Friedrich Pollock, Theodor W. Adorno. Group Experiment and Other Writings: The Frankfurt School on Public Opinion in Postwar Germany. Andrew J. Perrin and Jefrey K. Olick, eds. and trans. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2011. 268 pp. $49.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-674-04846-1.

Reviewed by Todd Craver

Published on H-German (November, 2013)

Commissioned by Shannon Nagy

In a lecture in late 1959, Theodor W. Adorno search; that it represents a signifcantly revealing argued that a "hollow space" still lay at the center episode in German discussions of the Nazi past; of public discussions of the Third Reich and the and that it contributes to what we know (and can Holocaust in West Germany.[1] As evidence of this know) about German public opinion during and evasiveness, he referred to the public opinion re‐ after the Third Reich. search that he and his colleagues undertook at the Originally published as the second volume of Institute for Social Research in the early 1950s. Frankfurter Beiträge zur Soziologie, here the This study had fallen into relative neglect soon af‐ work has been divided into two volumes.[2] Both ter its publication; however, thanks to the eforts include substantial and useful introductory es‐ of Jefrey K. Olick and Andrew J. Perrin, the work says, as well as further material, including the is once again in print and translated into English aforementioned Adorno lecture and a translation for the frst time. As the editors point out, not only of a shorter article that he wrote on public opin‐ is the study an important background to this ion research. The frst volume takes its title from much discussed Adorno lecture, but it also sheds the Adorno monograph that was part of the origi‐ light on several aspects of the twisted paths of nal study, Guilt and Defense.[3] This was an exten‐ German remembrance. The following discussion sive essay that constituted the qualitative analysis will address in part the study, but it will examine of their research material, and it was meant to ac‐ primarily the ways in which the editors have company and deepen the study's quantitative sec‐ sought to situate these volumes in debates emerg‐ tions. The latter book includes a lengthy discus‐ ing at the time that the research was conducted. sion of theory and method, and is here published In particular, Olick and Perrin convincingly argue in slightly abridged form under the original title that the study is a neglected but still important Group Experiment. The difculties of publishing theoretical contribution to social psychological re‐ the full 550 pages of the original study with ac‐ H-Net Reviews companying material and introductions probably orized; public opinion had to be understood, so necessitated the division. However, the editors they argued, not as a property that was possessed further argue that in fact the two parts of the by individuals that could then be imparted to re‐ study may fnd diferent audiences as they con‐ searchers but rather as a result of specifc sets of tain material relevant to diferent disciplines. Cer‐ social relations. Thus, according to the study, pub‐ tainly, this is a reasonable approach, but I suspect lic opinion emerged from a dynamic process in that most readers will want to look at both vol‐ which neither opinion nor the subject who held it umes: Adorno's essay benefts from full exposure could be viewed as discrete and stable. The intro‐ to the methods used in the study, while readers duction by the editors also ofers a useful discus‐ who tread their way through the somewhat labo‐ sion of these issues. rious prose of Group Experiment will probably Thus the experimenters tried to construct a want to see how this methodological apparatus research scenario that would reckon with these translates into more wide-ranging arguments. premises, and that would approximate the fuid This aside, the editors do make a compelling argu‐ settings in which opinion takes shape. Their mod‐ ment that the methodological part of the study de‐ el was the railway car where strangers and ac‐ serves attention in its own right, both on account quaintances might meet and have a chance dis‐ of its critical interventions and its fndings. More‐ cussion over subjects of common interest. To ap‐ over, even though the study was relatively ig‐ proximate this scenario, the institute brought to‐ nored, it was probably not without infuence. For gether over 120 discussion or "focus" groups con‐ instance, the editors note the implications of the sisting of between 15 to 20 people--in total there study for one of the younger researchers in‐ were about 1,800 participants. These groups, volved--Jürgen Habermas. (Other participants in‐ though not representative of the German popula‐ cluded Ralf Dahrendorf, Monika Plessner, and tion as a whole, still encompassed a wide range of Helmuth Plessner.) individuals: former soldiers, fashion students, the As Olick and Perrin concede, Group Experi‐ homeless, and expellees from the East--even a for‐ ment is very much a mixed bag. The study was the mer SS ofcer is reported as a participant. The result of an extensive collaboration that included groups met and a moderator played for them a the work of over two dozen scholars, and it repre‐ tape that purported to be a letter from a member sents one of the institute's most ambitious forays of the Allied Occupation forces commenting on into empirical research. Despite some of its limita‐ what he saw as the general mood of the German tions in terms of, for instance, the design of the population after the war. The letter--the "basic experiment and the inconsistent method of inter‐ stimulus" of the experiment--was meant to pro‐ pretation, it still ofers, according to the editors, voke, but not to attack, an aspect of the experi‐ an important critique to contemporary practices. ment's design that led to some criticism later. For The institute researchers were anxious to import instance, the letter referred to a lingering hostility methods learned in America during the war into among Germans toward both Jews and Displaced the post-1945 German research environment; but Persons, and a persistent sympathy for authori‐ they wanted to do so in a fashion that still reck‐ tarian rule (for balance, several sympathetic judg‐ oned with the theoretical and philosophical prior‐ ments were also included). The groups were then ities that guided their work in general. This meant invited to respond to the letter, and the ensuing a substantial efort to reconceptualize the nature discussions were recorded and transcribed. of public opinion and the means of investigating Though, on average, only 4 out of every 10 indi‐ it. According to the researchers, contemporary viduals actually spoke during these sessions, the concepts of public opinion were inadequately the‐ study still produced over 6,300 pages of tran‐

