The Australian Quarterly, Volume 44, No. 1, March, 1972, pp. 64-70.

Also reprinted as Chapter 54 in: J.J. Ray (Ed.) "Conservatism as Heresy". Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co., 1974

(With two post-publication addenda following the original article)

ACCEPTANCE OF AGGRESSION AND AUSTRALIAN VOTING PREFERENCE



By J. J. Ray

Political preference is partly determined by one's attitude to aggression. This influence on political choice is quite separate from the influence of social class. This deterministic view of political preference has some potential to make us more tolerant of different political preferences in others.

Abstract

The explanation of conservative ideology in terms of "authoritarianism" having fallen into disrepute, other psychological variables need to be sought to explain voting preferences. The belief that people are naturally aggressive and untrustworthy may help to explain much conservative ideology if it can be shown to underlie other conservative beliefs and if it does spring from childhood experience. On a door-to-door sample taken in Sydney, Australia, it was found that belief in man's innate aggressiveness did predict other forms of conservatism. This supported the view that childhood experience leading the person to believe that interpersonal aggression was inevitable in man generalized to the belief that international aggression was also inevitable unless carefully guarded against -- hence the "tough" foreign policy and military preparedness favoured by conservatives. It is concluded that the wariness of the conservative and the trust of the radical were both justifiable in terms of the individual's own experience and were hence relatively impermeable to dissuasion.

Introduction

In the social sciences today, the two most popular explanations for political orientation appear to be either in terms of social-class membership or in terms of psychodynamic processes such as "authoritarianism" (Adorno et al, 1950). In Australian terms, this would mean either that the Liberal-Country party voter is a middle-to-upper class person or that he is a person of "pre-Fascist" personality. There are also combinations of the two lines of thought such as the work on "working-class authoritarianism" by Lipset (1960) and the work on "alienation" (Seeman, 1959; Olsen, 1969). Few would dispute that both social and psychological variables must enter into the explanation of voting behaviour. The focus in this paper is on psychological determinants -- but without any assertion of their necessary primacy being entailed.

The search for psychological determinants has been made doubly urgent because of the relative failure by many writers to confirm the findings of Adorno et al (1950). These authors had asserted that right-wing party preference was an outcome of various forms of psychological maladjustment stemming from early childhood and, in the first chapter of their book they identified extreme right-wing ideology as a "disease" (sic) which had to be "cured" (sic) by hook or by crook. In contradiction to this account Masling (1954) found no association between the Adorno 'F' scale (an attitude test designed to measure "pre-Fascist" ideology or "authoritarianism") and neuroticism while Schoenberger (1968) found no association between conservatism and psychopathology. Elms (1970) found that even right-wing extremists did not show an abnormally high incidence of mental and personality disturbance while Ray (1971 (a) ) found that, in a general population sample, there was a significant tendency for authoritarians to be better adjusted than normal. Therefore we may conclude by agreeing with Eysenck (1954) that a simplistic account of one side being more psychologically disturbed than the other will not do. When this possibility is eliminated we are left with only a few suggestions about the psychological bases of political preference. Even the alienation variable has been shown to be heavily laden with neuroticism (Hughes, 1968; Ray & Sutton, 1971).

The suggestion made here is that a person's early experience of interpersonal aggression is crucial in developing those beliefs and expectations that later give rise to differences of opinions in politics. Acceptance of aggression is most certainly not proposed as the only relevant psychological determinant, but it is suggested as a major determinant (cf. Worchel, 1967; Graham, 1970).

Aggression-acceptant attitudes do figure in McClosky's (1958) excellent historical summary of the important elements in conservatism. Part one of his summary of what the conservative believes may be quoted:

"Man is a creature of appetite and will, governed more by emotion than by reason' (Kirk) in whom wickedness, unreason and the urge to violence lurk always behind the curtain of civilized behaviour (Rossiter). He is a fallen creature, doomed to imperfection, and inclined to license and anarchy."

In other words it is felt that the Conservative is characterized by a belief that aggressiveness is innate in man and accordingly accepts this as inevitable. This fits in fairly well with the alignments of present day Australian political parties. If the conservative believes aggression is always lurking beneath the surface just awaiting the opportunity to burst through, he is going to favour political policies that guard against contingencies of international aggression. He will, in short, favour military preparedness and "forward defence". All these things are of course precisely what Australia's conservative parties do preach at election time. "Forward defence" is in fact the Liberal-Country Party term for the policy under which Australian troops were committed to Vietnam.

Taking the converse of the above, radicals would believe man is naturally social and moral -- aggression being primarily the learned result of an unfortunate upbringing. They do not in short see aggression as an action-specific energy (cf. Tinbergen, 1951) which will burst through if it is not repressed. They are more likely to see it as a coping response to attack. In other words they would believe that, in international policy, "If we don't attack them, they won't attack us". This in turn seems to be a fair summary of Australian Labor Party electoral exegesis. Parallels in U.S. politics are readily drawn.

The hypothesis here, then, is that beliefs about probability of interpersonal aggression are related to beliefs about the danger of international aggression. If this relationship is established we can then go on to argue that perhaps there are differences in child rearing practices which give rise to opposing views of man and it is to these that we may trace later political orientation. In particular, it might be argued that the physically restrained middle class who punish primarily by way of love-deprivation might produce children who expect as a matter of course that aggression will always be subject to such restraint. Working-class children, an the other hand, would probably see more reasonable and unreasonable physical aggression both directed towards them and directed towards others in the environment. That is, a "rougher" early environment might lead to more wary and hence more conservative children.

One reservation that must be made in the above account however is that middle-class children might see more covert, non-physical or delayed-reaction type aggression. If this is so, it is at least possible that the middle-class child is led to an even more disturbing view of man's innate aggression than is the lower-class child. The lower-class child might at least see more clearly the correlation between the provocation and the aggressive response. Aggression might seem more predictable and hence less anxiety-provoking and "irrational". Thus theorizing does not lead to any clear preference for either of the contradictory findings by Lipset (1960) and Hamilton (1968). Lipset says that the working-classes are more authoritarian and conservative while Hamilton says that the upper classes are more aggression-oriented and conservative in international policy.

In this paper no attempt will be made to test out directly the two alternative child development hypotheses given above. Instead the two preliminary steps will be taken of finding out whether acceptance of aggression does exist as such (i.e., as a general attribute) and, if it does exist, is it related to political party preference and social class. Only after these three things are shown to be so. does it become worthwhile to test out the further developmental theories.

Some Empirical Research

As a preliminary study, a pool of fifty-two attitude statements was written to tap the concept under consideration. These were administered to a sample composed of three groups, (1) forty management students at North Sydney Technical College, (2) thirty-eight school teachers, (3) fifty process workers from a local factory. The resulting data was pooled for the purposes of item-analysis and test construction.

The statements were organized to form a psychological test by the conventional method of scoring answers to each item as follows: "Strongly agree" - 5; "Agree" - 4; "Not sure" - 3; "Disagree" - 2; Strongly disagree' - 1. Items expressing disapproval of aggression were scored in reverse, i.e., from 1 (for "Strongly agree") to 5 (for "Strongly disagree"). Scores on the individual items were then added to produce a total score. In order to reduce the length of the test, items showing low correlations with the total score were eliminated. With 39 items the reliability (Cronbach's (1951) coefficient "alpha") was .81. This meant that the items did indeed form a successful and homogeneous attitude scale. One problem with this scale however, was that, of the 39 items only 18 were "anti" (negative) items. It is in general desirable to maintain an equal balance between positive and negative items (Brown, 1965, pp. 510-514). In the scale prepared for the second study below therefore, five new untested negative items were added and one positive item was reversed.

The main study to be reported here was a project aimed at testing out Lipset's (1960) hypothesis that the working classes are more authoritarian than the middle and upper classes. The opportunity was taken to include the new scale in the questionnaire for this project. The sampling was on a door-to-door basis and was designed to suit the requirements for a test of Lipset's (1960) hypothesis. These requirements were taken to be two random samples--one of working-class people and one of upper-to-middle class people. The approximation to this objective in fact adopted was to sample clearly upper-class and clearly lower-class Sydney metropolitan areas. This was done with the aid of Congalton's (1969) prestige ranking of Sydney suburbs. When a suburb had been selected, blocks in these suburbs were selected from the map with a pin and blindfold. An attempt was then made to contact one person from each household in the block. For the purposes of the present report data from both types of area was pooled. There were 118 subjects (persons) all told.

