Deborah J. Schildkraut

Defining American Identity in the Twenty-First Century: How Much There is There?

This study examines whether the increasing ethnic diversity of the United States is changing how the normative content of American identity is defined. It relies on a wide-ranging set of norms to test the claim that an increasingly multicultural America will engender a multicreedal America. In addressing this claim, the study provides an empirical assessment of the “multiple traditions” theory and develops more accurate measures of how Americans view the content of American identity than has typically been included in public opinion research. The results confirm the multiple traditions perspective, showing that a broad range of constitutive norms define being American. A complex and contradictory set of norms exist, and it is difficult to reduce them into a single measure of “Americanism.” The results further show that most Americans, regardless of their ethnic or immigrant background, share this complex view of the norms that constitute American identity, though there are signs of divergence to monitor.

American Identity and Attitudes Toward Official-English Policies

This article analyzes the relationship between each of three conceptions of American identity-liberalism, civic republicanism, and ethnoculturalism-and support for declaring English the official language and printing election ballots only in English. Focus group discussions showed that these conceptions provide a common means of discourse for talking about language conflicts and ethnic change, and that the civic republican conception of American identity is a particularly important factor in the opinion formation process. Although all three conceptions help people to decide whether they think English should be the official language, they are not consistently associated with support for or opposition to restrictive language policies. How individuals interpret these images of The ethnic makeup of the U.S. population has undergone dramatic changes over the past 40 years. From the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s, levels of immigration rose steadily, as did the proportion of immigrants arriving from Latin American and Asian countries. The federal government estimates that the foreign-born now constitute about 10% of the population, up from 5% in 1970 (Schmidley, 2001). Several public policy issues have gained prominence in response to these demographic changes, including bilingual education, immigration laws, border enforcement, official-English laws, and the provision of public services to immigrants. All levels of government have been faced with the challenge of developing appropriate policies to help immigrants adapt and become full members of the community. Policies that deal with language have become both common and contentious, and debates about how to respond to the presence of limited-Englishspeaking residents and citizens have become an important feature of American

Which Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Assessing Attitudes About Descriptive Representation Among Latinos and Asian Americans:

This study assesses preferences for descriptive representation among Latinos and Asian Americans. The findings are consistent across data sets, measurement strategies, and panethnic groups: Latinos and Asian Americans who do not think of themselves primarily as American, who think that their fate is tied to that of the group, and who are less acculturated are more likely than others to prefer coethnic representatives. The implications of these findings are discussed, with a focus on the conditions under which the nation’s rapidly diversifying population could promote competing views about political representation in the United States.

The Dynamics of Public Opinion on Ethnic Profiling After 9/11 Results From a Survey Experiment

This study examines support for ethnic profiling in the United States as a counterterrorism tactic. It first compares support for counterterrorism profiling with support for profiling Black motorists. Then, it investigates whether the status of the profilee as a U.S. citizen of Arab or Middle Eastern appearance or as an immigrant alters either support for profiling or the determinants of that support. In both sets of analyses, the study investigates how competing ideas about the meaning of American identity shape opinions about profiling. Particular attention is paid to liberalism’s emphasis on the rights of citizenship and ethnoculturalism’s emphasis on the ascriptive boundaries of American identity. The results show that support for counterterrorism profiling is higher than support for profiling Black motorists, that people are more supportive of profiling immigrants than they are of profiling U.S. citizens, and that how people define what it means to be American is a powerful predictor of such support. The perspective promoted by the increasing number of radical activists on issues related to immigration—that being American means being a White European Christian—is the most powerful predictor of support for profiling. A liberal understanding of being American can offset some, but not all, of that support. The implications of these findings for future opinions and activism on post-9/11 issues are discussed.

