B. Syndromes Found Among High Scorers

 

A rough characterization of the several types may precede their detailed presentation. Surface Resentment can easily be recognized in terms of justified or unjustified social anxieties; our construct does not say anything about the psychological fixations or defense mechanisms underlying the pattern of opinion. With the Conventional pattern, of course, acceptance of conventional values is outstanding. The superego was never firmly established and the individual is largely under the sway of its external representatives. The most obvious underlying motive is the fear of »being different.« The Authoritarian type is governed by the superego and has continuously to contend with strong and highly ambivalent id tendencies. He is driven by the fear of being weak. In the Tough Guy the repressed id tendencies gain the upper hand, but in a stunted and destructive form. Both the Crank and the Manipulative types seem to have resolved the Oedipus complex through a narcissistic withdrawal into their inner selves. Their relation to the outer world, however, varies. The cranks have largely replaced outward reality by an imaginary inner world; concomitantly, their main characteristic is projectivity and their main fear is that the inner world will be »contaminated« by contact with dreaded reality: they are beset by heavy taboos, in Freud's language by the délire de toucher. The manipulative individual avoids the danger of psychosis by reducing outer reality to a mere object of action: thus he is incapable of any positive cathexis. He is even more compulsive than the authoritarian, and his compulsiveness seems to be completely ego-alien: he did not achieve the transformation of an externally coercive power into a superego. Complete rejection of any urge to love is his most outstanding defense.

In our sample, the conventional and the authoritarian types seem to be by far the most frequent.

1. Surface Resentment

 

The phenomenon to be discussed here is not on the same logical level as the various »types« of high and low scorers characterized afterwards. As a matter of fact, it is not in and of itself a psychological »type,« but rather a condensation of the more rational, either conscious or preconscious, manifestations of prejudice, in so far as they can be distinguished from more deep-lying, unconscious aspects. We may say that there are a number of people who »belong together« in terms of more or less rational motivations, whereas the remainder of our »high« syndromes are characterized by the relative absence or spuriousness of rational motivation which, in their case, has to be recognized as a mere »rationalization.« This does not mean, however, that those high scorers whose prejudiced statements show a certain rationality per se are exempt from the psychological mechanisms of the fascist character. Thus the example we offer is high not only on the F scale but on all scales: she has the generality of prejudiced outlook which we have taken as evidence that underlying personality trends were the ultimate determinants. Still, we feel that the phenomenon of »Surface Resentment,« though generally nourished by deeper instinctual sources, should not be entirely neglected in our discussion since it represents a sociological aspect of our problem which might be underestimated in its importance for the fascist potential if we concentrate entirely on psychological description and etiology.

We refer here to people who accept stereotypes of prejudice from outside, as ready-made formulae, as it were, in order to rationalize and – psychologically or actually – overcome overt difficulties of their own existence. While their personalities are unquestionably those of high scorers, the stereotype of prejudice as such does not appear to be too much libidinized, and it generally maintains a certain rational or pseudorational level. There is no complete break between their experience and their prejudice: both are often explicitly contrasted one with the other. These subjects are able to present relatively sensible reasons for their prejudice, and are accessible to rational argumentation. Here belongs the discontented, grumbling family father who is happy if somebody else can be blamed for his own economic failures, and even happier if he can derive material advantages from antiminority discrimination, or the actually or potentially »vanquished competitors,« such as small retailers, economically endangered by chain stores, which they suppose to be owned by Jews. We may also think of anti-Semitic Negroes in Harlem who have to pay excessive rents to Jewish collectors. But these people are spread over all those sectors of economic life where one has to feel the pinch of the process of concentration without seeing through its mechanism, while at the same time still maintaining one's economic function.

5043, a housewife with extremely high scores on the scales who »had often been heard discussing the Jews in the neighborhood,« but is »a very friendly, middle-aged« person who »enjoys harmless gossip,« expressed high respect for science and takes a serious though somewhat repressed interest in painting. She »has fears about economic competition from zootsuiters« and »the interview revealed that similar attitudes are strongly held about Negroes.« She »has experienced quite a severe comedown in terms of status and economic security since her youth. Her father was an extremely wealthy ranch owner.«

 

Although her husband was making a good living as a stock broker when she married him in 1927, the stockmarket crash and the ensuing depression made it necessary for her to grapple with economic problems, and finally it even became necessary for them to move in with her wealthy mother-in-law. This situation has caused some friction while at the same time relieving her of a great deal of responsibility. In general, the subject seems to identify herself with the upper middle-class, thus striking a balance between her upper-class background and her present precarious middle-class position. Although she does not admit this into her ego, the loss of money and status must have been very painful to her; and her strong prejudice against Jews infiltrating the neighborhood may be directly related to her fear of sinking »lower« on the economic scale.

 

The consistently high scores of this subject are explained by the interviewer on the basis of a »generally uncritical attitude« (she always »agrees very much« on the questionnaire) rather than by an active, fascist bias, which does not come out in the interview. Characteristic is the relative absence of serious family conflicts.

 

She was never severely disciplined; on the contrary, both parents tended to give in to her wishes and she was ostensibly their favorite. ... There was never any serious friction and, continuing through the present, the relationship among the siblings and the family in general is still very close.

