National pride and national pride

[Skybird]

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/uncategorized/national-pride-brings-happinessbut-what-youre-proud-of-matters.html (http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/uncategorized/national-pride-brings-happinessbut-what-youre-proud-of-matters.html)


PRESS RELEASE
December 8, 2011
For Immediate Release
Contact: Divya Menon
Association for Psychological Science
202.293.9300
dmenon@psychologicalscience.org


National Pride Brings Happiness***8212;But What You***8217;re Proud of Matters
Research shows that feeling good about your country also makes you feel good about your own life***8212;and many people take that as good news. But Matthew Wright, a political scientist at American University, and Tim Reeskens, a sociologist from Catholic University in Belgium, suspected that the positive findings about nationalism weren***8217;t telling the whole story. ***8220;It***8217;s fine to say pride in your country makes you happy,***8221; says Wright. ***8220;But what kind of pride are we talking about? That turns out to make a lot of difference.***8221; The intriguing***8212;and politically suggestive***8212;differences they found appear in a commentary in Psychological Science, a journal published by the Association for Psychological Science.

Reeskens and Wright divided national pride into two species. ***8220;Ethnic***8221; nationalism sees ancestry***8212;typically expressed in racial or religious terms***8212;as the key social boundary defining the national ***8220;we.***8221; ***8220;Civic***8221; nationalism is more inclusive, requiring only respect for a country***8217;s institutions and laws for belonging. Unlike ethnic nationalism, that view is open to minorities or immigrants, at least in principle.

The authors analyzed the responses to four key questions by 40,677 individuals from 31 countries, drawn from the 2008 wave of the cross-national European Values Study. One question assessed ***8220;subjective well being,***8221; indicated by general satisfaction with life. Another measured national pride. The other two neatly indicated ethnic and civic national boundaries***8212;asking respondents to rate the importance of respect for laws and institutions, and of ancestry, to being a true . . . fill in the blank . . . German, Swede, Spaniard. The researchers controlled for such factors as gender, work status, urban or rural residence, and the country***8217;s per capita GDP.

Like other researchers, they found that more national pride correlated with greater personal well-being. But the civic nationalists were on the whole happier, and even the proudest ethnic nationalists***8217; well-being barely surpassed that of people with the lowest level of civic pride.

The analysis challenges popular feel-good theories about nationalism. ***8220;There***8217;s been a renaissance of arguments from political theorists and philosophers that a strong sense of national identity has payoffs in terms of social cohesion, which bolsters support for welfare and other redistributive policies,***8221; says Wright. ***8220;We***8217;ve finally gotten around to testing these theories.***8221; The conclusion: ***8220;You have to look at how people define their pride.***8221;

The findings, he adds, give a clue to what popular responses we might expect to ***8220;broad macro-economic and social trends***8221;***8212;that is, millions of people crossing borders (usually from poorer to wealthier countries) looking for work or seeking refuge from war or political repression. ***8220;It***8217;s unclear what the political implications of the happiness measure are***8212;though unhappy citizens could demand many politically dangerous, xenophobic responses. Ethnic nationalists, proud or not, appear relatively less happy to begin with and more likely to lead the charge as their nation diversifies around them.***8221;
###

For more information about this study, please contact: Tim Reeskens at tim.reeskens@soc.kuleuven.be.
The APS journal Psychological Science is the highest ranked empirical journal in psychology. For a copy of the article "Subjective Well-Being and National Satisfaction Taking Seriously the ***8220;Proud of What?***8221; Question" and access to other Psychological Science research findings, please contact Divya Menon at 202-293-9300 or


And the earlier study that the above refers to:

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/22/2/166.abstract


Abstract
We examined the relationship between satisfaction with one's country (national satisfaction) and subjective well-being utilizing data from a representative worldwide poll. National satisfaction was a strong positive predictor of individual-level life satisfaction, and this relationship was moderated by household income, household conveniences, residential mobility, country gross domestic product per capita, and region (Western vs. non-Western country). When individuals are impoverished or more bound to their culture and surroundings, national satisfaction more strongly predicts life satisfaction. In contrast, reverse trends were found in analyses predicting life satisfaction from satisfaction in other domains (health, standard of living, and job). These patterns suggest that people are more likely to use proximate factors to judge life satisfaction where conditions are salutary, or individualism is salient, but are more likely to use perceived societal success to judge life satisfaction where life conditions are difficult, or collectivism predominates. Our findings invite new research directions and can inform quality-of-life therapies.



What it all means? You can't mix foreigners and natives in a society by arbitrary decision and expect they all set down automatically in one big happy family, since both groups may define national pride and loyalty to that state's society and principles maybe very differently, and thus are different in their motives for expressing - by words - such pride and loyalty. Both may use the same terms to describe their relation to that state and soceity, but means totally different things by these very same terms. Also, both groups also vary in their motives and defintions depending on their own social status and material well-being. - Needless to say, but ignroing these findings holds plenty of cultural and social explosives. The decisive variable to decide the the width of the gap between "them" and "us" is the cukltural nearness or distance between both. But does it really take a psychological study to know that...?

You cannot redesign human nature and human society arbitrarily, for idealistic or ideologic motives. Stop this insane social engineering madness.

[Tribesman]

Poor Skybird, xenophobia really messes his mind.

So civic pride brings more happiness than ethnic pride and even the lowest on the civic pride scale are up their with the highest on the nationalist scale.

Ain't it amazing, the group that includes minorities and immigrants is better adjusted than the nationalist group and is happier.

What it all means?
What it all means is you have lost it, but thanks for showing that ethnic nationalists like yourself are less happy to start with and are more likely to be making the noise of how unhappy they are no matter if they are proud or not.:yeah:

[Rockstar]

You cannot redesign human nature and human society arbitrarily, for idealistic or ideologic motives. Stop this insane social engineering madness.


Thats what Tenskwatawa might of thought when the Europeans came over here.

[Penguin]

Sky, please overhaul your quoted article, it's messed up and barely readable.


What it all means? You can't mix foreigners and natives in a society by arbitrary decision and expect they all set down automatically in one big happy family, since both groups may define national pride and loyalty to that state's society and principles maybe very differently, and thus are different in their motives for expressing - by words - such pride and loyalty. [...]

You cannot redesign human nature and human society arbitrarily, for idealistic or ideologic motives. Stop this insane social engineering madness.

So natives can't live together with foreigners because they can't develop "real" (=ethnic) nationalism?
Where does the article state this conclusion?
I would really like to see how the "civic" nationalism is exclusively reserved for foreigners...
Even the "ethnic" one is not necessary for natives, think of nationalism in terms of heritage, for example skin color, culture, region, etc.

I also think the terms of the study are badly chosen: while the so called "ethnic nationalism" is essentially what nationalism is, the proper term for the so-called "civic nationalism" is known since hundreds of years: patriotism.

[Skybird]

Sky,
It'S the forum software messing it up. Can't work around it. You'll occasionally see it with other people'S quotes as well.

Use the link to get the text at the source website.

[Rilder]

Bah nationalism, why are people loyal to petty nation states?

Why can't we be loyal to Earth and team up against those bloody extraterrestrials. I mean they keep coming over to this planet and taking our Earthling Jobs. :O:

[soopaman2]

This study could be backed up by Balkan turmoil since the days of the Ottomans.

Or called into question by the sucess of America to integrate immigrants.

I dunno what to think. Xenophobia is clannish. And clanism is a testement that we are nothing but animals. My seed is better than your seed.

Male Llamas try to kick each other in the balls, Male lions will fight to the death over a lioness. And humans .... We are the same, what do you think war is?

A racial pissing contest...

All this study proves is that we are simply the alpha predator, and not something unique and perfect. We share the same instincts as animals, why do we project ourselves so highly above them, when we are simply them deep down?

[Skybird]

So natives can't live together with foreigners because they can't develop "real" (=ethnic) nationalism?
Where does the article state this conclusion?
I would really like to see how the "civic" nationalism is exclusively reserved for foreigners...
Culturally grown/educated own understanding of "identity" plays a role here. And if that "identity" of the foreigner collides with the "identity" of the native, both identities being expressed both in sentiments and thought-about views, then you have a problem: a conflict that cannot be solved without the one being dominated and overturned by the other, most likely by fighting of any kind, which can be physically, but must not be restricted to that, but can take on other forms of conflict as well. Even greater problems you have if the foreigner'S background prohibits him by dogmatic order, or by education/brainwashing prevents him to adopt to the native culture, which is true in case of religious such dogmas.

