The interface between ethnic and national attachment ethnic pluralism or ethnic dominance

Trang 1

The Interface Between Ethnic and National Attachment: Ethnic Pluralism or Ethnic Dominance?

Jim Sidanius, Seymour Feshbach, Shana Levin, Felicia Pratto

Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 61, Issue 1, Special Issue on Race (Spring, 1997),

102-133 Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici? sici=0033 -362X %28199721 %2961%3A1%3C102%3A TIBEAN%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and

you may use content in the ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or

printed page of such transmission

Public Opinion Quarterly is published by The University of Chicago Press Please contact the publisher for further permissions regarding the use of this work Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www jstor.org/journals/ucpress.html

Public Opinion Quarterly

ISTOR and the ISTOR logo are trademarks of ISTOR, and are Registered in the U.S Patent and Trademark Office

Trang 2

ETHNIC PLURALISM OR ETHNIC DOMINANCE? JIM SIDANIUS SEYMOUR FESHBACH SHANA LEVIN FELICIA PRATTO

Despite growing interest in the psychologies of patriotism and nationalism (e.g., Doob 1964; Stern 1995) and ethnic identity (e.g., Tajfel and Turner 1986), there has been surprisingly little empirical research addressing the interface between attachment to the nation as a whole and attachment to one’s ethnic group.' Such research is clearly needed, given the recent and dramatic increase in interethnic conflict within multiethnic states

Since the end of the Second World War, there has been a striking increase in the formation of new nations While most of these new nations resulted from liberation movements and the demise of old colonial em- pires, the most recent wave resulted from the fracturing of multiethnic states in Eastern Europe and their replacement by more ethnically homogeneous nations Several other ethnically heterogeneous nations, includ- ing the United Kingdom, United States, Russia, Spain, Canada, and China, ate also experiencing social tension between ethnic group attachment and national attachment Consistent with themes raised by the discourse concerning the ‘“‘disuniting of America’’ (see, e.g., Schlesinger 1992), such JIM SIDANIUS is professor of psychology, SEYMOUR FESHBACH is professor of paychol- ogy; and SHANA LEVIN is postdoctoral researcher of psychology, all at University af Cali- fornia, Los Angeles FELICIA PRATTO is assistant professor of psychology at Stanford Uni- versity The authors would like to thank Lawrence Bobo and David Sears for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jim Sidanius, Department of Psychalogy, UCLA, Box 951563, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 Electronic mail may be sent to sidanius@ psych.ucla.edu

1 One problem in using these labels is the varied connotations they may have, particularly in the case of nationalism as used by historians and political scientists (see, e.g., Citrin et al 1994) One could use a symbol such as factor P to denate love of country and factor N to denote desire for national superiority However, to maintain continuity with earlier studies, we are retaining these labels

Trang 3

Ethnic and National Attachment 103 events question whether it is possible to foster loyalty to and identification with ong’s own ethnic particularism and, at the same time, maintain shared national values and a sense of common national identification In thinking more deeply about the interface between ethnic and national identity,’ there are roughly three general perspectives one might use: (a) the melting pot perspective, (b) the multicultural or ethnic pluralism perspective, and (c) the ‘‘group dominance’’ perspective.’

Although there are several societies that might be classified as melting pot nations (e.g., Brazil and the former USSR), the United States has often been regarded as the most successful example of the ideal melting pot Within this perspective, one’s original ethnic background is regarded as largely irrelevant to one's acceptability as a loyal citizen of standing within the nation-state In a recent essay on the African American experience, Hertzberg and Gates (1996) come close to describing the melting pot ethos and its applicability to immigrants to America from many different countries They write: ‘‘Throwing off subordination to a distant throne, they (the immigrants) made a commonwealth, the first in history to be founded explicitly on principles of self-government and political equality’’ (pp 9-10)

If this melting pot ideal can actually provide an accurate description of the interface between ethnic and national identity, we would expect the interface between ethnic and national attachment to conform to the following two patterns First, the degree of attachment to the nation should be equal for all ethnic groups Second, regardless of the ethnic group one belongs to, one’s attachment to the nation as a whole should be either independent of attachment to one’s original ethnic particularism or, if related at all, it should be negatively associated with one’s ethnic loyalty Most important, however, if the interface between ethnic and national identity should prove to be negative, it should be equally negative for all ethnic particularisms In other words, regardless of which ethnic subgroup 2 In this discussion, we will use the terms “‘ethnic’’ and “‘ethnicity”’ to refer ¢o all the socially constructed distinctions usually referenced by the terms “‘ethnicity"’ and “race.”” While we recognize some of the shortcomings af this usage, we feel that using the term “ethnic’’ for some group distinctions and “‘racial"’ for other group distinctions is even more problematic For example, while a number of people might consider the distinction between Buro-Americans and Latina Americans, or between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs to be “‘racial’’ distinctions, others would argue equally forcefully that these are purely psychological or “‘ethnic’’ distinctions Perhaps the most valid means of referring to these group distinctions would be as psychologically salient, social constructions However, in lieu of using this rather clumsy expression, we will simply use the term ‘ethnic’? through- ‘out our discussion here

Trang 4

one is a member of, the greater the loyalty one feels to this subgroup, the less loyalty one should feel to the nation as a whole

The “‘ethnic pluralism’’ ideal has become increasingly popular since the 1960s and replaces the *‘melting pot’’ metaphor with that of the ‘‘salad bowl”’ or ‘‘glorious mosaic’’ metaphor Although there are some varia- tions in the precise manner in which ethnic pluralism is defined (e.g., Simpson 1995), the construct has essentially come to imply that (2) rather than dissolving into a unitary ethnicity of nationhood, ethnic subgroups continue to maintain their distinctiveness, (b) all of these ethnic subgroups are considered coequal partners in society, where no one group dominates any other group, and (c) individuals can simultaneously maintain a positive commitment both to an ethnic particularism and to the larger political community These dual commitments should be seen as complementary loyalties, where commitment to one identity in fact helps cement and rein- force commitment to the other identity If the pluralist model is true, as with the melting pot model, we should find that the degree of attachment to the nation should be the same across all ethnic groups However, unlike the melting pot model, the pluralist model implies that there should be a positive relationship between one’s attachment to the nation as a whole and one’s attachment to one’s ethnic background Moreover, this positive relationship should apply to members of all ethnic groups and not just to members of dominant groups alone (for related discussion, see also Berry, Kalin, and Taylor 1977, Lambert, Mermigis, and Taylor 1986, Moghad- dam and Taylor 1987; Sears et al 1994; Takaki 1993)

Trang 5

Ethnic and National Attachment 105 (1995), Powell writes, ““My blackness has been a source of pride, strength and inspiration, and so has my being an American’? (pp 534-35)