2 H-Net Reviews scripts. These were then subjected to an analysis Adorno drew from these phenomena is nuanced-- that attempted to categorize the discussants' state‐ on the one hand, the mechanisms of defensive‐ ments in terms of their negative or positive atti‐ ness represented a desire to repress knowledge tudes toward such subjects as democracy, war and culpability; on the other, they also suggested guilt, the West, and the Jews. This material, which a veiled admission of guilt, however dimly felt, is to be found in Group Experiment, was then to and this was positive, so he argued.[6] Still, be‐ be accompanied by a number of monographs that hind this fattening of language, there persisted analyzed the data in a qualitative fashion.[4] what the study identifed as "trans-subjective fac‐ This approach was both innovative and in‐ tors" or the collective thinking of the Third Reich. formed by theoretical issues that have important The transcripts ofered abundant evidence of how ramifcations. Indicative of this, perhaps, is the far the motivations of Nazism and knowledge of fact that in the most recent presidential election its crimes had penetrated into the general popula‐ campaign in the United States, one commentator tion, including a deeply unsettling level of anti‐ who questioned the status of what opinion polls semitism (particularly among university gradu‐ actually measure referred back to the work of ates and farmers). Despite these fndings, Adorno Paul Lazarsfeld and the debates among re‐ and his colleagues tried to remain within the lim‐ searchers in the 1940s and 1950s. It was these de‐ its of the study's provisional nature, stressing re‐ bates and practices that frst impelled the institute peatedly that this was a pilot project. Firm conclu‐ to move away from the views of Lazarsfeld and sions on the prevalence and distribution of such pursue this alternative path of research.[5] views were generally to be avoided. As Adorno wrote: "the often odd perspectives that our partic‐ Did this methodology actually generate difer‐ ipants expressed concerning the most delicate ent interpretations of German public opinion? subjects ... would be misjudged in isolation if sep‐ Adorno and his colleagues thought so, and the arated from their psychic dynamics. Exactly here gathered material uncovered a startling amount we have to remind ourselves emphatically that of resistance to the post-Nazi order. However, the nature of qualitative analysis is to tease out they were cautious towards these fndings; in‐ types of attitudes and opinions, not their distribu‐ stead, they stressed that the most important result tion. We do not ask ... how many people think the was the illumination of those defense mecha‐ question of guilt 'in a typically German way' but nisms and collective dynamics that infuenced in which characteristic ways they try to master opinion formation in statu nascendi. Such mecha‐ this complex, what role political ideology plays in nisms hindered meaningful attempts to reckon the process."[7] with the past. The pervasive reluctance to address past crimes, a desire to draw a line under Nation‐ From this point of view, the study furnished al Socialism, and just move on, was echoed in the rich materials. several discussions emerged in the discussions that the group experiment elicited. transcripts that demonstrated the fuidity of opin‐ For instance, the participants often used contort‐ ion as it struggled for linguistic expression amid ed circumlocutions to refer to Nazi crimes, in par‐ complexes of guilt and ideology, sometimes result‐ ticular, those committed against Jews; Adolf ing in the most bizarre equivocations. "Most saw Hitler's name was avoided as if it were a taboo. In something," said one student from a philosophy general, as the editors notes, a uniformity of lan‐ study group, "but no one experienced it con‐ guage prevailed that institute researchers argued sciously." "Nobody--nobody--probably heard," as‐ was symptomatic of the survival of ideology and a serted a number of agitated Bavarian dignitaries-- failure of critical refection. The conclusion that

