Working-Class Authoritarianism and Tolerance of Outgroups: A Reassessment

Abstract

The hypothesis that members of the working class are less tolerant of than their middle-class counterparts is examined using a national survey of Americans conducted in 1976. The results show that workers are somewhat more likely to be intolerant of various outgroups and that this is true regardless of the nature of the deviant group in question. What is more important, however, is that the direct effect of occupational class on tolerance is not significant when three other factors-education, income, and degree of cynicism -are simultaneously taken into account. The implications of the findings for a reassessment of Lipset's working-class authoritarianism hypothesis are briefly considered. Edward G. Grabb is Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology at The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. Public Opinion Quarterly ?) 1979 by The Trustees of Columbia University Published by Elsevier North-Holland, Inc. 0033-362X/79/0043-0036/$1.75 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.58 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 04:36:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms AUTHORITARIANISM AND TOLERANCE OF OUTGROUPS 37 Kruytbosch, 1961; Hamilton, 1966; and related references cited in Hamilton, 1972:467-68). Apart from these analyses, however, little has been attempted to further test, specify, or modify the authoritarianism argument. It would seem that most reactions have been of two varieties: outright acceptance of what is an obviously correct assertion about the working class, or outright rejection of what is viewed as a misguided and fallacious position. The purpose of this paper is to open the question anew, to reconsider at least part of the general argument using more recent empirical evidence. Such an analysis should make us better able to judge the wisdom of those who accept or reject Lipset's original thesis, by bringing new data to bear on the argument and testing some of its major hypotheses. Our specific focus is on one dimension of the authoritarianism notion. That dimension concerns differences in tolerance of outgroups, those who are considered to be outside the mainstream of American society (see Lipset, 1960:94). The first task of the analysis is to determine if Lipset's charges of greater intolerance in the working class are supported by contemporary survey research. If there are class differences in tolerance, moreover, to what extent is this the case, and for what particular kinds of outgroups? Our second concern is to assess the degree to which any apparent class differences in tolerance are attributable to a series of factors Lipset himself has suggested. We turn now to a brief review of these explanations derived from the original work. Major Components of the Lipset Thesis Four major hypotheses seem to be imbedded in Lipset's general working-class authoritarianism thesis. First, it is asserted that education level is an important factor influencing the growth of undemocratic attitudes, such as intolerance of outgroups (Lipset, 1960: 101). Educated individuals are said to be more capable of dealing with the ambiguities and complexities of a democratic system, in which differing views and opinions are tolerated and encouraged. One can discuss education here also in the broader sense of accumulation of knowledge, information, and experience, which comes from reading, media exposure, and organizational involvements (see Lipset, 1960:101-04). It is apparent that working-class people are less likely to enjoy the privilege of either formal education or education more broadly defined. Hence, the argument goes, workers have more difficulty accepting or tolerating viewpoints different from their own. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.58 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 04:36:56 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms