Examining Nationalism And Authoritarianism Sociology Essay Essay
Colored Americans to some extent are haunted by their ain lower status. For illustration, Asiatic American undergraduates express similar implicit prejudices, and view their ain group as less American than White Americans ( Devos and Banaji, 2005 ) . Therefore, for both bulk and minority groups in the US, it appears that White Americans form the archetypal example of ‘real America ‘ .
In Western Europe, the term elusive racism is used to capture these more concealed signifiers of bias ( Pettigrew and Meertens, 1995 ) . In malice of this, research attempts to develop steps of antique and modem racism have evolved independently. Hence, a general model incorporating these assorted bias dimensions is non available.
Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn ( 1993 ) develop a theoretical account in which four alternate looks of racism are arrayed on a individual dimension that runs from blazing racism through elusive racism to equalitarianism. The most utmost racialist place is called biological racism, which refers to a belief in White domination. Those who adhere to this signifier of racism agree that differences between racial groups are inherited from parents or possessed from birth. Symbolic racism is the 2nd signifier of racism on the cumulative dimension that besides refers to an avidity to know apart, but symbolic racialists do so because they believe that minorities ‘ different moral values threaten their ain civilization. The 3rd signifier of racism, viz. ethnocentrism, does non connote the want for racial segregation, but alternatively is characterized chiefly by the distinction between in-groups and out-groups, every bit good as by the demand for the entry of out-groups. Finally, aversive racism-the least terrible kind of prejudice-refers to reluctance to interact with out-group members. Peoples who do non score high on either of these facet graduated tables are labeled equalitarians. In this sense, Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn ( 1993 ) position menace as characteristic for all signifiers of racism, although menace manifests itself in assorted ways. In the instance of biological racism, out-groups are seen as a biological menace that endangers in-groups, and intergroup struggle represents a racial job. In the instance of symbolic racism and ethnocentrism, the out-group poses a cultural menace, and the struggle is experienced as a social job. In the instance of aversive racism, contact with members of outgroups is considered baleful, and this is considered to be a societal job. Still, Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn ( 1993 ) explicitly arrange the assorted signifiers of racism harmonizing to their possible to arouse menace and laterality motives. They assume that high quality is a constituent of biological and symbolic racism, every bit good as ethnocentrism, whereas high quality is non typical for aversive racism. In the instance of biological racism, high quality translates into biological high quality ; in the instance of symbolic racism and ethnocentrism, high quality takes the signifier of false cultural domination.
Patriotism, obviously talking, is a political and societal attitude of a group of society that has indistinguishable civilization, linguistic communication, and regional background. Therefore, those people in that group feel the intense trueness toward the clique. In modern sense, patriotism can be traced back from the Gallic Revolution, in which its roots have grown with the revival of centralised lands, with the philosophy of Mercantilism economic policy, and birth of strong in-between categories. Smith ( 1998 ) argues that while there is important argument over the historical beginnings of states, about all specializers accept that patriotism, at least as an political orientation and societal motions, is a modern phenomenon arising in Europe. Precisely where and when it emerged is hard to find, but its development is closely related to that of the modern province and the push for popular sovereignty that came to a caput with the Gallic Revolution in the late eighteenth century ( Laqueur, 1997 ) . Since that clip, patriotism has become one of the most important political and societal forces in history, possibly most notably as a major influence or cause of World War I and particularly World War II due to the rise of fascism, a extremist and autocratic patriot political orientation.
Harmonizing to Smith ( 1993 ) , patriotism refers to an political orientation, a sentiment, a signifier of civilization, or a societal motion that focuses on the state. He notes that the paradigm of patriotism, which was so dominant boulder clay late, is that of classical modernism. This is the construct that states and patriotism are intrinsic to the nature of the modern universe and to the revolution of modernness. Nowadays, patriotism is associated with desire to unite or national independency, such as the reunion of the two German provinces ; on the other manus, it could be a destructive force in states with multi-ethnic society, such as in India, Indonesia, or Israel.
It is necessary to hold a clear thought about the term ‘nationalism ‘ and other cardinal constructs as ‘nation ‘ , ‘nationality ‘ , or ‘national individuality ‘ . In this sense, Young et Al. ( 2007 ) argues that the footings ‘nation ‘ and ‘national individuality ‘ demand to be analytically distinguished from that of the ‘state ‘ , particularly in the instance of composite state-nations like Great Britain. This means that the much-vaunted ‘decline of the province ‘ in a post-modern era is non the same as a diminution of states ; analytically, these are rather separate issues. At the same clip, substantively, the national province is to a great extent involved in the inquiry of the diminution or continuity of ‘nation ‘ and ‘national individuality ‘ . In the same manner, footings like ‘nation ‘ and national individuality ‘ demand to be aggressively distinguished from ‘nationalism ‘ , seen as an political orientation and motion, or ideological motion. They besides need to be separated from ‘national sentiments ‘ , defined as overreacted sentiment directed at a peculiar nationality.
As an political orientation, patriotism holds that ‘the people ‘ is the state, and that as a consequence merely nation-states founded on the rule of national self-government are legitimate. In many instances nationalist chase of self-government has caused struggle between people and provinces including war ( both external and domestic ) , sezession ; and in utmost instances, race murder.
Miscevic ( 2001 ) explains that although the term “ patriotism ” has a assortment of significances ; it centrally encompasses the two phenomena noted at the beginning: ( 1 ) the specific attitude that the members of a state have when they care about their individuality as members of that state and ( 2 ) the actions that the members of a state return in seeking to accomplish ( or sustain ) some signifier of political sovereignty. Each of these facets requires amplification. First, it raises inquiries about the construct of state or national individuality, about what it is to belong to a state and about how much one ought to care about one ‘s state. States and national individuality may be defined in footings of common beginning, ethnicity, or cultural ties. Second, it raises inquiries about whether sovereignty entails the acquisition of full statehood with complete authorization for domestic and international personal businesss, or whether something less than statehood would do ( Miller 1992 and Miller 2000 ) .
Despite these definitional concerns, there is a just sum of understanding about what is historically the most typical, paradigmatic signifier of patriotism. It is the one which features the domination of the state ‘s claims over single commitment and which features full sovereignty as the relentless purpose of its political plan. The province as political unit is seen by patriots as centrally ‘belonging ‘ to one ethno-cultural group and as charged with protecting and proclaiming its traditions. This signifier is exemplified by classical, “ evangelist ” patriotism, that was most outstanding in the nineteenth century in Europe and Latin America. This classical patriotism subsequently spread across the universe and in present yearss still marks much modern-day patriotism, such as in United States, India, or Indonesia.
Patriotism and ethnicity are related, though different, constructs. The differentiation between patriotism and ethnicity as analytical constructs is a simple one. Eriksen ( 1993 ) notes that a nationalist political orientation is an cultural political orientation which demands a province on behalf of the cultural group. In pattern, nevertheless, the differentiation can be well debatable in several ways ( Ericksen, 1993 ) . First, patriotism may sometimes show a polyethnic or supraethnic political orientation which stresses shared civil rights instead than shared cultural roots, such as in the United States of America. Second, certain classs of people may happen themselves in a Grey zone between state and cultural class. For illustration, in Indonesia, the Sundanese folk feels different from the Javanese folk, but as an Indonesian ( state ) , they do non experience different. Third, in the mass media and in insouciant conversation the footings are non used systematically. Nevertheless, patriotism does non needfully connote a belief in the high quality of one ethnicity over others, but some people believe that some alleged patriots support ethnocentric protectionism or ethnocentric domination.
In societies where patriotism is presented as an impartial and universalistic political orientation based on bureaucratic rules of justness, such as in Indonesia, ethnicity, ethnocentrism, and sometime cultural organisation may look as menaces against national coherence, justness, and the province. A different sort of struggle between ethnicity and patriotism, which is possibly more true to the conventional significance of the term patriotism, can be described as a struggle between a dominating and a dominated cultural group within the model of a modern nation-state.
The construct of patriotism can be scrutinized from different point of views. Weiss ( 2003 ) explains that theories of patriotism have been developed by different subjects. Social-psychological research centres on interaction procedures between groups ( competition and struggle, societal individuality ) , whereas research workers with a depth-psychology attack conceive characteristics of the person ‘s personality as a primary causality ( e.g. , research in the fascist or autocratic personality ) . By contrast, sociological and political theories derive patriotism from social developments-modernization, decomposition, or crises-and posit that such societal conditions as inequality or rapid alteration will be reflected in persons ‘ readings of a given societal state of affairs, attitudes, orientations and patriotism.
Smith ( 1998 ) argues that patriotism as a sentiment or signifier of civilization, sometimes described as ‘nationality ‘ to avoid the political orientation ‘s tarnished repute, is the societal foundation of modern society. Industrialization, democratisation, and support for economic redistribution have all been at least partially attributed to the shared societal context and solidarity that patriotism provides ( Gelner, 2005 ; Miller, 1995 ) .
From a normative typology, Gans ( 2003 ) divides the term ‘nationalism ‘ into two types, viz. statist patriotism and cultural patriotism. Harmonizing to statist patriotism, in order for provinces to recognize political values such as democracy, economic public assistance and distributive justness, the peoples of provinces must portion a homogenous national civilization. In cultural patriotism, members of groups sharing a common history and social civilization have a cardinal, morally important involvement in adhering to their civilization and in prolonging it across coevalss. In malice of these similarities, these types do non hold a common beginning. Within statist ationalism, the national civilization is the agencies, and the values of the province are the purposes. Within cultural patriotism, nevertheless, the national civilization is the purpose, and the province is the agencies. Furthermore, within statist patriotism, any national civilization, non needfully the national civilization of the provinces ‘ peoples or a portion of their peoples, could in rule be the agencies for recognizing the political values of the province. Within cultural patriotism, on the other manus, provinces are the agencies or the suppliers of the agencies for continuing the specific national civilizations of their people or parts thereof.
The term statist patriotism ( Gans, 2003 ) expresses the normative kernel of a patriotism that historians and sociologists call territorial-civic, while cultural patriotism expresses the normative kernel of the type of patriotism that is called ethnocultural by historiographers and sociologists. In doing the differentiation between territorial-civic patriotism and ethnocultural patriotism, Gans ( 2003 ) emphasizes that historiographers and sociologists have assorted geographical, sociological, judgmental and normative parametric quantities. Territorial-civic patriotism is Western and ethnocultural patriotism is Eastern. The former involves a strong in-between category whereas the latter involves intellectuals runing in a society whose in-between category is weak or which lacks a in-between category. The former is progressive and is inspired by the legal and rational construct of citizenship while the latter is regressive and is inspired by the Volk ‘s unconscious development.
To construe the differentiation of a normative typology of nationalist political orientations ( statist and cultural patriotism ) , Seymour et Al. ( 2000 ) qualify territorial-civic patriotism as a type of patriotism within which persons give themselves a province, and the province is what binds together the state. It entails that the construct of state is subjective since it emphasizes the will of persons. And it is individualistic since the state is nil over and above willing persons. Voluntarism, subjectivism and individuality therefore qualify this type of patriotism. Cultural or ethnocultural patriotism is based on a construct of the state as the merchandise of nonsubjective facts refering to societal life. These facts are that members of the state portion a common linguistic communication, civilization and tradition. In this type of patriotism, the state exists prior to the province. It is besides a corporate that transcends and is anterior to the persons of which it consists. Objectivism, Bolshevism and a deficiency of single pick qualify this signifier of patriotism.
Again, Gans ( 2003 ) points out that cultural patriotism, harmonizing to which members of national groups have a morally important involvement in adhering to their civilization and continuing it for coevalss, is non concerned with how a national civilization can lend to the realisation of the province ‘s values but instead with the support which provinces should widen to national civilizations. Statist patriotism, harmonizing to which peoples of provinces must portion a homogenous national civilization in order for their provinces to recognize political values, is non concerned with the support which provinces should widen to national civilizations. Rather, it is concerned with the support which national civilizations should widen to provinces.
It is of import to stress that naming the one type of patriotism ‘cultural ‘ , and the other ‘statist ‘ , does non intend that cultural patriotism is a-political, and that statist patriotism is a-cultural. Cultural patriotism is political, for it seeks political protection for national civilizations. Statist patriotism, with respect to civic patriotism, is cultural for it requires that peoples of provinces portion non simply a set of political rules, but besides a common linguistic communication, tradition and a sense of common history. In other words, the difference between statist and cultural patriotism is non due to the fact that the former is strictly political and the latter is strictly cultural but instead because of their different normative and practical concerns.
Patriotism may attest itself as portion of an official province political orientation or as a popular ( non-state ) motion and may be expressed along civic, cultural, cultural, spiritual or ideological lines. These self-definitions of the state are used to sort types of patriotism. However, such classs are non reciprocally sole and many nationalist motions unite some or all of these elements to changing grades. Nationalist motions can besides be classified by other standards, such as the magnitude and location.