3 H-Net Reviews the absolute judgment of the statement's frst part past was, as the editors argue, an intervention totally undercut by the qualifying adverb.[8] that had many years of debate and research be‐ For good reason, the editors have included a hind it. It also shows the importance of empirical hostile review of the study, published in the Köl‐ studies in the formation of one of Adorno's key ner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsycholo‐ writings. gie, written by Peter Hofstätter who was actually There are, to be sure, some questions that re‐ quoted favorably in the research. Though Hofstät‐ main with regard to the study and the conclusions ter raised some legitimate issues--the study at to be drawn from it. The interpretation of those times reads as if "the sociological analysts are con‐ participants who were silent is probably an insol‐ tinuing the discussion with their subjects after uble difculty, but the institute researchers, it their discharge"--his review nonetheless typifes should be noted, handled this with more caution the strategies of evasion that the study claimed to than did such critics as Hofstätter. Also, at one uncover (p. 194). As Adorno pointed out in his re‐ point, Adorno made a surprising claim for the pri‐ buttal, Hofstätter reacted mostly to those aspects mordial nature of individual drives toward collec‐ of the study that the authors had taken consider‐ tive identifcation, a factor that they suggest heav‐ able steps to circumscribe. They did not make in‐ ily informed the dynamics of opinion forma‐ ferences about the German population in its en‐ tion--"as if one was gaining insight into primitive tirety based on their fndings, yet this is exactly phases of identifcation, almost into the prehisto‐ where Hofstätter directed much of his anger. ry of humanity."[10] Such statements may lead Moreover, his claim that the "basic stimulus" pro‐ some readers to feel that the baggage of social vided by the letter had provoked the discussants psychology sits a bit too heavily on the study; but to engage with stereotypes likewise had been ad‐ nonetheless the subject of group identifcation has dressed by the researchers, but Hofstätter took lit‐ remained important in terms of studying the for‐ tle notice of their remarks on this point. Accord‐ mation of both National Socialist constituencies, ing to Adorno, the review by Hofstätter was noth‐ and the will to commit mass murder as investigat‐ ing more than apologetics, and the editors have ed in the work of Christopher Browning, Ordinary provided some important context for this debate, Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final describing other writings by Hofstätter that struck Solution in Poland (1992). a similar note.[9] Moreover, Hofstätter had Yet the generalized thesis of a "persisting an‐ missed one of the primary points of the study by thropological disposition" that impels group opin‐ arguing that the researchers had failed to solicit ion makes it more difcult to distinguish between well-considered opinions and judgments, instead diferent modes of identifcation (p. 139). Though allowing the group discussion to lead to a "seduc‐ Adorno and the researchers of the institute explic‐ tion of superfciality." Yet was this not one of the itly conveyed their intention to shed light on the striking conclusions of the study, that group dy‐ fascism that exists within democracy rather than namics play an important role in opinion forma‐ against it, the concept of a general anthropologi‐ tion against which the reserves of "inwardness" cal ground seems to confict with a theory that may hold little defense? And did not the electoral would allow one to distinguish between forms of success of National Socialism itself suggest that identifcation that are fascist or otherwise. More‐ superfcial thought could be persuasive? For over, Adorno himself cited some instances where Adorno, ultimately the dispute represented a per‐ collective identifcation meant a more refective sistent tendency in postwar Germany to use a thin attitude toward the burdens of guilt. This tension veil of irrelevant facts to cover up painful issues. remains unresolved in the study's conclusions. Thus his lecture of 1959 on working through the