 

The reason why she was chosen as a representative of »Surface Resentment« is her attitude in race questions. She »shows a very strong prejudice towards all minority groups« and »regards the Jews as a problem,« her stereotypes following »pretty much the traditional pattern« which she has taken over mechanically from outside. But »she does not feel

 

that all Jews necessarily exhibit all the characteristics. Also she does not believe that they can be distinguished by looks or any special characteristics, except that they are loud and often aggressive.

 

The last quotation shows that she does not regard those features of the Jews which she incriminates as inborn and natural. Neither rigid projection nor destructive punitiveness is involved:

 

With regard to the Jews she feels that assimilation and education will eventually solve the problem.

 

Her aggressiveness is evidently directed against those who might, as she fears, »take something away from her,« either economically or in status, but the Jews are no »countertype.«

 

Hostility is openly expressed toward the Jews who have been moving into the neighborhood as well as toward those Jews who she believes »run the movies.« She seems to fear the extension of their influence and strongly resents the »infiltration« of Jews from Europe.

 

She also expresses the above-mentioned differentiation between »outside« stereotypy and concrete experiences, thus keeping the door open for a mitigation of her prejudice, though, according to the interviewer, if a fascist wave should arise, »it seems likely that she would display more hostility and quite possibly accept fascist ideology«:

 

Experiences with Jews have been limited to more or less impersonal contacts with only one or two closer acquaintances, whom she describes as »fine people.«

 

It may be added that if there is any truth in the popular »scapegoat theory« of anti-Semitism, it applies to people of her kind. Their »blind spots« are at least partly to be attributed to the narrow, »petty bourgeois« limitations of experience and explanation on which they have to draw. They see the Jew as the executor of tendencies actually inherent in the total economic process, and they put the blame upon him. It is a postulate necessary for the equilibrium of their ego that they must find some »guilt« responsible for their precarious social situation: otherwise the just order of the world would be disturbed. In all probability, they primarily seek this guilt within themselves and regard themselves, preconsciously, as »failures.« The Jews relieve them superficially of this guilt feeling. Anti-Semitism offers them the gratification of being »good« and blameless and of putting the onus on some visible and highly personalized entity. This mechanism has been institutionalized. Persons such as our case 5043 probably never had negative experiences with Jews, but simply adopt the externally pronounced judgment because of the benefit they draw from it.

2. The »Conventional« Syndrome

 

This syndrome represents stereotypy which comes from outside, but which has been integrated within the personality as part and parcel of a general conformity. In women there is special emphasis on neatness and femininity, in men upon being a »regular« he-man. Acceptance of prevailing standards is more important than is discontent. Thinking in terms of ingroup and outgroup prevails. Prejudice apparently does not fulfill a decisive function within the psychological household of the individuals, but is only a means of facile identification with the group to which they belong or to which they wish to belong. They are prejudiced in the specific sense of the term: taking over current judgments of others without having looked into the matter themselves. Their prejudice is a »matter of course,« possibly »preconscious,« and not even known to the subjects themselves. It may become articulate only under certain conditions. There is a certain antagonism between prejudice and experience; their prejudice is not »rational« inasmuch as it is little related to their own worries but at the same time, at least on the surface, it is not particularly outspoken, on account of a characteristic absence of violent impulses, due to wholesale acceptance of the values of civilization and »decency.« Although this syndrome includes the »well-bred anti-Semite,« it is by no means confined to upper social strata.

An illustration of the latter contention, and of the syndrome as a whole, is 5057, a 30-year-old welder, »extremely charming in manner,« whose case is summarized by the interviewer as follows:

 

He presents a personality and attitudinal configuration encountered rather frequently among skilled workers, and is neither vicious nor exploitive, but instead merely reflects the prejudices of his own ingroup in the fashion of the »Conventional« anti-Semite.

 

His acceptance of his own situation as well as his underlying concern with status is evidenced by the description of his occupational attitude:

 

The subject likes his work very much. He expressed absolutely no reservations about his present job. It was clear from the outset that he sees himself as a skilled craftsman, and finds in welding a chance for creative and constructive activity. He did say that one limitation is that welding is certainly not a »white-collar« job; it is physically dirty and carries with it some hazards. His satisfaction with his present work is further corroborated by his questionnaire statement that if he were not restricted in any way his occupation would be in the same line of work, perhaps on the slightly higher level of welding engineer.

 

His professional outlook is optimistic in a realistic way, with no indications of insecurity. His conventionalism is set against »extremes« in every respect: thus he

 

selected Christian Science because »it is a quieter religion than most. ... Religion should restrain you from overindulgences of any kind, such as drinking, gambling, or anything to excess.« ... He has not broken away from his grandparents' teachings and hasn't ever questioned his religious beliefs.

 

Most characteristic of the subject's over-all attitude are the following data from his questionnaire:

 

Replying to the projective question, »What moods or feelings are the most unpleasant or disturbing to you?« the subject mentioned »disorder in my home or surroundings« and »the destruction of property.« The impulse which he finds hard to control is »telling people what is wrong with them.« In answering the question, »What might drive a person nuts?« he said, »Worry – A person should be able to control their mind as well as their body.«

 

With regard to ethnocentrism he is, in spite of his general moderateness and seeming »broad-mindedness,« in the high quartile. The specific color of his antiminority attitude is provided by his special emphasis upon the ingroup-outgroup dichotomy: he does not have, or does not like to have, »contacts« with the outgroup, and at the same time he projects upon them his own ingroup pattern and emphasizes their »clannishness.« His hostility is mitigated by his general conformity and his expressed value for »our form of government.« However, a certain rigidity of his conventional pattern is discernible in his belief in the unchangeability of the traits of the outgroup. When he experiences individuals who deviate from the pattern, he feels uneasy and seems to enter a conflict situation which tends to reinforce his hostility rather than to mitigate it. His most intense prejudice is directed against the Negroes, apparently because here the demarcation line between in- and outgroup is most drastic.

