C. Syndromes Found Among Low Scorers
The following schematic observations may help towards orientation among the »low« syndromes. The Rigid low scorers are characterized by strong superego tendencies and compulsive features. Paternal authority and its social substitutes, however, are frequently replaced by the image of some collectivity, possibly moulded after the archaic image of what Freud calls the brother horde. Their main taboo is directed against violations of actual or supposed brotherly love. The Protesting low scorer has much in common with the »Authoritarian« high scorer, the main difference being that the further-going sublimation of the father idea, concomitant with an undercurrent of hostility against the father, leads to the conscientious rejection of heteronomous authority instead of its acceptance. The decisive feature is opposition to whatever appears to be tyranny. The syndrome of the Impulsive low scorer denotes people in whom strong id impulses were never integrated with ego and superego. They are threatened by overpowering libidinous energy and in a way as close to psychosis as the »Crank« and the »Manipulative« high scorer. As to the Easy-Going low scorer, the id seems to be little repressed, but rather to be sublimated into compassion, and the superego well developed, whereas the extraverted functions of the otherwise quite articulate ego frequently do not keep pace. These subjects sometimes come close to neurotic indecision. One of their main features is the fear of »hurting« anyone or anything by action. The construct of the Genuine Liberal may be conceived in terms of that balance between superego, ego, and id which Freud deemed ideal.
In our sample the »Protesting« and the »Easy-Going« low scorers apparently occur most frequently. Emphasizing, however, once again that the low scorers are as a whole less »typed« than the high scorers, we shall refrain from any undue generalization.
1. The »Rigid« Low Scorer
We may start with the »low« syndrome that has most in common with the over-all »high« pattern, and proceed in the direction of sounder and more durable »lowness.« The syndrome which commands first attention is the one which shows the most markedly stereotypical features – that is to say, configurations in which the absence of prejudice, instead of being based on concrete experience and integrated within the personality, is derived from some general, external, ideological pattern. Here we find those subjects whose lack of prejudice, however consistent in terms of surface ideology, has to be regarded as accidental in terms of personality, but we also find people whose rigidity is hardly less related to personality than is the case with certain syndromes of high scorers. The latter kind of low scorers are definitely disposed towards totalitarianism in their thinking; what is accidental up to a certain degree is the particular brand of ideological world formula that they chance to come into contact with. We encountered a few subjects who had been identified ideologically with some progressive movement, such as the struggle for minority rights, for a long time, but with whom such ideas contained features of compulsiveness, even of paranoid obsession, and who, with respect to many of our variables, especially rigidity and »total« thinking, could hardly be distinguished from some of our high extremes. All the representatives of this syndrome can in one way or another be regarded as counterparts of the »Surface Resentment« type of high scorer. The accidentalness in their total outlook makes them liable to change fronts in critical situations, as was the case with certain kinds of radicals under the Nazi regime. They may often be recognized by a certain disinterestedness with respect to crucial minority questions per se, being, rather, against prejudice as a plank in the fascist platform; but sometimes they also see only minority problems. They are likely to use clichés and phraseology hardly less frequently than do their political opponents. Some of them tend to belittle the importance of racial discrimination by labeling it simply as a by-product of the big issues of class struggle – an attitude which may be indicative of repressed prejudice on their own part. Representatives of this syndrome can often be found, for example, among young, »progressive« people, particularly students, whose personal development has failed to keep pace with their ideological indoctrination. One of the best means for identifying the syndrome is to note the subject's readiness to deduce his stand towards minority problems from some general formula, rather than to make spontaneous statements. He also may often come forward with value judgments which cannot possibly be based on any real knowledge of the matter in question.
F 139 is a religious educator.
For the past ten years she has considered herself very progressive. Lately she has little time to read, but her husband reads and studies constantly and keeps her up to date by discussion. »My favorite world statesman is Litvinov. I think the most dramatic speech of modern times is the one he made at the Geneva conference when he pleaded for collective security. It has made us very happy to see the fog of ignorance and distrust surrounding the Soviet Union clear away during this war. Things are not settled yet though. There are many fascists in our own country who would fight Russia if they could.«
The hollowness of her enthusiasm about Litvinov has already been noted in our discussion of stereotyped thinking in politics (Chapter XVII).[22] The same seems to be true of her assertion that she is an internationalist, followed up by her rhetorical question, »Would I be a true Christian if I weren't?« This is typical of the »deductive« way of thinking which seems to characterize the rigid low scorer. The present subject seems to proceed in the same way as she approaches minoritiy questions.