The ‘‘group dominance’’ approach leads one to expect a very different type of interface between ethnic and national attachment than is derivable from either the melting pot or pluralist perspectives According to the group dominance approach, multiethnic states usually come into being as a result of the conquest of one ethnic group by another As a result, the dominant or conquering group regards itself as having preeminent right to and ownership of the nation, its resources, and its symbols In extreme cases, membership in a particular ethnic group automatically confers citizenship in a particular “‘nation.’’ One clear example of this is the Israeli “Law of Return,”’ where Israeli nationality is automatically conferred by virtue of one’s being Jewish, regardless of where one was born (see Kret- zmer 1990) While Israeli Arabs (who constitute approximately 18 percent of the Israeli population) and other ethnic minorities are granted equal rights under Israeli law, there is a wide net of both de jure and de facto restrictions placed upon their legal and social rights (see Kretzmer

1990)

This group dominance perspective implies that in group-based, hierarchically structured societies such as Israel, national identity, or a sense of ‘‘belongingness’’ to the nation as a whole, will be more strongly and positively associated with membership in dominant ethnic groups and less strongly associated with membership in subordinate groups Thus, within the group dominance perspective, the following two types of asymmetry should apply: first, the degree of attachment to the nation should be stronger for members of dominant groups than for members of subordinate groups; second, the correlation between one’s attachment to one’s ethnic group and one’s attachment to the nation as a whole should be more positive for people within dominant groups than for people within subordinate groups These two asymmetries should apply in all multiethnic states that are structured as group-based social hierarchies Because multiethnic states tend to be hierarchically organized, we expect these two asymmetries to apply widely—not just in the very clear Israeli case but in the United States as well

Even though the United States is generally cited as an example of either a melting pot or pluralist society (see, e.g., de Ia Garza, Falcon, and Garcia 1996), one could also make a strong argument that the United States falls within the purview of the group dominance perspective.‘ While there has

Trang 6

been effort to extend political and legal equality to America’s ethnic minorities, the United States still clearly exemplifies a hierarchically structured system of ethnic groups (see, e.g., Smith 1991; Steinberg 1989) Although the United States has always been a multiethnic society, its laws and other cultural practices have used ethnicity as one of the main bases of social identity and social privilege Because of this history of oppression, the group dominance perspective would expect members of the dominant ethnic group, namely, Euro-Americans, to feel greater ownership of and attachment to the nation than members of subordinate ethnic groups, and also to manifest a stronger positive relationship between ethnic and national attachment than members of subordinate groups

In order to test the applicability of the melting pot, pluralist, and group dominance models in a more comprehensive fashion than has been at- tempted in the past, we shall examine the interface between ethnic and national attachment in both Israel and the United States We will examine this interface with respect to two different dimensions of national attachment Factor analytic work by Feshbach and his colleagues has demon- strated an empirical distinction between two major types of national attachment The first major dimension, called nationalism, can be regarded as a ‘‘right-wing’’ form of national attachment and concerns the desire for the dominance of one’s own nation over others This form of national attachment can be seen in expansionist doctrines such as those expressed by the slogans ‘‘Rule, Britannia,”’ ‘“‘Lebensraum,’’ and ‘‘Manifest Des- tiny.’ The second and more politically neutral form of national attachment, called patriotism, concerns one’s love of country and its major symbols (see Feshbach 1987, 1991, 1992, 1994; Feshbach and Sakano, in press; Kosterman and Feshbach 1989).5

Using data from several different ethnic groups in Israel and the United States, we will examine the interface between ethnic and national attachment in three stages First, using identical measures, we will compare the interface between ethnic identity and the two major types of national attachment (i.¢., patriotism and nationalism) among two groups of Israeli students (i.e., Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs) and two groups of American students (i.e., Euro-Americans and African Americans) In the second stage of this study, we will take a more in-depth look at the ethnic attachment/national attachment interface using a university sample of the four major ethnic groups in Southern California, namely, Euro-Ameri- cans, Asian Americans, Latino Americans, and African Americans In the jure citizenship rights by the Fourteenth Amendment, the 1790 naturalizatian law stood until 1952 As Jate as the 1940s, this law forced nonwhite petitioners to prove that they were ‘‘white’’ in order to be granted citizenship in the United States

5 This definition of ‘‘patriotism’’ comes very close to the standard manner in which the construct is defined See, e.g., the American Heritage Dictionary’s definition of patriotism:

Trang 7

Ethnic and National Attachment 107 final stage of the study, we will examine the generalizability of any findings wenmight discover within the Israeli and American student samples, using an American national probability sample of Euro-Americans, Latino Americans, and African Americans

Method: Sample J, U.S Student Sample PARTICIPANTS

The U.S student sample consisted of a random stratified sample of 823 University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) undergraduates, surveyed in the fall of 1993 Using a sampling frame consisting of the list of all registered students, the sample was stratified into four ‘‘ethnic’’ strata (whites, blacks, Latinos, and Asians), and a random sample from each stratum was contacted The subjects were enticed to participate by the offer of four 50-dollar prizes The median age of the respondents was 21 years, and 42.1 percent of the subjects were males and 56.9 percent were females Of the total sample, we restricted the analyses to include only the 437 native-born American citizens from the four ethnic strata of interest: 154 Euro-Americans (35.2 percent), 113 African Americans (25.8 percent), 98 Latino Americans (22.4 percent), and 72 Asian Americans (16.5 percent)

The students were given an extensive questionnaire primarily assessing their attitudes concerning ethnic attachment and feelings of national attachment and racism, and a scale measuring generalized group dominance (ie., the social dominance orientation scale; see Pratto et al 1994) These various measures were grouped into three conceptual clusters: (4} 4 national attachment cluster, (b) a group attachment cluster, and (c) a group dominance cluster

VARIABLES IN THE U.S STUDENT SAMPLE: NATIONAL ATTACHMENT CLUSTER

We used several items from Kosterman and Feshbach’s (1989) national attitudes instrument in developing our 21-item national attachment scale (see table 1) The response scales for all items ranged from 1—‘‘Strongly disagree/disapprove’’ to 7—~“‘Strongly agree/favor.’’ All of the items were coded so that a high score represents a strong degree of national attachment

Trang 8

Table 1 Items of National Attachment (Used in the Comprehensive American Analyses)

I The more the United States actively influences other countries, the hetter

off these countries will be

2 To maintain our country’s superiority, war is sometimes necessary 3 For the most part, America is no more superior than any other

industrialized country in the world

4 To maintain our country’s economic superiority, aggressive economic policies are sometimes necessary

5 The USA should xor dominate other countries 6 In general, Americans are wonderful people 7 [feel very warmly towards my countrymen 8 I do not care for most ather Americans

9 Mast other Americans are not worth caring about

10 Every time I hear the national anthem, I feel strongly moved 11 I find the sight of the American flag very moving

12 The American flag should oz be treated as a sacred object

13 The symbals of the United States (e.g., the flag, Washington monument} do not move me one way or the other

14 I would really not want to move to another country 15 I have warm feelings for the place where I grew up

16 I feel no differently about the place I grew up than any other place 17 I would be willing to leave the United States for goad

18 I have great love for my country 19 T am proud to be an American

20 There is nothing particularly wonderful about American culture 21, [don’t fee] much affection for the United States

most important and interpretable dimensions, which together accounted for 58.8 percent of the total variance (see table 2) In order of importance, these factors were interpreted as follows:

