Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Outline for presentation of work at very early stage, in progress. Latino Identities and American Politics: A Framework and Preliminary Findings from the Latino National Survey Rodney E. Hero* *Acknowledgements: Data for this presentation comes from a large collaborative project, the Latino National Survey. Collaborators: Luis R. Fraga, U. of Washington John A. Garcia, U. of Arizona Michael Jones-Correa, Cornell University Valerie Martinez-Ebers, TCU Gary M. Segura, U. of Washington Funding support from: Ford, Hewlett, Carnegie, Russell Sage, Kellogg, Joyce, NSF, Annie E. Casey, Irvine, Texas A&M Growing literature on “multi-ethnic,” “multicultural” politics, “beyond black/white paradigm.” But relatively modest literature: J. Hochschild C. Kim S. Clarke et. al R. Hero Percent Hispanic of U.S. Population, 1960-2030 Percent 25 22.5 19.3 20 16.4 15 13.2 9.7 10 6.9 5 4.8 3.6 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Source: Chapter 2. Multiple Origins, Uncertain Destinies. Adapted from Figure 2-2. 2 Latino National Survey: • A “national” telephone survey of 8600 Latino residents of the United States, seeking a broad understanding of the nature of Latino political and social life in America • State-stratified samples that reach approximately 90% coverage of the national Latino population • Approximately 40 minutes (length and number of questions depends on split-samples, etc) • English and Spanish Universe is all Latino adults, not citizens or voters 3 The survey creates stand-alone samples in 15 states and the DC Metro area allowing us to speak to specific political contexts Arizona Arkansas California Colorado DC-SMSA Florida Georgia Illinois Iowa Nevada New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Texas Washington 400 400 1200 400 400 800 400 600 400 400 400 400 800 400 800 400 [Subsequent addition of 3 more states: CT, MA, RI] 4 Themes Explored Demographics Assimilation/Acculturation Civic engagement Education Mobilization Inter-ethnic group relations Intra-ethnic group relations/Pan-ethnicity Political Knowledge Gender Party affiliation Others 5 Numerous Works and Ideas Understandings of “American” or “Americanness,” American Identity from Political Science and from Sociology Sociologists and assimilation: SES, Spatial concentration, Language assimilation, and intermarriage Political Science research: Attitudes and Value patterns regarding “citizenship,” (legitimate) membership within the polity. a. R. Smith (1988, 1993, 1997) – “multiple traditions” liberal, civic republican, ethnocultural (ascriptive hierarchy) b. J. Citrin, et al. (1990) – Interests (material) or ideas/ideals (symbolic)? Ideas: liberal, ethnocultural c. D. Schildkraut (2007) – partly an extension and modification of Smith Specifies various concepts, and related questions Adds/includes measures of “civic republicanism” and concept of “incorporationism” and notes certain “contested” ideas Most of these have been focused almost exclusively on views/ perspectives of non-Latinos, and limited in other ways as well. 6 Of the research that is focused on Hispanics/Latinos… our contention is that too often previous analyses of “Latino Politics” have assumed, incorrectly, essentially a single continuum of “Latinoness” OR “Americaness.” Latino ----------------------------------------------American There are probably (at least) two (2) interrelated and interconnected dimensions (a) “Latinoness”/ “Hispanicity” AND (b) “Americaness” Latino Identity in the United States Latino Identity in the Latino Identity in the United States Americanness Low High Latinoness High Cultural Nationalism High Cultural Low Pluralism Particularism, Particularism, Low (e.g. alienation or Latinoness social isolation) Low Americanness Cultural Nationalism High Cultural Pluralism Melting pot Particularism, (e.g. alienation or social isolation) Melting pot 7 Each quadrant and variations in between are complex and have been thought of in different ways. a. Melting pot, “classic assimilation” b. “Cultural Pluralism”: Multiracial; Neoassimilation, “Incorporationism” c. “Cultural Nationalism” (group “separatism,” “retention”) d. “Particularism,” Individualism, Isolation (or, thought about somewhat differently….“cosmopolitan”?) Initial Questions: What does evidence from LNS suggest regarding: Is there the type of clustering among Latinos that we posit? (If so) what are the social/demographic and the value/attitudinal and other correlates? Then, from individual “correlates” to larger “interpretations.” 