Subject believes that all people are one, and again she feels that is the only point of view possible for a true Christian.
The somewhat sweeping expression »that all people are one« should be noted: a person free of stereotypy would rather tend to acknowledge differences and to take a positive stand towards differentiation. What is meant is probably »equal in the sight of God« and she deduces her tolerance from this general assumption.
As mentioned in the chapter on politics, the superficiality of her progressivism is indicated by her highly aggressive attitude towards alcoholism, called by herself »one of her pet subjects,« which plays almost the same role as do certain paranoid ideas in the »Cranks« among the high scorers. It may be recalled in this connection, that Alfred McClung Lee has demonstrated the close connection between prohibitionism and prejudiced ways of thinking. As a matter of fact, there is evidence enough that this »Rigid« low scorer has more than a sprinkling of the »high« mentality. There is the emphasis on »status,« with reference to her daughter:
»I feel badly about her school too – (names the school). The influx of people with lower educational and cultural standards than ours has had effect on the schools of course.«
There are destructive fantasies, thinly veiled by »sensible« moral reflections:
»The same with smoking. I am not really worried about it though. No one on either side of our family ever smoked or drank, with one exception. My husband's sister smoked. She is dead now.«
There is a rationalization of punitiveness:
»If I could bring about Prohibition tomorrow I would do it. I believe in preventing everything that doesn't make man better – that makes him worse. Some people say if you forbid something it makes people do it on the sly. Well, I say, how about murder, and robbery, and dope? We have prohibited them and some people still commit crimes, but we do not think of taking off the ban on them.«
And there is, finally, official optimism, a characteristic reaction-formation against underlying destructiveness:
»If one didn't always have hope and believe everything was moving upwards, one's Christianity wouldn't mean anything, would it?«
Under changing conditions she might be willing to join a subversive movement as long as it pretended to be »Christian« and to »move upwards.«
2. The »Protesting« Low Scorer23
This syndrome is in many respects the counterpart of the »Authoritarian« high scorer. Its determinants are psychological rather than rational. It is based on a specific resolution of the Oedipus complex which has deeply affected the individuals in question. While they are set against paternal authority, they have at the same time internalized the father image to a high degree. One may say that in them the superego is so strong that it turns against its own »model,« the father, and all external authorities. They are thoroughly guided by conscience which seems to be, in many cases exhibiting this pattern, a secularization of religious authority. This conscience, however, is quite autonomous and independent of outside codes. They »protest« out of purely moral reasons against social repression or at least against some of its extreme manifestations, such as racial prejudice.24 Most of the »neurotic« low scorers who play such a large role in our sample show the »Protest« syndrome. They are often shy, »retiring,« uncertain about themselves, and even given to tormenting themselves with all kinds of doubts and scruples. They sometimes show certain compulsive features, and their reaction against prejudice has also an aspect of having been forced upon them by rigid superego demands. They are frequently guilt-ridden and regard the Jews a priori as »victims,« as being distinctly different from themselves. An element of stereotypy may be inherent in their sympathies and identifications. They are guided by the wish to »make good« the injustice that has been done to minorities. At the same time they may be easily attracted by the real or imaginary intellectual qualities of the Jews which they deem to be akin to their desire to be »aloof« from worldly affairs. While being non-authoritarian in their way of thinking, they are often psychologically constricted and thus not able to act as energetically as their conscience demands. It is as if the internalization of conscience has succeeded so well that they are severely inhibited or even psychologically »paralyzed.« Their eternal guilt feelings tend to make them regard everyone as »guilty.« Though they detest discrimination, they may find it sometimes difficult to stand up against it. Socially, they seem usually to belong to the middle class, but it is hard to define their group membership in more precise terms. However, our material seems to indicate that they are frequently to be found among people who underwent serious family troubles, such as a divorce of their parents. F 127
is extremely pretty in the conventional »campus girl« style. She is very slight, blond, fair-skinned, and blue- She wears a becoming »sloppy Joe« sweater, daintily fixed blouse, and brief skirt, with bobby socks. She wears a sorority pin. She is very friendly and interested, seems to enjoy the discussion, but is quite vague in her answers about family life until the interview is quite well along. Then she suddenly decides to reveal the most important single fact in her life – her parents' divorce which she usually hides – and from that point on speaks with apparent freedom about her own feelings.