Patriotism (36.2 percent of total variance) was primarily defined by those items embracing love for and respect of the nation and its symbols (e.g., “*I ñnd the sight of the American flag very moving,”’ ‘‘I have great love for my country’’) This dimension embraces the essential elements of Kosterman and Feshbach’s (1989) patriotism dimension and standard dictionary definitions of the term

Nationalism (9.5 percent of total variance) is strongly reminiscent of Kosterman and Feshbach's (1989) factor of nationalism and embraces the desire for national dominance and superiority over other countries (e.g., “To maintain our country’s superiority, war is sometimes necesgary’’)

Trang 10

grew up (e.g., ‘‘I feel no differently about the place I grew up than any other place’’)

Concern for co-nationals (5.8 percent of total variance) is the smallest dimension and embraces subjects’ concern for the American people rather than for the nation as a symbolic entity or emotional attachment to place (e.g., “I feel very warmly toward my countrymen’)

Inspection of table 2 shows that all of these dimensions were significantly and positively correlated with one another When nationalism and patriotism are compared across the Israeli and American samples, only those items that were administered to both samples are used.*

VARIABLES IN THE U.S STUDENT SAMPLE: GROUP ATTACHMENT CLUSTER

We used five different measures of ethnic group attachment Unless other- wise indicated, all variables were measured on a 7-point Likert scale The variables were as follows:

In-group identification was defined by use of four items measuring the degree to which respondents thought of themselves as members of and identified with their own ethnic groups The four items were: (1) “‘How strongly do you identify with other members of your ethnic group?’’ (2) ‘‘How important is your ethnicity to your identity?’ (3)? How often do you think of yourself as a member of your ethnic group?” and (4) ‘How close do you feel to other members of your ethnic group?”* (œ = 88) This series of questions directly followed a question asking the subjects to classify themselves into one of several ethnic categories Group boundary maintenance was operationalized as the degree to which subjects opposed (1) interracial dating and (2) interracial marriage Although related to classical racism, research has shown that this dimension is still distinct from classical racism (see, e.g., Brigham, Wood- mansee, and Cook 1976; reliability: @ = 97)

In-group preference was designed to assess the degree to which subjects had a more positive affective response to their own ethnic in-group in comparison to the ethnic out-group/s All subjects were asked to ‘‘indicate how positively or negatively you feel toward the following groups.”* The groups were described as ‘‘Whites/Euro-Americans,’’ ‘‘Blacks/Afti- can Americans,’’ ‘‘Asians/Asian Americans,’’ and ‘‘Latinos/Chicanos.’’ For members of minority groups, this variable was simply defined as in- group affect minus affect toward whites For whites, on the other hand, this variable was defined as affect toward whites (i.¢., the in-group) minus the average affect felt toward all three minority groups (i.e., blacks, Latinos, and Asians)

Trang 11

Ethnic and National Attachment tlt In the Israeli/American comparisons, for Euro-Americans in-group preference was defined as affect toward whites minus affect toward blacks; for African Americans in-group preference was defined as affect toward blacks minus affect toward whites Therefore, in both cases positive scores indicate favoritism toward the in-group and negative scores indicate favoritism toward the out-group

In-group mobilization measured the degree to which subjects were willing to engage in political activity on behalf of their own ethnic group The stem question read: ‘‘How seriously have you considered participating in the following activities on behalf of your ethnic group?’’ The activities were: (1) “Join an ethnic/activist student or community organization,” (2) ‘Participate in demonstrations,’’ (3) ‘‘Sign petitions,’’ (4) ‘‘Send let- ters to government officials and organizations,’ (5) ‘‘Go door to door or telephone to enlist public support,’’ (6) ‘Engage in physical confrontation with the police/government authorities,’’ (7) ‘“Engage in civil disobedi- ence’’ (a = 90)

Experienced discrimination measured perceived ethnic discrimination using two items: (1) ‘I experience discrimination because of my ethnicity’’ and (2) ‘‘Other members of my ethnic group experience discrimination’’ (œ = 84)

Generalized group attachment To see if all five measures of ethnic attachment were converging upon a common core, we performed correlation and confirmatory factor analyses on these indices The results showed that all of the group attachment variables were significantly correlated with one another In addition, a maximum likelihood LISREL confirmatory factor analysis also revealed that all five group attachment indices had a substantial and statistically significant loading upon a single hypoth- esized latent construct Factor scores on this Generalized Group Attach- ment measure were generated for all subjects and used in the subsequent analyses

VARIABLES IN THE U.S STUDENT SAMPLE: GROUP DOMINANCE CLUSTER

Because of our interest in the general group dominance perspective, we also used two measures of general group dominance: classical racism and social dominance orientation

Trang 12

(6) ““Blacks are lazier than other groups,’ (7) ‘“Latinas are less intellectu- ally able than other groups,’’ (8) ‘‘Latinos have poor schools and live in bad neighborhoods’’ (reverse-coded), (9) ‘‘Latinos suffer from past racism”’ (reverse-coded), and (10) ‘‘Latinos are lazier than other groups.'? These 10 items showed themselves to be highly homogeneous (a = 82) Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a 16-item measure of the degree to which one desires hierarchical relationships among groups in society (@ = 89) This is a normally distributed individual difference variable that has been found to have high construct validity across several different cultures (see Levin and Sidanius 1995; Pratto et al 1996) For a detailed discussion of the SDO construct and the scale’s reliability and validity, see Pratto et al (1994)

Although SDO is conceptually defined in much broader terms than is classical racism, they still share the notion that certain groups are superior to others and can therefore both be considered indices of ‘‘group dominance’ (r = 50)

Method: Sample 2, Israeli Student Sample PARTICIPANTS

Data in Israel were collected from two different nonprobability samples of undergraduate students surveyed in 1994: one sample of Israeli Jews from Hebrew University, Bar-Ilan University, Haifa University, and the Technion University and one sample of Israeli Arabs from Hebrew Uni- versity and Haifa University Questionnaires were administered in He- brew to 711 Jews, among them 269 males and 434 females Question- naires were administered in Arabic to 181 Israeli Arabs, among them 64 males and 116 females Data for the Jewish sample and part of the Arab sample were collected in university classrooms where the instructors’ permission was given, and a portion of the Arab sample was collected from students in dormitories at Hebrew University and on buses traveling to Haifa University The survey instruments were translated from English into Hebrew and Arabic and then back-translated to correct any errors in translation

VARIABLES IN THE ISRAELI STUDENT SAMPLE

There were only a few variables used in the Israeli sample that were equivalent to those used in the American sample We had measures of patriotism, nationalism, SDO, in-group identification, and in-group preference for 366 Jews and 181 Israeli Arabs