The 44 item scale was then re-analysed by the same methods as before (item-to-total correlations ) to produce the balanced 30 item form shown below. The reliability coefficient (an index of internal consistency) was .79. Only the final form of the scale was of course used in computing the correlations with other variables given below.

The success of the scale (particularly in its inclusion of items 12 and 30) does give support for the view that beliefs about the probability of interpersonal aggression generalize into the area of opinions on international politics.

Aggression Acceptance Attitude Statements

(The final Acceptance of Aggression (ACAG) scale "alpha" = .79. The correlation between positive and negative halves is - .418. Items marked 'R' are "reversed" in scoring, i.e., they are anti acceptance of aggression.)

1. Beneath the polite and smiling surface of man's nature is a bottomless pit of evil.
2. (R) Human nature is fundamentally co-operative.
3. (R) Most people can be trusted.
4. Human nature being what it is there will always be war and conflict.
5. Life is a jungle.
6. Man is a fighting animal.
7. "Dog eats dog" is a law of nature we have to accept.
8. "Survival of the fittest" is what determines who gets on in life.
9. (R) Everybody can control his temper if he really wants to.
10. I believe in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth".
11. If a man hits me I believe in hitting back.
12. Wars are a good thing because they help people work off the aggression inside them.
13. It's natural for men to be full of fight when they are young.
14. (R) To be kind and friendly towards others is the natural state of men.
15. (R) If we trust others they will generally prove worthy of our trust.
16. (R) Nobody is just born with a need to show himself stronger or superior.
17. With some people it is a waste of time being soft-the only argument they understand is force.
18. If you are always obliging to other people they don't respect you.
19. A fighter is always respected.
20. (R) Any sort of fighting is basically uncivilized.
21. (R) Aggressive people are not being natural -- they are psychologically sick.
22. (R) It is natural to be considerate towards others.
23. Civilization is only a thin veneer over man's basic animal nature.
24. (R) It is not natural for man to be destructive.
25. (R) Man is basically a builder-not a destroyer.
26. Children are naturally destructive.
27. (R) Fighting never solved anything.
28. (R) Fighting is never necessary.
29. (R) People who fight to settle an argument are just showing how stupid they really are.
30. (R) Nations don't need armies to protect themselves.

Voting preference in this study was scored as in Ray (1971 (a) ) , i.e., D.L.P. (5), L.C.P. (4), No. Pref. (3), A.L.P. (2), Communist (1). This ranks the parties on a single Right-Left continuum. The correlation between conservatism of voting and scores on the new scale was statistically significant at .277. This statistic ranges from - 1.00 for a perfect inverse association through 0.00 for no association to -1.00 for a perfect positive association. Social class was scored as in Ray 1971 (b) using the composite index obtained by adding scores on the "subjective index" (class self-placement) and of occupation (dichotomized into "manual" and "non-manual"). The correlation of this index with the new scale was .053 (statistically not significant) while years of education correlated .018 (also not significant). Also included in the battery was the political conservatism scale given in Ray (1971 (b)) . The correlation between this scale and the acceptance of aggression scale was .320. The class index correlated .485 with voting preference.

Discussion

The meaning of the correlation with conservatism of attitudes may be spelt out as: people who believe "Australia should withdraw its troops from Vietnam immediately" and "Conscription should be abolished" (items characteristic of the political conservatism scale) reject "Man is a fighting animal" and "It's natural for men to be full of fight when they are young" (items characteristic of the acceptance of aggression scale). They accept "If we trust others they will generally prove worthy of our trust". We have thus same preliminary support for the idea that the issues of international politics which are nowadays so destructively divisive in Western society do turn largely on simple differences in the upbringing experiences of the people on each side. In a sense both the aggression-acceptant and aggression-denying groups are right. One has grounds for believing man is naturally aggressive while experience of the other leads him to believe that man is naturally restrained. Unless these basic premises can be altered there is no hope of agreement between the people on opposing sides. Perhaps it is at the level of personal interaction that the above knowledge is most useful. It will surely help us to accept and retain a high opinion of others in different political camps if we know that each of us is arguing from a limited base of personal experience. The wariness of the one is as justifiable as the trust of the other. The present writer believes that this is certainly more "enlightened" (an acknowledged value judgment) than regarding our opponents as psychologically "sick".

It is well known that social class is a good voting predictor but acceptance of aggression has been shown here to be another good voting predictor which is itself independent of social class. This means that social class and acceptance of aggression each explain different aspects of voting. Therefore, whatever the factors are in child development which lead to high levels of acceptance for aggression, these factors are not to be sought in class-typical behaviour. Specifically, it would seem that early experience of interpersonal aggression is as extensive in one class as in another.

REFERENCES


{Articles below by J.J. Ray can generally be accessed simply by clicking on the name of the article. I am however also gradually putting online a lot of abstracts, extracts and summaries from older articles by other authors so if an article not highlighted below seems of particular interest, clicking here or here might just save you a trip to the library}

ADORNO, T. W.; FRENKEL-BRUNSWICK, ELSE; LEVINSON, D. J. & SANFORD, R. N., 1950. "The Authoritarian Personality", N.Y.: Harper.

BROWN, R., 1965. "Social Psychology", Glencoe, I 11: Free Press.

CONGALTON, A. A., 1969. "Status and Prestige in Australia". Melbourne: Cheshire.

CRONBACH, L. J., 1951. Co-efficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. "Psychometrika" 16: 297-334.

ELMS, A. C., 1970. Those little old ladies in tennis shoes are no nuttier than anyone else, it turns out. "Psychology Today". 3 (6), 27-59.

EYSENCK, H. J., 1954. "The psychology of politics". London: Routledge.

GRAHAM, H. D., 1970. The paradox of American violence: A historical appraisal. "Annals Amer. Acad. Polit. & Social Science". 391: 74-82.

HAMILTON, R. F., 1968. A research note on the mass support for tough military initiatives. "American Sociological Review". 33, 439-445.

HUGHES, A. H., 1968. "Problems and solutions in the measurement of psychological dispositions". Paper delivered at the Australian UNESCO seminar on mathematics in the social sciences.

LIPSET, S. M., 1960. "Political man". N.Y.: Doubleday.

MASLING, M., 1954. How neurotic is the authoritarian? "J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol." 49, 316-318.

McCLOSKY, H., 1958. Conservatism and personality. "Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev.", 52, 27-45.

OLSEN, M. E., 1969. Two categories of political alienation. "Social Forces", 47, 288-299.

RAY, J.J. (1971a) An "Attitude to Authority" scale. Australian Psychologist, 6, 31-50.

RAY, J.J. (1971b) The questionnaire measurement of social class. Australian & New Zealand J. Sociology 7(April), 58-64.

RAY, J.J. & SUTTON, A.J. (1972) Alienation in an Australian University. Journal of Social Psychology, 86, 319-320.

SCHOENBERGER, R. A., 1968. Conservatism, personality and political extremism. "Am. Pol. Sci. Rev.", 62, 868-877.

SEEMAN, M., 1959. On the meaning of alienation. "Am. Sociolog. Rev.", 24, 783-791.

TINBERGEN, N., 1951. "The study of instinct". Oxford: Clarendon Press.

WORCHEL, P. 1967. Social ideology and reactions to international events. "Journal of Conflict Resolution, 11 (4): 414-430.

POST-PUBLICATION ADDENDA

1. The above was written early on in my research career and I did at that time follow the orthodox custom in psychology of taking low but statistically-significant correlations seriously. My evaluation these days would be to point out that the correlation of .277 between vote and acceptance of aggression indicates that many Leftist voters share a conservative (cynical) view of human nature. The traditional view of conservative thinking is therefore upheld but a conservative view of human nature is surprisingly widespread. A follow-up study on the conservative view of human nature (Ray, 1981) arrived at similar conclusions -- which see.

