Scholars and policy makers have for centuries constructed and used developmental hierarchies to characterize different countries. The hypotheses motivating this paper are that such social constructions have been circulated internationally, are constructed similarly in various countries, and follow the social constructions of elite international organizations, such as the United Nations. This paper uses data from fifteen surveys in thirteen diverse countries to study how developmental hierarchies are understood in everyday life. Our research shows that most people have constructions of developmental hierarchies that are similar across countries and are similar to the developmental hierarchies constructed by the United Nations. These findings suggest that developmental hierarchies are widely understood around the world and are widely available to ordinary people as they make decisions about many aspects of life.
A large body of research by political scientists, psychologists and historians suggests that “existential security”—the feeling that survival can be taken for granted—is conducive to tolerance of foreigners, openness to social change and a pro-democratic political culture. Conversely, existential insecurity leads to 1) xenophobia and 2) strong in-group solidarity. This article tests these hypotheses against evidence from a recent survey of Iraq—a society where one would expect to find exceptionally high levels of insecurity. We find that the Iraqi public today shows the highest level of xenophobia found in any of the 85 societies for which data are available—together with extremely high levels of solidarity with one's own ethnic group.Ronald Inglehart is Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan (rfi@umich.edu), Mansoor Moaddel is Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University (mmoaddel@emich.edu), and Mark Tessler is Professor of Political Science at University of Michigan (tessler@umich.edu).
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact
Religious fundamentalism is conceived as a distinctive set of beliefs and attitudes toward one's religion, including obedience to religious norms, belief in the universality and immutability of its principles, the validity of its claims, and its indispensability for human happiness. Surveys of Egyptian and Saudi youth, ages 18-25, reveal that respondents with higher levels of fundamentalism are more likely to rely on religious authorities as the source of knowledge about the sociopolitical role of Islam, support religious law, be fatalistic, and feel insecure. They are also less likely to watch TV. Saudi females are more fundamentalist than males, but in Egypt, the opposite held true. Country-specific effects are present, and there are implications for future research.Late adolescence and young adulthood is considered the period of highest susceptibility to the social and political forces individuals encounter (). Accordingly, understanding the factors that shape the attitudes and value orientations during these formative years provides insights into critical processes such as the rise of religious fundamentalism. This is especially important for Middle Eastern youth in countries currently undergoing severe social and political stress, where religion plays a dominant role.
The fact that fifteen of the nineteen terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001 were Saudi citizens inevitably raised serious questions about the social conditions that have produced such violent personalities capable of the mass taking of innocent lives and devastating an entire city, if not a nation. Answers were quick to come by, as the U.S. media pointed to the Saudi culture. Charges were made that the youth were brainwashed by the most extremist school in Islam, namely, Wahhabism. The Saudi educational institutions were also blamed for promoting anti-Semitism, anti-Western attitudes, and intolerance of other religions. Saudi society was also condemned for having a corrupt and backward political system. Naturally, in this land of intolerance and authoritarianism, resorting to violence by its inhabitants became a foregone conclusion. 1 Recent scholarly studies have provided a more balanced picture of the cultural forces operating in the kingdom. However, there is little knowledge of how Saudis view the significant issues facing their society. We fill this void by analyzing the value orientations of Saudi citizens toward such key issues as the form of government, religion, religious tolerance, gender relations, marriage, and Western culture, using the findings of the values survey that was carried out in the kingdom in 2003. We also use the results of similar values surveys in Egypt, Iran, Jordan, and the United States to assess the similarities and differences in value orientations between Saudi citizens and the public of these countries. Furthermore, focusing on such key organizing principles of the kingdom as religion, gender, and politics, we try to explain religiosity and attitudes toward women and democracy. What are the major factors that affect the religiosity of the Saudi public? What is the connection between religiosity and gender? To what extent does gender affect variations in daily prayer and mosque attendance? How does one explain attitudes toward polygamy and the norm of wife obedience? Does education promote religiosity? Is there a connection between religiosity and attitudes toward gender inequality? How are variations in attitudes toward democracy related to variations in other attitudes and nonattitudinal characteristics of the respondents? Finally, are the extant sociological generalizations that are based on the experiences of the West applicable to Saudi society?
To capture the common features of diverse fundamentalist movements, overcome etymological variability, and assess predictors, religious fundamentalism is conceptualized as a set of beliefs about and attitudes toward religion, expressed in a disciplinarian deity, literalism, exclusivity, and intolerance. Evidence from representative samples of over 23,000 adults in Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, and Turkey supports the conclusion that fundamentalism is stronger in countries where religious liberty is lower, religion less fractionalized, state structure less fragmented, regulation of religion greater, and the national context less globalized. Among individuals within countries, fundamentalism is linked to religiosity, confidence in religious institutions, belief in religious modernity, belief in conspiracies, xenophobia, fatalism, weaker liberal values, trust in family and friends, reliance on less diverse information sources, lower socioeconomic status, and membership in an ethnic majority or dominant religion/sect. We discuss implications of these findings for understanding fundamentalism and the need for further research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.