8 Sense of “think[ing] of oneself as:” American Pan-Ethnic National l origin Very strong Somewhat Not very Not at all 38% 26 18 15 63 25 6 3 63 22 8 5 9 Initial Evidence regarding the Argument: Is there “clustering,” as hypothesized? Latino-American Self-Identification Categories* LL LM 1.1 .48 LH ML MM MH HL HM HH .60 2.0 19.1 9.1 5.7 29.7 32.3 L=Low, H=High (First letter refers to “Latinoness,” second to “Americaness”) *Data from Jones-Correa, 2007 10 Sense of American and Home-Country Identity Across Generations 1st 2nd 3rd 4th How strongly do you think of yourself as “American”? Somewhat Strongly Very Strongly 28.7 25.1 15.2 16.3 24.5 56.9 78.5 76.4 How strongly do you think of yourself as (Mexican, Cuban, etc)? Somewhat Strongly 19.6 22.2 26.1 34.3 Very Strongly 67.6 64.3 45.1 40.5 11 Social Correlates and Expectations regarding Position Gender Generation Language Social networks Age/time in U.S./proportion of life in U.S. Nativity SES –home owner v. renter “Transnationalism” Location – State (and/or local) context matter? 12 Preferences for Cultural Assimilation and Distinctness Generation 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Importance of Changing to Blend into Larger Society Somewhat 26.2 33.3 34.7 37.5 Very 61.4 44.6 40.6 35.7 Importance of Maintaining Distinct Culture Somewhat 16.2 18.3 20.3 26.1 Very 78.6 75.8 72.9 66.7 13 Latino’s perceptions of “what it means to be fully American in eyes of most Americans”…? Born in U.S.? Very important Somewhat Not 44.2% 26.2 29.6 * [24.2] [27.1] White? Very important Somewhat Not 18.0% 19.0 63.1 [3.8] [6.1] Very important Somewhat Not 84.2% 11.7 4.2 [71] [23] Be Christian? Very important Somewhat Not 39.2% 22.7 38.1 [19.3] [15.6] Speak English (well)? * * [ ] national sample findings, from Schildkraut, 2007: 602. 14 Have thus far explored “self- identity” (as defined above) through various indicators that can be summarized as: generation/years in U.S., transnational ties, social networks (friendship, working, etc. in US), kids in school, civic participation (yes/no), and one SES factor (home ownership). (Jones-Correa, 2007). Propose to examine the questions further, bringing in beliefs/attitudes, and developing “broader” interpretations (models). 1. “Social Structural” model – Questions about perceptions of “norms” of factors associated with “…being fully American.” Survey also asks whether one is born in U.S., one’s race, and religious tradition. Consider these perceived norms in relation to one’s own situation on the parallel dimensions. 2.. “Ethnic/cultural” model – One’s own language abilities, importance of learning English, of maintaining Spanish, “blending into mainstream”/“maintaining distinct culture,” “intra-group commonalities, (Perceptions of “Latinos a ‘distinct’ race”?) 3. “Opportunity”/“liberal” model – Blame if “not getting ahead,” perception of some having more “chance in life than others;” “poor, Latinos “can get ahead in U.S. if work hard”? Came to US for economic opportunity? All should have “same legal rights”? 4. SES Model – Income, Education, Occupation (employment) [Social context (and social networks) -- states, communities, etc.?] 15 Consequences of Identity?: Policy preferences Immigration Language policy Education (standardized tests, school vouchers, education financing,) Redistributive (aid to the poor, etc.) Most important issues facing the country, facing Latinos Party affiliation and party system, perception of parties Political participation Levels, and venues/forms of participation Civic engagement (including “internal” or “external” focus?) Ideology What might/should be expected relative to selfidentity? (Latino ideological self-placement is complex) Trust in Government, Efficacy, etc. 16 Early/tentative Conclusions and Suggested Directions: • Preliminary findings challenge previous research Empirical observations different Theories need to be re-examined • Dimensions of community/identity How is it manifested? Which factors or theories drive sense of identity? • Implications for American politics Effects of identities on the development of Latino politics/effects of identity on more general American politics More/less, and kind(s) of American “pluralism” Most broadly, “multi-ethnic” politics? Inter-group relations Party system Policy orientations Other issues: Over time change for Latinos; Latino v. non-Latino patterns 17