National Identity in the United States

This chapter explores many facets of the question “What does it mean to be American?” The topic of American national identity is explored from the perspective of political science, while drawing on history, political philosophy, and psychology. The chapter begins with an exploration of the concepts of nationalism and patriotism, and discusses how they play a role in American public opinion. Next it examines the notion of identity attachment, which refers to the extent to which people think of themselves first and foremost as American. The question of identity attachment is often salient when societies have high levels of immigration, as the United States has had over the past several decades. As such, this section pays particular attention to the study of ethnic and racial differences in identity attachment. The factors that influence such attachment are discussed, as are the consequences of such attachment – or lack thereof – on political outcomes, such as trust in political institutions and political behavior. The final section of the chapter investigates the content of American identity, which involves the set of norms that people think constitutes American identity, such as the norms of free speech, active citizenship, and Protestantism. It looks at what these norms are, how they have evolved over time, the extent to which they are adopted by various segments of the American population. As with the section on identity attachment, this final section specifically addresses ethnic and racial differences in how people define what it means to be American.

White attitudes about descriptive representation in the US: the roles of identity, discrimination, and linked fate

ABSTRACT Many white Americans feel that whites are discriminated against, identify as white, and feel a sense of linked fate with whites. Scholars have studied these psychological connections to ones racial group among nonwhites, but little attention in political science has been given to how they operate among whites. However, changing social, demographic, and electoral patterns point to inevitable challenges to their traditional status and power. This study examines the extent to which these psychological connections to whites as a group exist and shape how whites feel about descriptive representation. Using a nationally representative survey, it finds that identifying as white, thinking whites are discriminated against, and seeing ones fate as tied to the fate of whites overall are common and make it more likely that whites will say it is important to have a political candidate who is white. These findings reveal a striking similarity in how whites and nonwhites form attitudes about descriptive representation. The implications of these findings given ongoing social and political trends are discussed.

Local policy proposals can bridge Latino and (most) white Americans’ response to immigration

Significance Subnational immigrant policies (i.e., those instituted at the state level in the United States) are not only key to successful integration, they send a message about who belongs. Our evidence suggests that welcoming state-level immigrant policies lead to greater belonging among foreign-born Latinos, US-born Latinos, and even US-born whites. Only self-identified politically conservative whites showed depressed feelings of belonging when state policies support immigrants. Patterns remained constant across states that vary in their historic reception of immigrants (Arizona and New Mexico). These findings suggest that debates about the polarizing effects of immigration policies by racial group are misplaced. With a majority of whites nationally identifying as either liberal or moderate, welcoming immigration policies have direct and spillover effects that can further national unity. In the past 15 years, the adoption of subnational immigration policies in the United States, such as those established by individual states, has gone from nearly zero to over 300 per year. These include welcoming policies aimed at attracting and incorporating immigrants, as well as unwelcoming policies directed at denying immigrants access to public resources and services. Using data from a 2016 random digit-dialing telephone survey with an embedded experiment, we examine whether institutional support for policies that are either welcoming or hostile toward immigrants differentially shape Latinos’ and whites’ feelings of belonging in their state (Arizona/New Mexico, adjacent states with contrasting immigration policies). We randomly assigned individuals from the representative sample (n = 1,903) of Latinos (US and foreign born) and whites (all US born) to consider policies that were either welcoming of or hostile toward immigrants. Across both states of residence, Latinos, especially those foreign born, regardless of citizenship, expressed more positive affect and greater belonging when primed with a welcoming (vs. hostile) policy. Demonstrating the importance of local norms, these patterns held among US-born whites, except among self-identified politically conservative whites, who showed more negative affect and lower levels of belonging in response to welcoming policies. Thus, welcoming immigration policies, supported by institutional authorities, can create a sense of belonging not only among newcomers that is vital to successful integration but also among a large segment of the population that is not a direct beneficiary of such policies—US-born whites.

Latino Attitudes About Spheres of Political Representation

This study examines whether ethnic attachments and concerns about Latinos as a group predict the representational priorities of Latinos, and if so, whether they make a preference for narrowly targeted spheres of representation more likely. It relies on nationally representative survey data (n = 434) and employs ordered probit statistical analysis. The results show that thinking of oneself primarily as a member of an ethnic group instead of as an American increases the importance placed on having members of Congress bring federal resources to the district and decreases the importance placed on the pursuit of national issues, and perceiving discrimination against one’s ethnic group increases the importance placed on casework and decreases the importance placed on oversight. Other factors associated with the Latino experience in the United States, including acculturation and having a Latino representative, also affect how Latinos rank spheres of representation. The implications of these findings are discussed.