Trang 13

Ethnic and National Attachment II3 measuring patriotism that were identical to those used in the U.S sample These two patriotism items were: (1) ‘‘I have great love for my country”? and (2) ‘I am proud to be an Israeli.’? Despite the short length of this patriotism scale, it was still found to have a substantial degree of reliability (Gœ = 94) There was only one item measuring nationalism in this sample that was equivalent to an item used in the American sample This item read: ‘‘To maintain Israel's superiority, war is sometimes necessary.’**

In-group identification was defined by use of two questions: (1) “‘To what extent do you identify yourself as a Jew?’’ (in the case or Jews) or “*., Arab?'” (in the case of Arabs) and (2) ‘‘To what extent do you feel close to other Jews?’’ (for Jews) or ‘‘ Arabs?’’ (for Arabs) This in- group identification scale was found to have high reliability (@ = 87)

In-group preference was defined in a similar fashion as with the Ameri- can sample For Jews it was defined as affect toward Jews minus affect toward Arabs, and for Arabs it was defined as affect toward Arabs minus affect toward Jews

Social dominance orientation was measured by use of the same 16- item SDO, scale used in the U.S sample (a = 85)

Method: Sample 3, U.S National Probability Sample PARTICIPANTS

The third data set consisted of a national probability sample of Americans and was collected as part of the 1992 National Election Study (NES) conducted by the Center for Political Studies at the Institute for Social Re- search at the University of Michigan Altogether, the 1992 study inter- viewed 2,485 randomly selected respondents from across the United States Of the total sample, there were complete data on all of the particular variables we used for the three ethnic groups, as follows: whites (NV = 1,724), Latinos (V = 166), and blacks (V = 278)

VARIABLES IN THE NATIONAL PROBABILITY SAMPLE

Unfortunately, the NES only contained two items measuring patriotism and none measuring nationalism However, this measure of patriotism still offered us some opportunity to examine the generalizability of findings from the Israeli and American student samples

Patriotism was indexed by the following two questions: (1) ‘‘When 7 We should also note that this two-item patriotism scale was almost identical ta the two- item patriotism scale used recently by de la Garza et al (1996)

Trang 14

you see the American flag flying does it make you feel extremely good, very good, somewhat good, or not very good?’’ (2) ‘‘How strong is your love for your country, extremely strong, very strong, somewhat strong or not very strong?’ (œ = 78)

In-group affect was defined by use of the NES thermometer rating (cold/warm) of one’s own ethnic in-group For example, among Euro- Americans, in-group affect was defined as the degree of positive affect toward ‘‘whites.’”

In-group preference was defined in essentially the same way as with the two student samples For whites, in-group preference was defined as the difference between the positive affect felt toward whites minus the average affect felt toward blacks and Latinos For Latinos, it was the positive affect felt toward Latinos minus the affect felt toward whites For blacks, it was the positive affect felt toward blacks minus the affect felt toward whites

Results: Israeli and American Comparisons

We begin the substantive analyses with a comparison of the mean differences in patriotism and nationalism between Israeli Jews and Israeli Arabs and between Euro-Americans and African Americans We decided to use African Americans as the American subordinate group because of its long and intense history of oppression and current status within American society Using analyses of covariance, we examined mean differences in patriotism and nationalism, controlling for educational level and social class (see table 3).?

It is not surprising that, even after controlling for factors such as social class and education, Israeli Arabs were significantly and substantially less patriotic and nationalistic than Israeli Jews (patriotism: effect size = 64; nationalism: effect size = 28)." Also, as anticipated, and inconsistent with what the melting pot and pluralist perspectives would expect, there were significant and somewhat substantial differences in the patriotism and nationalism scores of Euro-Americans and African Americans How- ever, these differences were not as powerful among the Americans as among the Israelis (patriotism: effect size = 38; nationalism: effect size = 14) It is also worth noting that the pattern of the differences between the high- and low-status groups was the same across both countries, in

9, Educational level was indexed by the students’ educational rank (.e., freshman, sopho- more, junior, or senior), and social class was indexed by a composite of two items: (1) the students’ classification of their families into one of five class categories (i.e., poor, working class, middle class, upper middle class, or upper class} and (2) the students” esti- mates of their families” annual income The reliability of the social class index was ade- quate (a = 58)

Trang 15

Ethnic and Nationaí Actachment 115 Table 3 Means on Patriotism and Nationalism for Israelis and Americans National Dimension N Patriotism Nationalism Israeli groups: Israeli Jews 366 wee " Mean tin 5.93 4.14 Israeli Arabs 181 tee vee Mean tee 3.03 2.60 # ta 573.80** 67.26** Effect size wee 64 28 American groups: Euro-Americans 154 " tee Mean tee 3.46 3.79 African Americans 113 vu Lee Mean oa 3.97 3.05 z ne 37.49** 4.06* Effect size wee 38 -14 Note.—F-statistics are controlled for differences in educational level and social class The standardized effect size indicates the strength of the relationship between ethnicity, on the one hand, and nationalism and patriotism, on the other hand, controlling for the effects of educational level and social class

ap < 05 Hy < OL

that the patriotism differences were more powerful than the nationalism differences

We next examined patriotism and nationalism as functions of in-group identification, in-group preference, and SDO within each ethnic group Because the size of the product-moment correlations can be greatly af- fected by between-group differences in variances, we conducted these multigroup comparisons by use of bivariate, unstandardized regression coefficients instead Unstandardized regression coefficients are essentially unaffected by between-group variance differences (Cohen and Cohen 1983)

Trang 17

Ethnic and National Attachment 117 Jews were, the less patriotic they were However, a very different pattern was foynd among Israeli Arabs Quite consistent with the general group dominance perspective, among Israeli Arabs patriotism increased with (1) lower levels of in-group identification (b = —.32, p < 01), (2) greater preference for Jews over Arabs (b = —.16, p < 01), and (3) greater levels of social dominance orientation (b = 47, p < OL)

In order to see if these relationships were significantly different across the two groups of Israelis, we performed a series of slopes analyses using hierarchical regression (see table 4) In these analyses, an interaction term was computed as the product of ethnic group membership (i.e., Jewish vs Arab) and a given in-group attachment measure (¢.g., in-group identification) This interaction term was then entered into a hierarchical regression analysis, after the main effects of ethnicity and in-group attachment, in order to test the null hypothesis that the unstandardized population regression coefficients were the same across groups (for further explanation of how hierarchical regression is used to test interaction effects, see Peda- zur [1982}, pp 436-50)

Table 4 shows that the nature of the relationships between measures of ethnic attachment and group dominance, on the one hand, and patriotism, on the other, was significantly different across the two groups of Israelis For example, the regression of patriotism on (1) in-group identification was significantly more positive among Israeli Jews than among Israeli Arabs (¢ = 8.62, p < 01), (2) in-group preference was significantly more positive among Israeli Jews than among Israeli Arabs (t = 4.08, p <_.01), and (3) SDO was significantly more negative among Israeli Jews than among Israeli Arabs (¢ = —4.18, p < 01)