She shows the characteristic neurotic concern with herself, indicative of a feeling of impotence: she has a somewhat magical belief in psychology, apparently expecting that the psychologist knows more about her than she does herself:
What she would like above all is to be a psychiatrist. (Why?) »Because psychiatrists know more about people. Everyone tells me their troubles. I don't think there is anything more satisfying than to be able to help people with their problems. But I don't have the brains or the patience to be a psychiatrist. That is just an idea.«
Her attitude towards the father is hostile:
Father is a lawyer. At present he is enlisted in the army and is somewhere in the Pacific, in charge of a Negro battalion. (What does he think about that?) »I don't know what he thinks about anything.«
Her social attitude is a combination of conformist »correctness,« the emphatic and self-confessed desire for »pleasure« (almost as if her conscience would order her to enjoy herself), and a tendency towards retiring internalization. Her indifference to »status,« though perhaps not quite authentic, is noteworthy.
(Interests?) »Oh fun – and serious things too. I like to read and discuss things. I like bright people – can't stand clinging vines. Like to dance, dress up, go places. Am not much good at sports, but I play at them – tennis, swimming. I belong to a sorority and we do lots of war work as well as entertaining service men.« Subject names sorority. (That is supposed to be a good house isn't it?) »They say so. I didn't think there was anything very special about it.«
Her social progressiveness is characterized by both an element of fear and a conscientious sense of justice:
(What do you think about poverty?) »I hate to think of it. And I don't think it is necessary.« (Who is to blame?) »Oh, I don't mean the poor people are. I don't know, but you would think that by now we could work out a way so that everyone would have enough.«
Her anxiety makes her more aware of the fascist potential than most other low scorers are:
»It would be terrible to have Nazis here. Of course there are some. And they would like to have the same thing happen. ... Lots of Jewish kids have a hard time – in the service, and in going to medical school. It isn't fair.« (Why the discrimination?) »I don't know unless it is the Nazi influence. No, it went back before that. I guess there always are some people who have ideas like the Nazis.«
Her indignation is primarily directed against »unfairness.« The notion that »there are always people with ideas like the Nazis« is remarkable: a highly developed sense of responsibility seems to give her an understanding in social matters that goes far beyond her purely intellectual insight. Psychologically, the complete absence of prejudice in her case seems best understood as a superego function, since the girl relates a rather unpleasant experience which otherwise might well have made her prejudiced: she was kidnapped, as a child of four, by a Negro but:
»He didn't hurt me. I don't think I was even scared.«
As to the genetic background of her attitude, the following clinical data are pertinent:
»I am more like my father I am afraid and that isn't good. He is a very impatient man, overbearing, and everything for himself. He and I didn't get along. He favored my sister because she played up to him. But both of us suffered with him. If I even called my sister a name as kids will do when they fight, I got spanked, and hard. That used to worry my mother. For that reason she hardly ever punished us, because he did it all the time, and mostly for nothing. I was spanked constantly. I remember that better than anything.« (Do you think your mother and father loved each other?) »No, perhaps they did at first, but my mother couldn't stand the way he treated us. She divorced him.« (She flushes and her eyes fill with tears as she says this. When interviewer commented that she had not realized the parents were divorced she says – »I wasn't going to say anything. I hardly ever do.«)
As to neurotic traits: there are indications of a strong mother-fixation:
»I don't want mother to ever get married again.« (Why?) »I don't know. She doesn't need to. She can have friends. She is very attractive and has lots of friends but I couldn't stand to have her marry again.« (Do you think she might anyway?) »No. She won't if I don't want her to.«
And there are symptoms of sexual inhibition, based on her experience of the breakdown of her parents' marriage.
(Boys?) »Oh, I don't get serious and I don't want them to. I neck a little of course, but nothing to give them any idea I am cheap. I don't like cheap fellows either.«
Her statement that she does not want to commit herself because she is afraid of war marriages is probably a rationalization.
3. The »Impulsive« Low Scorer
The case of an »impulse-ridden« low scorer has been described by Frenkel-Brunswik and Sanford.25 They write:
The most markedly pathological case from among our lows [low scorers] showed in an extreme degree a pattern that was different from that which we have regarded as most typical of our low extremes. This girl was clearly impulse-ridden. Her ego was lined up with her id, so that sexual perversions, promiscuity and drinking orgies were made to seem permissible to her. ... In stating why she liked Jews she gave much the same reasons that the high extremes had given for hating them.
