Advertisement

Studies in Comparative International Development

, Volume 35, Issue 3, pp 56–91 | Cite as

Categorically wrong? Nominal versus graded measures of ethnic identity

  • Henry E. Brady
  • Cynthia S. Kaplan
Research Forum: Substantive Entailments of Graded Versus Categorical Measures

Abstract

Ethnic identity is a fundamental concept for understanding the dynamics of contemporary political change, but there has been very little exploration of how to measure ethnic identity and even less discussion of the implications of these measurements for understanding ethnic conflict. Through an analysis of Estonians and Slavs (Russians, Byelorussians, and Ukranians) in Estonia, we show that the ethnic identity of different groups is “salient” to different degrees and that this has significant implications for within-group agreement about political issues and for between-group differences. We show that nominal ethnic identity fully predicts political attitudes when ethnicity is highly salient because a highly salient ethnic identity sets in motion forces that cause individuals within a group to form similar attitudes based upon their ethnic identity. These forces were fully active for Estonians in Estonia in the early 1990s. In this case, nominal ethnic identity was sufficient to explain the attitudes of Estonians. But ethnicity must be treated as graded when it is not highly salient, as with Slavs in Estonia, because only degrees of ethnicity can explain the within-group differences in political attitudes that arise because of a lack of salient identity. Researchers, therefore, should typically treat ethnicity as if it were graded, and they should devise graded measures of it. Although nominal measures are sometimes appropriate (i.e., when ethnicity is highly salient), they will cause the researcher to miss something important in other situations. For example, our work suggests that if events discrupt the social processes that maintain a group’s sense of itself, then a graded measure of ethnicity is useful for predicting attitudes concerning ethnic identity and survival. In short, it is not categorically wrong to treat ethnicity as nominal, but it is best to begin by treating it as graded.

Keywords

Ethnic Identity Comparative International Development Political Attitude Social Identity Theory Citizenship Status 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achen, Christopher H. 1989. “Prospective Voting and the Theory of Party Identification,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, Georgia.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Benedict. 1991.Imagined Communities. Revised Edition. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  3. Arutiunian, Iu. V. 1992.Russkie: ethno-sotsiologicheskie ocherki. Moscow: Nauka.Google Scholar
  4. Belknap, George and Angus Campbell. 1951–2. “Political Party Identification and Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy.”Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 15: 601–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Drobizheva, L. M. et al. 1996.Demokratizatsiia I obrazy natsionalizma v Rossiiskoi Federatsii 90—kh godov. Moscow: Mysl’.Google Scholar
  6. Elkins, Zachary. 2000. “Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations.”American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 44. No. 2: 293–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. “An Outline for a Model of Party Choice.”American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 21. 601–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forbes, H.D. 1997.Ethnic Conflict: Commerce, Culture, and the Contact Hypothesis. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Franklin, Charles and John Jackson. 1983. “The Dynamics of Party Identification.”American Political Science Review. Vol. 77: 957–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geertz, Clifford. 1973.The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  11. Green, Don and Eric Schickler. 1993. “Multiple-Measures Assessment of Party Identification.”Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 57. No. 4: 503–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hardin, Russell. 1995.One for All: The Logic of Group Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hallik, Klara. 1994. “Estoniia v 1988–1992 gg. (Etnopoliticheskii ocherk).” Pp. 55–72 inEstoniia: Kontury etnopoliticheskoi evoliutsii. 1988–1993 gg. Tom 1, ed., G.A. Komarova. Moscow: Rossiiskaia Akademiia Nauk.Google Scholar
  14. —. 1998. “Eestimaa Venelased: Kas Eestimaa või Venemaa.” Pp. 203–215 inVene Küsimus ja Eesti Valikud, ed. Mati Heidmets. Tallinn: TPÜ Kirjastus.Google Scholar
  15. Horowitz, Donald L. 1985.Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kaplan, Cynthia S. and Henry E. Brady 1999. “Issue Framing, Elite Actions, and Estonian Mobilization for Independence: 1988–1993.” Presented at the 1999 Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Asosciation, Chicago, Illinois, April 17, 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Karjahärm, Toomas. 1998.Ida ja Lääne Vahel: Eesti-Vene Suhted 1850–1917. Tallinn: Eesti Entsükloppediakirjastus.Google Scholar
  18. Karklins, Rasma. 1994.Ethnopolitics and Transition to Democracy: The Collapse of the USSR and Latvia. Washington, DC: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kirch, Marika. 1995. “New Regional and National Identities.” Pp. 71–82 inEstonia—A New Framework for the Estonian Majority and the Russian Minority, ed. Michael Geistlinger and Aksel Kirch. Vienna: Wilhelm Braum Iler.Google Scholar
  20. —. 1997. “Mass Media and Integration of the Russian Population.” Pp. 94–105 inThe Integration of Non-Estonians into Estonian Society: History, Problems, and Trends, ed. Aksel Kirch. Tallinn: Estonian Academy Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Kuhn, Manford H. and Thomas S. McPartland. 1954. “An Empirical Investigation of Self-Attitudes.”American Sociological Review. Vol. 19. No. 1: 68–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lagerspetz, Mikko. 1996.Constructing Post-Communism: A Study in the Estonian Social Problems Discourse. Turun Yliopiston Julkaisjuju. Series B, Vol. 214. Humaniora. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.Google Scholar
  23. Lagerspetz, Mikko and Henri Vogt. 1998. “Estonia.” Pp. 66–88 inThe Handbook of Political Change in Eastern Europe, eds. Sten Berglund, Tomas Hellén, Frank H. Aarebrot. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  24. Laitin, David D. 1998.Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Levada, Iu. A. et al. 1993.Sovetskii prostoi chelovek. Moscow: Intertsentr.Google Scholar
  26. Levine, Robert Alan and Donald T. Campbell. 1971.Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
  27. Melvin, Neil. 1995.Russians Beyond Russia: The Politics of National Identity. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, Warren. 1991. “Party Identification, Realignment, and Party Voting: Back to Basics.”American Political Science Review. Vol. 85. No. 2: 557–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. oakes, Penelope J. 1987. “The Salience of Social Categories.” Pp. 117–141 inRediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory, eds. John C. Turner et al. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Prizel, Ilya. 1998.National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russian and Ukraine. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Przeworski, Adam, Michael Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 1996. “What Makes Democracies Endure?”Journal of Democracy. Vol. 7: 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rabbie, J.M., M. Schot, and L. Visser. 1989. “Social Identity Theory: A Conceptual and Empirical Critique from the Perspective of a Behavioral Interaction Model.”European Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. 19: 171–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shils, Edward. 1957. “Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties.”The British Journal of Sociology VIII, no. 2: 130–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Slezkine, Yuri. 1996. “The USSR as a Communal Apartment, or How a Socialist State Promoted Ethnic Particularism.” Pp. 203–238 inBecoming National, eds. Geoff Eley and Ronald Grigor Suny. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, Anthony D. 1986.The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  36. — 1991.National Identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, Graham. 1998. “Post-Colonialism and Borderland Identities.” Pp. 1–20 inNation-Building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands: The Politics of National Identities, eds., Graham Smith et al. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Szporluk, Roman. 1994. “Introduction: Statehood and Nation Building in Post-Soviet Space.” Pp. 3–17 inNational Identity and Ethnicity in Russia and the New States of Eurasia, ed. Roman Szporluk. Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  39. Suny, Ronald Grigor. 1993.The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Tajfel, Henri. ed. 1978.Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tishkov, Valery. 1997.Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflict in and after the Soviet Union. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  42. Turner, John C. 1999. “Some Current Issues in Research on Social Identity and Self-Categorization Theories,” Pp. 6–34 inSocial Identity, eds. Naomi Ellemers, Russell Spears, and Bertjan Doosje. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  43. Verkuyten, Maykel. 1991. “Self-Definition and Ingroup Formation Among Ethnic Minorities in the Netherlands.”Social Psychology Quarterly. Vol. 54. No. 3: 280–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vetik, Raivo. 1999. “Inter-Ethnic Relations in Estonia 1988–1998”.Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 655.Google Scholar
  45. Weisberg, Herbert. 1999. “Political Partisanship.” Pp. 681–736 inMeasures of Political Attitudes, eds. John P. Robinson, Phillip R. Shaver, and Lawrence S. Wrightsman. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry E. Brady
  • Cynthia S. Kaplan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations