ADORNO: PREJUDICE
Introduction
Our study grew out of specific investigations into anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism gradually all but disappeared as a topic of our
questionnaire
Specific questions about Jews
o AIM to see if it was possible to establish certain differential
patterns within the general structure of prejudice
o Taught us more about prevailing overt patterns of ani-
Semitism than about its inner dynamics
o Detailed questions proved most helpful in understanding the
phenomena of psychological conflict in prejudice “pseudo-
democratism”
o Reactions to the list of “bad Jewish traits” “all-inclusive”
“Inner consistency” of anti-Semitic ideology
OR may testify to the mental rigidity of our high scores
Apart from the fact that the method of multiple
choice may itself make for automatic reactions
o German people tolerating the most extreme anti-Semitic
measures
ALTHOUGH highly to be doubted that the individuals
themselves were more anti-Semitic than our high-
scoring subjects
PRAGMATIC INFERENCE: pseudo rational
discussions of anti-Semitism should be avoided
Should not enter the sphere of the “Jewish
problem”
o The acknowledgment of “Jewish problem”,
might have been some justification for what
the Nazis did
Subjective aspect is in the foreground
The selection of our sample excluded an investigation into the role
played by the “object” Jews
o Object plays a role, but we devote our attention to the forms
of reaction directed towards the Jew
NOT based on these reactions within the “object”
The “functional” character of anti-Semitism
Extreme but concrete evidence of the fact that anti-Semitism is not so
much dependent upon the nature of the object as upon the subject’s own
psychological wants and needs
Jews are favorite stand-ins for the child’s “bad man”
While anti-Semitism is functional with regard to the object choice on
a more superficial level, its deeper determinants still seem to be
much more rigid
, By denying the existence of a “Jewish problem” consciously takes sides
with the unbiased
By interpreting the word, however, as meaning “having difficulties”,
and emphasizing that the Jews are “too smart to have a problem”
o Unwittingly his own rejection
With his “smartness” theory his pro-Jewish statements have a
rationalistic ring clearly indicative of the subject’s ambivalence
o All race hatred is “envy” but he leaves little doubt that in his
mind there is some reason for this envy
Correlation between anti-Semitism and anti-Negroism is undoubtedly high
BUT prejudice is a single compact mass
The imaginary foe
The hypothesis that prejudice, according to its intrinsic content, but is
superficially, if at all, related to the specific nature of its object
Evidence of imaginary constructs
Omnipotence fantasies projected upon a whole outgroup abstractly
AND how the application of such ideas to factual experience comes
close to paranoid delusion
The usual stereotype of undue Jewish influence in politics and economy is
inflated to the assertion of threatening over-all domination
Sometimes the projective aspect of the fantasies of the Jewish
domination comes into the open
It is the contention that the Jews “are everywhere”
o Omnipresence sometimes displaces omnipotence, perhaps
because no actual “Jewish rule” can be pretended to exist
o Expression of Jewish weakness
The best means of improving intercultural relations that as many personal
contacts as possible be established between the different groups
NO simple gap between experience and stereotypy
o Stereotypy = a device for looking at things comfortably
NOT corrected by taking a real look
Experience itself is predetermined by stereotypy
Cannot “correct” stereotypy by experience
Anti-Semitism for what?
Anti-Semitic attitudes and opinions content is irreconcilable with reality
SO call them symptoms
o BUT symptoms which can hardly be explained by the
mechanism of neurosis
AND at the same time, the anti-Semitic individual as
such, the potentially fascist character is certainly not a
psychotic
Introduction
Our study grew out of specific investigations into anti-Semitism
Anti-Semitism gradually all but disappeared as a topic of our
questionnaire
Specific questions about Jews
o AIM to see if it was possible to establish certain differential
patterns within the general structure of prejudice
o Taught us more about prevailing overt patterns of ani-
Semitism than about its inner dynamics
o Detailed questions proved most helpful in understanding the
phenomena of psychological conflict in prejudice “pseudo-
democratism”
o Reactions to the list of “bad Jewish traits” “all-inclusive”
“Inner consistency” of anti-Semitic ideology
OR may testify to the mental rigidity of our high scores
Apart from the fact that the method of multiple
choice may itself make for automatic reactions
o German people tolerating the most extreme anti-Semitic
measures
ALTHOUGH highly to be doubted that the individuals
themselves were more anti-Semitic than our high-
scoring subjects
PRAGMATIC INFERENCE: pseudo rational
discussions of anti-Semitism should be avoided
Should not enter the sphere of the “Jewish
problem”
o The acknowledgment of “Jewish problem”,
might have been some justification for what
the Nazis did
Subjective aspect is in the foreground
The selection of our sample excluded an investigation into the role
played by the “object” Jews
o Object plays a role, but we devote our attention to the forms
of reaction directed towards the Jew
NOT based on these reactions within the “object”
The “functional” character of anti-Semitism
Extreme but concrete evidence of the fact that anti-Semitism is not so
much dependent upon the nature of the object as upon the subject’s own
psychological wants and needs
Jews are favorite stand-ins for the child’s “bad man”
While anti-Semitism is functional with regard to the object choice on
a more superficial level, its deeper determinants still seem to be
much more rigid
, By denying the existence of a “Jewish problem” consciously takes sides
with the unbiased
By interpreting the word, however, as meaning “having difficulties”,
and emphasizing that the Jews are “too smart to have a problem”
o Unwittingly his own rejection
With his “smartness” theory his pro-Jewish statements have a
rationalistic ring clearly indicative of the subject’s ambivalence
o All race hatred is “envy” but he leaves little doubt that in his
mind there is some reason for this envy
Correlation between anti-Semitism and anti-Negroism is undoubtedly high
BUT prejudice is a single compact mass
The imaginary foe
The hypothesis that prejudice, according to its intrinsic content, but is
superficially, if at all, related to the specific nature of its object
Evidence of imaginary constructs
Omnipotence fantasies projected upon a whole outgroup abstractly
AND how the application of such ideas to factual experience comes
close to paranoid delusion
The usual stereotype of undue Jewish influence in politics and economy is
inflated to the assertion of threatening over-all domination
Sometimes the projective aspect of the fantasies of the Jewish
domination comes into the open
It is the contention that the Jews “are everywhere”
o Omnipresence sometimes displaces omnipotence, perhaps
because no actual “Jewish rule” can be pretended to exist
o Expression of Jewish weakness
The best means of improving intercultural relations that as many personal
contacts as possible be established between the different groups
NO simple gap between experience and stereotypy
o Stereotypy = a device for looking at things comfortably
NOT corrected by taking a real look
Experience itself is predetermined by stereotypy
Cannot “correct” stereotypy by experience
Anti-Semitism for what?
Anti-Semitic attitudes and opinions content is irreconcilable with reality
SO call them symptoms
o BUT symptoms which can hardly be explained by the
mechanism of neurosis
AND at the same time, the anti-Semitic individual as
such, the potentially fascist character is certainly not a
psychotic