There is reason to assume that this case represents a syndrome of its own, being in some respects the counterpart of the psychopathic high scorer. This syndrome stands out in all-adjusted people who have an extremely strong id, but are relatively free of destructive impulses: people who, on account of their own libidinous situation, sympathize with everything they feel to be repressed. Moreover, they are those who respond so strongly to all kinds of stimuli that the ingroup-outgroup relation has no meaning to them – rather, they are attracted by everything that is »different« and promises some new kind of gratification. If they have destructive elements, these seem to be directed against themselves instead of against others. The range of this syndrome seems to reach from libertines and »addicts« of all kinds, over certain asocial characters such as prostitutes and nonviolent criminals, to certain psychotics. It may also be noted that in Germany very few Nazis were found among actors, circus folk, and vagrants – people whom the Nazis put into concentration camps. It is difficult to say what are the deeper psychological sources of this syndrome. It seems, however, that there is weakness both in the superego and in the ego, and that this makes these individuals somewhat unstable in political matters as well as in other areas. They certainly do not think in stereotypes, but it is doubtful to what extent they succeed in conceptualization at all.
Our illustration, F 205, is selected from the Psychiatric Clinic material:
She is a pleasantly mannered, attractive young college girl who is obviously seriously maladjusted and who suffers from great mood swings, tension, who cannot concentrate on her school work and has no goals in life. ... Sometimes she is extremely upset, comes crying and »mixed up,« complains that she is not being helped fast enough. Therapist feels that she cannot stand any deeper probing, that therapy will have to be mostly supportive, because of her weak ego, possibility of precipitating a psychosis. Schizoid tendencies.
She is set against prejudice with a strong accent on »interbreeding,« probably an expression of her own impulse for promiscuity: there should be no »boundaries«:
(Prejudices?) »If there were interbreeding between races it might help in the combining of cultures – it may internationalize culture. I think there should be one system of education everywhere. It may not be practical – but perhaps selective breeding would be possible – an accumulation of good traits might come out. And the imbeciles could be sterilized.« (Quotes some study on heredity subject has learned about.) »It seems improvements aren't made fast enough. The whole society is ill and unhappy.«
The last sentence indicates that her own discontent leads her, by the way of empathy, towards a rather radical and consistent critique of society. The keenness of her insight as well as her being attracted by what is »different« comes out even more clearly in her statement on minority problems:
»There is a terrific amount of minority oppression – prejudice. There is a fear of minorities, a lack of knowledge. I would like to assimilate all groups – internationally. Would want the education of the world unified. The minorities themselves also keep themselves apart. It's a vicious circle. Society makes them outcasts and they react this way.« (Differences?) Interviewer tried hard to have subject describe differences between groups, but subject insisted: »All differences that exist are due to conditions people grow up in and also to the emotional responses (to discrimination).« (Jews?) »I don't see how they are different as a group. I have Jewish friends. ... Maybe they are more sensitive because of prejudice against them. But that's good.«
According to the clinical data the girl is a genuine Lesbian, who was severely reprimanded because of her homosexuality, and became afterwards »rather promiscuous to determine whether she did react sexually to men.« »All emotionally upset in one way or the other,« she said. Her later history indicates that the Lesbian component is stronger than anything else.
It may be added that the Los Angeles sample contains three call-house girls, all of them completely free of prejudice and also low on the F scale. Since their profession tends to make them resentful about sex altogether, and since they profess symptoms of frigidity, they do not seem to belong to the »Impulsive« syndrome. However, only much closer analysis could ascertain whether the ultimate basis of their character formation is of the »impulsive« kind and has only been hidden by later reaction-formations, or whether their low score is due to a purely social factor, namely the innumerable contacts they have with all kinds of people.