2. I would also NOT now assume that differences in beliefs are the outcome of childhood experience. There has subsequently become available strong evidence that many political attitudes are genetically inherited. There is now good evidence from the twin studies by Nick Martin and others confirming that. Martin's work is mainly published in highly technical academic journals rather than being available online but one early summary that IS available online is particularly fascinating. Martin found that your politics in your youth are mainly the product of the social influences around you (family, school and college indoctrination, for instance) but as you get older your genetically inherited political tendencies come to the fore.

Martin's most striking finding, however, is his 1999 finding (reference below) showing that conservatism/Leftism is even more hereditary that how tall you are.

His 1986 article showed that heredity is a particularly strong influence (around 50% of the variance) in women. Presumably because women tend to take less interest in the details of politics, their political reactions are much more likely to be purely instinctive.

References

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

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.

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

Chapter 55 from: J.J. Ray (Ed.) "Conservatism as Heresy". Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co., 1974


Note: This paper was originally written for publication in an anthropology academic journal so the examples of Tsivitca vocabulary given were recorded in the international phonetic alphabet. To make the paper accessible to a wider audience, however, the vocabulary has been recorded below in an approximation that uses normal English spelling rules


The Tsivitca



By: RUTH GRUHN

A brief examination of the Tsivitca cult reveals in its world-view such features as a messianic origin, a concept of the universe as unidimensional in space and time, an apocalyptic view of the future, an unchallengeable belief in the existence of absolute truth, a preoccupation with evil and sin, and social values stressing conformity in life-styles as well as in religious ritual and belief. A major Tsivitca ritual is analysed. Further research is suggested.

IN THE BEST TRADITION of studies of the Nacirema, I offer the following analysis of a regional variant of the Tsivitca Movement. This new religious cult is now widely distributed in the Western world, but I shall concentrate in this brief preliminary analysis on the world-view of the movement as it is manifest in northern North America, where I have had actual field experience for several years.

Tsivitca religion is a complex system of interrelated beliefs and practices which completely dominates the thoughts and behaviour of its dedicated followers. Basic to the understanding of the Tsivitca Movement is an analysis of the world-view. This fundamental philosophy is implicit in the observed behaviour of followers of the cult and in the mythology presented in its current literature.

It must be emphasised at the outset of this analysis that one of the most significant characteristics of the Tsivitca world-view is that it is exclusive and absolute. The Tsivitca hold their world-view as unquestionably absolute truth, and will admit no other. Indeed, it seems to be difficult for some Tsivitca to conceive that other peoples might hold a different world-view. The Tsivitca believe they and they alone possess the revealed truth, the single explanation and the single solution to all problems. This firm conviction of self-righteousness is readily observable in any public discussion of a particular subject, in which Tsivitca assert and affirm their own interpretation as the only possible. Expression of opinions contrary to the Tsivitca world-view is considered blasphemy which must be suppressed; and Tsivitca commonly react to criticism of specific aspects of their world-view by simply ignoring it as unreal ("ireluvunt"), or else by intensive vilification of its source as evil. Tsivitca devoutly hold on faith that the world is as they describe; and other views (cateororically termed "fashist") are evil.

Detailed information on the historical sources of the doctrine preached by the Tsivitca has already been made available by many students of the movement. The writings of a German scholar initiated the movement in the late nineteenth century, and significant basic refinements of the doctrine and associated practices were made by an inspired Russian saint in the early twentieth century. The sacred writings of these two early messianic prophets are still considered the tenets of the faith, and the primary reference for all philosophy and behaviour. Especially devout members of the Tsivitca Movement currently refer constantly to a little red breviary composed by a Chinese living Buddha. A comparative study suggests that virtually all of the basic doctrine of the Tsivitca Movement is derived from these sources; no original doctrine has evolved locally in northern North America.

The primary goal of life, according to the Tsivitca view, is to bring about the destruction of present society. This apocalyptic event, considered the only potential form of significant change in the universe, is called "thu revulushun". It is conceived as some sort of violent uprising against evil powers which Tsivitca believe dominate the world. The stress is on immediate action -- "Do it!" is a current slogan. At present in northern North America, however, only one small group of Tsivitca, localised in an eastern province, has taken any kind of physical action toward this primary goal; and even this very indirectly. The vast majority of Tsivitca (who can be called Armchair Tsivitca) in practice devote their efforts to membership recruitment through intensive proselytisation campaigns.

Despite overt claims to universality, the Tsivitca world is in close analysis unidimensional in time and space. Tsivitca are essentially present-time oriented. Modern history, with its description of transpired events which appear to throw doubt upon the doctrine of the movement or the character of the hereafter, is quite deliberately ignored. The end of the present world ("thu revulooshun") is future-indefinite. The hereafter seems to be very vaguely conceived indeed. When pressed, a Tsivitca will speak of it as some sort of classless, stateless economic paradise with no dominating evil powers; but a detailed description apparentlv cannot be provided.

The Tsivitca universe also has a narrow spatial range. Present socio-political conditions and foreign policy of two very large and densely populated countries of Eurasia are quite deliberately excluded from contemplation. Concrete specific knowledge of sociopolitical conditions in other areas outside northern North America is infrequent among Tsivitca, who, when queried, usually only assert that these areas are in any case suffering from domination by evil powers.

Indeed the most striking aspect of the world-view of the Tsivitca is an obsessive preoccupation with evil. Concern with evil beings of various categories, the evil deeds of these beings, and the struggle against evil permeate the literature of the movement. The Tsivitca universe is dominated by abstract evil powers; and populated by demons, ogres, and witches who are the agents of these evil powers.

It should be pointed out that the difference between good and evil in the Tsivitca world-view is absolute and arbitrary. For example, in the economic sphere, a "karparayshun" is a large complex impersonal organisation which is classified as evil; "thu steyt" is a larger, more complex impersonal organisation which is classified as good. A pro-white is "reysist" (evil); a pro-black is not. The coercion, force, or violence which is carried out by the Tsivitca is considered morally right and good; coercion, force, or violence by other groups is classified as evil.

The Tsivitca hold an encompassing belief that virtually all of the evil extant in the world emanates, directly or indirectly by very intricate ramifications, from a country which is located in the central part of North America. The precise source of the evil in this region was unascertainable: informants' references are consistently to evil powers which are very abstract in nature. Sometimes the evil power is referred to as "thu yewess garvinmin", "thu yewess militree industreeul karmpleks"; or even more generally; "thu yewess", or "thu amerikuns". Whatever its specific locus or origin, this dreadful and much-feared evil spreads throughout the world by a sort of contact-osmosis, a process called "impeereeulizm", which is readily identified by the Tsivitca in any place where any part of "amerikun" culture exists or has existed.

Other evil powers which are believed to exist locally are also abstract in nature, being referred to by the terms "establishmunt", "uthorutee" or "thu sistum". The Tsivitca see the populace as continually persecuted by demons, who serve as tangible omnipresent agents of these evil powers. Indeed a major theme is Tsivitca art is the depiction of policemen and soldiers as ogres.

Martyrdom is highly valued among the Tsivitca. Indeed, it is very actively sought; Tsivitca deliberately attempt to provoke attack by demons in an effort to demonstrate to the rest of the populace that evil demons and ogres do in fact exist. Tsivitca ritual in the courtroom, for example, is clearly directed towards this objective. A Tsivitca who suffers a fatal or severe attack by demons is canonised.

As a corollary to their great preoccupation with evil, the Tsivitca hold a strong concept of original sin. Certain contemporary social groups are held responsible for injustices of the past. On the basis of this concept, some Tsivitca of distinctive ethnic origin who are descendants of those who suffered injustice have demanded material reparations from descendants of those who inflicted the injustice. The concept of original sin is also implicit in proselytisation techniques applied to anthropologists and other social scientists through arguments that guilt accrued by complicity with evil powers in their kind of research can be expurgated only by wholehearted commitment to the world-view of the Tsivitca Movement.

Tsivitca congregations are typically organised in small groups in which social values stress rigid conformity to group norms in dialect, dress, and personal habits as well as in the religious ritual and belief. Solidarity among all the faithful is an overt ideal despite an increasing trend toward sectarianism due to varying interpretations of the doctrine.

The Tsivitca conceive themselves as a chosen people, the elect who are destined to direct the rest of the populace (termed "thu peepul"), or more formally, "thu massiz") in the overthrow of the evil powers which now dominate the world, and then to rule in the hereafter. Since a very high proportion of Tsivitca belong to the upper or middle classes and/or are intellectuals, this elitist role proclaimed by the Russian saint and the living Buddha is easily assumed; and indeed many Tsivitca attempt to project a heroic personality image. A curious contradiction appears, however, in attempts to obscure or even conceal this elitist position and identify with "thu peepul"; a very difficult feat since Tsivitca values are actually so different from those of "thu peepul". Often identification is simply asserted: the Tsivitca boldly claims to speak for the worker, the student, blacks, Indians, women, etc. The contradiction often becomes painfully apparent, however, when in a crisis situation a drastic action by Tsivitca finds no popular support and indeed often popular repudiation.

Tsivitca are therefore at present devoting a major effort to an intensive proselytisation campaign. In order to spread the gospel, a tremendous quantity of printed matter --leaflets, official student newspapers, 'underground' newspapers --has been produced and distributed to groups of "thu massiz" whose members are believed to be most easily converted (minority groups of selected ethnic origin; the young). With missionary zeal, leading Tsivitca preachers carry out vigorous speaking campaigns among these groups. In sermon after sermon, or article after article, and issue after issue of a given Tsivitca tract, the essentials of the Tsivitca world-view are passionately asserted, affirmed, and reaffirmed: evil powers do exist as they describe; evil powers do in reality dominate the lives of "thu peepul" completely by mysterious inexplicable mechanisms termed "rupreshun", upreshun", or "eksploytayshun"; and the one and only way to salvation is through support of Tsivitca organisations dedicated to bringing about "thu revulooshun" which will do away with evil powers forever.

Much of Tsivitea ritual is secret, but some features are readily apparent to the observer at a public ceremony commonly called a "teechin". This ceremony , designed to produce an effect of Tsivitca identification with "thu massiz", is staged periodically in a hall at a university, where large numbers of prospective converts may be induced to attend. A number of preliminary activities are designed to increase the participation of "thu massiz" in the ritual. The event is widely advertised by leaflets and posters distributed throughout the campus, and lead articles in the student newspaper intrepret the esoteric meaning of the ritual and the wonders it is to accomplish. The local Tsivitca organisation usually attempts to persuade the university administration to facilitate the ideal of a totalitarian participation of "thu massiz" by cancellation of classes because of the seriousness of the situation requiring the ceremony.

At the entrance to the ritual chamber, devotees of the living Buddha distribute printed literature extolling the Tsivitca worldview. Whatever the size of the audience, virtually all of the active participants in the ritual are Tsivitca. A Tsivitca leads the ritual from a central point on a stage before the seated audience. Several speakers, said to present different points of view although it all sounds the same, deliver formal orations denouncing the activities of evil powers. The oration is punctuated by loud exclamations from Tsivitca who may spring up from their seats scattered among the audience in a ritual posture with one fist clenched. As time passes and one orator succeeds another, the speeches and the accompanying exclamations may become more and more emotional in tone, often with liberal use of forbidden words in order to demonstrate hatred and defiance of evil powers. The Tsivitca orator considered most adept at arousing emotional reaction from the audience speaks at the last. Ritual formulae may be chanted. Then, in a climax of religious fervour, an orator or a selected Tsivitca in the audience may shout for an immediate physical demonstration, an additional "proetest" ritual such as a sit-in, a march, or best of all a riot which is sure to cause demons to materialise, in order to confront the evil powers with incantations, insulting words and gestures. According to most informants, such a ritual produces a tremendous spiritual experience. However, if the audience fails to show sufficient interest in ceremonial of this nature, there is resort to an alternative identification ritual in which a "kumittee" of Tsivitca is nominated by Tsivitca in the audience, forming an elite group which then carries out Tsivitca policies as sanctioned representatives of "thu peepul".

As a result of an intensive proselytisation campaign, the Tsivitca Movement has gained considerable strength in university communities in recent vears. The university, however, is the traditional locus of a potentially very dangerous element: "librulz". Until "librulz" can be converted, intimidated or otherwise exorcised, Tsivitca realise that they face interminable challenges to the absolute truth of their world-view. Many Tsivitca, recognising the danger, have now proclaimed "librulizm" a major evil, and view its practitioners as witches.

In this preliminary analysis I have touched only briefly upon the major aspects of the world-view of the Tsivitca Movement; a more detailed study will surely produce more insights. Many other aspects of the religion remain to be investigated in detail; such as, for example, the magic power of the esoteric vocabulary, with its many archaic words and euphemisms. There would also seem to be more to the origins and organisation of the movement in northern North America than meets the eye. Of greatest interest would be in-depth psychological studies which might reveal how rational individuals undergo personality transformation during conversion to such a movement.



(This chapter originally appeared as an article entitled "A preliminary analysis of the world-view of the Tsivitca movement in Northern North America" in the Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 1971, 8, 185-190.)

Postscript chapter from: J.J. Ray (Ed.) "Conservatism as Heresy". Sydney: A.N.Z. Book Co., 1974


Postscript - The 1974 Elections



By John Ray

The 1974 Australian elections had a number of general lessons for us that seem well worth pointing out. For the first time in Australian history a Labor government was re-elected. It was an election nominally fought on the issue of inflation but really fought, I will argue, on personalities. To a remarkable degree it was a re-run of the 1972 election-- particularly with respect to the outcome of modest ALP success in the lower house accompanied by failure to gain control in the Senate. It must be remembered that even a tied vote in the Senate is in legal effect a 'No' vote.

Socialism

A most revealing sham of the election was the agreement on both sides that the ALP was 'socialist'. To the ALP this was a boast while to the L-CP it was an accusation. In fact, as one or two commentators pointed out, the coalition parties were clearly the more socialist in what they proposed. 'Socialist' is of course one of those words more remarkable for its emotional associations than for its exactitude. Roughly, however, it always seems to have something to do with increased central government participation in the economy. Historically, this participation was supposed to take the form of 'nationalisation'-- central government takeover of some or all industries. Australia, of course, is blessed by a constitution which unwittingly makes nationalisation impossible. A successful High Court challenge to a previous Labor government's bank nationalisation legislation in the 1940s made this clear. The result has been that the realists of the ALP have forced the party to abandon this route to bureaucratic empire and forced them to concentrate instead on 'welfare' measures. To the ALP now, 'socialism' has come to mean little more than 'caring' --where the socially deprived are the ones cared for and the caring is expressed by government handouts in cash or in kind. This, however, is a very poor identification mark -- as all parties can, and do advocate various sorts of handouts to various disadvantaged groups.

On the other hand, the Whitlam government has done a great deal to promote the efficient functioning of the market economy. It is of course market forces that conservative economists champion as a means of economic regulation rather than the bureaucratic controls of classical socialism. The reduction of tariffs, the reliance on monetary policy, the revaluation and semi-floating of the Australian dollar, the elimination of rural subsidies and the attempt to strengthen legislation aimed against collusive trade practices must have the approval of conservative economists everywhere. In all these respects the Whitlam government took measures that our supposedly conservative previous government could have taken but in fact failed to take.

In fact, the L-CP coalition in the 1974 election campaign advocated the reversal of most of these measures. It advocated restoration of the old tariffs, subsidies and exchange rates. It was even so monumentally irresponsible as to advocate a deficit budget in a time of high inflation. By contrast, Whitlam advocated a balanced budget. Although a surplus budget was probably what was really called for. The ALP did at least come closest to it.

The L-CP, then, became the socialists-- advocates of handouts to selected recipients (mostly farmers) and interference in the natural market mechanisms for resource allocation. It was as irresponsible and as wild in its promises as as the ALP had been in 1972. In this respect the 1972 election was indeed re-run-but with the major parties in reversed roles.

