Friedrich Engels: Racist and German nationalist


By John J. Ray (M.A.;Ph.D.)

The reason why the Soviet version of Communism was always known as "Marxism-Leninism" is of course that Lenin "developed" Marxist doctrine in various ways. One of those developments, however, is almost never mentioned -- though it can hardly be unknown to any serious student of Marx and Engels: Although Marx and Engels were great advocates for the working class, they were also antisemitic German nationalists who took a very dim view of Russians. Lenin concentrated on the first part of Marxism and, understandably, largely ignored the latter. There was however considerable devotion to the original Marxian writings among the Bolsheviks so when Lenin said: "it is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people" but "the capitalists of all countries", it was to a degree Marx himself whom he was critcizing.

It is customary to treat Marx and Engels as a unit, failing to take any note of the individuals concerned. As they were such close collaborators, that is not unreasonable but there were nonetheless differences of emphasis between them. Marx was the most antisemitic and it was Engels who was the fervent German nationalist. I reproduce initially below the most famous antisemitic utterance by Marx (more in the archives here) by way of context but, after that, I simply reproduce a host of statements by Engels. I think they speak for themselves.

"Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".




ENGELS BELIEVED GERMANS TO BE A SUPERIOR RACE

Karl Marx, "A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy" (Review by Frederick Engels), Das Volk, 30 No. 14, August 6, 1859: "The Germans have long since shown that in all spheres of science they are equal, and in most of them superior, to other civilised nations. Only one branch of science, political economy, had no German name among its foremost scholars."

Context here


The German

Engels: Karl Marx' "Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie", 1859

"Auf allen wissenschaftlichen Gebieten haben die Deutschen laengst ihre Ebenbuertigkeit, auf den meisten ihre Ueberlegenheit gegenueber den uebrigen zivilisierten Nationen bewiesen. (...)"

MEW a.a.O. 13, 476.




ENGELS SUPPORTED GERMAN TERRITORIAL CLAIMS AND BELIEVED IN "GERMANIZATION" OF OTHERS

"True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"

Written by Engels in 1841

The German

"...Allerdings ist es eine fixe Idee bei den Franzosen, dass der Rhein ihr Eigentum sei, aber die einzige des deutschen Volkes wuerdige Antwort auf diese anmassende Forderung ist das Arndtsche 'Heraus mit dem Elsass und Lothringen!' Denn ich bin - vielleicht im Gegensatz zu vielen, deren Standpunkt ich sonst teile - allerdings der Ansicht, dass die Wiedereroberung der deutschsprechenden linken Rheinseite eine nationale Ehrensache, die Germanisierung des abtruennig gewordenen Hollands und Belgiens eine politische Notwendigkeit fuer uns ist. Sollen wir in jenen Laendern die deutsche Nationalitaet vollends unterdruecken lassen, waehrend im Osten sich das Slawentum immer maechtiger erhebt?"



Engels liked the idea of a "Thousand year Reich" too

This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom.

Source.




ENGELS SAID GERMANS SHOULD USE TERROR AGAINST THE SLAVS

And dismissed justice and morality from consideration in the matter. And he didn't think much of brotherhood either

(...)Justice and other moral considerations may be damaged here and there; but what does that matter to such facts of world-historic significance?
(...)
Following that, Bohemia and Moravia passed definitely to Germany and the Slovak regions remained with Hungary. And this historically absolutely non-existent "nation" puts forward claims to independence?
(...)
Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without power and implacable ruthlessness,
(...)
To the sentimental phrases about brotherhood which we are being offered here on behalf of the most counter-revolutionary nations of Europe, we reply that hatred of Russians was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution.
(...)
Then there will be a struggle, an "unrelenting life-and-death struggle" against those Slavs who betray the revolution; an annihilating fight and most determined terrorism -- not in the interests of Germany, but in the interests of the revolution!

Context here


The German

Engels, NRZ 15. Feb. 1849

,... die 'Gerechtigkeit' und andere moralische Grundsaetze moegen hier und da verletzt sein; aber was gilt das gegen solche weltgeschichtlichen Tatsachen? (....)

Dann kommt Boehmen und Maehren definitiv zu Deutschland, und die slowakischen Gegenden bleiben bei Ungarn. Und diese geschichtlich gar nicht existiende 'Nation' macht Ansprueche auf Unabhaengigkeit? (...)

Freilich, dergleichen lae t sich nicht durchsetzen ohne manch sanftes Nationenbluemlein gewaltsam zu zerknicken. Aber ohne Gewalt und ohne eherne Ruecksichtslosigkeit wird nichts durchgesetzt in der Geschichte, (...)

Auf die sentimentalen Bruederschaftsphrasen, die uns hier im Namen der kontrevolutionaersten Nationen Europas dargeboten werden, antworten wir, da  der Russenha  die erste revolutionaere Leidenschaft bei den Deutschen war und noch ist; da  seit der Revolution der Tschechen- und Kroatenha  hinzugekommen ist und da  wir, in Gemeinschaft mit Polen und Magyaren, nur durch den entschiedensten Terrorismus gegen diese slawischen Voelker die Revolution sicherstellen koennen (....)

Dann Kampf, 'unerbittlicher Kampf auf Leben und Tod' mit dem revolutionsverraeterischen Slawentum; Vernichtungskampf und ruecksichtslosen Terrorismus - nicht im Interesse Deutschlands, sondern im Interesse der Revolution!"

MEW a.a.O. 6, 286.




ENGELS DIDN'T THINK ALL RACES WERE EQUAL

He thought the Yugoslavs in particular deserved to be wiped out .... Hmmmm

"Among all the nations and sub-nations of Austria, only three standard-bearers of progress took an active part in history, and are still capable of life -- the Germans, the Poles and the Magyars. Hence they are now revolutionary. All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm.

(...)

This remnant of a nation that was, as Hegel says, suppressed and held in bondage in the course of history, this human trash, becomes every time -- and remains so until their complete obliteration or loss of national identity -- the fanatical carriers of counter-revolution, just as their whole existence in general is itself a protest against a great historical revolution.

(...)

Such, in Austria, are the pan-Slavist Southern Slavs, who are nothing but the human trash of peoples, resulting from an extremely confused thousand years of development.

(...)

The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is progress.

A source in English



The German

Friedrich Engels, NRZ 13. Jan. 1849

,Unter all den Nationen und Natioenchen OEsterreichs sind nur drei, die die Traeger des Fortschritts waren, die aktiv in die Geschichte eingegriffen haben, die jetzt noch lebensfaehig sind - die Deutschen, die Polen, die Magyaren. Daher sind sie jetzt revolutionaer. Alle anderen gro en und kleinen Staemme und Voelker haben zunaechst die Mission, im revolutionaeren Weltsturm unterzugehen. (...)

Diese Reste einer von dem Gang der Geschichte, wie Hegel sagt, unbarmherzig zertretenen Nationen, diese Voelkerabfaelle werden jedesmal und bleiben bis zu ihrer gaenzlichen Vertilgung oder Entnationalisierung die fanatischen Traeger der Kontrerevolution, wie ihre ganze Existenz ueberhaupt schon ein Protest gegen eine gro e geschichtliche Revolution ist (...)

So in OEsterreich die panslawistischen Suedslawen, die weiter nichts sind als der Voelkerabfall einer hoechst verworrenen tausendjaehrigen Entwicklung. (...)

Der naechste Weltkrieg wird nicht nur reaktionaere Klassen und Dynastien, er wird auch ganze reaktionaere Voelker vom Erdboden verschwinden machen. Und das ist auch ein Fortschritt."

MEW a.a.O. 6, 176.



ENGELS SAID GERMANY HAD A "RIGHT" TO CONQUER OTHER LANDS

Because Germany was more "civilized"!

"By the same right under which France took Flanders, Lorraine and Alsace, and will sooner or later take Belgium -- by that same right Germany takes over Schleswig; it is the right of civilization as against barbarism, of progress as against stability. Even if the agreements were in Denmark's favor -- which is very doubtful-this right carries more weight than all the agreements, for it is the right of historical evolution"

Source

The German:

Friedrich Engels, NRZ 10. Sep. 1848 (NRZ = Neue Rheinische Zeitung)

,Mit demselben Recht, mit dem die Franzosen Flandern, Lothringen und Elsa  genommen haben und Belgien frueher oder spaeter nehmen werden, mit demselben Recht nimmt Deutschland Schleswig: mit dem Recht der Zivilisation gegen die Barbarei, des Fortschritts gegen die Stabilitaet."

MEW a.a.O. 5, 395.

I note that the Marxists I link to above have translated the "Stabilitaet" that Engels referred to as "static stability" rather than just "stability". I wonder why? Let me guess: Stability is good once the Marxists are in charge. That is "progressive" stability, not "static stability". So the enforced inertia and uniformity of the old USSR was "progressive stability". Too bad they made such little progress that they eventually collapsed! But how sad it is that the Marxists have to mistranslate their own founding fathers to justify themselves! I can't say I am surprised, though.



ENGELS THOUGHT ARYANS WERE SUPERIOR

"The plentiful meat and milk diet among the Aryans and the Semites, and particularly the beneficial effects of these foods on the development of children, may, perhaps, explain the superior development of these two races."