Concerning other minorities his remarks are as follows:

 

The biggest minority problem right now, according to the subject, is that of the Japanese-Americans »because they are coming back.« Subject feels they should be »restricted in some way and their parents deported.« As for their traits: »I have had no personal contact with them except in school where they always seemed to be good students. I have no personal dislike for them.«

When questioned as to the »Jewish problem« subject commented, »They certainly stick together. They support each other a lot more than the Protestants do.« He thinks they should not be persecuted just because they are Jewish. »A Jew has just as much right to freedom in the United States as anyone else.« This was followed by the statement: »I hate to see an excessive amount of them coming in from other countries. I favor complete exclusion of Jewish immigrants.«

 

His rejection of the Jews is primarily based on their difference from the subject's conventional ingroup ideal, and the Jews themselves are differentiated according to degrees of assimilation:

 

Subject can recognize a Jew by the »kinkiness« of his hair, his heavy features, his thick nose, and sometimes by his thick lips. As for Jewish »traits,« the subject remarked that there are »different types of Jews just as there are different types of Gentiles.« He spoke of the »kikey type, like those at Ocean Park,« and the »higher type, like those in Beverly Hills.«

 

As to the relation between stereotypy and experience,

 

»What contacts I have had have all been on the good side. When I was running the gas station in Beverly Hills I had to deal quite a bit with them, but I cannot remember any unfortunate experiences with them. All the experiences were rather pleasant in fact.« At this point, the subject recounted an experience with a Jewish delicatessen owner in Ocean Park. At the time the subject was 8–10 years old. He was selling magazines in this area, and went into the store to try to sell a magazine to the owner. While waiting to get the owner's attention he spied a wonderful- coffee cake and wished that he could have it. The man bought the magazine and noticed the longing look on the boy's face. Apparently thinking that the boy did not have enough money to buy it, he took it out of the case, put it in a bag, and gave it to the boy. From the respondent's account of this incident, it was apparent that this gesture was both humiliating and gratifying at the same time. He recalls how embarrassed he was that the man should think that he was »poor and hungry.«

Subject believes that there are some »good« Jews as well as »bad« Jews – just as there are »good« and »bad« Gentiles. However, »Jews as a whole will never change, because they stick together close and hold to their religious ideals. They could improve the opinion that people have of them, nevertheless, by not being so greedy.« ... Would permit those Jews already here to remain, though he adds, »Jews should be allowed to return to Palestine, of course.« Further, »I would not be sorry to see them go.« With respect to the educational quota system the subject expressed his approval, though he suggested the alternative of having »separate schools established for the Jews.«

3. The »Authoritarian« Syndrome

 

This syndrome comes closest to the over-all picture of the high scorer as it stands out throughout our study. It follows the »classic« psychoanalytic pattern involving a sado-masochistic resolution of the Oedipus complex, and it has been pointed out by Erich Fromm under the title of the »authoritarian-masochistic« character.¹² According to Max Horkheimer's theory in the collective work of which he [Fromm] wrote the sociopsychological part, external social repression is concomitant with the internal repression of impulses. In order to achieve »internalization« of social control which never gives as much to the individual as it takes, the latter's attitude towards authority and its psychological agency, the superego, assumes an irrational aspect. The subject achieves his own social adjustment only by taking pleasure in obedience and subordination. This brings into play the sado-masochistic impulse structure both as a condition and as a result of social adjustment. In our form of society, sadistic as well as masochistic tendencies actually find gratification. The pattern for the translation of such gratifications into character traits is a specific resolution of the Oedipus complex which defines the formation of the syndrome here in question. Love for the mother, in its primary form, comes under a severe taboo. The resulting hatred against the father is transformed by reaction-formation into love. This transformation leads to a particular kind of superego. The transformation of hatred into love, the most difficult task an individual has to perform in his early development, never succeeds completely. In the psychodynamics of the »authoritarian character,« part of the preceding aggressiveness is absorbed and turned into masochism, while another part is left over as sadism, which seeks an outlet in those with whom the subject does not identify himself: ultimately the outgroup. The Jew frequently becomes a substitute for the hated father, often assuming, on a fantasy level, the very same qualities against which the subject revolted in the father, such as being practical, cold, domineering, and even a sexual rival. Ambivalence is all-pervasive, being evidenced mainly by the simultaneity of blind belief in authority and readiness to attack those who are deemed weak and who are socially acceptable as »victims.« Stereotypy, in this syndrome, is not only a means of social identification, but has a truly »economic« function in the subject's own psychology: it helps to canalize his libidinous energy according to the demands of his overstrict superego. Thus stereotypy itself tends to become heavily libidinized and plays a large role in the subject's inner household. He develops deep »compulsive« character traits, partly by retrogression to the anal-sadistic phase of development. Sociologically, this syndrome used to be, in Europe, highly characteristic of the lower middle-class. In this country, we may expect it among people whose actual status differs from that to which they aspire. This is in marked contrast to the social contentment and lack of conflict that is more characteristic of the »Conventional« syndrome, with which the »Authoritarian« one shares the conformist aspect.