The same general pattern was also found with respect to nationalism The regression of nationalism on both indices of in-group attachment was positive among Israeli Jews (in-group identification: b = 31, p < 01; in-group preference: b = 37, p < 0L) and negative among Israeli Arabs (in-group identification: b = —.27, p < 01; in-group preference: b = —.23, p < 01) In addition, the slopes analyses showed both of these differences to be statistically significant (in-group identification: t = 4.41, p < 01; in-group preference: t = 6.45, p < 01) The only result of note here was the fact that the regression of nationalism on SDO was more positive among Israeli Arabs than among Israeli Jews (b = 1.00 vs b = 39, respectively; t-value = —2.71, p < 01) For the most part, these types of asymmetry in the relationships between ethnic and national attachment were what we would expect

Since the melting pot or pluralist models are most often applied to the United States, we should expect a symmetrical rather than asymmetrical interface between ethnic and national attachment among the American ethnic groups Nonetheless, inspection of table 4 shows that, for the most part, the same type of asymmetry found in Israel applies to the U.S data

Trang 18

For Euro-Americans, the regressions of both dimensions of national, attachment on measures of ethnic attachment and SDO were positive, without exception For the African Americans, on the other hand, the regressions of patriotism on measures of ethnic attachment and SDO were negative In addition, with respect to patriotism, all of these relationships were significantly asymmetrical across Euro-Americans and African Americans

In particular, there are two findings that seem of special note here First, contrary to what was found among Israeli Jews, among Euro-Americans the regression of patriotism on social dominance orientation was positive rather than negative The more whites desired group-based inequality, the more patriotic they were In addition, it is also noteworthy that patriotism had the exact opposite relationship with SDO among African Americans, where patriotism was associated with the desire for greater equality among social groups Apparently, patriotism does not imply the same values regarding group inequality for blacks as it does for whites It is interesting to note that the interface between SDO and patriotism among African Americans is more similar to the pattem found among Israeli Jews than to the pattern found among the African Americans’ white compatriots

Finally, with respect to nationalism, the American data seemed to show a qualitatively different kind of asymmetry than was found among the Israelis Like the Israeli data, there was significant asymmetry across the American groups concerning the regressions of nationalism on ethnic identification and in-group preference (¢ = 1.88, p < 05; and ¢ = 2.30, p < 05; respectively) However, unlike the case for Israeli Arabs, among African Americans nationalism was not significantly related to decreased in-group identification and in-group preference; rather, nonsignificant positive relationships were found between the variables (b = 12 and 07, respectively)

Despite the differences between Israel and the United States that suggest that the group dominance model should apply to Jewish Arab relations, while either the melting pot or pluralist model should apply to American ethnic relations, we find that the empirical relationships between indices of ethnic and national identity appear to be more similar than dissimilar across these two different countries, at least with respect to the comparisons between Jewish versus Arab Israelis and white versus black Americans Consistent with what a general group dominance perspective would suggest, within both nations and with respect to both dimensions of national attachment (patriotism and nationalism), there were more positive associations between ethnic and national attachment among high-status ethnic groups than among low-status ethnic groups

Trang 19

Ethnic and National Attachment 119 Table § Results from Multiple Discriminant Analysis Using Ethnic Group: Membership against Four Measures of National Attachment Standardized Structural Discriminant Discriminant Coefficients Coefficients Variable FL F2 #1 #2 Patriotism 1.00 —15 99 7 Nationalism —.04 1.02 38 89 National attachment 09 —.38 34 08

Concern for co-nationals -.10 2 64 —.28

Canonical correlation 41 2I trở

whether the types of asymmetry found between Euro-Americans and Afri- can Americans would also occur on other dimensions of national attachment and among other American minority groups Therefore, in a series of intra~American comparisons, we used a much more comprehensive bat- tery of national and ethnic attachment items and examined two additional American minority groups (Latino and Asian Americans)

Results: Intra-American Comparisons, Student Sample HIGHER-ORDER NATIONAL ATTACHMENT SPACE

Before examining the correlation between ethnic and national attachment, we first determined the smallest number of dimensions of national attachment that was optimally meaningful for American ethnic group membership To do this, we performed a multiple discriminant analysis using all four national attachment subdimensions (found in the factor analysis in table 2) as discriminating variables and all four American ethnic groups (e., Euro-, African, Latino, and Asian Americans) The results disclosed two statistically significant orthogonal dimensions that optimally discrimi- nated among these four ethnic groups (canonical correlation coefficients = 41 and 21, respectively; see table 5)

Trang 20

Nationalism Euro-Amerieans a “ Asian Americans aa xxx vốn er) 0 40 420 40 40 40 40 e Patriotism African Americans a 2) Latino Americans -0 -e0

Figure 1 The centroids of the four American ethnic groups in the two-dimensional nationalism/patriotism space

of each ethnic group with respect to both dimensions are found in figure 1 We calculated discriminant scores for all subjects on both higher-order dimensions of nationalism and patriotism and used these discriminant scores in the subsequent analyses Not only do these discriminant national attachment scores provide measures of nationalism and patriotism that are mutually orthogonal, but they also provide national attachment variables that are optimally relevant to the distinctions among the four ethnic groups of concern to us."'

Trang 21

Ethnic and National Attachment 121 As can be seen in figure 1, compared to the other three ethnic groups, Euro-Americans had the highest scores with respect to both patriotism and nationalism It is also noteworthy that African Americans displayed dramatically lower scores on patriotism than any other group Using discriminant function scores for each respondent on each higher-order dimension of national attachment, we then examined the group differences on both dimensions employing analyses of covariance, controlling for educational level and social class The results of these analyses revealed that the group differences with respect to patriotism were statistically significant and relatively strong (F(3,370) = 18.69; p < 001; effect size = 37) However, pair-wise, Scheffé post hoc tests revealed that these differences were primarily driven by differences between African Americans and the other three groups None of the other pair-wise differences among the groups was statistically significant (Le., all p’s > 10) Similarly, even though there was an overall significant difference among the ethnic groups on nationalism (F(3,370) = 4.38; p < 05; effect size = 21), after controlling for educational level and socjal class, analysis of pair-wise comparisons revealed that only the difference between Euro-Americans and Latino Americans was statistically significant

Next, once again using the unstandardized bivariate regression coefficients within each of the ethnic groups, we regressed the national attachment scores upon the various indices of ethnic group attachment and group dominance ideology (i.e., SDO and classical racism) We begin with an examination of nationalism

NATIONALISM, IDEOLOGIES OF GROUP DOMINANCE, AND ETHNIC STATUS

Trang 22

Panel A: Ethnic Groups Whites Asians Latinos Blacks Group dominance ideology:

Social dominance orientation Age 4z 6944 TT Classical racism 32**+ 28* 30** 28” Ethnic group atiachment: In-group mobilization 7% 04 —,10 —.04 In-group preference 34*# 03 12 12* Experienced discrimination 06 ~.21* -.03 04 In-group identification „21*# 23x 05 J2

Group boundary maintenance 16* 20* 25+ 11* Generalized group attachment 634 33 1? 21*