No Marxist has dared to put this online yet so I cannot provide a link for context. The quotation is from Engels, "Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State", Fourth revised edition, 1891, in Marx & Engels, Selected Works In One Volume, Lawrence & Wishart: London, 1980, p 464.



ENGELS ADVOCATES THAT GERMANY DEFEAT FRANCE BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE

Engels to August Bebel In Berlin, 19 September, 1891: "In any case we must declare that since 1871 we have always been ready for a peaceful understanding with France, that as soon as our Party comes to power it will be unable to exercise that power unless Alsace-Lorraine freely determines its own future, but that if war is forced upon us, and moreover a war in alliance with Russia, we must regard this as an attack on our existence and defend ourselves by every method, utilising all positions at our disposal and therefore Metz and Strasbourg also..... so our army will have to lead and sustain the main push.... So much seems certain to me: if we are beaten, every barrier to chauvinism and a war of revenge in Europe will be thrown down for years hence. If we are victorious our Party will come into power. The victory of Germany is therefore the victory of the revolution, and if it comes to war we must not only desire victory but further it by every means...."

Context here





WAR AGAINST RUSSIA A GOOD THING FOR GERMANY

Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 42, July 12, 1848: "Only a war against Russia would be a war of revolutionary Germany, a war by which she could cleanse herself of her past sins, could take courage, defeat her own autocrats, spread civilisation by the sacrifice of her own sons as becomes a people that is shaking off the chains of long, indolent slavery"

It is not clear whether it was Marx or Engels that wrote this. Context here




ENGELS MAKES IT CLEAR WHAT HE MEANS BY "NIGGER"

Marx's second daughter, Laura, married Paul Lafargue who, Engels said, had "one eighth or one twelfth Nigger blood". In 1887, Paul was a candidate for the Paris Municipal Council, in a district which contained the Jardin des Plantes and the Zoo. In a letter to Laura (April 26, 1887), Engels referred to:

"Paul, the candidate of the Jardin des Plantes - and the animals" and added: "Being in his quality as a nigger a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district."

This letter (in German translation) is in Marx & Engels Werke vol. 36, 1967, p. 645. It is not online but is mentioned here





ENGELS WAS CONTEMPTUOUS OF "NIGGERS"

Letter from Engels to Marx, October 2, 1866: "I have arrived at the conviction that there is nothing to his [Tremaux's] theory if for no other reason than because he neither understands geology nor is capable of the most ordinary literary historical criticism. One could laugh oneself sick about his stories of the nigger Santa Maria and of the transmutations of the whites into Negroes. Especially, that the traditions of the Senegal niggers deserve absolute credulity, just because the rascals cannot write! . . . Perhaps this man will prove in the second volume, how he explains the fact, that we Rhinelanders have not long ago turned into idiots and niggers on our own Devonian Transition rocks . . . Or perhaps he will maintain that we are real niggers."

(Not fully online. Source: Quoted by Diane Paul, "'In the Interests of Civilization': Marxist Views of Race and Culture in the Nineteenth Century", Journal of the History of Ideas, Jan-March 1981, p 123. [Werke, Vol. 31, p 256.])

Note that Engels uses both the neutral term "negroes" and the derogatory "nigger". So he clearly knew what the different implications of the two terms were. "Nigger" was not as verboten in the 19th century as it is now but it was still derogatory -- and it is presumably because of that aspect of the word that both Marx and Engels used what is after all an English word in their German writings.

To understand what Engels was talking about, one needs to realize that both Marx and Engels were Lamarckians -- they believed that acquired characteristics could be inherited. That fact is no doubt part of the reason why Stalin so heavily sponsored the ideas of the Lamarckian Trofim Lysenko right into the 20th century -- long after Lamarckian theories had been generally discredited in the West. And the particular strand of Lamarckian thinking that appealed most strongly to both Marx and Engels was that the type of soil and landscape in which a nation grew up could influence their national character. Just what the relationship between geology and national characteristics was, however, they did not fully agree. The following commentary on the matter may also be helpful:

To cite one final anecdote, the scholarly literature frequently cites Marx's great enthusiasm (until the more scientifically savvy Engels set him straight) for a curious book, published in 1865 by the now (and deservedly) unknown French explorer and ethnologist Pierre Tremaux, Origine et transformations de l'homme et des autres etres (Origin and transformation of man and other beings). Marx professed ardent admiration for this work, proclaiming it "einen Fortschritt uber Darwin" (an advance over Darwin). The more sober Engels bought the book at Marx's urging, but then dampened his friend's ardor by writing: "I have arrived at the conclusion that there is nothing to his theory if for no other reason than because he neither understands geology nor is capable of the most ordinary literary historical criticism."

I had long been curious about Tremaux and sought a copy of his book for many years. I finally purchased one a few years ago--and I must say that I have never read a more absurd or more poorly documented thesis. Basically, Tremaux argues that the nature of the soil determines national characteristics and that higher civilizations tend to arise on more complex soils formed in later geological periods. If Marx really believed that such unsupported nonsense could exceed the Origin of Species in importance, then he could not have properly understood or appreciated the power of Darwin's facts and ideas.

More here

ENGELS APPROVES OF ANTISEMITISM

Engels to Paul Lafargue, July 22, 1892: "I begin to understand French anti-Semitism when I see how many Jews of Polish origin and with German names intrude themselves everywhere, arrogate everything to themselves and push themselves forward to the point of creating public opinion in the ville lumiere [Paris], of which the Paris philistine is so proud and which he believes to be the supreme power in the universe."

(Not online but found in Frederick Engels, Paul and Laura Lafargue, Correspondence, Vol iii, Moscow. p 184.)




ENGELS: POLISH JEWS GET A BLAST

Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1886 Appendix to the American Edition: "The pettifogging business-tricks of the Polish Jew, the representative in Europe of commerce in its lowest stage, those tricks that serve him so well in his own country, and are generally practiced there, he finds to be out of date and out of place when he comes to Hamburg or Berlin"

Context here





ENGELS CELEBRATED THE CONQUEST OF NORTH AFRICAN ARABS BY THE FRENCH

Engels in The Northern Star January 22, 1848: "Upon the whole it is, in our opinion, very fortunate that the Arabian chief has been taken. The struggle of the Bedouins was a hopeless one, and though the manner in which brutal soldiers, like Bugeaud, have carried on the war is highly blamable, the conquest of Algeria is an important and fortunate fact for the progress of civilisation. The piracies of the Barbaresque states, never interfered with by the English government as long as they did not disturb their ships, could not be put down but by the conquest of one of these states. And the conquest of Algeria has already forced the Beys of Tunis and Tripoli, and even the Emperor of Morocco, to enter upon the road of civilisation. They were obliged to find other employment for their people than piracy, and other means of filling their exchequer than tributes paid to them by the smaller states of Europe. And if we may regret that the liberty of the Bedouins of the desert has been destroyed, we must not forget that these same Bedouins were a nation of robbers, - whose principal means of living consisted of making excursions either upon each other, or upon the settled villagers, taking what they found, slaughtering all those who resisted, and selling the remaining prisoners as slaves. All these nations of free barbarians look very proud, noble and glorious at a distance, but only come near them and you will find that they, as well as the more civilised nations, are ruled by the lust of gain"

Context here





ENGELS WAS PRO-AMERICAN

Marx, Engels and Hitler were all favourably disposed towards their "racial brethren" in Britain and the USA. It was Slavs whom they really despised. So it is a considerable irony that a Slavic nation was the first to take up Marxism in a big way and that it was primarily the same Slavic nation that defeated Hitler

Engels in Deutsche-Bruesseler-Zeitung 1848: "In America we have witnessed the conquest of Mexico and have rejoiced at it. It is also an advance when a country which has hitherto been exclusively wrapped up in its own affairs, perpetually rent with civil wars, and completely hindered in its development, a country whose best prospect had been to become industrially subject to Britain - when such a country is forcibly drawn into the historical process. It is to the interest of its own development that Mexico will in future be placed under the tutelage of the United States. The evolution of the whole of America will profit by the fact that the United States, by the possession of California, obtains command of the Pacific"

Context here





NO PAST AND NO FUTURE FOR THE SLAVS

Engels in Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 222, February 1849: "We repeat: apart from the Poles, the Russians, and at most the Turkish Slavs, no Slav people has a future, for the simple reason that all the other Slavs lack the primary historical, geographical, political and industrial conditions for independence and viability. Peoples which have never had a history of their own, which from the time when they achieved the first, most elementary stage of civilization already came under foreign sway, or which were forced to attain the first stage of civilization only by means of a foreign yoke, are not viable and will never be able to achieve any kind of independence. And that has been the fate of the Austrian Slavs. The Czechs, among whom we would include the Moravians and Slovaks, although they differ in respect of language and history, have never had a history of their own"

Context here





BOTH MARX AND ENGELS THOUGHT THAT THE CHINESE SUFFERED FROM HEREDITARY STUPIDITY

I guess Chairman Mao did not read these bits!

Marx, "Revolution in China and in Europe" (May 20, 1853): "It is almost needless to observe that, in the same measure in which opium has obtained the sovereignty over the Chinese, the Emperor and his staff of pedantic mandarins have become dispossessed of their own sovereignty. It would seem as though history had first to make this whole people drunk before it could rouse them out of their hereditary stupidity".



