Varieties of American Popular Nationalism

Abstract

Despite the relevance of nationalism for politics and intergroup relations, sociologists have devoted surprisingly little attention to the phenomenon in the United States, and historians and political psychologists who do study the United States have limited their focus to specific forms of nationalist sentiment: ethnocultural or civic nationalism, patriotism, or national pride. This article innovates, first, by examining an unusually broad set of measures (from the 2004 GSS) tapping national identification, ethnocultural and civic criteria for national membership, domain-specific national pride, and invidious comparisons to other nations, thus providing a fuller depiction of Americans’ national self-understanding. Second, we use latent class analysis to explore heterogeneity, partitioning the sample into classes characterized by distinctive patterns of attitudes. Conventional distinctions between ethnocultural and civic nationalism describe just about half of the U.S. population and do not account for the unexpectedly low levels of national pride found among respondents who hold restrictive definitions of American nationhood. A subset of primarily younger and well-educated Americans lacks any strong form of patriotic sentiment; a larger class, primarily older and less well educated, embraces every form of nationalist sentiment. Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics and partisan identification, these classes vary significantly in attitudes toward ethnic minorities, immigration, and national sovereignty. Finally, using comparable data from 1996 and 2012, we find structural continuity and distributional change in national sentiments over a period marked by terrorist attacks, war, economic crisis, and political contention.

Does religious bias shape access to public services? A large-scale audit experiment among street-level bureaucrats

“…Religion continues to play a central role in establishing the boundaries of American national identity (Bonikowski and DiMaggio 2016;Hartmann et al 2011). Christianity is especially important in subjectively defining "legitimate" membership in the American nation (Gerteis 2011).…”

“…In practice, newcomer religions have quickly adapted to American denominationalism (Berger 2007;Hirschman 2004). Nevertheless, the question for some Americans has become which religious groups belong and which religious voices should be heard in public particularly the more than 30% who identify with conservative Protestantism (Pew 2015) and the quarter of Americans who can be classified as ardent nationalists (Bonikowski and DiMaggio 2016). In the context of a Judeo-Christian understanding of national identity and moral belonging, Muslim Americans pose a special problem, particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the War on Terrorism, the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict, and the rise of the Islamic State.…”

“…In their analysis of American nationalism, Bonikowski and DiMaggio (2016) found that those Americans they classify as "ardent" nationalists are overwhelmingly white conser- be prevailing community standards. These predictions are outlined in H2 below.…”

Mothering in an Increasingly Uncertain Economic Marketplace: Revisiting the Call for Broader Conceptualizations of Parenthood and Paid Work

“…As these events unfolded the decline of the middle class accelerated, depressing median household incomes and economic security (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor, & Smith, 2012). Concurrently xenophobia, isolationism, nationalism, and economic populism began to resurge in the U.S., because of increased middle-class familial anxiety (Bonikowski, & DiMaggio, 2016;Goldstein, & Peters, 2014;Inglehart, & Norris, 2016). Today, the economic forecast is still an uncertain one for many U.S. families with less families qualifying as "middle class.…”

Pulling the Trigger: How Threats to the Nation Increase Support for Military Action via the Generation of Hubris

“…In contrast to the dominant tradition in nationalism research, which focuses on the essential elements of each country's national identity (e.g., Kohn 1944;Lipset 1990), cultural sociologists and political psychologists maintain that different ideas and symbols compose the national self-understanding of individuals who are considered members of one nation (Bonikowski and DiMaggio, forthcoming;Brubaker 2004;Schildkraut 2011). To analyze the complex nature of nationalism, studies have developed multidimensional measures that use a distinct set of survey items to assess each aspect of nationalism, distinguishing, for example, between attachment to the nation, cultural conception of the nation, and belief in the superiority of the nation (Herrmann, Iserina, and Segatti 2009; see also Huddy and Khatib 2007;Dekker, Malova, and Hoogendoorn 2003).…”