In writing The Psychology of Politics, Hans Eysenck had two aims in mind: to write a book about modern developments in the field of attitude studies which would be intelligible to the layman; and one that would integrate into one consistent theoretical system a large number of contributions on the topic from different fields. Eysenck believes that science has something to say about such problems as anti-Semitism, the origin and growth of fascist and communist ideologies, the causal determinants of voting behavior, the structure of opinions and attitudes, and the relationship between politics and personality. He seeks to rescue these factual findings from the obscurity of technical journals and present them in a more accessible form.The research presented in this book outlines the main principles of organization and structure in the field of attitudes. These principles account in a remarkably complete and detailed manner for the systems of political organization found in Great Britain, that is, the Conservative, Liberal, and Socialist parties, and the communist and fascist groups. Next, Eysenck relates these principles to the system of personality structure which for many years formed the main focus of research activity at the Institute of Psychiatry in London.The Psychology of Politics integrates attitude research with modern learning theory. In his new introduction, Eysenck writes that his research and personal experiences in Germany led him to believe that authoritarianism could appear equally well on the left as on the right. He saw Stalin as equally authoritarian as Hitler, and communism as equally totalitarian as Nazism. The Psychology of Politics contains the evidence and arguments Eysenck used to demonstrate his approach. This volume is of enduring significance for psychologists, political theorists, and historians. It is by indirection a major statement in modern liberalism.

In his treatment of the issues raised by the movements of women for equal rights a century ago, Michels anticipated controversies and conflicts about which people care deeply today. He took a clear position in support of the desirability of equality between the sexes. In consequence, it remains relevant to current debates within feminism over equality and difference and the corresponding challenge to, and feminist critique of, social science arising from the (re) emergence of "difference" feminism.Sexual Ethics constitutes both an analysis of the "woman problem" and a document describing the wars between the sexes during this period and an important and overlooked piece of history of the classic sociological tradition. Michels observed that the national and economic conflicts in modern Europe were vast in scale and revealed sharply sensed injustices, and also that sex antagonisms are becoming more acute. He presented an argument, consistent with his theoretical position, about the seriousness of women''s rights. Michels'' discussions of sexuality, sexual morality, and the relations of the sexes had as its stimulus "the new sexual ethic" advocated by feminists. He pointed out that true equality required equality of rights to sexual liberty for women or chastity prior to marriage for men.Michels supported premarital chastity for men as an ideal, but he doubted that very many would practice it. Michels was virtually alone in the sociological tradition in seeking to illuminate the "struggle for love" between men and women by reference to the "erotic coquetry" in the sexual behavior of "lower animals." Despite his stand for equality of men and women in sexual matters, a recurrent theme in Sexual Ethics is that men are sexually more aggressive than women, at least in part due to social structures and cultural traditions. Michels advocated family planning (but opposed abortion) in the interests of marital and family happiness and economic well-being, especially for the poor.In his new introduction, Terry R. Kandal discusses Robert Michels'' life. He explores, among other topics, Michels'' treatment of the woman question and the reactions of Michels'' contemporaries to the same question. He also discusses the feminist critique of social science, and the place of Michels in and the gender questions of our times. The book will be of particular interest to those interested in the history of relations between men and women as well as those interested in questions of biological determinism.