[9] and XV,[10] they appear to be relatively free of destructive urges and punitive fantasies. They look at things in a historical and sociological way rather than hypostatizing the existent as something ultimately given. This point of view expresses itself also in their concept of the future relationships between majority and minority. 5008, low on E, in the middle quartile on F, and high on PEC, is a middle-aged woman who worked as a ghost writer, then as a literary agent, and is now employed as secretary to a radio show. In keeping with the low scorers' rejection of stereotypy, she sees the solution of the problem of anti-Semitism, however naively, in the establishment of personal contacts.
She holds nothing but good wishes for the intelligent immigrants and refugees who have come here recently, but feels that many of them have been undesirable. Concerning Negroes she reports that as a Republican she believes their position should be very much bettered, but says this is a difficult problem. Concerning Jews she says, »Before I went to work, I probably had a slight anti-Jewish feeling,« but in several positions she has worked with and for Jews, and found them very charming, intelligent, and interesting people. She thinks the racial problem most in need of solution is that of anti-Semitism, and feels that if more »anti-Semites would mingle with Jews the way I have« it could be avoided. She believes in the FEPC and thinks that socioeconomic discrimination should be outlawed. When it was pointed out that this is a more New Deal type of political notion, she simply said, »Well, it can't all be bad.«
This attitude, which stresses human spontaneity and freedom of action rather than rigid, authoritarian laws of nature, does not, however, lead toward »official optimism.« The unprejudiced subjects' sensitivity to the suffering of human beings, their compassion, makes them keenly aware of the dangers of racial persecution. It is the high scorer who would say, »It can't happen here,« thus apparently detaching himself from the »objective« course of history with which he actually identifies himself; the low scorer knows that it could happen, but wants to do something about it.
5058, low on all three scales, is a 29-year-old veteran of upper-middle-class background whose main identification lies with »liberals« and »intellectuals.«
He is very concerned about the problem of minority groups in this country. »I do a lot of talking about it – hoping to reduce prejudice and to encourage tolerance. In fact, I feel so concerned about this thing I would almost be willing to set myself up in Pershing Square. I tried to do a little crusading in the Navy but without much success.« Subject is very pessimistic about the possibility of a solution to the »minority problem« which seems to stem largely from his failure to modify the opinions of the people with whom he has argued. He feels that dislike of the Jews is increasing because he has heard more talk against them lately. »Of course that might be because I am exposed to it more lately, both while I was in the Navy and in my present job.« He does not feel that the Jews have too much influence in this country, nor does he believe that the Jews are a political force in America. He is certain that they did their part in the war effort. When asked about »basically Jewish traits,« he was not able to respond since to him this term means practically nothing. »Jews are all so differem from each other that we cannot speak of there being something ›basically Jewish‹ about them.«
J. Conclusion
It has often been said that anti-Semitism works as the spearhead of antidemocratic forces. The phrase sounds a bit hackneyed and apologetic: the minority most immediately threatened seems to make an all-too-eager attempt to enlist the support of the majority by claiming that it is the latter's interest and not their own which really finds itself in jeopardy today. Looking back, however, at the material surveyed in this, and other chapters, it has to be recognized that a link between anti-Semitism and antidemocratic feeling exists. True, those who wish to exterminate the Jews do not, as is sometimes claimed, wish to exterminate afterwards the Irish or the Protestants. But the limitation of human rights which is consummated in their idea of a special treatment of the Jews, not only logically implies the ultimate abolition of the democratic form of government and, hence, of the legal protection of the individual, but it is frequently associated quite consciously, by high-scoring interviewees, with overt antidemocratic ideas. We conclude this chapter with two examples of what appear to be the inescapable antidemocratic consequences of anti-Semitism. M 106, a man high on the E, F, and PEC scales, still pretends to be democratic; but it is not difficult to infer what is in the back of his mind:
»Hitler's plan – well, Hitler carried things just a little too far. There was some justification – some are bad, but not all. But Hitler went on the idea that a rotten apple in the barrel will spoil all the rest of them.« He doesn't approve of ruthless persecution. »If Hitler had handled the Jews as a minority group, had segregated them and set certain standards for them to live by, there would be less trouble for Hitler now.« (Same problem in this country now?) »Same problem, but it's handled much better because we're a democratic country.«
While the suggestion that a minority be segregated is incompatible with the basic concepts of the same »democratic country« of which the subject professes to be proud, the metaphor of the rotten apple in the barrel conjures up the imagery of »evil germs« which is associated with appalling regularity with the dream of an effective germicide.
Perversion of a so-called democrat is manifested in 5019, another man whose scale scores are all high. He is a 20-year-old laborer, characterized above all, by his blind, authoritarian acceptance of his humble position in life. At the same time, he »dislikes timid people« and has »great admiration for real leaders«:
Respondent believes that the »laws of democracy should favor white, Gentile people,« yet he »would not openly persecute Jews in the way the Hitler program treated them.«
The reservation of the second sentence is disavowed by the momentum of the convictions expressed in the first one.
Fußnoten
1 Institute of Social Research, Anti-Semitism within American Labor: A Report to the Jewish Labor Committee, 4 vols. (unpublished: May, 1945).
[2 Daniel J. Levinson, »Politico-Economic Ideology and Group Memberships in Relation to Ethnocentrism,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 151–207.]
[3 Else Frenkel-Brunswik, »The Interviews as an Approach to the Prejudiced Personality,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 291–336.]
[4 Daniel J. Levinson, »The Study of Anti-Semitic Ideology,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 57–101.]
[5 Daniel J. Levinson, »The Study of Ethnocentric Ideology,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 102–150.]
[6 See below, pp. 332ff.]
7 The most drastic evidence for this hypothesis is, of course, the habit of differentiating between those Jews with whom the subject is acquainted, and who are »good,« and the rest of them, who are the »kikes.« In certain cases this contradiction is both concretized and cleared up etiologically. We refer here to case 5057, discussed in detail in Chapter XIX, where the subject's bias is practically explained by himself as the outcome of resentment aroused by a childhood experience with a Jewish delictessen man. See the »rigid low scorer« in Chapter XIX [below, p. 492].
8 See the »rigid low scorer« in Chapter XIX [below, p. 492].
[9 Betty Aron, »The Thematic Apperception Test in the Study of Prejudiced and Unprejudiced Individuals,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 489–544.]
[10 Daniel J. Levinson, »Projective Questions in the Study of Personality and Ideology,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 545–600.]