Engels, "Persia and China" (June 5,1857): "... China, the rotting semi-civilization of the oldest State in the world . . . In short, instead of moralizing on the horrible atrocities of the Chinese, as the chivalrous English press does, we had better recognize that this is a war pro aris et focis, a popular war for the maintenance of Chinese nationality, with all its overbearing prejudice, stupidity, learned ignorance and pedantic barbarism . . .

Context for the quote from Marx is here

The latter part of the quote from Engels is online here but the rest is not freely online. See Marx & Engels On Colonialism, 6th printing, Moscow, 1976, pp. 120 & 124.






OUR HATE-FILLED ENGELS DESPISED THE IRISH TOO

(At least Engels had TWO master races in his thinking: Germans and Hungarians ("Magyars"))

Engels: The condition of the working class in England, 1892 "The southern facile character of the Irishman, his crudity, which places him but little above the savage, his contempt for all humane enjoyments, in which his very crudeness makes him incapable of sharing, his filth and poverty, all favour drunkeness. . . . the pressure of this race has done much to depress wages and lower the working-class. . . . That poverty manifests itself in Ireland thus and not otherwise, is owing to the character of the people, and to their historical development. The Irish are a people related in their whole character to the Latin nations, to the French, and especially to the Italians.... With the Irish, feeling and passion predominate; reason must bow before them. Their sensuous, excitable nature prevents reflection and quiet, persevering activity from reaching development -- such a nation is utterly unfit for manufacture as now conducted. . . . Irish distress cannot be removed by any Act of Repeal. Such an Act would, however, at once lay bare the fact that the cause of Irish misery, which now seems to come from abroad is really to be found at home"

Context here





ENGELS: CONTEMPT FOR SCANDINAVIANS TOO

Engels in Neue Rheinische Zeitung September 1848; "Scandinavianism is enthusiasm for the brutal, sordid, piratical, Old Norse national traits, for that profound inner life which is unable to express its exuberant ideas and sentiments in words, but can express them only in deeds, namely, in rudeness towards women, perpetual drunkenness and the wild frenzy of the Berserker alternating with tearful sentimentality".

Context here




ENGELS DESPISED THE WHOLE OF THE BALKANS -- INCLUDING THE GREEKS

Engels to August Bebel, November 17, 1885. "These wretched, ruined fragments of one-time nations, the Serbs, Bulgars, Greeks, and other robber bands, or, behalf of which the liberal philistine waxes enthusiastic in the interests of Russia, are unwilling to grant each other the air they breathe, and feel obliged to cut each other's greedy throats... the lousy Balkan peoples . . . ".

(Not online. From Marx-Engels, Briefe an A. Bebel, W. Liebknecht, K. Kautsky und Andere, Moscow, 1933, pp 411, 412; translation by Bertram D. Wolfe, Marxism, 1967, p 68.)



ENGELS: SLAVS ARE INFERIOR AND DESERVE TO BE OPPRESSED BY GERMANS AND THE AUSTRO-HUNGARIAN EMPIRE

Neue Rheinische Zeitung February 1849: "And if during eight centuries the "eight million Slavs" have had to suffer the yoke imposed on them by the four million Magyars, that alone sufficiently proves which was the more viable and vigorous, the many Slavs or the few Magyars! .... what a "crime" it is, what a "damnable policy" that at a time when, in Europe in general, big monarchies had become a "historical necessity", the Germans and Magyars untied all these small, stunted and impotent little nations into a single big state and thereby enabled them to take part in a historical development from which, left to themselves, they would have remained completely aloof! Of course, matters of this kind cannot be accomplished without many a tender national blossom being forcibly broken. But in history nothing is achieved without violence and implacable ruthlessness... In short, it turns out these "crimes" of the Germans and Magyars against the said Slavs are among the best and most praiseworthy deeds which our and the Magyar people can boast in their history".

Context here





ENGELS DESPISED THE RUSSIANS

Engels. "Democratic Pan-Slavism" (NRZ February 16. 1849), Collected Works, Vol. 8 p 378. ". . . hatred of Russia was and still is the primary revolutionary passion among Germans; that since the revolution, hatred of Czechs and Croats has been added, and that only by the most determined use of terror against these Slav peoples can we, jointly with the Poles and Magyars, safeguard the revolution."

(No Marxist seems to have put this online. I can't imagine why!)




ENGELS: RACE A DETERMINING FACTOR IN HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT

Engels: (Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 502.): "We regard economic conditions as the factor which ultimately determines historical development. But race is itself an economic factor".

Context here

German reference: "Brief an W. Borgius" 25.1.1894. MEW, Bd. 39, S. 205. Not apparently online.



ENGELS: NATIVE BLACKS DUMBER THAN AN EIGHT-YEAR-OLD

Engels. "Notes to Anti-Duehring": "On the other hand, modern natural science has extended the principle of the origin of all thought content from experience in a way that breaks down its old metaphysical limitation and formulation. By recognising the inheritance of acquired characters, it extends the subject of experience from the individual to the genus; the single individual that must have experienced is no longer necessary, its individual experience can be replaced to a certain extent by the results of the experiences of a number of its ancestors. If, for instance, among us the mathematical axioms seem self-evident to every eight-year-old child, and in no need of proof from experience, this is solely the result of "accumulated inheritance." It would be difficult to teach them by a proof to a bushman or Australian negro".

Context here






ENGELS SAW RUSSIANS AS DUMB

Engels, The Armies of Europe: "But up to the present time, the Russians of all classes are too fundamentally barbarous to find any enjoyment in scientific or intellectual pursuits of any kind (except intrigues), and, therefore, almost all their distinguished men in the military service are either foreigners, or, what nearly amounts to the same, "ostzewski," Germans from the Baltic provinces. So was the last and most distinguished specimen of this class, General Todtleben, the chief engineer at Sebastopol, who died in July from the effects of a wound. He was certainly the cleverest man at his trade in the whole siege, either in the Russian or the Allied camp; but he was a Baltic German, of Prussian extraction.

Context here


Some of the German

Engels, ,Die Armeen Europas", Putnam's Monthly, No. XXXIII, September 1855

"Aber bis zum heutigen Tage sind die Russen aller Klassen viel zu barbarisch, um an wissenschaftlicher oder geistiger Taetigkeit irgendwelcher Art (ausser Intrigen) Gefallen zu finden (...)"

MEW a.a.O. 11, 452.




ENGELS PARANOID ABOUT THE SLAVS

Engels, "Germany and Pan-Slavism", 1855: "The Slavic race, long divided by inner struggles, pushed back to the east by the Germans, subjugated in part by Germans, Turks and Hungarians, silently re-uniting its branches after 1815 by the gradual growth of Pan-Slavism, it now makes sure of its unity for the first time, and with that declares war to-the-death on the Roman-Celtic and German races, who have ruled Europe until now."

Listed, but with no translation here


The German

Engels, "Deutschland und der Panslawismus", 1855

"Die slawische Race, lang geteilt durch innere Zwiste, nach dem Osten zurueckgetrieben durch die Deutschen, unterjocht, zum Teil von Deutschen, Tuerken und Ungarn, still ihre Zweige wiedervereinend, nach 1815, durch das allmaehliche Wachstum des Panslawismus, sie versichert nun zum ersten Mal ihre Einheit und erklaert damit Krieg auf den Tod den roemisch-keltischen und deutschen Racen, die bisher in Europa geherrscht haben."

MEW a.a.O. 11, 198,f.



ENGELS DID NOT LIKE NON-GERMANS MUCH

Engels: "This miserable debris of former nations, Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and other thieving rabble, whom the liberal Philistine raves about in the interest of the Russians, deny each other the very air they are breathing, and have to slit each others' greedy throats."

The German

Engels: "Diese elenden Truemmerstuecke ehemaliger Nationen, Serben, Bulgaren, Griechen und andres Raeubergesindel, fuer die der liberale Philister im Interessen der Russen schwaermt, goennen also einander die Luft nicht, die sie einatmen, und muessen sich untereinander die gierigen Haelse abschneiden."

MEW a.a.O. 36, 390.

Source (German only)



MORE ANTISEMITIC ABUSE OF LASALLE

Engels to Marx: "The Lasalle manoeuvres have amused me greatly, the frizzy Jew-head now has to very charmingly distinguish himself in the red nightshirt and Marquis garb -- from which at every movement the Polish kike looks out. Seeing it must give the impression of louse-like repulsiveness."

(No other English translation available online)


The German

Engels an Marx, 14.April 1856

"Die Lassalliaden haben mich sehr erheitert, der krause Juddekopp mu  sich ueber dem roten Schlafrock und in der Marquisen-Draperie, wo bei jeder Bewegung der polnische Schmuhl durchguckt, sehr reizend ausnehmen. Gesehen, mu  der Kerl einen hoechst lausig-widerwaertigen Eindruck machen."

MEW a.a.O. 29, 43.

Source



POLISH JEWS PARTICULARLY DESPISED

Engels: "We discovered that in connection with these figures the German national simpletons and money-grubbers of the Frankfurt parliamentary swamp always counted as Germans the Polish Jews as well, although this dirtiest of all races, neither by its jargon nor by its descent, but at most only through its lust for profit, could have any relation of kinship with Frankfurt".

Context here


The German

Engels, NRZ 29. Apr. 1849

,... da  die deutschen Nationalgimpel und Geldmacher des Frankfurter Sumpfparlaments bei diesen Zaehlungen immer noch die polnischen Juden zu Deutschen gerechnet, obwohl diese schmutzigste aller Rassen weder in ihrem Jargon, noch ihrer Abstammung nach, sondern hoechstens durch ihre Profitwuetigkeit mit Frankfurt im Verwandtschaftsverhaeltnis stehen kann (...)"

MEW a.a.O. 6, 448 f.



FINAL COMMENT

Although I am no fan of Engels, I might say that to me Engels seems a much more human and likable figure than Marx. Engels had enthusiasms. Marx had only hatreds -- he hated even the workers whose cause he claimed to espouse. Even the kindly Heinrich Marx -- Karl's father -- thought Karl was not much of a human being.

The letter from Heinrich to Karl below was written when Karl was still only 19. Heinrich seems to have been a decent and generous guy. It must have pained him greatly to see how his son turned out.

Letter from Heinrich Marx to son Karl, written in Trier, March 2, 1837: "It is remarkable that I, who am by nature a lazy writer, become quite inexhaustible when I have to write to you. I will not and cannot conceal my weakness for you. At times my heart delights in thinking of you and your future. And yet at times I cannot rid myself of ideas which arouse in me sad forebodings and fear when I am struck as if by lightning by the thought: is your heart in accord with your head, your talents? Has it room for the earthly but gentler sentiments which in this vale of sorrow are so essentially consoling for a man of feeling? And since that heart is obviously animated and governed by a demon not granted to all men, is that demon heavenly or Faustian? Will you ever -- and that is not the least painful doubt of my heart -- will you ever be capable of truly human, domestic happiness? Will -- and this doubt has no less tortured me recently since I have come to love a certain person [Jenny von Westfalen] like my own child -- will you ever be capable of imparting happiness to those immediately around you?

What has evoked this train of ideas in me, you will ask ? Often before, anxious thoughts of this kind have come into my mind, but I easily chased them away, for I always felt the need to surround you with all the love and care of which my heart is capable, and I always like to forget. But I note a striking phenomenon in Jenny. She, who is so wholly devoted to you with her childlike, pure disposition, betrays at times, involuntarily and against her will, a kind of fear, a fear laden with foreboding, which does not escape me, which I do not know how to explain, and all trace of which she tried to erase from my heart, as soon as I pointed it out to her. What does that mean, what can it be? I cannot explain it to myself, but unfortunately my experience does not allow me to be easily led astray.

Context here


FINIS

DETAILED REFERENCE CITATIONS FOR PAPERS ON LEFTISM AND RIGHTISM WRITTEN BY JOHN RAY

**************************************************************************************

REFERENCES

Adorno,T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N. (1950) The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.

Altemeyer, R. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University Manitoba Press.

Altemeyer, R. (1988) Enemies of freedom: Understanding Right-wing authoritarianism. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Amis, M. (2002) Koba the Dread : laughter and the twenty million. N.Y.: Talk Miramax.

Appleyard, A. (2002) D'oh. Weekend Australian Magazine. April 20. pp. 20-23.

Bates, S. (2001) Homer's odyssey takes Simpsons into the theological textbooks. The Guardian Oct. 3.

Blanchard, W.H. (1984) Karl Marx and the Jewish question. Political Psychology 5, 365- 374.

Bobbio, N. (1996) Left and Right: The Significance of a Political Distinction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Bosworth, R.J.B. (2002) Mussolini. Oxford: University Press.

Brahm, H. (1982) Die Sowjetunion -- eine konservative Gesellschaft? Osteuropa 32(7), 531-544.

Brand, C. (1996) The g Factor. Chichester: Wiley.

Brewer, M.B. & Collins, B.E. (1981) Scientific enquiry and the social sciences. San Fran.: Jossey Bass

Brown, R., Condor, S., Matthews, A., Wade G. & Williams, J. (1986) Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 59, 273-286

Brown, R. (1986) Social psychology. (2nd. Ed.) N.Y.: Free Press

Buck, P.W. (1975) How Conservatives think. Harmondsworth: Mddx.: Penguin.

Budge, I., Robertson, D. & Hearl, D. (1987) Ideology, strategy and party change. Cambridge: University Press.

Bullock, A. (1964) Hitler: A study in tyranny N.Y.: Harper

Burke, E. (1790) Reflections on the revolution in France. Any edition.

Burke, E. (1907) Thoughts and details on scarcity. In: The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Volume VI. London: Oxford University Press.

Carsten, F.L. (1967) The rise of Fascism. London: Methuen.

Clausewitz, C. von (1976) On war. Princeton, N.J.: University Press

Cook, T.E. (1998) Governing With the News: The News Media As a Political Institution. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press.

Cooke, A. (2002) Am I my brother's keeper? Letter from America. BBC Radio, U.K. 29 July, 10:34 GMT.

Dalrymple, T. (2002) The British Left goes antisemitic. City Journal. Vol. 12 (3), 23rd, July.

De Corte, T.L. (1978) Menace of Undesirables: The Eugenics Movement During the Progressive Era. University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Duckitt, J. (1993) Further validation of a subtle racism scale in South Africa. South African J. Psychology 23, 116-119.

Dupuy, T.N. (1986) Mythos or verity? The quantified judgment model and German combat effectiveness. Military Affairs 50(4), 204-210.

Eaves, L.J., Martin, N.G., Meyer, J.M. & Corey, L.A. (1999) Biological and cultural inheritance of stature and attitudes. In: Cloninger, C.R., Personality and psychopathology. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press.

Eisenman, R. & Sirgo, H.S. (1993) Racial attitudes and voting behavior in the 1988 national elections: Liberals versus conservatives. Journal of the Psychonomic Society 31, 268-270

Eysenck, H.J. (1954) The psychology of politics. London: Routledge

Feiling, K. (1953) Principles of conservatism. Political Quarterly, 24, 129-133.

Fonte, J. (2002) The ideological war within the West. American Diplomacy. June 10.

Funk & Wagnall's New Encyclopedia (1983) Funk & Wagnall's

Gaertner, S.L. (1973) Helping behavior and racial discrimination among Liberals and Conservatives. J. Personality & Social Psychology 25, 335-341.

Galbraith, J.K. (1969) The affluent society. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Geras, N. (1983) Marx and Human Nature: Refutation of a Legend. London: Verso

Gilmour, I.H.J.L. (1978) Inside right. London: Quartet.

Gough, H. & Bradley, P. (1993) Personal attributes of people described by others as intolerant. In P.M. Sniderman, P.E. Tetlock & E.G. Carmines (Eds.) Prejudice, politics and the American dilemma (pp. 60-85) Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Greene, N. (1968) Fascism: An anthology. N.Y.: Crowell.

Gregor, A.J. (1979) Italian Fascism and developmental dictatorship Princeton, N.J.: Univ. Press.

Haffner, S. (2002) Defying Hitler: A memoir. N.Y.: Farrar, Straus & Giroux

Hagan, J. (1966) Modern History and its themes. Croydon, Victoria, Australia: Longmans.

Hayek, F.A. (1944) The road to serfdom. London: Routledge

Hayek, F.A. (1960) The Constitution of Liberty. Chicago: The University Chicago Press

Hechter, M. (1986) Rational choice theory and the study of race and ethnic relations. Ch. 12 in J. Rex & D. Mason (Eds.) Theories of race and ethnic relations. Cambridge: U.P.

Henningham, J.P. (1998) "Ideological differences between Australian journalists and their public". Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 3 (1): 92-101.

Henningham, J.P. (1996) "Australian journalists' professional and ethical values". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73: 206-218

Henningham, J.P. (1995) "Political journalists' political and professional values". Australian Journal of Political Science, 30 (2), 321-334

Herzer, I. (1989) The Italian refuge: Rescue of Jews during the holocaust. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press

Hibbert, C. (1962) Benito Mussolini Geneva: Heron Books.

Horowitz, D. (1998) Up from multiculturalism. Heterodoxy, January.

Horowitz, D. (1999) Calibrating the culture wars. Salon. May 24th. (See also here).

Horowitz, D. (2002) Harvard U: No Republicans or Conservatives and (Few) White Christians Need Apply. FrontPageMagazine.com, September 5

Hospers, J. (1967) An introduction to philosophical analysis. (2nd. ed.) London: Routledge

Hughes, D.J. (1986) Abuses of German military history. Military Review, 66(12), 67-76.

Irwin, M. (1960) That Great Lucifer: A portrait of Sir Walter Ralegh. Bungay, Suffolk: Reprint Society.

Johnson, P. (1988) Intellectuals. London: Weidenfeld

Kerlinger, F. N. (1967). Social attitudes and their criterial referents: A structural theory. Psychological Review, 74, 110-122.

Koomen, W. (1974) A note on the authoritarian German family. J. Marriage & Family 36, 634-636.

Kramer, H. (1999) The Twilight of the Intellectuals: Politics and Culture in the Era of the Cold War. N.Y.: Ivan R. Dee.

Krauthammer, C. (2002) No-Respect Politics. Washington Post July 26, Page A33.