N 154 72 98 113

Group đaminance ideolosy: Social dominance orientation Classical racism Ethnic group attachment: In-group mobilization In-group preference Experienced discrimination In-group identification Group boundary maintenance Generalized group attachment

Panel B: Ethnic Group Contrasts of Slope Differences

Whites vs Whites vs Whites vs

Asians Latinos Blacks ns —2.05* —1.98* ns ns Is ns 2.50* 1.96 Is 1.97 ns 3.17 ns "5 ns L.97* Is ns ns Is ns 2.56** 271%

Note.—Panel A entries are unstandardized bivariate b-coefficients Panel B entries are t-values, 0.8 = nat significant

Trang 23

Ethnic and National Attachment 123 gression analyses The results of these analyses showed that the regression coefficients hetween nationalism and SDO were, in fact, significantly more positive among Latino Americans and African Americans than among Euro-Americans (t = —2.05, p < 05; t = —1.98, p < 05; respectively; see table 6, panel B)

NATIONALISM, ETHNIC GROUP ATTACHMENT, AND ETHNIC STATUS In comparison to the findings regarding the dominance measures, the findings with regard to the connection between nationalism and ethnic group attachment were somewhat more equivocal To the extent that the regression coefficients were significant at all, the general trend showed positive associations over all groups (with the exception of the coefficient between experienced discrimination and nationalism among Asian Ameri- cans) The pattern of these relationships becomes clearer when ane con- centrates upon the generalized group attachment measure In contrast to the findings for Israeli Arabs, there was a clear tendency for the regression of nationalism on this generalized group attachment index to be positive across all three minority ethnic groups In fact, among African Americans this relationship reached statistical significance (b = 21, p < 05) Among the dominant Euro-Americans, this relationship was also statistically significant and even more positive (b = 63, p < 01) A test of the interac- tions between ethnic group and global group attachment showed that the regression coefficients relating nationalism and generalized group attachment were significantly more positive among whites than among both Latinos and blacks (¢ = 2.56, p < 01, t = 2.71, p < O1; respectively; see table 6, panel B)

PATRIOTISM, IDEOLOGIES OF GROUP DOMINANCE, AND ETHNIC STATUS

Trang 24

Panel A: Ethnic Groups

Whites Asians Latinos Blacks

Group dominance ideology:

Social dominance orientation 23*# —.15 94 —.36** Classical racism 30** —.24* 05 14 Ethnic group attachment: In-group mobilization 21* =1 _.23** —.23** In-group preference 253 —2A* 034K = 2 Experienced discrimination, 07 —.08 —.20** —.10 In-group identification 24** —.14* —.21* _.27*£ Group boundary maintenance |l8*#* AL ~.21* —.21*£ Generalized group attachment 63%" —,48*'ˆP© —,50#+ —.51**

N 154 72 98 113

Panel B: Ethnic Group Contrasts of Slope Differences

Whites vs Whites vs Whites vs

Asians Latinos Blacks

Group dominance ideology:

Social dominance orientation 248* ns 2.48*

Classical racism 3.274" 1.76* Is

Ethnic group attachment:

In-group mobilization 274 4.22** 3.69%*

In-group preference 4.00** 4.62** 5.00**

Experienced discrimination 1.76* 3.52** ns

In-group identification 4.09 5345 5.25**

Group boundary maintenance 3.08** 4.03%* 3.18*% Generalized group attachment 5.38** 6.45% 6.99**

Note.—Pane] A entries are unstandardized bivariate b-coefficients Panel B entries are f-values n.s = not significant

Trang 25

Ethnic and National Attachment 125 To see if this apparent asymmetry was statistically significant, we performed,the same type of slope analyses as used before As table 7 (panel B) shows, four of these six interaction tests showed statistically significant asymmetry in the comparisons of the slopes for whites versus a given subordinate group For example, the regression coefficient of patriotism regressed upon social dominance orientation was significantly more positive for whites than for Asians or blacks (¢ = 2.48, p < 05, in both cases) In addition, patriotism was significantly more positively associated with classical racism among the dominant Euro-Americans than among either Asian Americans or Latino Americans (¢ = 3.27, p < 01; ¢ = 1.76, p <_.05; respectively)

PATRIOTISM, ETHNIC GROUP ATTACHMENT, AND ETHNIC STATUS Restricting our attention to the dominant Euro-Americans alone (see table 7, panel A), we see that the regressions of patriotism on each and every index of ethnic group attachment were positive For example, patriotism increased among Euro-Americans as a function of (1) preference for whites over other American ethnic minorities (b = 25, p < 01), (2) identification with the white ethnic in-gronp (b = 24, p < 01), (3) willingness to engage in political activism on behalf on the white ethnic in- group (b = 21, p < 05), (4) opposition to intermarriage with other ethnic groups (b = 18, p < 01), and (5) the degree to which white respondents experienced discrimination because of their ethnic group membership (b = 07, p < 05) Aggregating these group attachment indices, the data showed a very clear and strong positive association between patriotism and the generalized measure of ethnic group attachment among the dominant Euro-Americans (b = 63, p < 01)

On the other hand, and consistent with the findings for the Israeli Arabs, these relationships tended to move in exactly the opposite direction within all three subordinate groups For example, among Latinos, patriotism tended to increase with (1) less willingness to engage in political mobilization on behalf of the ethnic in-group (6 = —.23, p < O1), (2) greater preference for whites over the ethnic in-group (b = —.23, p < 01), (3) less identification with the ethnic in-group (b = —.21, p < 05), (4) less experience of ethnic discrimination (b = —.20, p < 01), and (5) less opposition to interracial marriage (i.e., group boundary maintenance: b = —.21, p < 05) Examining the generalized measure of ethnic group attachment across all three subordinate ethnic groups, we see that these relationships with patriotism were all negative and quite substantial across all three groups (Asians: b = —.48, p < 01; Latinos: b = —.50, p < O1; blacks: b = —.5I, p < 01)

Trang 26

patrio-tism and the separate group attachment measures for whites versus a given subordinate group In addition, when the global index of group attachment was used, the data showed these relationships to be significantly different for all contrasts between the dominant Euro-Americans and each of the subordinate groups (whites vs Asians: ¢ = 5.38, p < 01; whites vs Latinos: t = 6.45, p < 01; whites vs blacks: t = 6.99, p < 01)."* RESULTS: INTRA-AMERICAN COMPARISONS, NATIONAL PROBABILITY DATA (SAMPLE 3)

Examination of the mean levels of patriotism for the three ethnic groups (whites, Latinos, and blacks) largely confirmed the findings in the UCLA student sample While there were highly significant and relatively strong differences in the patriotism scores of the three groups (F(2,2165) = 97.88, p < 001; effect size = 29), these differences were largely restricted to the contrast between blacks versus the other two groups While there were no discernible differences in the patriotism scores of Latinos (M = 3.38) and whites (M = 3.39), Scheffé post hoc comparisons showed that blacks (M = 2.78) were significantly less patriotic than both Latinos and whites (p’s < 10)