Interview M 352 begins as follows:

 

(Satisfaction?) »Well, I'm the head operator – shift foreman – rotating schedules. ...« (Subject emphasizes »head« position) – small department – 5 in department – 5 in a shift – »I get personal satisfaction ... that I have 5 people working for me, who come to me for advice in handling the production that we make, and that the ultimate decision ... is mine, and in the fact that in the ultimate decision, I should be right – and am usually, and the knowledge that I am correct gives me personal satisfaction. The fact that I earn a living doesn't give me any personal satisfaction. It's these things that I have mentioned ... knowing that I am pleasing someone else also gives me satisfaction.«

 

The denial of material gratifications, indicative of a restrictive superego, is no less characteristic than the twofold pleasure in being obeyed and giving pleasure to the boss.

His upward social mobility is expressed in terms of overt identification with those who are higher in the hierarchy of authority:

 

(What would more money make possible?) »Would raise our standard, automobile; move into better residential section; associations with business and fraternal, etc., would be raised ... to those in a bracket higher, except for a few staunch friends which you keep always; and naturally, associate with people on a higher level – with more education and more experience. After you get there, and associate with those people ... that fires you on to the next step higher. ...«

 

His religious belief has something compulsive and highly punitive:

 

»My belief is that, just according to the Bible, there is a God – the world has gone along and needed a Savior, and there was one born – lived, died, risen again, and will come back some time; and the person who has lived according to Christianity will live forever – those who have not will perish at that time.«

 

This overt rigidity of conscience, however, shows strong traces of ambivalence: what is forbidden may be acceptable if it does not lead to social conflict. The over-rigid superego is not really integrated, but remains external.

 

»Adultery, as long as never found out, is o.k. – if found out, then it's wrong – since some of the most respected people do it, it must be all right.«

 

The subject's concept of God is plainly identical with such an externalized superego or, to use Freud's original term, with the »ego-ideal,« with all the traits of a strong, but »helpful« father:

 

»Well, when it comes down to the fundamentals, everybody has an idea of some sort: may not call Him God, but an ideal that they live up to and strive to be like. ... Heathens or anybody else has some sort of religion, but it is something that they put their faith in that can do things for them – can help them.«

 

The genetic relation between the »Authoritarian« syndrome and the sado-masochistic resolution of the Oedipus complex is borne out by some statements of the subject about his own childhood:

 

»Well, my father was a very strict man. He wasn't religious, but strict in raising the youngsters. His word was law, and whenever he was disobeyed, there was punishment. When I was 12, my father beat me practically every day for getting into the tool chest in the back yard and not putting everything away ... finally he explained that those things cost money, and I must learn to put it back.« ... (Subject explains that his carelessness led to a beating every day, as promised by the father, and finally after several weeks, he simply quit using the tools altogether, because »I just couldn't get 'em all back«) ... »But, you know, I never hold that against my father-I had it coming. He laid the law down, and if I broke it, there was punishment, but never in uncontrolled anger. My father was a good man – no doubt about that. Always interested on boys' activities.«

»My father was a great fraternal man; was out practically every night. Took an active part always on committees – a good mixer, everybody liked him ... a good provider. We always had everything we needed, but no unnecessary luxuries ... no whims provided for. ... Father felt they were luxuries that probably – felt they were unnecessary. ... Yes, rather austere. ...« (Which parent closest to?) »I think my father. Although he beat the life out of me, I could talk to him about anything.« ... (Subject emphasizes that his father always gave everyone, including himself, a square deal.)

 

The subject has been »broken« by the father: he has been overadjusted. It is exactly this aspect which bears the main emphasis in his anti-Semitism. He who admires brute force blames the Jews for their recklessness in practical matters.

 

»The Jews seem to be taking advantage of the present-day situation, I think. Now, they want to – they're bringing these Jews in from Europe, and they seem to click together, somehow, and they seem to be able to corner capital. They're a peculiar people – no conscience about anything except money.« (Subject apparently meant, here, no conscience about money, although maybe about other things.) »If you stand in the way of their making money, they'll brush you aside.«

 

Rigidity of the image of the Jew, visible already in the »Conventional« syndrome, tends to become absolute and highly vindictive:

 

»To me a Jew is just like a foreigner in the same class as – say, oh, I was gonna say a Filipino. You would be pointed out ... they observe all these different religious days that's completely foreign to me – and they stick to it – they don't completely Americanize. ...« (What if there were less prejudice against them?) »I don't know – I can't help but feel that a Jew is meant to be just the way he is – no change possible – a sort of instinct that will never lose – stay Jewish right straight through.« (What ought to be done?) »They have the ability to get control – now, how we're gonna stop 'em ... probably have to pass some regulation prohibiting them.«

 

Again the idea of authority is the focal point: the Jews appear dangerous to him as usurpers of »control.«

One last feature of the »Authoritarian« syndrome should be mentioned. It is the psychological equivalent of the »no-pity-for-the-poor« ideology discussed in Chapter XVII.^[13] The identification of the »authoritarian« character with strength is concomitant with rejection of everything that is »down.« Even where social conditions have to be recognized as the reason for the depressed situation of a group, a twist is applied in order to transform this situation into some kind of well-deserved punishment. This is accompanied by moralistic invectives indicative of strict repression of several desires:

 

He went on to emphasize that you should segregate Negroes and whites, that by all means give equal opportunities and everything instead of »evading the problem« as he called it. He refers to high prevalence of venereal disease among Negroes, which he blames on their low morals and, under further questioning by the interviewer, he finally attributes it to »congested conditions of living« and tries very hard to explain what he means. This leads to a lack of modesty and respect for privacy – everybody's thrown together – »lose the distance that is supposed to be between people,« etc., etc.