Lake, I.E., Eaves, L.J., Maes, H.H.M., Heath, A.C. & Martin, N.G. (2000) Further evidence against the environmental transmission of individual differences in neuroticism from a collaborative study of 45,850 twins and relatives on two continents. Behavior Genetics. 30 (3), 223-233.

La Piere, R. (1934) Attitudes and actions. Social Forces 13, 230-237

Lenin, V.I. (1952) "Left-Wing" Communism, an Infantile Disorder. In: Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House.

Levi-Straus, C. (1983) Le Regard Eloigne. Paris: Plon.

Levite, A. (1998) Guilt, Blame, and Politics. San Francisco: Stanyan Press. (Review here).

Lipset, S.M. (1959) Democracy and working class authoritarianism. American Sociological Review, 24, 482-502.

Locke, R. (2001) Rethinking History: Were the Nazis Really nationalists? FrontPageMagazine.com. August 28.

Lomborg, B. (2001) The skeptical environmentalist. Cambridge: University Press.

McFarland, S.G, Ageyev, V.S., Abalakina-Paap, M.A. (1992) Authoritarianism in the Former Soviet Union. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 1004-1010

Macfarlane, A. (1978) The origins of English individualism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Macfarlane, A. (2000) The riddle of the modern world. N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan. (Review here).

Martin, N. & Jardine, R. (1986) Eysenck's contribution to behaviour genetics. In: S & C. Modgil (Eds.) Hans Eysenck: Consensus and controversy. Lewes, E. Sussex: Falmer

Martino, A. (1998) The modern mask of socialism. 15th John Bonython lecture, Centre for Independent Studies, Sydney.

Marx, K. (1844) On the Jewish question. In most editions of Marx's works.

McKenzie, R. & Silver, A. (1968) Angels in Marble. London: Heinemann

Mercer, G.W. & Cairns, E. (1981) Conservatism and its relationship to general and specific ethnocentrism in Northern Ireland. British J. Social Psychology 20, 13-16.

Mihalyi, L.J. (1984/85) Ethnocentrism vs. nationalism: Origin and fundamental aspects of a major problem for the future. Humboldt J. Social Relations. 12(1), 95-113.

Mill, J.S. (1859) On Liberty. Many editions.

Muravchik, J. (2002) Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism San Francisco: Encounter Books. (Review here).

Norton, P. & Aughey, A. (1981) Conservatives and conservatism. London: Temple Smith

O'Sullivan, N. (1983) Fascism. London: Dent.

Oakeshott, M. (1975) On Human Conduct. Oxford: Clarendon Press

Park, R.E. (1950) Race and culture. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press.

Pickens, D. (1968) Eugenics and the Progressives. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press

Pinsky, M. (2001) The Gospel according to the Simpsons. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. (Review here).

Raden, D. (1989) Interrelationships between prejudice and other social attitudes in the General Social Survey. Sociological Focus, 22, 53-67.

Rand, A. (1957) Atlas Shrugged. N.Y.: Random House

Rand, A. (1977) Capitalism: The unknown ideal. N.Y.: New American Library

Ray, J.J. (1972a) Are all races equally intelligent? Or: When is knowledge knowledge? J. Human Relations 20, 71-75.

Ray, J.J.(1972b) Acceptance of aggression and Australian voting preference. Australian Quarterly 44, 64-70.

Ray, J.J. (1972c) The measurement of political deference: Some Australian data. British Journal of Political Science 2, 244-251.

Ray, J.J. (1973) Conservatism, authoritarianism and related variables: A review and an empirical study. Ch. 2 in: G.D. Wilson (Ed.) The psychology of conservatism London: Academic Press.

Ray, J.J. (1974) Conservatism as heresy Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co.

Ray, J.J. (1976) Do authoritarians hold authoritarian attitudes? Human Relations, 29, 307-325.

Ray, J.J. (1979) Does authoritarianism of personality go with conservatism? Australian Journal of Psychology 31, 9-14.

Ray, J.J. (1980) Orthogonality between liberalism and conservatism.Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 215-218.

Ray, J.J. (1981a) Conservatism and misanthropy. Political Psychology 3(1/2), 158-172.

Ray, J.J. (1981b) The politics of achievement motivation. J. Social Psychology, 115, 137-138.

Ray, J.J. (1982) Authoritarianism/libertarianism as the second dimension of social attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 117, 33-44.

Ray, J.J. (1983) Defective validity of the Machiavellianism scale. Journal of Social Psychology 119, 291-292.

Ray, J.J. (1984) Political radicals as sensation seekers. J. Social Psychology 122, 293-294.

Ray, J.J. (1984). Half of all racists are Left-wing. Political Psychology, 5, 227-236.

Ray, J.J. (1985) What old people believe: Age, sex and conservatism. Political Psychology 6, 525-528.

Ray, J.J. (1985b) Defective validity in the Altemeyer authoritarianism scale. Journal of Social Psychology 125, 271-272.


Ray, J.J. (1987) Special review of "Right-wing authoritarianism" by R.A. Altemeyer. Personality & Individual Differences 8, 771-772.

Ray, J.J. (1988) Why the F scale predicts racism: A critical review. Political Psychology 9(4), 671-679.

Ray, J.J. (1988) IQ gain as an outcome of improved obstetric practice. The Psychologist 1, 498.


Ray, J.J. (1989) The scientific study of ideology is too often more ideological than scientific. Personality & Individual Differences, 10, 331-336.

Ray, J.J. (1990) The old-fashioned personality. Human Relations, 43, 997-1015.

Ray, J.J. & Furnham, A. (1984) Authoritarianism, conservatism and racism. Ethnic & Racial Studies 7, 406-412.

Ray, J.J. & Kiefl, W. (1984) Authoritarianism and achievement motivation in contemporary West Germany. Journal of Social Psychology, 122, 3-19.

Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1986). The generality of racial prejudice. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 563-564.

Ray, J.J. & Najman, J.M. (1987) Neoconservatism, mental health and attitude to death. Personality & Individual Differences, 8, 277-279.

Redding, R.E. (2001). Sociopolitical diversity in psychology: The case for pluralism. American Psychologist, 56, 205-215. (Summary here).

Richmond, M. (1998) Margaret Sanger's eugenics.

Ridley, M. (2002) The Borking of Bjorn Lomborg. The American Spectator, 35 (2), 52-53. . See also here (PDF).

Roberts, D. (1958) Tory paternalism and social reform in Early Victorian England. The American Historical Review, 63, 323-337.

Rokeach, M. (1960) The open and closed mind. N.Y.: Basic Books.

Schoeck, H. (1969) Envy: A theory of social behaviour. London: Martin Secker & Warburg

Shirer, W.L. (1964) The rise and fall of the Third Reich London: Pan

Singer, E.A. & Wooton, L.M. (1976) The triumph and failure of Albert Speer's administrative genius: Implications for current management theory and practice. Journal of Applied Behavioral Research, 12, 79-103.

Smith, A. (1776) The Wealth of Nations. Many editions.

Smith, D.M. (1967) The theory and practice of Fascism. In: Greene, N. Fascism: An anthology N.Y.: Crowell.

Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A. & Kuklinski, J.H. (1984) Policy reasoning and political values: The problem of racial equality. American J. Political Science 28, 75-94.

Sommers, C.H. (2002) For more balance on campuses. Christian Science Monitor. May 6th.

Standish, J.F. (1990) Whither conservatism? Contemporary Review 256, 299-301.

Steinberg, J. (1990) All or nothing: The Axis and the holocaust London: Routledge.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1947). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 4. The gifted child grows up. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Todd, E. (1985) The explanation of ideology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner, J.C. (1978) Social categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. In: H. Tajfel (Ed.) Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. European Monographs in Social Psychology, No. 14. London: Academic.

Unger, A.L. (1965) Party and state in Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Political Quarterly, 36, 441-459

Van den Berghe, P.L. (1981) The ethnic phenomenon. N.Y.: Elsevier

Volkan, V.D. (1985) The need to have enemies and allies: A developmental approach. Political Psychology 6, 219-247.

Volkan, V. (1988) The need to have enemies and allies: From clinical practice to international relationships. Dunmore, Pa.: Jason Aronson.

Warby, M. (2002) The labelling game. Policy, 18(1), 35-38.

Weigel, R.H. & Howes, P.W. (1985). Conceptions of racial prejudice: Symbolic racism reconsidered. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 117-138.

Weil, F.D. (1985) The variable effects of education on liberal attitudes: A comparative-historical analysis of Anti-Semitism using public opinion survey data. American Sociological Review 50, 458-474.

Williams, R.J. & Wright, C.R. (1955) Opinion organization in a heterogeneous adult population. J. Abnormal & Social Psychology 51, 559-564.

Wilson, G. (1978) The psychology of conservatism: Comment on Stacey New Zealand Psychologist 7, 21.



FINIS

The article below was written for the academic journals in 1987 but was not accepted for publication


DO WE STEREOTYPE STEREOTYPING? STEREOTYPING AND RACISM





John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)

University of N.S.W., Australia

Abstract

Ethnocentrism theory suggests that anti-outgroup prejudice is a product of ingroup favoritism and that the view of outgroups will be monolithic -- i.e. only their "in-out" status will matter. The literature on stereotyping, however, shows that attitudes to outgroups are highly complex and differentiated -- particularly among prejudiced people -- and it also shows that attitude towards the ingroup is a poor predictor of attitude towards outgroups. Both major postulated aspects of ethnocentrism theory are thus undermined. It is further shown that there is considerable evidence for the view that stereotyping is adaptive and that stereotypes can have considerable truth value. Stereotyping is seen as a strategy of successive approximations towards valuable generalizations in an environment of restricted information. Stereotyping does not cause racism.

Introduction

Race and racism have been and continue to be major factors in the politics of many nations. Gaining an understanding of racism is therefore one of the major tasks confronting political psychology. A notion that seems to figure prominently in most explanations of racism is the notion of stereotyping. It certainly seems to occur in almost all elementary psychology and social psychology textbook accounts of racism. It will be submitted here, however, that even a desultory reading of the social cognition literature pushes us towards the view that stereotyping neither causes racism nor has any useful role in its explanation.

A hard-to-dislodge theory about hard-to-dislodge theories

The history of the concept of stereotyping has often been reviewed by others (e.g. Bond, 1986; Driedger & Clifton, 1984) so will be treated summarily here. Suffice it to say that, as Weber & Crocker (1983) point out, the old Lippman view of stereotypes as being mythical, rigidly held and highly resistant to change still seems to be widely believed among psychologists. More careful writers (e.g. Allport, 1954) admit that stereotypes may often have a "kernel of truth" and one does also sometimes find the point made that there can be positive (laudatory) as well as negative (pejorative) stereotypes but these seem generally to be mere riders to the basic concept. The basic concept, then, is that stereotypes are hard-to-dislodge theories. Since the evidence that they are not is abundant and goes back a long way it is something of a paradox that this concept itself is so hard to dislodge.

Stereotyping and ethnocentrism theory

For a start, let us look at how stereotyping concepts interact with ethnocentrism theory as enunciated by Sumner (1906) and as elaborated by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson & Sanford (1950). This theory predicts that people who place a high value on their own group will tend to scorn outgroups. In apparent confirmation of this, some writers appear to find that people with high (favorable) autostereotypes have low (unfavourable) heterostereotypes (e.g. Driedger & Clifton, 1984). Further, both ethnocentrism and stereotyping are seen as seriously damaging oversimplifications. Stereotyping might even be seen as essential to ethnocentrism. We should therefore be able to expect that the research findings on stereotyping confirm ethnocentrism theory. Stereotypes of outgroups should be found to be highly monolithic and undifferentiated. If all that matters about a group is its in-out status, the attitudes held towards various outgroups should be highly correlated. Further, autostereotypes should be strongly negatively correlated with heterostereotypes (i.e. positive sentiment towards the ingroup should strongly predict negative sentiment towards outgroups). What do we in fact find?

Outgroup sentiment a mirror of ingroup sentiment?

The study by Driedger & Clifton (1984) has already been mentioned. It is a large study wherein many comparisons between autostereotypes and heterostereotypes are possible. The authors draw fairly conventional conclusions from their findings but a look at what they actually found is instructive. From their Table III we find that the correlation between autostereotype and heterostereotype is in only one case out of 24 above .2 and is in general below .1. Thinking well of your own group, in other words, has virtually nothing to do with thinking ill of other groups. Similar conclusions can even be found in the group dynamics literature (on the occasions where the research is set up so that the question can be examined). For example: "Not only is ingroup favoritism in the laboratory situation not related to outgroup dislike, it also does not seem causally dependant on denigration of the outgroup" (Turner, 1978, p. 249). See also Brewer & Collins (1981, p. 350) and Brown, Condor, Matthews, Wade & Williams (1986). Public opinion polls using standard attitude scales also support this conclusion (e.g. Ray & Furnham, 1984; Heaven, Rajab & Ray, 1985 and Ray & Lovejoy, 1986). This is clearly an inauspicious start for ethnocentrism theory. Attitude to outgroups can be shown from many sources and research modalities not to be a mirror of attitude to the ingroup. There is, furthermore, a substantial body of thought which sees pro-ingroup sentiment as something like self-esteem --i.e. a positive influence and a basis for a healthy, adaptive and positive view of the world. It is hard to think well of outgroups if you do not think well of your own group. This view is most strongly put by sociobiological writers (e.g. Mihalyi, 1984/85) but is not confined to them. See Cairns (1982), Furnham & Kirris (1983) and Elwert (1982). This is all a very far cry from the simplistic conceptualizations of Sumner (1906) and Adorno et al (1950).

Truth in Stereotyping

We must not be surprised, therefore, when we find that other aspects of ethnocentrism theory come into question from stereotyping studies. The view that attitude to outgroups is monolithic also seems to be at variance with reality. Stereotyping studies in fact almost invariably find that responses to different ethnic groups are highly differentiated (e.g. Kippax & Brigden, 1967; Gallois, Callan & Parslow, 1982; Callan & Gallois, 1983; Houser, 1979). From outside the stereotyping literature see also Newman, Liss & Sherman (1983), Ray (1974) and Ray & Lovejoy (1986) -- where attitudes towards different outgroups are shown as only weakly correlated. In other words, what is believed of one ethnic group is not believed of others. Jews, for instance, are seen as different from blacks. It seems hard in retrospect to believe that anyone ever proposed otherwise but that appears to be the implication of classical ethnocentrism theory, at least as enunciated by Adorno et al (1950).

What is in fact found, then, is that people have highly consistent opinions about the characteristics of various ethnic groups but such opinions are not all the same -- e.g. Asians might be seen as "industrious" and blacks as "dirty". There also seems to be a not inconsiderable tendency for agreement between the in- and the out-group concerning the characteristics of the in-group. For instance, Callan & Gallois (1983) found that Anglo-Australians, Greek-Australians and Italian-Australians all showed a high level of agreement that Anglo-Australians were "sportsmanlike", "happy-go-lucky" and "pleasure-loving". As Triandis & Vassiliou (1967) have argued, this sort of occurrence tends to suggest considerable truth-value for the stereotypes concerned. See also Kippax & Brigden (1977), where Australian and American opinions about one-another and various other nationalities are shown to have a lot in common. Stereotyping research, in other words, gives a picture of attitudes to outgroups that is as complex as ethnocentrism theory would have us believe it to be simple. Where Adorno et al (1950) would have us believe that those with negative racial attitudes are very oversimplifying and undifferentiating in their attitudes, we find from authors such as Gallois, Callan & Parslow (1982) that people who discriminate on ethnic grounds do so in highly differentiated ways. The negative response (or even positive response) to a given ethnic group, has a lot to do with the different ways in which different groups are conceived. On matters of interest to him (i.e. racial and ethnic matters) the racially discriminatory person is cognitively complex rather than cognitively simple (See also Ray, 1972a). This is reminiscent of the finding that authoritarians are cognitively complex when matters of interest to them (i.e. matters concerning authority) are in question (Ray, 1972b).

Are positive stereotypes a good thing?

Perhaps the greatest element of complexity introduced to research on race-relations by stereotyping studies, however, is the role of positive stereotypes. One would think that a positive stereotype of a group would mean that all sorts of negative attitudes toward such a group would be minimal. This appears not to be so. Viljoen (1974) found that South African Blacks thought higher of English-speaking whites than they did of themselves yet those same blacks still liked their own group best in other ways. In particular, blacks preferred more social distance from the English-speaking whites than from other blacks. To put it plainly, the blacks thought that the English- speakers were admirable but still did not like the thought of their daughters marrying one. A positive stereotype went with greater rather than lesser social distance. Similarly, Miller (1985) found that older Australian schoolchildren (whites) who had large numbers of blacks (Australian Aborigines) in their classes resented black welfare programs most when they had positive stereotypes of blacks. Far from a positive stereotype of blacks implying that positive discrimination by the government in favour of blacks would be applauded, it meant that such interventions were resented. Conversely, the people who accepted affirmative action programs uncritically were those whites who thought very poorly of blacks (i.e. those whites who stereotyped blacks most unfavorably). It was "prejudiced" people who most accepted the need to help blacks overcome their handicaps!

The simple idea that positive stereotypes are good and negative stereotypes are bad is thus revealed as an oversimplification. After all, if you think that blacks are "pretty good", why should you think that they need help? Only if you think that blacks are "in a mess" would you think that the government should help them. Negative judgments of blacks can have positive results as far as black welfare is concerned.

This does tend to suggest that the characteristic American policy of stressing that blacks are basically equal to whites but still in need of special help from the government is in trouble. The two arms of policy may be pulling in opposed directions. It may be possible in the long run to gain public acceptance of only one of the policy arms -- not both at the same time. In other words, if you really wish to succeed in causing blacks to be perceived as basically equal to whites you may not be able to have affirmative action programs. Your insistence on the need for affirmative action programs, on the other hand, might tend to be seen as implying that you do not really at heart accept black equality. People do sometimes seem to have the habit of behaving in ways that do not suit theorists.

What goes on in stereotyping?

Since much of what has been found out via stereotyping research appears to be inconsistent with what many of us always thought we knew about racism, it surely behooves us at this point to take a closer look at the processes of stereotyping generally. What really does go on in stereotyping? Are stereotypes really as writers such as Simpson & Yinger (1965) suppose, rigid and exaggerated inventions that preclude recognition of individual variation? Or are they more benign and even useful?

At least as long ago as Schutz (1932) the benign functions of stereotypes have been stressed. Schutz pointed out that people seek to typify each other in social interactions in order to simplify their role-taking efforts. If you can categorize people, you have to make less effort in order to interact constructively with them. You do not have to "feel your way" so much. Among more recent writers, Berry (1970) is one of many who concede that stereotypes can indeed have a useful role. He found that stereotypes are an aid in accurately knowing what the key (i.e. different) traits of various groups are. He found, in short, that they are useful truths. They fulfil the function of enabling us to deal with difficult and ambiguous data. Oversimplifications can, in other words, have their place.

This can also be seen in the work of Eisenberg (1968). Eisenberg studied the fact that people will give descriptions of non-existent groups such as "Yurasians" and "Lagesi". Eisenberg found that these supposedly "nonsense" names were not nonsense at all and that they reminded respondents of various real outgroups ("Yurasians" = Eurasians?). Respondents in fact most of all seem to have concluded that the names were names of various primitive tribes. What this highlights is the subtlety of the cues that human beings use in dealing with their world. It is a great human strength that we can make great use of even the tiniest amounts of information. We use every aid we can to reduce the uncertainty in our world and hence to enhance our control over it. To put it plainly, people will stereotype at the drop of a hat (Read, 1983). In fact, Hamill, Wilson & Nisbett (1980) found that people will generalize from a single instance even when they are specifically told in advance that the instance concerned is an a-typical one.

Doing so, however, does not mean that some rigid mental structure has been adopted. Quite to the contrary, stereotypes are approximations. They are continually modified as information comes in and may be abandoned entirely as the situation to be dealt with becomes more highly specified. Thus Locksley and her colleagues (See Locksley, Hepburn & Ortiz, 1982) have done a series of studies which show that when a target person is being evaluated by Ss, the provision of case information about that individual target person will substantially reduce the role of stereotypes in the evaluation made of the target person by the Ss. Similarly, Galper & Weiss (1975) found that stereotyping was not used where the situation was more fully specified and Braithwaite, Gibson & Holman (1985-86) found that stereotyping diminishes as the experimental situation becomes more realistic. Further Forgas (1983) showed that information consistent with cultural stereotypes is more readily processed than information not so consistent.

The overall picture, then, is clearly one of stereotypes being useful and accurate up to a point. Beyond the point where better information than what is contained in the stereotype becomes available, however, the stereotype is steadily abandoned as a guide to action. Where stereotypes persist, however, are those situations where specific information will seldom be adequate or available soon enough. For instance, when confronted by an unfamiliar black, a white does not conclude that he has no information to guide him in the interaction. He instead uses his stereotypes (generalizations from past experience, both personal and vicarious) to guide his initial responses. If continued interaction shows those generalizations not to apply to the given black, the behaviour ceases to be guided by the generalizations concerned.

Thus a white who encounters a large black coming towards him on a dark street late at night will not normally approach the encounter with an empty mind. He may have a stereotype (founded in some reality) that blacks are often muggers and accordingly keep a very wary eye on the approaching black. If, however, the black simply says "Nice day" when he passes, the stereotype will no longer have any role in the interaction and some pleasantry in reply may be uttered. Racial antagonism does exist but blaming it on stereotyping is not at all justified. Stereotyping is simply what we all resort to when we have inadequate information to go on. Since most of us probably structure our world to reduce uncertainty and unpredictability wherever reasonably possible, such situations are probably rare for most of us in most of our lives and stereotyping should therefore have a minimal role for most of us for most of the time. Other studies which support this general view of the typical stereotyping process are not hard to find but perhaps special mention should be given to papers by Stein, Hardyck & Smith (1965), McCauley, Stitt & Segal (1980) and Bond (1986).

Perhaps the earliest research study supporting a view of stereotyping similar to that advocated in the present paper was by Bayton, McAlister & Hamer (1956). These authors described a person to students simply as "black" and got the usual stereotypes back: "dirty", "lazy" etc. They then modified the description to "educated black" and instantly got greatly changed responses. The educated black was in fact described in terms very similar to an educated white. So we see that, far from being rigidly held beliefs that stand in the way of recognition of individual variation, stereotypes are in fact supremely flexible and responsive to new information.

Stereotypes, generalizations and categorization

It may have been observed that the above discussion of stereotypes has attempted no distinction between stereotypes and valid generalizations. Valid generalizations must surely exist. The general view has seemed to be that stereotypes are invalid generalizations so how can we know on any given occasion what sort of generalization we are dealing with? The reason this problem was not raised earlier is that it seems generally to be slighted in the literature. The word "stereotype" seems on many past occasions to have been used as a synonym for any generalization about any group. The implication is that all generalizations in such fields are dangerous. This is, however, a thoroughly unscientific orientation. What is psychology if it is not an attempt to make generalizations about classes of human behaviour? To reject the possibility of generalization or categorization is to reject the possibility of science (and even of language).

As it happens, however, this confusion over what is or is not a valid generalization is rendered unimportant by the account of stereotyping given so far in this paper. It has been seen that it not a question of "either or". Rather, stereotyping is a process of successive approximation towards accurate judgments. The stereotype may start out containing very little in the way of accurate information but as knowledge of and experience with the particular class of person accumulates, the information will become progressively more accurate. Even an accurate generalization, however, can surely only ever be a preliminary guide to any interaction with a particular person so one would hope that use of the stereotype would soon fade away as the interaction progresses and as information about the specific person accumulates. The evidence indicates that this is exactly what happens (Locksley et al, 1982; Galper & Weiss, 1975; Braithwaite et al, 1985- 86; McCauley et al, 1980; Stein, Hardyck & Smith, 1965). Stereotypes are temporarily useful tools, not mental straitjackets.

Studies which show stereotypes as rigid

In case it should seem that an impossibly rosy picture of stereotyping has been presented so far, it should be acknowledged that stereotypes are not mindlessly fluid. There are a variety of studies (e.g. Pettigrew, 1979; Johnson & Judd, 1983; Darley & Gross, 1983) which show that new information is not always flawlessly integrated into new generalizations. Pettigrew, for example, speaks of the "attribution error" whereby a white man might see good behaviour by a black man as an exception to the rule while the same behavior by a white man would be seen as confirming the rule. Pettigrew attributes such cognitions to the inherent rigidity of stereotypes.

This is, however, unfair. Perfect generalizations are rare in any situation. There always seem to be at least some exceptions. This does not mean that we must abandon generalizations. We would have to abandon science if we did. What we do, therefore, is treat exceptions to any rule carefully. We do not immediately abandon or revise the rule but instead wait until several or maybe many exceptions build up. If blacks are generally seen by whites as lazy, one diligent black man will not disturb that stereotype. "One swallow does not make a summer". If, however, lots of diligent black men are encountered, cognitive change will eventuate (Weber & Crocker, 1983). Writers such as Pettigrew simply fail to consider adequately how many exceptions (to a rule) will be tolerated.

Stereotyping is not the cause of racism

We are now in a position to say, then, that the old mention of stereotyping in our psychology textbooks as one of the causes of racism is quite incautious. Stereotyping may be involved as a step in the formation of racially antagonistic attitudes but it is involved as a step in the formation of all attitudes. To say that stereotyping causes negative racial attitudes is to confuse the cause with the process. It is not only those who dislike other races who are stereotypers. We are all stereotypers.

Interesting support for this conclusion is to be found in a recent paper by Devine (1989). Devine showed that "tolerant" people do not differ in their awareness of stereotypes from non-tolerant people but that the tolerant people deliberately suppress their use of stereotypes. Tolerance has to be learned and deliberately practiced.

Perhaps one final paper that should be mentioned is that by Smith, Griffith, Griffith & Steger (1980). These authors studied stereotypes of Germans held by American students who had been living in Germany for some time. They found that the students had stereotypes that were realistic and positive and concluded that stereotyping is of little use in explaining racial and ethnic antagonisms.

Given the lack of usefulness that stereotyping may now be seen as having in explaining racial attitudes, it is reasonable to ask what the alternatives are. How do we explain racial attitudes? It must be conceded that all the theories that have been advanced so far do have serious problems (Record, 1983; Studlar, 1979; Ray, 1984). Perhaps the most hopeful line of enquiry for psychologists, however, may be those theories and findings which portray racial preferences as just another instance of a more general human tendency to prefer the familiar and thus to prefer people who are similar to themselves (Rokeach, 1960; Stein, Hardyck & Smith, 1965; Levine & Campbell, 1972; Liebowitz & Lombardo, 1980; Taylor & Guimond, 1978; Byrne, Clore & Smeaton, 1986; Marin & Salazar, 1985; Ray, 1983).

The present paper has of course been only one in a long line of studies that have moved towards revision of our notion of stereotyping. It is, however, perhaps the most radical of the theory papers in that it finally urges the complete irrelevance of stereotyping to any understanding of racial conflict. This is a decisive break with the past but one that may be long overdue. An example of the tenacity with which the old views are clung to is the paper cited earlier by Driedger & Clifton (1984). These authors interpreted correlations averaging around .1 as support for the notion that dislike of outgroups is the mirror of liking for the ingroup! With friends like that, the older theories hardly need enemies!