Examination of the interface between in-group preference and patriotism showed a reasonable degree of convergence with the results found in the Israeli and American student samples (see table 8) This convergence was especially keen with respect to the white/black contrast As in both the Israeli and American student samples, within the dominant ethnic group (i.e., whites) the regression of patriotism on ethnic in-group preference was positive: the greater the degree of whites’ differential preference for ‘‘whites’” versus the two ethnic minorities ‘‘blacks’’ and *‘Latinos,’’ the greater their levels of patriotism (b = 73, p < 01) In stark contrast ta the results found among Euro-Americans, among both Latino and African Americans the greater the degree ta which these groups displayed out- group preference for whites in relation to their own ethnic group, the greater their levels of patriotism However, while this relationship was statistically significant among African Americans (bồ = —.94, p < 01), it did not reach statistical significance among Latinos (b = —.42) None- theless, a formal comparison of the slopes for whites versus the two other ethnic groups showed statistical significance in both cases The slope for Euro-Americans was significantly more positive than the slopes for both Latinos (¢ = 4.28, p < 01) and African Americans (¢ = 8.40, p < 01)

Finally, to even more closely approximate the procedures used by de

Trang 27

Ethnic and National Attachment 127 Table & Patriotism as a Function of In-Group Preference and In- Group Affect among Whites, Latinos, and Blacks (1992 National Election Study Data)

Panel A: Ethnic Groups

Whites Latinos Blacks

In-group preference Tye —.42 —.941*

In-group affect 83" Age -52 N 1,724 166 278 Panel B: Ethnic Group Contrasts of Slope Differences Whites vs Latinos Whites vs Blacks In-group preference 4.28% 840*% In-group affect ns 5.06**

Nore.—Panel A entries are unstandardized bivariate b-coefficients Panel B entries are values 1.8 = not significant

¥p <.05 p< OL

Trang 28

Summary and Discussion

Given the long and bitter history of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the subordinate position of Israeli Arabs within Israel society, we had strong reason to expect that the interface between ethnic and national identity should be asymmetrical for Jews and Arabs (see also Lawson 1975) In addition, we assumed that one should be able to generalize and expect an asymmetrical interface between ethnic and national identity whenever legal and social rights are essentially determined by membership in a particular ethnic group to the de jure or de facto exclusion of other ethnic groups

While this type of asymmetry should characterize the interface between ethnic and national identity within societies based upon the ethic of ethnic exclusivity, this type of asymmetry should not be found within societies based upon and functioning according to the principles of ethnic inclusi- vity and ethnic group equality In such societies, the pluralist model would predict that attachment to one’s ethnic identity should not be inconsistent with one’s attachment to the nation as a whole Rather, as de la Garza et al.’s (1996) data suggest, positive commitment to one’s ethnic group could be used as a means of increasing one’s engagement in and commitment to the larger polity In addition, the melting pot model would predict that in societies that are actually functioning as ‘‘melting pot’? societies, ethnic particularism should either be completely irrelevant to, or negatively correlated with, one’s national identity—equally for all ethnic groups

In contrast, researchers using a group dominance perspective (see, e.g., Sidanius 1993) would predict that, in all societies organized as group- based hierarchies, the interface between ethnic and national identity should be characterized by the particular forms of asymmetry found here Because complex societies all tend to be organized as group-based hierarchies, ‘‘citizenship rights’’ should be disproportionately regarded as the primary property of dominant groups rather than of subordinate groups This disproportion in perceived ‘‘ownership”’ rights should then lead to asymmetry in the interface between ethnic and national identity, regardless of the type of society examined (e.g., democratic vs nondemocratic, pluralist vs nonpluralist) Therefore, despite American declarations of political equality before the law, and the fact that the average black family has been in the United States longer than the average white family and is therefore in some sense more ‘‘American,’’ chronic ethnic inequality should lead to the same type of asymmetry in the connection between ethnic and national identity in the United States as is found in Israel."

Trang 29

Ethnic and National Attachment 129 group dominance perspective than with the melting pot or pluralist per- Spectivés, the data showed that this cross-national similarity in asymmetry appeared to vary somewhat depending upon the dimension of national attachment and the specific ethnic group examined In the Israeli case, while the relationship between ethnic and national identity was positive for Israeli Jews, it was always negative for Israeli Arabs, and with respect to both patriotism and nationalism In the two American samples, the nature of the asymmetry varied depending upon the ethnic subgroup in- volved, the measures used, and the dimension of national attachment defined For patriotism, the data for African Americans were consistent across both the student and national probability samples African Ameri- cans were always found to have lower levels of patriotism than Euro- Americans and all other ethnic groups The asymmetry in the relationship between ethnic attachment and patriotism between Euro-Americans and African Americans was also quite consistent across samples, regardless of the patriotism measure used: while patriotism increased as a function of ethnic attachment among Euro-Americans, patriotism decreased as a function of ethnic attachment among African Americans Altogether, while at least some blacks, such as General Colin Powell, might find no contradiction between their African American and American identities, this is clearly not the case for African Americans as a rule

While the results were quite consistent for African Americans, they were somewhat less consistent for Latino Americans Unlike the case for blacks, there was no evidence in either the student sample or national probability sample that Latinos were any less patriotic than whites These results were consistent with the de la Garza et al (1996) findings Some- what less consistent, however, were the findings concerning the asymmetry between patriotism and ethnic attachment While we found no asymmetry in the relationship between patriotism and in-group affect in our national probability sample of Latinos, we did find asymmetry in the relationships between patriotism and measures of ethnic group attachment in the UCLA student sample The fact that the Latinos in the Southern Cali- fornia student sample behaved in much the same way as the African Americans might have a great deal to do with the fact that there is intense anti-immigrant feeling in this part of the country, largely focused upon “‘Latinos’* in general and Mexicans in particular Because of these regional differences and the fact that Latinos in national probability samples are a very heterogeneous group, more detailed research that considers both regional and ethnic issues is clearly needed

Trang 30

Euro-American group These results appear to imply that a ‘‘pluralistic’’ relationship between American identity and ethnic identity is only possible when national attachment is defined in terms of national domination and hegemony over other nations

The findings with regard to a secondary issue, namely, the interface between social dominance orientation and patriotism, are both complex and intriguing We recall that while social dominance orientation and patriotism were positively related among Israeli Arabs, these variables were negatively related among African Americans These data suggest that those African Americans with greater levels of group-based egalitarianism (Le., low social dominance orientation) may also have a more egalitarian vision of American society, a vision that is inconsistent with traditionally defined American patriotism For Israeli Arabs, on the other hand, values of group-based antiegalitarianism seem to be quite consistent with love of and devotion to their country The reasons why African Americans and Israeli Arabs appear to be interpreting patriotism in such diametrically opposed ways are not immediately obvious at present and should be inves- tigated in the future

The negative association between patriotism and social dominance orientation among Israeli Jews was also somewhat unexpected from a general group dominance perspective Given orthodox Jews’ theological opposition to the present Israeli state, it is possible that religious orthodoxy is influencing this relationship such that very orthodox Jews are less attached to the country than their more secular compatriots yet are more positively disposed toward social dominance and strong national power Once again, additional research is needed to follow up on these somewhat anomalous findings and their possible implications

