You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This is a conscientious and thorough investigation into the vexed question of anti-Semitism confined to one London borough. It takes into account the work of previous authors, such as Bettelheim and Eysenck, but draws its own useful conclusions which, the author hopes, might go beyond Bethnal Green, the borough of which an interesting historical sketch is given. Yet no exaggerated merits are claimed for this investigation. He divides the interviewed into the extreme group and the tolerant. Certain characteristics strike him of which, it is only fair to say, he himself is doubtful. The extreme group suffers from lack of social contacts (hence their strong objection to and envy of Jewish 'clannishness'), anxiety, and inferiority feelings. Their childhood history shows that they got on badly with their parents and siblings. The tolerant group comes off much better; their contacts with their family, employer, and friends are satisfactory and, in contrast to the paranoid extreme group, they only suffer from hysteria. Party politics do not seem to affect the question, though there are more Conservatives among the extreme group. But like most working-class people the majority of both groups vote Labour.
The method of investigation was by interviews, questionnaires, and Rorschach tests. In the last chapter, 'Problems for the Future', the author considers such suggestions as legal action against anti-Semitic utterances and acts, educational methods, and legal relief of poverty. He does not see much hope in all these attempts, but very reasonably suggests that what is needed is more facts and more money spent on obtaining them.
A philological note: there is nothing wrong with the expressions 'interviewer' and 'interviewed'. Need we really talk of 'interviewees'? This is just a word from the reviewer to the reviewee.