Consensus

This reversal of roles is probably a symptom of the very slight differences that there are between the two parties. What determines their realism and economic responsibility is not any matter as mere as ideology but rather whether or not they are in power. This phenomenon has its pluses and its minuses. The minus is that whenever a change of government takes place, the party acceding to power will be committed to a whole host of expensive and unrealistic promises that the community ultimately has to pay for. The usual route to paying for these would appear to be the inflation of the currency. It happened that way immediately after Menzies' accession to power in 1949, after Whitlam's accession to power in 1972 and it most certainly would have happened (given the promises made) had Snedden acceded to power in 1974. The conclusion from this, then, is that the country secures considerable economic gains every time it does not change government. If the party in power is always more responsible, it might be argued that one should always vote for whatever party is in power.

The plus to be found in the phenomenon of similarity between the parties is that whoever gets into power, ninety-five per cent of the electorate will still be getting pretty much what they voted for. Consensus politics are one of the greatest achievements of the twentieth century and may represent the finest flowering of democracy so far. Contrary to the misrepresentations of disgruntled intellectuals, consensus politics do not represent a lack of choice being available to the electors. If Liberal voters had thought their party was drifting too far Left, they could perfectly well have voted for the DLP. They did not. If Labor voters had thought their party was drifting too far Right, they could have perfectly well have voted for a whole host of alternative Leftist parties -- from the Communist Party to the Australia Party. They had the choice but they did not take it. The fact that the two major parties won the allegiance of something like ninety-five per cent of the voters by advocating policies that were in most respects almost identical, is a powerful reflection of the homogeneity of sentiment and lack of conflict in Australian society. Burkean conservative ideals of community harmony were never so well realised as they are where consensus politics prevail. The countries which lack consensus politics --such as those of South America-- certainly suffer severely for it.

Apathy

In this contest one can also argue that political apathy is a good thing. Nobody in South America is apathetic. Apathy must often be a sign that things are being run pretty much as well as can reasonably be expected. If there is little difference between the major parties and no likelihood of other parties improving things, why worry about politics indeed? Apathy is then the symptom of a well-run and harmonious society.

Issues

What then were the issues that were put before our 'consensual' society in the 1974 election? The ostensible issue was certainly inflation. The fact that the ALP had been able to implement its 1972 promises only by dint of raiding the little man's savings was certainly an issue that a more charismatic figure than Mr Snedden might have used to discredit Labor completely. The fact is that Mr Snedden did indeed have a great deal going for him in his raising of the inflation issue. Not only was it something of great immediacy to almost every elector (everybody had been affected in some way by rising prices) but it was something that Mr Snedden himself had a proven record of controlling. In his last spell as treasurer, he had succeeded in reducing inflation from 6 per cent to 4.6 per cent. This was a marked contrast with the 13 per cent prevailing under Labor.

Now the average elector could hardly be expected to decide on the rightness of the varying arguments put up by economists and others about whether Mr Snedden's proposals would or would not be effective in reducing inflation. When the experts disagree, the average voter cannot be expected to take much notice of any of them. What he can be expected to do is look at the past record of those who are contending for his vote -- and this Mr Snedden did have on his side.

Clearly then, what was lacking was personal plausibility on Mr Snedden's part. He had the record but he still did not inspire confidence. So in the event I believe the election was once again decided on personalities rather than on policies. As someone put it, compared to the plausibility of Mr Whitlam, Snedden was merely 'McMahon with hair'. This tendency to vote on personalities is a trend that I welcome -- just as above I welcome political apathy. It too is symptomatic of the absence of any major policy cleavages. It is another of the stigmata of consensus politics.

In the event, the verdict of the voters was given for economic rationality. Mr Snedden's promises were certainly more inflationary than Labor's. In a fully employed economy, there is no way a government can reduce taxes and at the same time spend more unless it especially creates the extra money. The money has to come from somewhere, even if you have to print it. Printing extra money, however, only devalues that which is already in circulation. It doesn't magically create extra goods and services for that money to buy. If there is any need for proof of this, the result of the 1973/1974 Labor government's attempts to fulfil its 1972 promises should be evidence enough.

The Senate

To many observers, the fact that the ALP could gain control of the lower house (and hence the government) but not gain control of the Senate may seem strange and wrong. The Senate is a powerful house (with complete power of veto) and it too is elected on a universal franchise. How then the contradictory outcome?

The answer is that the Senate has regained part of that precise function which the writers of the Australian constitution intended it to have. It has gained some function as a States' house -- a house where the smaller States of the Commonwealth can keep watch on central government actions which might run contrary to what they see as their own best interests. The ALP lost control of the Senate in Queensland -- by failing to get there its normal share (fifty per cent) of the State Senate team. It suffered this loss for precisely the reason that the writers of our constitution foresaw -- the reason being that Queenslanders (who are chronically suspicious and resentful of 'Southerners') felt the Whitlam government was causing financial and material loss to Queensland by its policies. The writers of the constitution thought that a State's Senate team would have to vote en bloc in order effectively to oppose a disfavoured central government. In our days of party politics it has been shown that in fact a disfavoured central government can be hampered quite effectively if only six out of ten of the State's Senate team is in opposition. In becoming a house dominated by party-politics, the Senate has still not lost its intended function as a States' house.

Referenda

The loss of all four of the ALP's referendum proposals is something that conservatives can only applaud. All of them favoured the increased centralisation of power in Canberra that the ALP stands for. With talk of secession in our two largest States, any more moves in this direction would be foolish indeed. To New South Welshmen and Victorians the structure of sovereign State governments as well as the Federal government often seems absurd indeed. It is not so absurd to Queenslanders and West Australians. They can see some benefit in being governed from nearer to home. To weaken these federal arrangements would be not only going against the worldwide demand for decentralisation of power but would in plain fact endanger the structure of compromise upon which our constitution is built. I am amazed that West Australians do not secede. It would be so evidently in their own economic self interest not to share their mineral wealth with the rest of us that it can only be the great stresses and disruptions that secession would entail which deters them. In these circumstances, we certainly do not want to add fuel to the secessionist flames. Without Queensland and West Australia, we would be infinitely poorer materially and in every other way.

The actual reason for rejecting the referendum proposals, however, probably had little to do with considerations such as the above. It does seem that the Australian people just will not pass referendum proposals in any circumstances other than where widespread consensus prevails. The feeling evidently is that the implications of referendum proposals are hard to assess so to be on the safe side it is best to reject them. Thus any proposal that is the subject of disagreement between the parties will be rejected. It is not even enough that the opposition is confined to one of the minor parties. In the last referendum that was passed, the Commonwealth government was given power to legislate concerning Aborigines precisely because everybody was in favour of it. The second proposal in the same referendum, however, (the so-called 'nexus' proposal) was rejected -- even though the major opposition emanated from the DLP only.

I would argue that this state of affairs is precisely as it should be. The place for regulations that are subject of party political dispute is the statute book. The place for regulations that are the subject of general agreement is the constitution. Constitutional amendments are not a way to bypass the legislature -- as the Whitlam government seems to hope.

In conclusion, then, I believe that in 1974 the conservative thing to do, if you wished to vote at all, was to vote ALP. This is obviously far from an endorsement of all the ALP's policies. It is perhaps more importantly a condemnation of the sad state of our supposedly conservative opposition.

CONSOLIDATED LIST OF REFERENCES for "Conservatism as heresy" By John Ray



ADORNO, T. W., FRENKEL-BRUNSWIK, ELSE, LEVINSON, D. J. $L SANFORD, R. N. The Authoritarian Personality. N.Y.: Harper & Row, 1950.

ALPERT, R. & SARGENT, S. S. Conservatism-radicalism measured by immediate emotional reactions. J. Soc. Psych., 1941, 14, 181-186.

ANDERSON, D. S. & WESTERN, J. S. An inventory to measure Students' Attitudes. St. Lucia, Brisbane: University of Queensland Press, 1967.

ANDERSON, J. Studies in Empirical Philosophy. Sydney: Angus and Robertson, 1962.

BAGLEY, C. Racial prejudice and the conservative personality: A British sample. Polit. Stud., 1970, 18, 134-141.

BAGLEY, C., WILSON, G. D. & BOSHIER, R. W. The Conservatism scale: a factor structure comparison of English, Dutch and New Zealand samples. J. Soc. Psychol., 1970, 77, 139-140.

BASS, B. M. Development and Evaluation of a Scale for Measuring Social Acquiescence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 296-299.