 

The emphasis on »distance,« the fear of »close physical contacts« may be interpreted as corroborative of our thesis that, for this syndrome, the ingroup-outgroup dichotomy absorbs large quantities of psychological energy. Identification with the familial structure and ultimately with the whole ingroup becomes, to this kind of individual, one of the main mechanisms by which they can impose authoritarian discipline upon themselves and avoid »breaking away« – a temptation nourished continuously by their underlying ambivalence.

4. The Rebel and the Psychopath

 

The resolution of the Oedipus complex characteristic of the »Authoritarian« syndrome is not the only one that makes for a »high« character structure. Instead of identification with parental authority, »insurrection« may take place. This, of course, may in certain cases liquidate the sadomasochistic tendencies. However, insurrection may also occur in such a way that the authoritarian character structure is not basically affected.¹⁴ Thus, the hated paternal authority may be abolished only to be replaced by another one – a process facilitated by the »externalized« superego structure concomitant with the over-all picture of the high scorer. Or masochistic transference to authority may be kept down on the unconscious level while resistance takes place on the manifest level. This may lead to an irrational and blind hatred of all authority, with strong destructive connotations, accompanied by a secret readiness to »capitulate« and to join hands with the »hated« strong. It is exceedingly difficult to distinguish such an attitude from a truly nonauthoritarian one and it may be well-nigh impossible to achieve such a differentiation on a purely psychological level: here as much as anywhere else it is the sociopolitical behavior that counts, determining whether a person is truly independent or merely replaces his dependency by negative transference.

The latter case, when it is combined with an urge to take pseudorevolutionary actions against those whom the individual ultimately deems to be weak, is that of the »Rebel.« This syndrome played a large role in Nazi Germany: the late Captain Roehm, who called himself a »Hochverräter« in his autobiography, is a perfect example. Here we expect to find the »Condottiere« which was included in the typology drafted by the Institute of Social Research in 1939, and described as follows:

 

This type has arisen with the increased insecurity of post-war existence. He is convinced that what matters is not life but chance. He is nihilistic, not out of a »drive for destruction« but because he is indifferent to individual existence. One of the reservoirs out of which this type arises is the modern unemployed. He differs from former unemployed in that his contact with the sphere of production is sporadic, if any. Individuals belonging to this category can no longer expect to be regularly absorbed by the labor process. From their youth they have been ready to act wherever they could grab something. They are inclined to hate the Jew partly because of his cautiousness and physical inefficacy, partly because, being themselves unemployed, they are economically uprooted, unusually susceptible to any propaganda, and ready to follow any leader. The other reservoir, at the opposite pole of society, is the group belonging to the dangerous professions, colonial adventurers, racing motorists, airplane aces. They are the born leaders of the former group. Their ideal, actually an heroic one, is all the more sensitive to the »destructive,« critical intellect of the Jews because they themselves are not quite convinced of their ideal in the depths of their hearts, but have developed it as a rationalization of their dangerous way of living.¹⁵

 

Symptomatically, this syndrome is characterized, above all, by a penchant for »tolerated excesses« of all kinds, from heavy drinking and overt homosexuality under the cloak of enthusiasm for »youth« to proneness to acts of violence in the sense of »Putsch.« Subjects of this type do not have as much rigidity as do those who exhibit the orthodox »Authoritarian« syndrome.

The extreme representative of this syndrome is the »Tough Guy,« in psychiatric terminology the »Psychopath.« Here, the superego seems to have been completely crippled through the outcome of the Oedipus conflict, by means of a retrogression to the omnipotence fantasy of very early infancy. These individuals are the most »infantile« of all: they have thoroughly failed to »develop,« have not been moulded at all by civilization. They are »asocial.« Destructive urges come to the fore in an overt, nonrationalized way. Bodily strength and toughness – also in the sense of being able to »take it« – are decisive. The borderline between them and the criminal is fluid. Their indulgence in persecution is crudely sadistic, directed against any helpless victim; it is unspecific and hardly colored by »prejudice.« Here go the hoodlums and rowdies, plug-uglies, torturers, and all those who do the »dirty work« of a fascist movement.