4. The »Easy-Going« Low Scorer
This syndrome is the exact opposite of the »Manipulative« high scorer. Negatively, it is characterized by a marked tendency to »let things go,« a profound unwillingness to do violence to any object (an unwillingness which often may approach, on the surface level, conformity), and by an extreme reluctance to make decisions, often underscored by the subjects themselves. This reluctance even affects their language: they may be recognized by the frequency of unfinished sentences, as if they would not like to commit themselves, but rather leave it to the listener to decide on the merits of the case. Positively, they are inclined to »live and let live,« while at the same time their own desires seem to be free of the acquisitive touch. Grudging and discontent are absent. They show a certain psychological richness, the opposite of constrictedness: a capacity for enjoying things, imagination, a sense of humor which often assumes the form of self-irony. The latter, however, is as little destructive as their other attitudes: it is as if they were ready to confess all kinds of weaknesses not so much out of any neurotic compulsion as because of a strong underlying sense of inner security. They can give themselves up without being afraid of losing themselves. They are rarely radical in their political outlook, but rather behave as if they were already living under nonrepressive conditions, in a truly human society, an attitude which may, sometimes, tend to weaken their power of resistance. There is no evidence of any truly schizoid tendencies. They are completely nonstereopathic – they do not even resist stereotypy, but simply fail to understand the urge for subsumption.
The etiology of the »Easy-Going« syndrome is still somewhat obscure. The subjects in whom it is pronounced seem not to be defined by the preponderance of any psychological agency, or by retrogression to any particular infantile phase though there is, superficially seen, something of the child about them. Rather, they should be understood dynamically. They are people whose character structure has not become »congealed«: no set pattern of control by any of the agencies of Freud's typology has crystallized, but they are completely »open« to experience. This, however, does not imply ego weakness, but rather the absence of traumatic experiences and defects which otherwise lead to the »reification« of the ego. In this sense, they are »normal,« but it is just this normality which gives them in our civilization the appearance of a certain immaturity. Not only did they not undergo severe childhood conflicts, but their whole childhood seems to be determined by motherly or other female images. 26 Perhaps they may best be characterized as those who know no fear of women. This may account for the absence of aggressiveness. At the same time, it is possibly indicative of an archaic trait: to them, the world has still a matriarchal outlook. Thus, they may often represent, sociologically, the genuine »folk« element as against rational civilization. Representatives of this syndrome are not infrequent among the lower middle-classes. Though no »action« is to be expected of them, one may count on them as on persons who, under no circumstances, ever will adjust themselves to political or psychological fascism. The aforementioned M 711
is very amiable, mild, gentle, casual, slow, and somewhat lethargic in both voice and manner. He is quite verbal, but very circumstantial. His statements are typically surrounded with qualifications to which he commonly devotes more attention than to the main proposition. He seems to suffer from pervasive indecision and doubt, to be pretty unsure of his ideas, and to have great difficulty in committing himself to positive statements on very many matters. In general, he tends to avoid committing himself to things, either intellectually or emotionally, and in general avoids getting involved in things.
He describes his choice of profession as accidental, but it is interesting that he was originally a landscape architect – which may imply a desire for the restitution of nature rather than its domination – and later became an interviewer in government employment, a job that gives him the gratification of helping other people without his stressing, however, this aspect narcissistically. He is not indifferent to wealth and admits his wish for »security,« but is, at the same time, totally unimpressed by the importance of money per se. His religious attitude has been described in Chapter XVIII,[27] and it fits psychologically, in every detail, into the make-up of the »Easy-Going« syndrome. It may be added that he »does not believe in the Immaculate Conception« but doesn't think »it makes any difference.«
When asked about discipline in childhood, he answers »practically none,« »very undisciplined.« His strong attachment to his mother is emphasized without any inhibition: the only period of his childhood when there were any »bones of contention« was when his mother »exhibited her possessiveness. She didn't like the gals I went with.« What he himself likes about women is described as follows:
»Awfully hard to say when you're pretty sold on a gal. ... Seems to have all the things I like – fun to be with, brains, pretty. She likes me, which is important. We share things together.« (What enjoy doing together?) »Music, reading, swimming, dancing. Most of the things which don't require too much energy, which makes it good.«
It is remarkable that there is no trace of hostility against the father – whom he lost very early – in spite of the mother-fixation. It is the imaginative gift of the father which lingers in his memory:
(Pleasant memories of father?) »Lots of pleasant memories, because he spoiled us when he was home, always cooking up wonderful ideas for things to do.« (Mother and father got along?) »I think very well.« (Which parent take after?) »I don't know, because I didn't know my father very well.« (Father's faults?) »Don't know.«
Most significant are his statements on race issues:
(What think of minority group problems?) »I wish I knew. I don't know. I think that is one problem we should all be working on.« (Biggest problem?) »Negroes, in terms of numbers. ... I don't think we've ever faced the problem squarely. ... Many Negroes have come to the West Coast. ...« (Have you ever had Negroes as friends?) »Yes ... Not intimately, though have known a number that I've liked and enjoyed.« (What about intermarriage?) »I think it's a false issue. ... They say, ›What if your sister married a Negro?‹ I wouldn't have any feelings about it, frankly. ...« (Negro traits?) »No.«
As to the Jews, he does not come to their »defense,« but actually denies that they are a »problem«:
(What about the Jewish problem?) »I don't think there is a Jewish problem. There again, I think that's been a herring for agitators.« (How do you mean?) »Hitler, Ku Klux Klan, etc.« (Jewish traits?) »No ... I've seen Jewish people exhibit so-called Jewish traits, but also many non-Jewish people.« ... (Subject emphasizes there is no distinction along racial lines.)