What the textbooks say

In the presence of so much evidence against the traditional view of how stereotypes work, someone might wonder whether this paper has any point at all. Is it not simply rehashing what has gone before? It is. Unfortunately, however, such "rehashing" seem needed. Let us in closing look at what some of the elementary textbooks are telling our students about stereotyping.

What we find is that the large band of people who write introductory psychology and social psychology textbooks seem generally not yet to have integrated well the findings discussed in the present paper. They seem generally to be like Pettigrew (1979) in seizing on any small sign of resistance to change in beliefs as an indication that stereotypes are hopelessly rigid. They tend to have "stereotyped" (in their sense, i.e. rigid) views of stereotyping. Two of the worst offenders write as follows: "In-group/out-group biases lead us to conclude that we are better than they are. Our stereotypes reinforce these biases, stand resolute against disconfirmation, and function as self-fulfilling prophecies" (Forsyth, 1987, p. 233); and "Stereotypes are a major mechanism in sustaining prejudice. Once people agree on prejudicial labels, such labelling becomes resistant to change" (Gergen & Gergen, 1986, p. 146).

While obsolete views are being purveyed to our students, therefore, there will surely be a continuing need for papers such as the present one.



REFERENCES

Adorno,T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. & Sanford, R.N. (1950) The authoritarian personality. N.Y.: Harper.

Allport, G.W. (1954)The nature of prejudice. Cambridge: Addison Wesley

Bayton, J.A., McAlister, L.B. & Hamer, J. (1956) Race-class stereotypes. J. Negro Education 25, 75-78.

Berry, J.W.(1970) A functional approach to the relationship between stereotypes and familiarity. Australian J. Psychol. 22, 29-33.

Bond, M.H. (1986) Mutual stereotypes and the facilitation of interaction across cultural lines.International J. Intercultural Relations 10, 259-276.

Braithwaite, V., Gibson, D. & Holman, J. (1985/86) Age stereotyping: Are we oversimplifying the phenomenon? Internat. J. Aging & Human Development 22, 315-325.

Brewer, M.B. & Collins, B.E. (1981) Scientific enquiry and the social sciences San Fran.: Jossey Bass.

Byrne, D., Clore, G.L. & Smeaton, G. (1986) The attraction hypothesis: Do similar attitudes affect anything? J. Personality & Social Psychology 51, 1167-1170.

Cairns, E. (1982) Intergroup conflict in Northern Ireland. Ch. 10 in: H. Tajfel (Ed.) Social identity and intergroup relations Cambridge, U.K.: U.P.

Callan, V.J. & Gallois, C. (1983) Ethnic stereotypes: Australian and Southern European youth. J. Social Psychol. 119, 287-288.

Crocker, J. & Schwartz, I. (1985) Prejudice and ingroup favoritism in a minimal intergroup situation: Effects of self-esteem. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 11, 379-386.

Darley, J.M. & Gross, P.H. (1983) A hypothesis-confirming bias in labelling effects. J. Personality & Social Psychology 44, 20-33.

Devine, P.G. (1989) Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. J. Personality & Social Psychology 56, 5-18.

Driedger, L. & Clifton, R.A. (1984) Ethnic stereotypes: Images of ethnocentrism, reciprocity or dissimilarity? Canadian Rev. of Sociology & Anthropology 21, 287-301.

Eisenberg, S. (1968) Ethnocentrism and the face of the stranger. J. Social Psychol. 76, 243-247.

Elwert, G. (1982) Probleme der Auslaenderintegration. Gesellschaftliche Integration durch Binnenintegration? Koelner Zeitschrift fuer Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 34, 717-731.

Forgas, J.P. (1983) The effects of prototypicality and cultural salience on perceptions of people. J. Res. Personality 17, 153-173.

Forsyth, D.R. (1987) Social psychology Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole.

Furnham, A. & Kirris, R. (1983) Self-image disparity, ethnic identity and sex-role stereotypes in British and Cypriot adolescents. J. Adolescence 6, 275-292.

Gallois, C., Callan, V.J. & Parslow, L.A. (1982) Evaluations of four ethnic groups: Level of ethnocentrism, favourability, and social distance. Australian J. Psychol. 34, 369-374.

Galper, R.E. & Weiss, E. (1975) Attribution of behavioural intentions to obese and normal-weight stimulus persons. European J. Social Psychology 5, 425-440.

Gergen, K.J. & Gergen, M.M. (1986) Social psychology N.Y.: Springer

Hamill, R., Wilson, T.D. & Nisbett, R.E. (1980) Insensitivity to sample bias: Generalizing from a-typical cases. J. Personality & Social Psychology 39, 578-589.

Heaven, P.C.L., Rajab, D. & Ray, J.J. (1985) Patriotism, racism and the disutility of the ethnocentrism concept. J. Social Psychol. 125, 181-185.

Houser, B.B.(1979) Content and generality of young white children's ethnic attitudes. J. Social Psychol. 109, 69-77.

Johnson, J.T. & Judd, C.M. (1983) Overlooking the incongruent: Categorization biases in the identification of political statements. J. Personality & Social Psychology 45, 978-996.

Kippax, S. & Brigden, D. (1977) Australian stereotyping -- a comparison. Australian J. Psychol. 29, 89-96.

LeVine, R. & Campbell, D.T. (1972) Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, attitudes and group behavior N.Y.: Wiley.

Liebowitz, S.J. & Lombardo, J.P. (1980) Effects of race, belief, and level of prejudice on responses to black and white strangers. J. Social Psychol. 110, 293-294.

Locksley, A., Hepburn, C & Ortiz, V. (1982) On the effects of social stereotypes on judgments of individuals: A comment on Grant & Holmes's "The integration of implicit personality theory schemas and stereotypic images". Social Psychology Quarterly 45, 270-273

Marin, G. & Salazar, J.M. (1985) Determinants of hetero- and autostereotypes: Distance, level of contact and socioeconomic development in seven nations. J. Cross-cultural Psychol. 16, 403-422.

McCauley, C., Stitt, C.L. & Segal, M. (1980) Stereotyping: From prejudice to prediction. Psychological Bulletin 87, 195-208.

Mihalyi, L.J. (1984/85) Ethnocentrism vs. nationalism: Origin and fundamental aspects of a major problem for the future. Humboldt J. Social Relations 12(1), 95-113.

Miller, B. (1985) Resource competition, authoritarianism and contact as determinants of attitudes to Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. Dissertation for the Diploma of Sociology, James Cook University of N. Queensland, Townsville, Australia.

Newman, M.A., Liss, M.B. & Sherman, F. (1983) Ethnic awareness in children: Not a unitary concept. J. Genetic Psychol. 143, 103-112.

Pettigrew, T.F. (1979) The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport's cognitive analysis of prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 5, 461-476.

Ray, J.J. (1972a) Is antisemitism a cognitive simplification? Some observations on Australian Neo-Nazis. Jewish J. Sociology 15, 207-213.

Ray, J.J. (1972b) Non-ethnocentric authoritarianism. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology 8(June), 96-102.

Ray, J.J. (1974) Conservatism as heresy Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co.

Ray, J.J. (1983) Racial attitudes and the contact hypothesis. Journal of Social Psychology 119, 3-10.

Ray, J.J. (1984). Half of all racists are Left-wing. Political Psychology, 5, 227-236.

Ray, J.J. & Furnham, A. (1984) Authoritarianism, conservatism and racism. Ethnic & Racial Studies 7, 406-412.

Ray, J.J. & Lovejoy, F.H. (1986). The generality of racial prejudice. Journal of Social Psychology, 126, 563-564.

Read, S.J. (1983) Once is enough: Causal reasoning from a single instance. J. Personality & Social Psychol. 45, 323-334.

Record, W. (1983) Race and ethnic relations: The conflict continues. Sociological Quarterly 24, 137-149.

Rokeach, M. (1960) The open and closed mind N.Y.: Basic Books. Schutz, A. (1932) The phenomenology of the social world Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern Univ. Press.

Simpson, G. & Yinger, J. (1965) Racial and cultural minorities: An analysis of prejudice and discrimination N.Y.: Harper.

Smith, R.J., Griffith, J.E., Griffith, H.K. & Steger, M.J. (1980) When is a stereotype a stereotype? Psychological Reports 46, 643-651.

Stein, D.D., Hardyck, J.A. & Smith, M.B. (1965) Race and belief: An open and shut case. J. Personality & Social Psychol. 1, 281-294.

Studlar, D.T. (1977) Social context and attitudes towards coloured immigrants. British J. Sociology 28, 168-184.

Sumner, W.G. (1906) Folkways N.Y.: Ginn. Taylor, D.M. & Guimond, S. (1978) The belief theory of prejudice in an intergroup context. J. Social Psychol. 105, 11-25.

Triandis, H.C. & Vassiliou, V. (1967) Frequency of contact and stereotyping. J. Pers. Social Psychol. 7, 316-328.

Turner, J.C. (1978) Social categorization and social discrimination in the minimal group paradigm. In: H. Tajfel (Ed.) Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations European Monographs in Social Psychology, No. 14. London: Academic.

Viljoen, H.G. (1974) Relationship between stereotypes and social distance. J. Social Psychol. 92, 313-314.

Weber, R. & Crocker, J. (1983) Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. J. Personality & Social Psychology 45, 961-977.

FINIS