Robert M. Lindner's extensive case study, Rebel Without a Cause, offers a description and dynamic interpretation of the »Tough Guy« which establish the affinity of this type to the »Rebel« as well as to the »Authoritarian« character. According to Lindner:

 

The psychopath is not only a criminal; he is the embryonic Storm-Trooper; he is the disinherited, betrayed antagonist whose aggressions can be mobilized on the instant at which the properly-aimed and frustration-evoking formula is communicated by that Leader under whose tinseled aegis license becomes law, secret and primitive desires become virtuous ambitions readily attained, and compulsive behavior formerly deemed punishable becomes the order of the day.¹⁶

 

The psychopath is described as a »rebel, a religious disobeyer of prevailing codes and standards« whose main characteristic is that he cannot wait, »cannot delay the pleasures of gratification« – an inability suggesting that, together with the failure to build up a superego, the formation of the ego has been crippled, in spite of the bridled »egotism« of such persons. As to the masochistic component, the following passage from Lindner may be quoted:

 

That the psychopath is burdened with guilt and literally seeks punishment has been observed by the author in countless cases. The clue to this strange situation lies, as one would suspect, in the Oedipus situation. Deprived of an avenue to satisfactory post-Oedipal adjustment and continuously beset by the consequent incest and parricidal fantasies, the emergent guilt can be assuaged only through expiation. »I have sinned against my father and I must be punished« is the unverbalized theme of psychopathic conduct: and for this reason they very often commit crimes free from acquisitional motives, marry prostitutes or, in the case of women, apportion their charms occupationally in an attempt at self-castigation. That such activities constitute a species of »neurotic gain« is also to be considered. The fact of punishment sought, received and accepted does not complete the tale: there is in addition a narcissistic »yield« which derives directly from the punitive act and mediates the original need. This is naturally on a subliminal level of apprehension, unreportable directly but always noticeable.¹⁷

 

Examples of the rebel-psychopath are to be found in our San Quentin sample. We think mainly of the psychopath, Floyd, our M 658, and the »Tough Guy,« Eugene, our M 662A, dealt with extensively in Chapter XXI.^[18] If the traits under consideration here do not appear so vividly there, it should be borne in mind that the guiding interest of the San Quentin study was defined by our over-all variables rather than by psychological subgroups among the high and low scorers. Moreover, it has to be kept in mind that the prison situation works as a heavy check on the expression of the decisive traits of the psychopath who, after all, is not a psychotic and behaves, in a certain sense, quite »realistically.« In addition, his completely living »for the moment,« his lack of ego identity enables him to adapt himself successfully to a given situation: when talking to an interviewer, he is likely not to display directly the attitudes indicative of his »toughness.« Rather, the latter have to be inferred indirectly, particularly from certain speaking habits, such as the frequency of references to bodily violence. It is with an eye to such indices that the statements of those two San Quentin interviewees should be read. Neither the widespread existence of the »Tough Guy« syndrome, particularly in marginal spheres of society, nor its importance for some of the most sinister aspects of the fascist potential can be doubted.

5. The Crank

 

In so far as the introjection of paternal discipline in the »Authoritarian« syndrome means continuous repression of the id, this syndrome can be characterized by frustration in the widest sense of the term. However, there seems to be a pattern in which frustration plays a much more specific role. This pattern is found in those people who did not succeed in adjusting themselves to the world, in accepting the »reality principle« – who failed, as it were, to strike a balance between renunciations and gratifications, and whose whole inner life is determined by the denials imposed upon them from outside, not only during childhood but also during their adult life. These people are driven into isolation. They have to build up a spurious inner world, often approaching delusion, emphatically set against outer reality. They can exist only by self-aggrandizement, coupled with violent rejection of the external world. Their »soul« becomes their dearest possession. At the same time, they are highly projective and suspicious. An affinity to psychosis cannot be overlooked: they are »paranoid.« To them, prejudice is all-important: it is a means to escape acute mental diseases by collectivization, and by building up a pseudoreality against which their aggressiveness can be directed without any overt violation of the »reality principle.« Stereotypy is decisive: it works as a kind of social corroboration of their projective formulae, and is therefore institutionalized to a degree often approaching religious beliefs. The pattern is found in women and old men whose isolation is socially reinforced by their virtual exclusion from the economic process of production. Here belong organized war mothers, »ham-an'-eggers,« and regular followers of agitators even in periods when racist propaganda is at a low ebb. The often-abused term »lunatic fringe« has a certain validity with regard to them: their compulsiveness has reached the stage of fanaticism. In order to confirm to each other their pseudoreality, they are likely to form sects, often with some panacea of »nature,« which corresponds to their projective notion of the Jew as eternally bad and spoiling the purity of the natural. Ideas of conspiracy play a large role: they do not hesitate to attribute to the Jews a quest for world domination, and they are likely to swear by the Elders of Zion. A significant social trait is semi-erudition, a magical belief in science which makes them the ideal followers of racial theory. They can hardly be expected above a certain educational level, but also rarely among workers. F 124

 

is a woman over 50 years of age, tall, heavily built, with sharp features, prominent gray-blue eyes, a pointed nose, thin lips, straight mouth line. She had a bearing which was meant to be impressive.

 

This »impressiveness« actually implies a pathological sense of inner superiority, as if she belonged to a secret order, at the same time being surrounded by people whose names she does not want to mention, since otherwise she might divulge too vulgar or dangerous implications:

 

She doesn't care for her fellow-workers. Some have all the degrees but no common sense. She wouldn't like to mention names, but she'd like to tell me what goes on. Some just spend their time gossiping together. She doesn't believe she could do more than just speak to her fellow-workers. Very scornful of them, feels superior and aloof. ... They don't know her at all – no indeed – implies she's a very special somebody and could reveal her gifts to them but doesn't.

 

Her interest in internal and as far as possible external status is strongly colored by an overemphasis on »connections,« which suggests »ideas of reference«:

 

She has been a »governess« in the home of President X's family ... and in President Y's son's family – first the older son, then the younger. Talked to Mrs. Y on the phone when she was in the White House at the time of the birth of the third child. And her sister worked for S. who later was governor of a southwestern state.

