Page - 18 - in Rebels without a cause? - ‘Criminals’ and fascism in The Authoritarian Personality

18 Journal of Classical Sociology 00(0) typology, with which he attempted to differentiate between certain types of high and low scorers. From the outset, a typology of anti-Semites was Adorno’s central concern. An early outline of the project mentions ‘Improving Teddy Typology’ as the aim of the study.8 In the summer of 1945, Adorno finished the first drafts (Fleck, 2007: 408), which he con- tinued to elaborate upon until publication. The published version of this typology was provided with a nine-page introduction (Adorno et al., 1950: 744–752), a defence of social science typology and, at the same time, a condemnation of such an attempt. Among the seven types of high scorers, Adorno outlines one as a prime example of a fascist: the rebel and the psychopath (Adorno et al., 1950: 762–765). Representatives of this type blindly hate everything and everyone and undertake ‘pseudorevolutionary actions against those whom the individual ultimately deems to be weak’ (Adorno et al., 1950: 763). It is the archetype of the SA man, familiar to the institute from the first typology of 1939, unemployed and open to any excess, from homosexuality and drinking to delinquency. 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 molded at all by civilization. They are ‘asocial.’ Destructive urges come to the fore in an overt, nonrationalized way. [. . .] 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. (Adorno et al., 1950: 763) It is easy to recognise Lindner’s Harold, whom Adorno presents in the next few pages. Even though he is the only co-author to provide a nuanced reference to the influences of the ‘prison situation’ (see Adorno et al., 1950: 638, 698, and 764), Adorno rules out any doubts about this type in the typology, stating that: ‘Neither the widespread existence of the “Tough Guy” syndrome, particularly in marginal spheres of society, nor its impor- tance for some of the most sinister aspects of the fascist potential can be doubted’ (Adorno et al., 1950: 765). The adoption of Lindner’s ‘observation’ of the interconnection between criminal behaviour and fascism weighs heavily. The empirically flawed observation of allegedly authoritarian prisoners at least partly transfigures National Socialism into a movement of Lumpenproletariat criminals, but also into a genuine rebellion. Consequently the co- authors mistakenly see the danger of fascism in the US as stemming, to a large part, from its prisons. The introduction of the category of ‘pseudo rebellion’ raises the difficulty of being able to distinguish between ‘real’ and ‘false’ rebellion, elevating the social scientist in his observer post to the status of sole ‘expert’ able to make this decision. In terms of social theory, it carries with it a conservative ballast which, politically, was not far from German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, who later declared the SS as having been com- posed of ‘the asocial and the previously convicted’ (quoted from Paul, 2002: 17). In turn, this political conservatism was based on the instrumentalisation of psychoanalysis as a hypnosis technique and tool for prison administrations, which condemned rebellion mor- ally and equated it with headstrong delinquency.