BEDFORD, I. White Australia: The fear of others. Politics, 1970, 5, 224-227. BELL, W. Anomie, social isolation and the class structure. Sociometry, 1957, 20, 105-116.

BERKOWITZ, L. Sex and violence: we can't have it both ways. Psychology Today, 1971, 5, 7, 14-23.

BERKOWITZ, N. H. & WOLKON, G. H. A forced-choice form of the 'F' scale free of acquiescent response set. Sociometry, 1964, 27, 54-65.

BERTOCCI, P. A. Foundations of personalistic psychology. In B. B. Wolman & E. NageI (eds.) Scientific Psychology: N.Y.: Basic Books, 1965.

BESWICK, D. C. & HILLS, M. D. An Australian Ethnocentrism Scale. Aust. Journal Psychology, 1969, 21, 211-226.

BINDER, A. Statistical Theory, Annual Review Psychology, 1964, 15, 277-310.

BODDY, M. The Bulletin, 1971.

BONJEAN, C. M., HILL, R. J. & McLEMORE, S. D. "Continuities in measurement, 1959-1963." Social Forces, 1965, 43, 532-535.

BOSHIER, R. W. A study of the relationship between self-concept and conservatism. J. Soc. Psychol., 1969, 77, 139-140.

BOSHIER, R. W. To rotate or not to rotate: The question of the conservatism scale. Br. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol., 1972, 11, 313-323.

BRINE, R. Quoted in Time, 5 April 1971.

BROWN, R. Social psychology. N.Y.: Free Press, 1965.

BRUCE, M. Factors Affecting Intelligence Test Performance of Whites and Negroes in the Rural South. Archives of Psychology, No. 252, 1940.

BURKE, E. Reflections on the revolution in France, 1790. Any edition.

BUROS, O. K. The Sixth Mental Measurement Yearbook. New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1965.

BURT; C. Brain and consciousness. Br. j. Psychol., 1963, 59, 55-69.

CARR, L. G. The Srole items and acquiescence. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1971, 36, 287-293.

CHRISTENSON, L. In The Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, 1970.

CHRISTIE, R. Eysenck's treatment of the personality of Communists. Psych. Bull., 1956, 53, 411-438.

CHRISTIE, R. Some Abuses of Psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 53, 439-51.

CHRISTIE, R. & COOK, P. A guide to published literature relating to the authoritarian personality through 1956. Jnl. Psych., 1958, 45, 171-199.

CHRISTIE, R., HAVEL, JOAN & SEIDENBERG, B. Is the F scale Irreversible? J. Abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 1956, 56, 141-158.

CHRISTIE, R. & JAHODA, MARIE (Eds.), Studies in the scope and method of 'the authoritarian personality'. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1954.

CLARK, J. P. Measuring alienation within a social system. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1959, 24, 849-852.

CLOUD, J. & VAUGHAN, G. M. Using balanced scales to control acquiescence. Sociometry, 1969, 33, 193-202.

COHEN, S. Folk Devils and Moral Panics. St. Albans: Paladin, 1973.

CONGALTON, A. A. Status and prestige in Australia. Melbourne: Cheshire, 1967.

COUCH, A. & KENISTON, K. Yeasayers and naysayers: Agreeing response set as a personality variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 60, 15I-174.

COURT, J. H. In SHILTON, L. (ed.), No, No, Calcutta. Adelaide: Brolga, 1971.

COURT, J. H. Changing Community Standards. Adelaide: Lutheran Publishing House, 1972a.

COURT, J. H. The function of the Christian within the realm of the on-going power struggle. Lutheran Theological Journal, 1972 b, 6, 95-104.

COURT, J. H. Pornography-Personal and Societal Effects. Geigy Symposium paper in 'Liberation Movements and Psychiatry', U.N.S.W., 1973.

CRONBACH, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika, 1951, 16, 297-334.

CROWNE, D. P. & MARLOWE, D. The Approval Motive. New York: Wiley, 1964.

DALEY, E. T.V. Week, September 1970.

DAVIS, K. E., & BRAUGHT, G. N. Exposure to pornography, character and sexual deviance: a retrospective survey. Tech. Reports of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, 1970, 7, 173-244.

DEAN, D. Alienation: Its meaning and measurement. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1961, 26, 753-758.

DE ROUGEMONT, D. The Myths o f Love. Pantheon Books, 1963.

DEPARTMENT OF IMMIGRATION. Australia's Immigration policy: Government Printer, Canberra, 1970.

DURKHEIM, E. Suicide. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1951.

DWORKIN, G. 'Paternalism', in R. A. Wesserstrom (ed.), Morality and the Law, California: Wadsworth, 1971, 107-126.

ECKHARDT, W. Prejudice; Fear, hate or mythology? Journal of Human Relations, 1968, 16, 32-41.

ECKHARDT, M., MANNING, C., MORGAN, L., SUBOTNIK 8L TINKER, L. J. Militarism in our culture today. Journal of Human Relations, 1967, 15, 932-937.

ECKHARDT, W. & NEWCOMBE, A. G. Militarism, personality and other social attitudes. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1969, 13, 210-219.

EISENMAN, R. Teaching about the authoritarian personality: Effects on moral judgment. Psych. Record, 1970, 20, 33-40.

ELMS, A. C. Those little old ladies in tennis shoes are no nuttier than anybody else: it turns out. Psychology Today, 1970, 3, 27.

ENCEL, S. The study of militarism in Australia. A.N.Z. Jnl. Sociology, 1967, 3,2-18.

ERIKSON, K. T. Wayward Puritans: a study in the sociology o f deviance. N.Y.: Wiley, 1966.

EYSENCK, H. J. The psychology of politics. London: Routledge, 1954:

EYSENCK, H. J. A short questionnaire for the measurement of two dimensions of personality. Journal o f Applied Psychology, 1958, 42, 14-I7.

EYSENCK, H. J. The biological basis of personality. Springfield, III: Thomas, 1967.

EYSENCK, H. J. Social attitudes and social class. British J. Soc. Clin. Psychol., 1971,10,201-212.

EYSENCK, H. J. Psychology is about people. Allen Lane: The Penguin Press, 1972.

EYSENCK, H. J. & EYSENCK, S. B. G. Personality structure and measurement. London: Routledge, 1969.

EYSENCK, H. J. & RACHMAN, S. The causes and cures of neurosis. San Diego: Knapp, 1965.

FEILING, K. Principles of conservatism. Polit. Quarterly, 1953, 24, 129 ff.

FESHBACH, S. The drive-reducing function of fantasy behaviors. J. Abn. Soc. Psychol., 1955, 50, 1, 3-12.

FRENCH, ELIZABETH & ERNEST, R. R. The relation between authoritarianism and acceptance of military ideology. Journal Pers., 1955, 24, 181-191.

FROMM, E. Escape from freedom. N.Y.: Rinehart, 1941.

FROMM, E. Man for himself. N.Y. : Rinehart, 1947.

FROMM, E. The Sane Society. N.Y.: Rinehart, 1955.

GARRETT, H. E. Reply to Psychology Class 338 (Honours Section). American Psychologist, 1969, 24, 390-391.

GERBNER, G. Cultural Indicators: The case of violence in television drama. In MARLOWE, L. Basic topics in Social Psychology. Boston: Holbrook Press, 1972.

GOLDSTEIN, H. J., KANT, H. S., JUDD, L. L., RICE, C. J. & GREEN, R. Exposure to pornography and sexual behaviour in deviant and normal groups. Tech. Reports of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, 1970, 751-90.

GOOSSEN, C. V. The Goossen hidden intelligence test. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1950, 14, 759-766.

GORDON L. V. Gordon Personal Profile. New York: World Book Company 1953.

GRAHAM, H. D. The paradox of American violence: A historical appraisal. Annals Amer. Acad. Polit. & Social Science, 1970, 391, 74-82.

GREENWALD, H. J. & SATOW, Y. A. A short social desirability scale. Psych. Reports, 1970, 27, 131-135.

GUMMER, J. S. The Permissive Society. London: Cassell, 1971.

HAAG, E. VAN DEN. Addendum to Jensen. American Psychologist, 1969, 24, 1042.