 

As to her spurious »inner world,« semi-erudition, and pseudo-intellectuality, the following account is highly characteristic:

 

She reads a great deal – »good« books – went through the schools in her Texas home town about equal to seventh grade now. She also draws and writes and was learning to play an instrument. One picture she drew here at school but never showed it to anyone. It was of two mountains and the sun in between shining on the valley in which the mist was rising. This just »came« to her, too, though she had never had any training. It was really beautiful. She writes stories, too. When she was left a widow, instead of chasing after men like some women, she wrote stories. One was a fantasy for Mary Pickford. It would have been just right for her to play in, but of course, she'd never shown it to anyone. It was called Little May and O'June and had come to her once when she had her children on a picnic. A love fantasy about Little May (the girl) and O'June (the boy). Her daughter was very gifted, too. An artist ... who drew Texas Blue Bonnets – »the state flower, you know.« – saw her daughter's work and said, »You've got a real genius there.« He wanted to give the daughter lessons, but she refused, saying, »No, Mother, he would just spoil my style; I know how to draw what I want to draw.«

 

With regard to race questions, her hatred shows the paranoid tendency towards stopping nowhere – in principle she would be willing to stigmatize every group she can lay her hands on and only reluctantly confines herself to her favorite foes.

 

She thinks the »Japs, Jews, and Niggers should go back where they came from.« ... »Of course, then the Italians should go back where they belong in Italy, but – well, the three main ones who don't belong here are the Japs, Jews, and Niggers.«

 

Her anti-Semitism shows strong traces of projectivity, of the fake mysticism of the »blood,« and of sex envy. The following statement reveals her attitudinal pattern:

 

»The Jews feel superior to Gentiles. They wouldn't pollute their blood by mixing it with Gentiles. They would bleed us of our money and use our women for mistresses, but they wouldn't marry among us, and they want their wives spotless. The Y's entertained Jews quite often. I don't know if it was their money or what. That's why I didn't vote for Y the second time. I'd seen too many fat Jew women and hooked-nose men at their house. Of course, I've heard Pres. Roosevelt's mother had some Jewish blood, too.« Left the B's because they were Jews. They had a home like a palace and wanted her to stay. They said, »We knew it was too good to be true« ... when she was leaving.

 

Striking is the similarity between the subject's way of thinking and a certain kind of crackpot religious movement, based on readiness to hear »inner voices« which give both moral uplifting and sinister advice:

 

The Catholics have been wonderful to her, and she admires them but wouldn't join their church. There was something inside her that said »No.« (She gestures her rejection.) She has an individualistic religion. Once she was out walking in the early morning – the birds were singing – she raised her hands and her face to the sky, and they were wet. ... (She considered it a supernatural phenomenon.)

6. The »Manipulative« Type

 

This syndrome, potentially the most dangerous one, is defined by stereotypy as an extreme: rigid notions become ends rather than means, and the whole world is divided into empty, schematic, administrative fields. There is an almost complete lack of object cathexis and of emotional ties. If the »Crank« syndrome had something paranoid about it, the »Manipulative« one has something schizophrenic. However, the break between internal and external world, in this case, does not result in anything like ordinary »introversion,« but rather the contrary: a kind of compulsive overrealism which treats everything and everyone as an object to be handled, manipulated, seized by the subject's own theoretical and practical patterns. The technical aspects of life, and things qua »tools« are fraught with libido. The emphasis is on »doing things,« with far-reaching indifference towards the content of what is going to be done. The pattern is found in numerous business people and also, in increasing numbers, among members of the rising managerial and technological class who maintain, in the process of production, a function between the old type of ownership and the workers' aristocracy. Many fascist-political anti-Semites in Germany showed this syndrome: Himmler may be symbolic of them. Their sober intelligence, together with their almost complete absence of any affections makes them perhaps the most merciless of all. Their organizational way of looking at things predisposes them to totalitarian solutions. Their goal is the construction of gas chambers rather than the pogrom. They do not even have to hate the Jews; they »cope« with them by administrative measures without any personal contacts with the victims. Anti-Semitism is reified, an export article: it must »function.« Their cynicism is almost complete: »The Jewish question will be solved strictly legally« is the way they talk about the cold pogrom. The Jews are provocative to them in so far as supposed Jewish individualism is a challenge to their stereotypy, and because they feel in the Jews a neurotic overemphasis on the very same kind of human relationships which they are lacking themselves. The ingroup-outgroup relationship becomes the principle according to which the whole world is abstractly organized. Naturally, this syndrome can be found in this country only in a rudimentary state.

