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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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.
Anderson, Benedict. 1991.Imagined Communities. Revised Edition. New York: Verso.
Arutiunian, Iu. V. 1992.Russkie: ethno-sotsiologicheskie ocherki. Moscow: Nauka.
Belknap, George and Angus Campbell. 1951–2. “Political Party Identification and Attitudes Toward Foreign Policy.”Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 15: 601–623.
Drobizheva, L. M. et al. 1996.Demokratizatsiia I obrazy natsionalizma v Rossiiskoi Federatsii 90—kh godov. Moscow: Mysl’.
Elkins, Zachary. 2000. “Gradations of Democracy? Empirical Tests of Alternative Conceptualizations.”American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 44. No. 2: 293–300.
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. “An Outline for a Model of Party Choice.”American Journal of Political Science. Vol. 21. 601–626.
Forbes, H.D. 1997.Ethnic Conflict: Commerce, Culture, and the Contact Hypothesis. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Franklin, Charles and John Jackson. 1983. “The Dynamics of Party Identification.”American Political Science Review. Vol. 77: 957–973.
Geertz, Clifford. 1973.The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Green, Don and Eric Schickler. 1993. “Multiple-Measures Assessment of Party Identification.”Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. 57. No. 4: 503–535.
Hardin, Russell. 1995.One for All: The Logic of Group Conflict. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
—. 1998. “Eestimaa Venelased: Kas Eestimaa või Venemaa.” Pp. 203–215 inVene Küsimus ja Eesti Valikud, ed. Mati Heidmets. Tallinn: TPÜ Kirjastus.
Horowitz, Donald L. 1985.Ethnic Groups in Conflict. Berkeley: University of California Press.
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.
Karjahärm, Toomas. 1998.Ida ja Lääne Vahel: Eesti-Vene Suhted 1850–1917. Tallinn: Eesti Entsükloppediakirjastus.
Karklins, Rasma. 1994.Ethnopolitics and Transition to Democracy: The Collapse of the USSR and Latvia. Washington, DC: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
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.
—. 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.
Kuhn, Manford H. and Thomas S. McPartland. 1954. “An Empirical Investigation of Self-Attitudes.”American Sociological Review. Vol. 19. No. 1: 68–76.
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.
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.
Laitin, David D. 1998.Identity in Formation: The Russian-Speaking Populations in the Near Abroad. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Levada, Iu. A. et al. 1993.Sovetskii prostoi chelovek. Moscow: Intertsentr.
Levine, Robert Alan and Donald T. Campbell. 1971.Ethnocentrism: Theories of Conflict, Ethnic Attitudes, and Group Behavior. New York: Wiley
Melvin, Neil. 1995.Russians Beyond Russia: The Politics of National Identity. London: The Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Miller, Warren. 1991. “Party Identification, Realignment, and Party Voting: Back to Basics.”American Political Science Review. Vol. 85. No. 2: 557–568.
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.
Prizel, Ilya. 1998.National Identity and Foreign Policy: Nationalism and Leadership in Poland, Russian and Ukraine. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Przeworski, Adam, Michael Alvarez, Jose Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 1996. “What Makes Democracies Endure?”Journal of Democracy. Vol. 7: 39–55.
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.
Shils, Edward. 1957. “Primordial, Personal, Sacred and Civil Ties.”The British Journal of Sociology VIII, no. 2: 130–145.
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.
Smith, Anthony D. 1986.The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Cambridge: Blackwell.
— 1991.National Identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
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.
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.
Suny, Ronald Grigor. 1993.The Revenge of the Past: Nationalism, Revolution, and the Collapse of the Soviet Union. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Tajfel, Henri. ed. 1978.Differentiation Between Social Groups: Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.
Tishkov, Valery. 1997.Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflict in and after the Soviet Union. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
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.
Verkuyten, Maykel. 1991. “Self-Definition and Ingroup Formation Among Ethnic Minorities in the Netherlands.”Social Psychology Quarterly. Vol. 54. No. 3: 280–286.
Vetik, Raivo. 1999. “Inter-Ethnic Relations in Estonia 1988–1998”.Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 655.
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.
Additional information
Henry E. Brady, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at the University of California, Berkeley, is co-author ofVoice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics andLetting the People Decide: The Dynamics of a Canadian Election. He has also written on elections, referendums, polotical behavior, and political methodology.
Cynthia S. Kaplan, an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara, received her Ph.D. from Columbia University and has conducted extensive research in Russia, Estonia, and Tatarstan. She is the author ofThe Party and Agricultural Crisis Management in the USSR and numerous articles on comparative ethnicity, social movements, and political culture in the former Soviet Union.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brady, H.E., Kaplan, C.S. Categorically wrong? Nominal versus graded measures of ethnic identity. St Comp Int Dev 35, 56–91 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02699766
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02699766