Trang 31

Ethnic and National Attachment 131 One might also question our conclusions by arguing that our definition of patrietism is politically biased because the symbols we used to opera- tionalize the construct (e.g., the flag and the national anthem) are more strongly referenced by conservatives than by liberals Among liberals, it might be argued, patriotism would be more validly referenced by symbols such as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Statue of Liberty However, in defense of our approach, we should remember that in the American and Israeli comparisons, we used only those items that operationalized patriotism without reference to political symbols that could be construed as either right-wing or left-wing (i.c., ‘I have great love for my country’’ and ‘‘T am proud to be an Israeli/American’’) Even with this more restricted definition of patriotism, (a) blacks were still found to be significantly less patriotic than whites, (b) the relationship between patriotism and ingroup attachment was still found to be positive among whites and negative among blacks, and (c) patriotism was still found to be positively related to social dominance orientation among whites and negatively related to SDO among blacks Last, even using the single and more ‘politically neutral’’ patriotism item in the national probability sample of Americans (i-e., love of country), blacks still had significantly less love for the United States than either whites or Latinos, and the regression of ‘‘love of country’ on in-group preference was still positive among whites (b = 58, p < 001) and negative among blacks (b = —.88, p < 001) In addition, defining patriotism in terms of love of country and reactions to national symbols such as the flag not only is more consistent with generally accepted definitions of patriotism but is also substantially more amenable to meaningful cross-cultural comparisons While devotion to symbols such as the Statue of Liberty and the Bill of Rights might or might not be appropriate bases for defining patriotism in the United States, since such symbols do not generally exist within other political systems, these definitional foundations could not possibly serve as appropriate bases for defining patriotism within other nations

Trang 32

found here be regarded as a first take on a topic that has been surprisingly neglected by contemporary social scientists, especially considering the rising and pernicious level of destabilizing intranational ethnic conflict developing in the latter part of the twentieth century

References

Berry, J W., W Kalin, and D M Taylor 1977 Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services

Blumer, H 1961 “Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position.”” In Race Relations: Problems and Theory Edited by I Masuoka and P Valien, pp 217-27, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press

Brigham, I C., J I Woodmansee, and W W Cook 1976 “Dimensions of Verbal Racial Attitudes: Interracial Marriage and Approaches to Racial Equality.”” Journal of Social Issues 329-21

Citrin, I, E B Haas, C Muste, and B, Reingold 1994 ‘Is American Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy.”” International Studies Quarterly 38:\— 31

Cohen, J., and P Cohen 1983 Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences 2d ed Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

de la Garza, R O., A Falcon, and F C Garcia 1996 ‘Will the Real Americans Please Stand Up: Anglo and Mexican-American Support of Core American Political Values.” American Journal of Political Science 40:335-51

Doob, L W 1964 Patriotism and Nationalism: Their Psychological Foundations New Haven, CT: Yale University Press

Feshbach, S 1987 **Aggression, National Attachment and the Search for Peace: Psychological Perspectives.” Aggressive Behavior 13:315-25

1991 ‘*Attachment Processes in Adult Political Ideology: Patriotism and Nationalism.” In Intersections with Attachment Edited by J L Gewirtz M Kurtines Hillsdale, NI: Erlbaum

1992 “Parental Attachments, National Attachments and Attitudes towards War: Some Further Explorations and Thoughts.”” In Socialization and Aggression Edited by A Fraczek and H Zumkley New York: Springer

1994 “Nationalism, Patriotism and Aggression: A Clarification of Functional Differences."' In Aggressive Behavior: Clinical Perspectives Edited by L R Huesmann New York: Plenum

Feshbach, S., and N Sakano In press ‘‘The Structure and Correlates of Attitudes towards One's Nation in Samples of United States and Japanese College Students: A Comparison Study.” In Patriotism in the Life af Individuats and Nations Edited by D Bar-Tal and E Staub Chicago: Nelson-Hall

Hertzberg, H., and H L Gates, Jr 1996 “The African American Century.’? New Yorker, April 29, pp 9-10

Kosterman, R., and § Feshbach 1989 ‘‘Toward a Measure of Patriotic and Nationalistic Attitudes."* Political Psychology 10:257-74

Kretamer, D 1990 The Legal Status of the Arabs in Israel Boulder, CO: Westview Lambert, W E., L Mermigis, and D M Taylor 1986 ‘‘Greek Canadians’ Attitudes

toward Own Group and Other Canadian Ethnic Groups: A Test of the

Multiculturalism Hypothesis.'' Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 18:35—51 Lawson, E D 1975 “Flag Preference as an Indicator of Patriotism in Israeli

Children.”” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 6:490-97

Levin, &., and J Sidanius 1995 ‘‘Sacial Dominance Orientation and the Political Psychology of Gender: A Middle-Eastern and Multicultural Replication.”” Paper presented at the 18th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Washington, DC

Trang 33

Ethnic and National Attachment 133 Moghaddam, F M and D M Taylor 1987 '"The Meaning of Multiculturalism for

Visible Minority Immigrant Women.'' Canadian Jowrnal af Behavioral Science 19: 121-36

Pedazur, E J 1982 Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research: Explanation and Prediction, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Powell, C L 1995 My American Journey, New York: Random House

Pratto, F., J Liu, § Levin, J Sidanius, M Shih, and H Bachrach 1996 Social Dominance Orientation and the Legitimization of Inequality across Cultures Unpublished manuscript

Pratto, F., J Sidanius, L M Stallworth, and B F Malle 1994 ‘Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes.’* Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67:741-63

Schlesinger, A M., Ir 1992 The Disuniting of America New York: Norton Sears, D O., J Citin, S Vidanage, and N Valentino 1994 “What Ordinary

Americans Think about Multiculturalism.’’ Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Assaciation, New York

Sidanius, I 1993 “The Psychology of Group Conflict and the Dynamics of Oppression: A Social Dominance Perspective.”* In Explorations in Political Psychology Edited by S Iyengar and W McGuire, pp 183-219 Durham, NC: Duke University Press

Simpson, J C 1995 ‘Pluralism: The Evolution of a Nebulous Concept."' American Behavioral Scientist 38:459-77

Smith, T W 1991 ‘What Do Americans Think about Jews?"' Working Papers on Contemporary Anti-Semitism American Jewish Committee, Institute of Human Relations, Néw York

Stannard, D E 1992 American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World New York: Oxford University Press

Steinberg, S 1989 The Ethnic Myth: Race, Ethnicity and Class in America, Boston: Beacon

Stem, P C 1995 ‘Why Do People Sacrifice for Their Nation?" Political Psychology 16:217-35

Tajfel, H., and J C Turner 1986 ‘The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup

Conflict." In The Sacial Psychology of Intergroup Relations Edited by W G Austin and S, Worchel, pp 33-47 Monterey, CA: Braaks/Cole

Định dạng
Số trang	33
Dung lượng	862,12 KB