The danger implicit in the »Easy-Going« syndrome, i.e., too great reluctance to use violence even against violence, is suggested by the following passage:
(What about picketing Gerald K. Smith?) »I think Gerald K. Smith should have an opportunity to speak, if we are operating under a democracy.« (What about picketing as registering a protest?) »If a certain group wants to, they have a right to. ... I don't think it's always effective.«
That the subject's attitude of noncommitment to any »principle« is actually based on a sense of the concrete and not purely evasive is indicated by the following highly elucidating passage:
(Interviewer reads question ... about tireless leader and refers to subject as agreeing a little, asks for elaboration.) »I agree a little. However, the opposite of that, Huey Long, was a courageous, tireless leader and Hitler (laughs). It depends.« (How do you mean?) »Well, I admired Willkie; I admired Roosevelt; I admired Wallace. But, I don't think we should ever have leaders in whom the people put their faith and then settle back. People seem to seek leaders to avoid thinking for themselves.«
This subject's interviewer concludes with the dialectical statement that »power is almost equivalent to the abuse of power.«
5. The Genuine Liberal
By contrast to the pattern just described, this syndrome is very outspoken in reaction and opinion. The subject in whom it is pronounced has a strong sense of personal autonomy and independence. He cannot stand any outside interference with his personal convictions and beliefs, and he does not want to interfere with those of others either. His ego is quite developed but not libidinized – he is rarely »narcissistic.« At the same time, he is willing to admit id tendencies, and to take the consequence – as is the case with Freud's »erotic type.«28 One of his conspicuous features is moral courage, often far beyond his rational evaluation of a situation. He cannot »keep silent« if something wrong is being done, even if he seriously endangers himself. Just as he is strongly »individualized« himself, he sees the others, above all, as individuals, not as specimens of a general concept. He shares some features with other syndromes found among low scorers. Like the »Impulsive,« he is little repressed and even has certain difficulties in keeping himself under »control.« However, his emotionality is not blind, but directed towards the other person as a subject. His love is not only desire but also compassion – as a matter of fact, one might think of defining this syndrome as the »compassionate« low scorer. He shares with the »Protesting« low scorer the vigor of identification with the underdog, but without compulsion, and without traces of overcompensation: he is no »Jew lover.« Like the »Easy-Going« low scorer he is antitotalitarian, but much more consciously so, without the element of hesitation and indecision. It is this configuration rather than any single trait which characterizes the »Genuine Liberal.« Aesthetic interests seem to occur frequently.
The illustration we give is a girl whose character of a »genuine liberal« stands out the more clearly, since, according to the interviewer,
she is politically naive like the majority of our college women, regardless whether they are high or low.
No »ticket« is involved. F 515
is a 21-year-old college student. She is a handsome brunette with dark, flashing eyes, who exudes temperament and vitality. She has none of the pretty-pretty femininity so frequently seen in high subjects, and would probably scorn the little feminine wiles and schemes practiced by such women. On the contrary, she is extremely frank and outspoken in manner, and in build she is athletic. One senses in her a very passionate nature and so strong a desire to give intensely of herself in all her relationships, that she must experience difficulty in restraining herself within the bounds of conventionality.