As to the psychological etiology of this type, our material sets us certain limitations. However, it should be borne in mind that compulsiveness is the psychological equivalent of what we call, in terms of social theory, reification. The compulsive features of the boy chosen as an example for the »Manipulative« type, together with his sadism, can hardly be overlooked – he comes close to the classical Freudian conception of the »anal« character and is in this regard reminiscent of the »Authoritarian« syndrome. But he is differentiated from the latter by the simultaneity of extreme narcissism and a certain emptiness and shallowness. This, however, involves a contradiction only if looked at superficially, since whatever we call a person's emotional and intellectual richness is due to the intensity of his object cathexes. Notable in our case is an interest in sex almost amounting to preoccupation, going with backwardness as far as actual experience is concerned. One pictures a very inhibited boy, worried about masturbation, collecting insects while the other boys played baseball. There must have been early and deep emotional traumata, probably on a pregenital level. M 108

 

is going to be an insect toxicologist and work for a large organization like Standard Oil or a university, presumably not in private business. He first started in chemistry in college but about the third term began to wonder if that was what he really wanted. He was interested in entomology in high school, and while hashing in a sorority he met a fellow worker in entomology, and in talking about the possibility of combining entomology and chemistry, this man said he thought it would be a very good field to investigate a little further. He found out insect toxicology had everything that combined his interests, wasn't overcrowded, and that he could make a good living there, and that there wasn't likely to be a surplus as there would be in chemistry or engineering.

 

Taken in isolation, the professional choice of this subject may appear accidental, but when viewed in the context of the whole interview, it assumes a certain significance. It has been pointed out by L. Lowenthal¹⁹ that fascist orators often compare their »enemies« to »vermin.« The interest of this boy in entomology may be due to his regarding the insects, which are both »repulsive« and weak, as ideal objects for his manipulation.²⁰

The manipulative aspect of his professional choice is stressed by himself:

 

Asked what he expects to get from the job other than the economic side, he said that he hopes to have a hand in organizing the whole field, that is, in organizing the knowledge. There is no textbook, the information is scattered, and he hopes to make a contribution in organizing the material.

 

His emphasis on »doing things« goes so far that he even appreciates people whom he otherwise hates, though in a terminology with destructive overtones. Here belongs his statement about Roosevelt, which was quoted in part in Chapter XVII^[21]:

 

Asked about the good points of Roosevelt, he said, »Well, the first term he was in office he whipped the U.S. into shape. Some people argue he only carried out Hoover's ideas, but actually he did a good job which was badly needed ... he usurped power that was necessary to do something – he took a lot more power than a lot.« ... Asked whether his policies were good or bad, subject replied, »Well, at any rate, he was doing something.«

 

His political concepts are defined by the friend-foe relationship, in exactly the same way as the Nazi theoretician Karl Schmitt defined the nature of politics. His lust for organization, concomitant with an obsession with the domination of nature, seems boundless:

 

»There will always be wars.« (Is there any way of preventing wars?) »No, it's not common goals but common enemies that make friends. Perhaps if they could discover other planets and some way of getting there, spread out that way, we could prevent wars for a time, but eventually there'd be wars again.«

 

The truly totalitarian and destructive implications of his dichotomous way of thinking become manifest in his statement about the Negroes:

 

(What can we do about the Negroes?) »Nothing can be done. There are two factions. I'm not in favor of interbreeding because this would produce an inferior race. The Negroes haven't reached the point of development of Caucasians, artificially living and absorbing from the races.« He would approve of segregation, but that's not possible. Not unless you are willing to use Hitler's methods. There are only two ways of handling this problem – Hitler's methods or race mixture. Race mixture is the only answer and is already taking place, according to what he has read, but he's against it. It wouldn't do the race any good.

 

This logic allows only for one conclusion: that the Negroes should be killed. At the same time, his way of looking at the prospective objects of manipulation is completely unemotional and detached: although his anti-Semitism is marked he doesn't even claim that you can

 

»tell the Jews by their appearance, they're just like other people, all kinds.«

 

His administrative and pathologically detached outlook is again evidenced by his statement on intermarriage:

 

He said that if he were an American businessman in Germany or England he'd probably marry first an American woman if he could, then he might marry a German or an English woman.

 

However, »swarthy« people like Greeks or Jews have no chance in this experimental setup. It is true, he has nothing against his Spanish brother-in-law, but expresses his approval by the phrase that »you couldn't tell him from a white person.«

He takes a positive attitude towards the church for manipulative purposes:

 

»Well, people want church; there is a purpose, it sets standards for some people, but for other people, it is not necessary. A general sense of social duty would do the same thing.«

 

His own metaphysical views are naturalistic, with a strong nihilistic coloring:

 

Asked about his own beliefs he said he's a mechanistic – there is no supernatural entity, not concerned with us as humans; it goes back to a law of physics. Humans and life are just an accident – but an inevitable accident. And then he tried to explain that – that there was some matter accrued when the earth was started and it was almost by accident that life started and it just kept on.

 

As to his emotional structure:

 

His mother is »just Mom«; he seems to have some respect for his father and father's opinions, but there was no real attachment any place. He said as a child he had a lot of friends, but on further questioning, he couldn't mention any closer friends. He did a lot of reading as a child. Didn't have many fights – couldn't remember them – didn't have any more than any other boys. He has no real close friends now. His closest friends were when he was in the 10th or 11th grade, and he still keeps track of some of them, he said. (How important are friends?) »Well, they're especially important in younger years, and in your older years you don't enjoy life as much without them. I don't expect my friends to help me get along.« They're not needed so much at present age, but he supposed that at the interviewer's age it would be very important to have friends.

 

Finally it should be mentioned that the only moral quality that plays a considerable role in the thinking of this subject is loyalty, perhaps as a compensation for his own lack of affection. By loyalty he probably means complete and unconditional identification of a person with the group to which he happens to belong. He is expected to surrender completely to his »unit« and to give up all individual particularities for the sake of the »whole.« M 108 objects to Jewish refugees not having been »loyal to Germany.«