Civic or cultural patriotism is focused on cultural instead than familial connexions between people. Civic patriotism promotes common cultural values and allows people of different beginnings to absorb into the state. Cultural patriotism is based on the familial connexions of people. Cultural patriotism specifically seeks to unify all people of a certain ethnicity heritage together. Cultural patriotism does non seek to include people of other ethnicities. Irredentism is a signifier of patriotism advancing the appropriation of districts, which have or antecedently had members of the state shacking within them, to a province which composes most or all of the state ‘s members. Expansionist patriotism promotes distributing the state ‘s members to new districts, normally on the claimed footing that bing district which the state has resided in is excessively little or is non able to physically or economically prolong the state ‘s population. Many nationalist motions in the universe are dedicated to national release, in the position that their states are being persecuted by other states and therefore necessitate to exert self-government by emancipating themselves from the accused tormentors. Finally, fascism is an autocratic patriot political orientation which promotes national revolution, national Bolshevism, a totalitarian province, and irridentism or expansionism to unite and let the growing of a state. Fascists frequently promote cultural patriotism but besides have promoted cultural patriotism including cultural assimilation of people outside a specific cultural group.
There are several reviews on patriotism ( Smith, 1998 ) . Some political theoreticians ( Zakzaky, 1992 ) make the instance that any differentiation between signifiers of patriotism is false. In all signifiers of patriotism, the populations believe that they portion some sort of common civilization. A chief ground why such typology can be considered false is that it attempts to flex the reasonably simple construct of patriotism to explicate its many manifestations or readings. Nationalism includes civic patriotism, cultural patriotism, irridentism, expansionist patriotism, and extremist or radical patriotism, which consists of release
Patriotism is sometimes seen as an highly self-asserting political orientation, doing far-reaching, if sometimes justified, demands, including the disappearing of full provinces. This has attracted fierce resistance. Much of the early resistance to patriotism was related to its geopolitical ideal of a separate province for every state. The authoritative patriot motions of the nineteenth century rejected the really being of the multiethnic imperiums in Europe. This resulted in terrible repression by the ( by and large bossy ) authoritiess of those imperiums. That tradition of secessionism, repression, and force continues in Europe and elsewhere today. Even in the early phases, nevertheless, there was an ideological review of patriotism. That has developed into several signifiers of anti-nationalism in the western universe. The Islamic resurgence of the twentieth century besides produced an Islamic review of the nation-state, that Islamic states in the universe must be led by one Muslim swayer, such as Pope in Rome.
Patriotism remains a heatedly contested topic on which there is small general consensus. The clearest illustration of resistance to patriotism is cosmopolitanism, with disciples every bit diverse as progressives, Marxists, and nihilists. Even patriotism ‘s guardians frequently disagree on its virtuousnesss, and it is common for patriots of one persuasion to belittle the aspirations of others for both rule and strategic grounds. Indeed, the lone fact about patriotism that is non in difference may be that few other societal phenomena have had a more abiding impact on the modern universe.
Harmonizing to Gelfand et Al. ( 1996 ) ‘authoritarianism, as a political doctrine is the negation of democracy ‘ and is associated with three properties:
( a ) the political system is non based on the consent of the governed but on the swayers,
( B ) there is a monopoly of power, and
( degree Celsius ) treatment and vote are replaced with the determinations of leaders.
This doctrine denies freedoms of the person and requires persons to subject to the volitions of governments, such as the King. It is widely believed that obeisance to authorization is indispensable to command inordinate individuality, and avoid anarchy and lawlessness.
In a simpler manner, ‘authoritarianism ‘ can be regarded as a dictatorial motion that favors dictatorial authorities, centralized control of private endeavor, repression of all resistance, and utmost patriotism. The protagonists of dictatorship may be against the democratic system, impeaching that the democratic system is feeble and inefficient. Altemeyer ( 2006 ) notes that dictatorship is something autocratic followings and autocratic leaders cook up between themselves. When the followings submit excessively much to the leaders, swear them excessively much, and give them excessively much leeway to make whatever they want, an undemocratic, oppressive and barbarous system may originate. It is non surprising if nowadays autocratic fascist and autocratic communist absolutisms pose the biggest menaces to democracies.
Theorists, as asserted by Kemmelmeier et al. , ( 1999 ) , by and large agree that dictatorship is incongruous with the chase of single rights and autonomies. The autocratic type of adult male may endanger to replace the individualistic and democratic type. Hence, it may non be surprising that Gelfand et Al. ( 1996 ) propose that dictatorship is the conceptual antonym of individuality.