Apart from a semiprofessional interest in music she also »enjoys painting and dramatics.« As to her vocation, however, she is still undecided. She
has taken nurses' aid training. She liked helping people in this way. »I enjoyed it. I feel that I could now take care of a sick person. It didn't bother me to carry bedpans and urinals. I learned that I could touch flesh without being squeamish. I learned to be tactful about certain things. And then it was patriotic! (slightly joking tone). People liked me.« (Why did they like you?) »Because I smiled, and because I was always making cracks – like I'm doing now.«
Her views with regard to minorities are guided by the idea of the individual:
»Minorities have to have just as many rights as majorities. They are all people and should have just as many rights as the majority. There should be no minorities; there should only be individuals and they should be judged according to the individual. Period! Is that sufficient?«
(Negroes) »Same thing! Still as individuals. Their skin is black, but they are still people. Individuals have loves and sorrows and joys. I don't think you should kill them all or liquidate them or stick them in a corner just because they are different people. I would not marry one, because I should not want to marry a person who has a trait I don't like, like a large nose, etc. I would not want to have children with dark skins. I would not mind if they live next door to me.« (Earlier in the interview subject had brought out the fact that she had also to care for Negro patients during her nurses' aid work, and that she had not minded at all having to give baths to them, etc.)
(Jews?) »Same! Well I could marry a Jew very easily. I could even marry a Negro if he had a light enough skin. I prefer a light skin. I don't consider Jews different from white people at all, because they even have light skins. It's really silly.« (What do you think are the causes of prejudice?) »Jealousy.« (Explain?) »Because they are smarter and they don't want any competition. We don't want any competition. If they want it they should have it. I don't know if they are more intelligent, but if they are they should have it.«
The last statement shows complete absence of any aspect of guilt feelings in her relation to the Jews. It is followed up by the joke:
»Maybe if the Jews get in power they would liquidate the majority! That's not smart. Because we would fight back.«
Her views on religion, with a slightly humorous touch, are centered in the idea of Utopia. She mentions the word herself, when referring to her reading of Plato. The gist of her religion is contained in the statement: »Perhaps we will all be saved.« This should be compared with the prevailing »anti-Utopian« attitude of our subjects.
The description of both her parents contains elements of her own ego ideal, in quite an unconventional way:
»Father has been employed for 25 years in the freight complaint department of the – R.R. Co. His work involves the hiring of many men. He has about 150 people working under him.« (Subject described her father as follows:) »He could have been vice-president by now – he has the brains – but he does not have the go-get-it nature; he is not enough of a politician. He is broad-minded – always listens to both sides of a question before making up his mind. He is a good ›argumenter‹ for this reason. He is understanding. He is not emotional like mother. Mother is emotional, father factual. Mother is good. She has a personality of her own. She gives to all of us. She is emotional. She keeps Daddy very satisfied.« (In what way?) »She makes a home for him to come home to – he has it very hard at the office. It's living. Their marriage is very happy – everybody notices it. Their children perform too – people notice them! Mother is very friendly. Understanding. She gives sympathy. People love to talk to her. Someone calls her up on the telephone and they become lifelong friends just from having talked on the telephone! She is sensitive; it is easy to hurt her.«
Her attitude towards sex is one of precarious restraint. Her boy friend
wants to have sexual intercourse everytime that they have a date – in fact he wanted it the first time he dated her – and she doesn't want it that way. She cries every time he tries something, so she supposes it cannot be right for her. She thinks that friendship should precede sexual relations, but he thinks that sex relations are a way of getting to know each other better. Finally she broke with him three days ago (said with mock tearfulness). He had said, »Let's just be friends,« but she didn't want that either! The sex problem bothers her. The first time she danced with him he told her that he thought she wanted intercourse; whereas she just wanted to be close to him. She is worried because she didn't mean it the other way, but perhaps unconsciously she did!
It is evident that her erotic character is connected with a lack of repression with regard to her feelings towards her father: »I would like to marry someone like my father.«
The result of the interview is summed up by the interviewer:
The most potent factors making for the low score in this case are the open-mindedness of the parents and the great love subject's mother bore all her children.
If this can be generalized, and consequences be drawn for high scorers, we might postulate that the increasing significance of the fascist character depends largely upon basic changes in the structure of the family itself.29
Fußnoten
1 Gordon W. Allport, Personality: A Psychological Interpretation (New York: Henry Holt & Company, 1937), p. 13.
2 Jules H. Massermann, Principles of Dynamic Psychiatry (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1946), p. 85.
3 Anne Anastasi, Differential Psychology (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1937), pp. 230–232.
4 Allport, Personality: A Psychological Interpretation.
5 David P. Boder, »Nazi Science,« Twentieth Century Psychology, ed. Philip L. Harriman (New York: Philosophical Library, 1946), pp. 10–21.