HAIMAN, F. S. A revised scale for the measurement of open mindedness. Speech Monographs, 1964, 31, 97-102.

HALL, C. S. & LINDZEY, G. Theories of personality (2nd ed.). N.Y. : Wiley, 1970.

HAMILTON, R. A research note on the mass support for 'tough' military initiatives. Amer. Sociolog. Rev., 1968, 33, 439-445.

HAMPDEN-TURNER, C. & WHITTEN, P. Morals Left and Right. Psychology Today, 1971, 4, 39-76.

HAYNES, J. Problems of censorship. Interchange, 1970, 2, 4.

HEBB, D. O. The Organization of Behaviour. New York: Wiley, 1949.

HILL, M. A. & LINK, W. C. In Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, 1970.

HOLBROOK, D. The Masks of Hate. London: Pergamon, 1972.

HOLLANDER, E. P. Authoritarianism and leadership choice in a military setting. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 1954, 49, 365-370.

HOLLANDER, E. P. The reliability of peer nominations under various conditions of administration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1957, 41, 85-90.

HOOGVELT, A. M. M. Ethnocentrism, authoritarianism and Powellism. Race, 1969, 11, 1-12.

HOYT, C. J. Note on a simplified method of computing test reliability. Education and Psychological Measurement, 1941, 1, 93-95.

HUGHES, A. H. Problems and solutions in measuring psychological dispositions. Paper delivered at Australian UNESCO seminar on mathematics in the social sciences, 1968.

HYNES, V. A. F-scale GAMIN, and public school behaviour. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1956, 47, 321-328.

JACKSON, D. N. & MESSICK, S. J. Content and style in personality assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 1958, 55, 4, 243-252.

JENSEN, A. R. Social Class, Race and Genetics: Implications for Education. American Educational Research Journal, 1968, 5, 1-42.

JENSEN, A. R. How Much Can We Boost IQ. and Scholastic Achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 1969 a, 39,,1-123.

JENSEN, A. R. Criticism or Propaganda? American Psychologist, 1969b, 24, 1040-1041.

JOSEPHSON, M. Man alone: Alienation in Modern Society. N.Y.: Dell, 1962.

JOURARD, S. M. Moral indignation: A correlate of denied dislike of parents' traits. J. Consult. Psychology, 1954, 15, 59-60.

KENISTON, K. Young radicals: Notes on committed youth. N.Y.: Harcourt Brace, 1968.

KERLINGER, F. N. Social attitudes and their criterial referents: A Structural theory. Psych. Rev., 1967, 74, 110-122.

KERLINGER, F. N. The structure and content of social attitude referents: A preliminary study. Educ. & Psychol. Meas., 1972, 32, 613-630.

KIRSCHT, J. P. & DILLEHAY, R. C. Dimensions of authoritarianism. Lexington: Univ. Kentucky Press, 1967.

KOHLBERG, L. Stages in the development of moral thought and action. N.Y.: Holt Rinehart, 1969.

KORNHAUSER, W. The politics of mass society. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1959.

KNOPFELMACHER, F. & ARMSTRONG, D. B. The relation between authoritarianism, ethnocentrism and religious denomination among Australian adolescents. American Catholic Sociological Review, 1963, 24, 99-114.

LA PIERE, R. T. Attitudes and actions. Social Forces, 1934, 13, 230-237.

LEE, R. E. & WARR, P. B. The development and standardization of a balanced 'F' scale. J. General. Psychol., 1969, 81, 109-129.

LEWIS, C. S. Riddell Memorial Lectures, Durham. Published as The Abolition of Man. London: O.U.P., 1943.

LEWIS, C. S. Mere Christianity. London: Fontana, 1955.

LIEBERT, R. M., NEALE, J. M. & DAVIDSON, E. S. The Early Window. N.Y.: Pergamon, 1972.

LIPSET, S. M. Political man. N.Y.: Doubleday, 1960.

LIPSET, S. M. Working class authoritarianism: A reply to Miller and Riessman. Brit. Jnl. Sociology, 1961, 12, 277-281.

LIPSET, S. M. Students and politics. In Lipset, S. M. & Wolins, S. S. (eds.) The Berkeley Student Revolt. N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965.

LIPSITZ, L. Working class authoritarianism: A re-evaluation. Amer. Sociolog. Rev., 1965, 30, 103-109.

LONGFORD, LORD. Pornography: The Longford Report. London: Coronet Books, 1972.

LYNCH, P. The evolution of a policy: Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, 1971.

LYNN, R. Attention, Arousal and the Orientation Reaction. London: Pergamon, 1966.

MADARIAGA, S. DE. Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards: An essay in comparative psychology 2nd ed. London: Patman, 1970.

MADDISON, D. Mental Health in the permissive society. Med. J. Aust., 1971, 58, 908-914.

MARCUSE, H. Reason and revolution. N.Y.: Oxford, 1941.

MARTIN, J. Response style and the measurement of conformity and deviation. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Univ. of W.A., 1964 a.

MARTIN, J. Acquiescence: measurement and theory. British Journal o f Social and Clinical Psychology, 1964 b, 3, 216-225.

MARTIN, J. & RAY, J. J. Anti-authoritarianism: An indicator of pathology. Aust. - J. Psychol., 1972, 24, 13-18.

MARTIN, J. G. & WESTIE , F. R. The tolerant personality. Amer. Sociolog. Rev., 1952, 24, 521-528.

MASLING, M. How neurotic is the authoritarian? Journal Abnormal and Social ,r Psychology, 1954, 49, 316-318.

MASLING, M., GREER, F. LOYAL & GILMORE, R. Status, authoritarianism and sociometric choice. J. Soc. Psych., 1955, 41, 297-310.

MAY, R. Love and Will. N.Y.: Norton and Co., 1969.

MAZE, J. R. Do intervening variables intervene? Psychological Review, 1954, 61, - 226-234.

MAZE, J. The concept of attitude. Inquiry, 1973, 16, 168-205.

McCLOSKY, H. Conservatism and personality. Amer. Pol. Sci. Rev., 1958, 52, 27-45.

McCLOSKY, H. & SCHARR, J. H. Psychological dimensions of anomy. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1965, 30, 14-41.

McDILL, E. L. Anomie, authoritarianism, prejudice and socio-economic status: An attempt at clarification. Social Forces, 1961, 39, 239-245.

McELWAIN, D. W. Personal communication to J. Ray, 1970.

McGEE, R. K. The relationship between response styles and personality variables. I: The measurement of response acquiescence. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1962, 64, 229-233.

McQUEEN, P. & BROWNING, C. The Intelligence and Educational Achievement of a Matched Sample of White and Negro Students. School and Society, 1960, 88, 327-329.

McQUITTY, L. C. Elementary factor analysis. Psychological Reports, 1961, 9, 71-78.

MEIER, D. L. & BELL, W. Anomia and differential access to the achievement of life goals. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1959, 24, 189-202.

MERTON, R. K. Mass Persuasion. N.Y.: Harper, 1946.

MERTON, R. K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Gleneoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1957.

MILL, J. S. On Liberty. London: Parker, 1859.

MILLS, C. W. White Collar. N.Y.: Oxford, 1951.

MILLER, S. M. & RIESSMAN, F. Working class authoritarianism: A critique of Lipset. Brit. Jnl. Sociology, 1981, 12, 263-276.

MITCHELL, J. V. An analysis of the factorial dimensions of the achievement motivation construct. J. Educ. Psychol., 1961, 52, 179-187.

MIZRUCHI, E. H. Social structure in a small city. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1960, 25, 645-647.

MOWRER, O. H. The crisis in psychiatry and religion. Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand Co., 1961.

NEAL, A. C. & RETTIG, S. On the multidimensionality of alienation. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1967, 32, 54-64.

NETTLER, G. A measure of alienation. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1957, 23, 672 ff.

NEVILLE, R. In The Longford Report, 1972.

NEWS. San Antonio, Texas, 14 November, 1973.

NIETZSCHE, F. Beyond good and evil (vol. 12 of The complete works. Ed.: O. LEVY) Foulis, Edinburgh, 1911.

OLSEN, M. E. Alienation and political opinions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1965, 29, 200 ff.

OLSEN, M. E. Two categories of political alienation. Social Forces, 1969, 47, 288-299.