4 H-Net Reviews

[11] Perhaps this is not surprising given the provi‐ of horror. Moreover, the horror itself has pro‐ sional nature of their research. duced its own veil--precisely that which surpasses Those studying public opinion in Germany, all comprehension could hardly be admitted by both during and after National Socialism, should anyone, regardless of whether he stuck with the fnd much of value in these studies and in the in‐ National Socialists or not; it is otherwise difcult formative introductions given by Olick and Per‐ to imagine how one could possibly have contin‐ rin. They refer to the work of Robert Moeller (War ued to exist in Germany." Yet, as he points out a Stories: The Search for a Usable Past in the Feder‐ couple of paragraphs further, most "would surely al Republic of Germany [2001]), and these vol‐ have heard something."[12] umes may be read with much beneft in light of Notes the issues raised by Moeller, and in other studies [1]. Theodor W. Adorno, "The Meaning of of public opinion, such as those of David Bankier Working through the Past," in Guilt and Defense: (The Germans and the Final Solution: Public Opin‐ On the Legacies of National Socialism in Postwar ion Under Nazism [1996]); Ian Kershaw ( Hitler, Germany, ed. and trans. Jefrey K. Olick and An‐ The Germans, and the Final Solution [2006], espe‐ drew J. Perrin (Cambridge: Harvard University cially his introduction); and Eric Johnson and Press, 2010), 214. The version translated and Karl-Heinz Reuband (What We Knew: Terror, reprinted here was published in 1960, but was de‐ Mass Murder, and Everday Life in Nazi Germany-- livered earlier. An Oral History [2005]). The defensive stance [2]. Friedrich Pollock, ed., Frankfurter identifed in the group experiment is in accord Beiträge zur Soziologie, vol. 2, Gruppenexperi‐ with what Moeller has revealed about postwar ment: ein Studienbericht (Frankfurt am Main: Eu‐ German memory. Yet, aside from the circumlocu‐ ropäische Verlagsanstalt, 1955). tions common to many participants, they were also at times quite voluble, and they ofer a range [3]. Theodor W. Adorno, "Schuld und Ab‐ of attitudes and points of view that extend into ar‐ wehr," in ibid. , 278-425. eas beyond the more common narratives of Ger‐ [4]. Adorno's Guilt and Defense was the only man victimization. The studies, I would argue, do such monograph to be published in its entirety. A tend to support Kershaw's argument that histori‐ fragment of a study on language by Hermann cal research into public opinion can only allow a Schweppenhäuser and Rainier Köhne was includ‐ partial reconstruction, beyond which it is hard to ed in the original publication and is translated in speculate. The quantitative results of the study, Group Experiment as Appendix A. A further for which Adorno and his colleagues only made monograph by Kurt Wolf was never published, the most modest claims, appears to harmonize but a mimeograph of it was produced by Ohio with the general picture that has emerged: that of State University under the title "German Attempts mass support for the regime up to and including at Picturing Germany: Texts." even lethal violence against the Jews, a small mi‐ [5]. Andrew Hacker, "Can Romney Get a Ma‐ nority who were in opposition but not in open re‐ jority?" New York Review of Books (September 27, sistance, and the remaining population who were 2012). Also, see the introduction to Group Experi‐ in a silent zone of "moral indiference." On this ment on the dispute with Lazarsfeld (pp. xv-xvi). question, what Adorno wrote in 1955 is still [6]. Adorno, Guilt and Defense, 52-53. provocative: "The answer is extraordinarily dif‐ cult. No doubt, the National Socialists tried to con‐ [7]. Ibid., 49-50. ceal the worst ... or rather, they tried not to let [8]. Ibid., 58, 60. more leak out than a vague and panicked feeling

5 H-Net Reviews

[9]. Ibid., 204-205, 29-32. [10]. Ibid., 181. [11]. Ibid., 182. [12]. Ibid., 57.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-german

Citation: Todd Craver. Review of Pollock, Friedrich; Adorno, Theodor W. Group Experiment and Other Writings: The Frankfurt School on Public Opinion in Postwar Germany. H-German, H-Net Reviews. November, 2013.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=36934

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

6