Dictatorship has been found to be correlated with conservativism, militarism, patriotism, and religionism ( Adorno et al. , 1950 ) , taking to what was labeled the “ Authoritarian Personality ” . This “ Authoritarian Personality ” was criticized as the rightist dictator, without sing the leftist version.
Many conservative motions and groups have flourished in Continental Europe. Some of the Continental conservative motions finally gave their support to autocratic and totalitarian movements-for illustration, fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany-in the old ages between 1920 and the terminal of World War II.
Eckhardt ( 1991 ) emphasizes that dictatorship and conservativism are closely related to each other. They portion many affectional, behavioural, cognitive, ideological, and moral features. Furthermore, they project the denied or disliked facets of the ego upon others ( particularly inferiors ) , which justifies the realization of denied values ( such as aggression and laterality ) in order to incorporate or command these values as perceived in others. This psychological form makes dictatorship, like conservativism, a suicidal and antisocial usher to human dealingss. Another outstanding characteristic common to both dictatorship and conservativism is a form of punitory and restrictive childhood preparation which tends to lend to both of these personality forms, particularly ( and possibly merely ) if reinforced by similar subjects at church, school, mill, and office.
Eckhardt ( 1991 ) proposes an interesting building between autocratic and democratic societal construction. If human existences are fundamentally evil, harmonizing to the conservative doctrine of human nature, so it follows logically that we need to be controlled by an autocratic societal construction. But, if we are fundamentally good, harmonizing to the extremist doctrine of human nature, so it follows logically that it would be better for us to handle one another as free and equal human existences, that is, in a democratic societal construction. If neither conservative nor extremist doctrines are right, but instead some combination of the two applies [ as suggested by Eysenck and Wilson ( 1978 ) ] , so a basic undertaking of political psychological science would be to happen that combination and so to happen ways of advancing and realizing it.
Soon, the most comprehensive and widely accepted theory of dictatorship is that proposed by Altemeyer ( 1988, 1996, 2006 ) . Altemeyer defines dictatorship as a value syndrome that comprises three distinguishable elements:
( a ) conventionality,
( B ) entry to authorization, and
( degree Celsius ) aggression.
Authoritarians ( a ) adhere to conventional morality and value conformity with societal norms, ( B ) stress hierarchy and respect to authorization figures, and ( degree Celsius ) possess a “ jurisprudence and order ” outlook that legitimizes anger and aggression against those who deviate from societal norms and conventions.
Altemeyer ( 2006 ) besides notes that autocratic followings normally support the established governments in their society, such as authorities functionaries and traditional spiritual leaders. Such people have historically been the “ proper ” governments in life, the time-honoured, entitled, customary leaders, and that means a batch to most dictators. Psychologically these followings have personalities having: ( 1 ) a high grade of entry to the established, legitimate governments in their society ; ( 2 ) high degrees of aggression in the name of their governments ; and ( 3 ) a high degree of conventionality.
Since the publication of “ The Authoritarian Personality, ” there have been several efforts to redevelop the theory of dictatorship ( e.g. , Altemeyer, 1996 ; Rokeach, 1960 ; Duckitt, 1989 ; Feldman, 2000, 2003, Oesterreich, 2005 ) . However, harmonizing to Stellmacher and Petzel ( 2005 ) , at least three of import jobs have non yet been solved:
The job of reductionism. Authoritarianism research started with the purpose of explicating corporate societal behaviours. Theories explicating such societal phenomena have to be located on an intra- and intergroup degree of account ( Duckitt, 1989 ) . However, most current theories of dictatorship focal point on the single degree of account merely.
The societal context. Authoritarianism research additions greater explanatory power if the societal context is taken into history ( Pettigrew, 1999 ) . Several surveies over the last decennaries have shown that dictatorship and the relationship between autocratic attitudes and autocratic behaviour is much more flexible and influenced by the societal context than was originally proposed by the theory of the Authoritarian Personality ( californium. Altemeyer, 1988 ; Feldman, 2003 ; Doty, Peterson, & A ; Winter, 1991 ; Rickert, 1998 ) . Until now this fact has non yet been integrated into most dictatorship theories.
The political prejudice of the measuring. Authoritarianism measuring has frequently been criticized because of its confusion with conservativism. Most current dictatorship graduated tables focus entirely on rightist political orientations. The inquiry about the being or nonentity of leftist dictatorship is still unreciprocated ( Stone & A ; Smith, 1993 ) .