6 It should be remembered that Jaensch's anti-type is defined by synaesthesia, that is to say, the supposed or actual tendency of certain people »to have color experiences when listening to a tone, or to music in general, and to have tone experiences when looking at colors or pictures« (Ibid., p. 15). This tendency is interpreted by Jaensch as a symptom of degeneracy. It may well be assumed that this interpretation is based on historical reminiscence rather than on any factual psychological findings. For the cult of synaesthesia played a large role within the lyrical poetry of the same French authors who introduced the concept of décadence, particularly Baudelaire. It can be noted, however, that synaesthetic imagery fulfills a specific function in their works. By clouding the division between different realms of sense perception, they simultaneously try to efface the rigid classification of different kinds of objects, as it is brought about under the practical requirements of industrial civilization. They rebel against reification. It is highly characteristic that an entirely administrative ideology chooses as its archfoe an attitude which is, above all, rebellion against stereotypy. The Nazi cannot stand anything which does not fit into his scheme and even less anything which does not recognize his own reified, »stereopathic« way of looking at things.
7 Sigmund Freud, »Libidinal Types,« Psychoanalytic Quarterly 1 (1932), pp. 3–6.
8 Donald W. MacKinnon, »Structure of Personality,« Personality and the Behavior Disorders, ed. Joseph McVicker Hunt (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1944), vol. 1, pp. 3–48.
9 It should be stressed that two concepts of types have to be distinguished. On the one hand, there are those who are types in the proper sense, typified persons, individuals who are largely reflecting set patterns and social mechanisms, and on the other hand, persons who can be called types only in a formal-logical sense and who often may be characterized just by the absence of standard qualities. It is essential to distinguish the real, »genuine« type structure of a person and his merely belonging to a logical class by which he is defined from outside, as it were.
[10 See above, pp. 332ff.]
11 Institute of Social Research, »Research Project on Anti-Semitism,« Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, IX, 1 (1941), pp. 133–137.
12 Erich Fromm, »Sozialpsychologischer Teil: Der autoritär-masochistische Charakter,« Studien über Autorität und Familie, ed. Max Horkheimer (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1936), pp. 110–135.
[13 See above, pp. 392ff.]
14 Institute of Social Research, Studien über Autorität und Familie. Cf. also in this connection, Erik H. Erikson, »Hitler's Imagery and German Youth,« Psychiatry 5 (1942), pp. 475–493.
15 Institute of Social Research, »Research Project on Anti-Semitism« [1941], p. 135.
16 Robert M. Lindner, Rebel Without a Cause, introd. Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, (New York: Grune & Stratton, Inc., 1944), p. 14 (orig. ital.).
17 Ibid., pp. 8–9.
[18 William R. Morrow, »Criminality and Antidemocratic Trends: A Study of Prison Inmates,« The Authoritarian Personality, pp. 817–890.]
19 Leo Lowenthal and Norbert Guterman, Prophets of Deceit (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949), pp. 55–58.
20 This, of course, covers only a superficial aspect. It is well known from psychoanalysis that insects and vermin serve frequently as symbols for siblings. The fantasies involved here may be traces of the little boy's wish to beat his little brother until he »keeps quiet.« Manipulativeness may be one form in which death wishes for the siblings are allowed to come to the fore. »Organizers« are frequently persons who want to exercise domineering control over those who are actually their equals – substitutes for the siblings over whom they wish to rule, like the father, as the next best thing, if they cannot kill them. Our insect toxicologist mentions frequent childhood quarrels with his sister.
[21 See above, p. 378.]
[22 See above, p. 351.]
23 This term was suggested by J.F. Brown.
24 It was pointed out in Chapter XVIII that religion, when it has been internalized, is an effective antidote against prejudice and the whole fascist potential, notwithstanding its own authoritarian aspects. [See above, p. 443.]
25 Else Frenkel-Brunswik and R. Nevitt Sanford, »Some Personality Factors in Anti-Semitism,« The Journal of Psychology 20 (1945) p. 287.
26 The subject chosen as an illustration of this type »was brought up in a household of women – mother and grandmother.«
[27 See above, p. 449.]
28 Sigmund Freud, »Libidinal Types,« p. 4.
29 Cf. Max Horkheimer, »Authoritarianism and the Family Today,« The Family: Its Function and Destiny, ed., Ruth Nanda Anshen (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949), pp. 359–374.