ORPEN, C. A cross cultural investigation of the relationship between conservatism and personality. Journal o f Psychology, 1972, 81, 297-300.

PACKER, H. Quoted in Time, 5 April 1971.

PATTERSON, J. R. & WILSON, J. D. Anonymity, occupation & conservatism. J. Soc. Psych., 1969, 78, 263-266.

PAVLOV, I. P. Selected Works. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1932.

PEABODY, D. Attitude content and agreement set in scales of authoritarianism, dogmatism, anti-Semitism and economic conservatism. J. Abnorm. & Soc. Psychol., 1961, 63, 1-11.

PEABODY, D. Authoritarianism scales and response bias. Psych. Bull., 1966, 65, 11-23.

PERLMUTTER, H. V. Some characteristics of the xenophilic personality, J. Psychology, 1954, 38, 291-300.

PINTNER, R. Intelligence Testing. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1931, Chapter 20.

PLACE, U. T. Burt on brain and consciousness. Bull. Brit. psychol. Soc., 1969, 22, 285-92.

PROTHRO, E. T. & MELIKIAN, L. The California public opinion scale in an authoritarian culture. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1953, 17, 353-362.

RAMBO, W. W. Attitude measurement: The problem of predictability. Percept. Mot. Skills, 1970, 30, 43-48.

RAY, J.J. (1970a) The development and validation of a balanced Dogmatism scale. Australian Journal of Psychology, 22, 253-260.

RAY, J.J. (1970b) Christianism.... The Protestant ethic among unbelievers. J. Christian Education, 13, 169-176.

RAY, J.J. (1971a) "A new measure of conservatism" -- Its limitations. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 10, 79-80.

RAY, J.J. (1971b) The questionnaire measurement of social class. Australian & New Zealand J. Sociology 7(April), 58-64.

RAY, J.J. (1971c) An "Attitude to Authority" scale. Australian Psychologist, 6, 31-50.

RAY, J.J. (1971d) Ethnocentrism: Attitudes and behaviour. Australian Quarterly, 43, 89-97.

RAY, J.J. (1972a) Are conservatism scales irreversible? British J. Social & Clinical Psychology 11, 346-352.

RAY, J.J. (1972b) A new reliability maximization procedure for Likert scales. Australian Psychologist 7, 40-46.

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

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

RAY, J.J. (1972e) Militarism, authoritarianism, neuroticism and anti-social behavior. Journal of Conflict Resolution 16, 319-340.

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

RAY, J.J. (1972g) A new balanced F scale -- And its relation to social class. Australian Psychologist 7, 155-166.

RAY, J.J. (1973a) Antisemitic types in Australia. Patterns of Prejudice 7(1), 6-16.

RAY, J. J. Acquiescence and the correlation between positive and negative halves of balanced scales. Unpublished paper available from author; 1973 b.

RAY, J.J. & DORATIS, D. (1972) Religiocentrism and ethnocentrism: Catholic and Protestant in Australian schools. Sociological Analysis 32, 170-179.

RAY, J.J. & SUTTON, A.J. (1972) Alienation in an Australian University. Journal of Social Psychology, 86, 319-320.

Report of the Committee on Homosexual Offences and Prostitution, London, H.M.S.O. 1957.

Report 'Putting Asunder: A divorce law for contemporary society'. London, S.P.C.K. 1964.

Report of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, Bantam Books, 1970.

Report of the U.S. Surgeon-General 'Television and Growing-Up: the impact of televised violence'. 1972.

RIESSMANN, D. The Lonely Crowd. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950.

ROBERTS, A. H. & ROKEACH, M. Anomic authoritarianism and prejudice. Amer. J. Sociology, 1956, 62, 355-358.

RODGER, R. S. Type 1 errors and their decision basis. British Journal Mathematical & Stat. Psychology, 1967, 20, 187-204.

ROKEACH, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

ROKEACH, M. & HANLEY, C. Care and carelessness in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 1956, 53, 183-186.

RORER, L. G. The great response style myth. Psych. Bull., 1965, 63, 129-156.

ROSENBERG, M. Misanthropy and political ideology. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1956, 21, 690-695.

RUDIN, S. A. The relationship between rational and irrational authoritarianism. Journal o f Psychology, 1961, 52, 179-183.

SCHAEFFER, F. A. Escape from Reason. London: IVF, 1968.

SCHNEIDER, J. F. The conservatism scale: Independent of SD? British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 12, 90-91.

SCHOENBERGER, R. A. Conservatism, personality and political extremism. American Political Science Review, 1968, 62, 868-877.

SEEMAN, M. On the meaning of alienation. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1959, 24, 783-791.

SHERIDAN, KATHLEEN, & SHACK, J. R. Personality correlates of the undergraduate volunteer subject. J. Psych., 1970, 76, 23-26.

SHILS, E. A, Authoritarianism 'Right' and 'Left'. In R. Christie and Marie Jahoda (eds.), Studies in the method and scope of 'the authoritarian personality'. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1954.

SIMMONS, J. L. Some intercorrelations among 'alienation' measures. Social Forces, 1966, 44, 370-372.

SOREL, G. Reflections on violence (Trans. T. E. Hulme) : Allen & Unwin, London, 1915.

SPOCK, B. Decent and Indecent. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.

SROLE, L. Social integration and certain corollaries: An exploratory study. Amer. Sociological Rev., 1956, 21, 709-716.

STACEY, B. G. & GREEN, R. T. Working class conservatism: A review and an empirical Study. Brit. Jnl. Soc. Clin. Psychol., 1971, 10, 10-26.

STREUNING, E. L. & RICHARDSON, A. H. A factor analytic exploration of the alienation, anomia and authoritarianism domain. Amer. Sociological Review, 1965, 30, 768-776.

SVALASTOGA, K. Prestige, class and mobility. Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1959.

SYMONDS, P. M. The ego and the self. N.Y.: Appleton-Century, 1951.

TANSER, H. A. The Settlement of Negroes in Kent County, Ontario. Chatham, Ontario: Shephard Publishing Co., 1939.

TAUSS, W. Validation of a questionnaire for neurotic manifestation. Australian Journal o f Psychology, 1964, 15, 191-198.

TAUSS, W. A note on the prevalence of mental disturbance. Australian Journal of Psychology, 1967, 19, 121-123.

TINBERGEN, N. The study of instinct. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1951.

TiTUS, H. E. F-Scale validity considered against peer nomination criteria. Psychological Record, 1968, 18, 395-403.

TiTUS, H. E. & HOLLANDER, E. P. The California F scale in psychological research 1950-1955. Psych. Bull., 1957, 54, 47-74.

TYLER, L. E. The Psychology of Human Differences. New York: Appleton, Century Crofts, 1965, Chapter 12.

UNWIN, J. D. Sex and Culture. London: Oxford U.P., 1934.

WALKER, C. E. Erotic stimuli and the aggressive sexual offender. Tech. Reports of the Commission on Obscenity and Pornography, 1970, 7, 91-148.

WELSH, G. S. Factor dimensions A and R. In G. S. Welsh & W. G. Dahlstrom (eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1956.

WHITEHOUSE, M. Lecture to International Congress of the Union Internationale d'Action Morale et Sociale, Bonn. 3 November 1971.

WILKINS, L. T. Social Deviance: Social policy, action and research. London: Tavistock, 1964.

WILSON, G. D. Is there a general factor in social attitudes? Evidence from a factor analysis of the conservatism scale. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 9, 101-107.

WILSON, G. D. (ed.) The psychology o f conservatism. London: Academic Press, 1973,

WILSON, G. D. & NIAS, D. K. B. Measurement of social attitudes: A new approach. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 1972, 35, 827-834.

WILSON, G. D. & PATTERSON, J. R. A new measure of conservatism. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 7, 264-269.

WINDEYER, JUDGE. Aust. L. J. R., 1967/68, 41.

WOLPE, J., SALTER, A. & REYANA, L. J. The Conditioning Therapies: the challenge in psychotherapy. N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.

WORCHEL, P. Social ideology and reactions to international events. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1967, 11 (4), 414-430.

YAFFE, M. Research Survey in The Longford Report, 1972.