I also think the terms of the study are badly chosen: while the so called "ethnic nationalism" is essentially what nationalism is, the proper term for the so-called "civic nationalism" is known since hundreds of years: patriotism.

Some French thinker said patriotism is kind of love to thy people and their culture and its heritage, rules and achievements. Nationalism tends to be more about hate against other nations, fighting them or minimising them. You cannot claim to be patriotic for another nation that you move into as a migrant when you still put our original cultural origin over that of your new home, or even just equal to it. there is a difference between immigration, and colonisation. The first means the newcomer adapts to the rules and dsettings of the new environment he has moved to. The latter means the newcomer tries to make the new environment like the one he has left at home, and/or doing so at the cost of the native population in the new environment.

For these reasons I for example strictly oppose German - typically leftist - ideas about dual citizenship. I also say it is not enough that a foreigner just obeys the law and pays taxes, that makes him a citizen of the new cou7ntry he lives in. There is more to the issue,. much more. Feeling of identity. Cultural shaping of mind, habits, emotions. Readiness to give up one's own past cultural identity in favour of adapting - ohne Wenn und Aber - to that of the new world one lives in. Like I was already no Christian anymore 25 ago when I still formally was in the church and had to pay church taxes, you do not become a German citizen al of a sudden just by paying taxes and not violating criminal laws. Certain pltila cirtcles inEurope thoiugh wants to minimise the issue to this, though, in ortder to continue with their social engineering experiment - unopposed and beyond reach of ciritical reflection and critcism, is possible.

But as a matter of fact Multi-Kulti worked with only some cultures and countries migrants came from. Wiuth the migration especially from Muslim countries, multi-culti not only has failed, but proves to be disastrous social consequences for the hosting European societies. So, here again one sees that migratiuon is not just migration. One needs to look at what places migration comes from. Some cause problems. Some do not.

And this is where we need to be choosy, welcoming the unproblematic ones if they are qualified and can contribute to our countries, but recting those that deamnd more than threy could give back, or cause problems in integration.

Just throwing people without discriminating them into one pot and stirr and expect that to go well - that is an illusion.

[Sailor Steve]

Or called into question by the sucess of America to integrate immigrants.
:yep: That is the one thing that still sets America apart from some European nations, and the one thing that many Europeans, and many Americans, still don't understand. We are a nation of immigrants, and we all came from somewhere else. As Bill Murray said in Stripes, "Never forget that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent nation on Earth!"

[Skybird]

:yep: That is the one thing that still sets America apart from some European nations, and the one thing that many Europeans, and many Americans, still don't understand. We are a nation of immigrants, and we all came from somewhere else. As Bill Murray said in Stripes, "Never forget that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent nation on Earth!"
It's not difficult to undestand: the natives the settlers met, got wiped out, so you never had to base on the same ground like us Europeans: you never had to deal with an arrangement of historically long-grown cultural traditions and felt national identities. The USD were founded by peoploe willing to leave their old identity behind. The forming of the American nation seen that way grounded on a fundament of "nationlessness".

Now try that in Europe!

This difference between the Amerian and the European environment cannot be stresse doften enough. It is the reason why the recipes working ion America must not work in Europe, or the other way around.

Also, I wonder if it really works so well in the melting pot. Racism is still there, and ethnic riots. Statistics show clear links between ethnicity, and social status, wealth (and the many sub-factors that includes), and crime. To us Europeans, the US looks more like a place of extremes than any other Western nation. My personal opinion on the claimed success of the "melting pot", is a split one, cautiously said.

In general, the starting conditions by which the race to establish the USA, were much much easier (since simplier in complexity), than it was for us Europeans.

[MH]

Just throwing people without discriminating them into one pot and stirr and expect that to go well - that is an illusion.

Well...multiculturalism works as intended-after all its multiculturalism.
Some people's expectations and perceptions about it might be problematic.

You can think of western values as superior but it doesn't mean that every immigrant might share this opinion and want to adapt them immediately.
Seems that western politician had this supremacy issue that led them to believe that emigration will improve lame European food and that's about it:haha:

All the civic/nationalism mumbo jumbo is beyond me.
All i can say that in many cases people whose life suck seek refuge in strong nationalism or religion because the need to improve self value.
In case of emigrants lack of happiness may cause regression to extreme roots which in turn leads antagonism.

That's one of the reason why you need strong economy and decent lifestyle for liberal democracy to work-see ME.

Beside that lets face it...Europeans are very jealous about their culture and it all happens too quickly too soon.

I'm not fan of multiculturalism in particular sharing values with Arabs-god invented countries after all:D

[soopaman2]

This difference between the Amerian and the European environment cannot be stresse doften enough. It is the reason why the recipes working ion America must not work in Europe, or the other way around.



I can get behind this, we had a fresh start.

But every ethnicity had to earn thier way, despite racism.

You think the Irish and Italians were liked upon first arrival? Nope. They were treated as expendible. Less worth than a negro slave, after all you paid good money for a slave. But could drive a wop or mick into the ground.

My family arrived from Sicily in 1909. Our last name was butchered... Same as what happened to Vito Andolini in The Godfather.

America has it's demons yes. But we have been more progressive in accepting a multicultural nation. Not only accepting it, but bragging about it.


I agree on your points about what works in America is not always so good in Europe.
I think what I was bringing up when I mentioned our "melting pot" was the fact that it can happen in time, and with tolerance.

[Sailor Steve]

It's not difficult to undestand: the natives the settlers met, got wiped out, so you never had to base on the same ground like us Europeans: you never had to deal with an arrangement of historically long-grown cultural traditions and felt national identities.
Sorry, but the first "wiping out" was done by the natives - Jamestown, 1607.

Second, a great many of the descendants of the natives who were "wiped out" are still around. I have a little of that blood myself.

The USD were founded by peoploe willing to leave their old identity behind. The forming of the American nation seen that way grounded on a fundament of "nationlessness".
That's true.

This difference between the Amerian and the European environment cannot be stresse doften enough. It is the reason why the recipes working ion America must not work in Europe, or the other way around.
Fair enough. I only brought it up because sometimes things are posted that seem to be for everyone here, not just Europeans or Americans, or Australians or any other individuals.

Also, I wonder if it really works so well in the melting pot. Racism is still there, and ethnic riots. Statistics show clear links between ethnicity, and social status, wealth (and the many sub-factors that includes), and crime. To us Europeans, the US looks more like a place of extremes than any other Western nation. My personal opinion on the claimed success of the "melting pot", is a split one, cautiously said.
I completely agree. We've always had our problems, and probably always will. Our saving grace has been our ability to keep those problems in the open and at the forefront, which has also not always been successful. As long as we can keep them where we can see them and keep a dialogue open, we have a chance.

In general, the starting conditions by which the race to establish the USA, were much much easier (since simplier in complexity), than it was for us Europeans.
That's a valid point.

I've been an opponent of Nationalism for awhile now, but keeping your own past alive is both good and bad. Immigrants to any nation need to remember where they came from, but they also need to remember why they came to the new land in the first place. Our biggest example here are the Mexicans, who need to keep their heritage alive without trying to turn the United States into Mexico. It's a hard task to do both, but it needs to be remembered by anyone who settles in someone else's country.

[Tribesman]

Well...multiculturalism works as intended-after all its multiculturalism.
Some people's expectations and perceptions about it might be problematic.

Well put, frequently you get people moaning about multiculturalism and its failings yet their definition and view of the aims seem to be in direct contradiction with the concept.

All the civic/nationalism mumbo jumbo is beyond me.
It is simple.
Take some russian sort of remotely qualifies, some ethiopians then some Israeli arabs with some druze and add in a few ultras for a laugh, then also seperate the hispanic from the german and both from the eastern.
The ones who are Israelis and are simply Israelis fit into the civic.
The ones who are Israelis and think they are better than some of those others who are also Israelis fit into the national.
Or as the study says, the second group are the miserable bastards:yeah:

[MH]

It is simple.
Take some russian sort of remotely qualifies, some ethiopians then some Israeli arabs with some druze and add in a few ultras for a laugh, then also seperate the hispanic from the german and both from the eastern.
The ones who are Israelis and are simply Israelis fit into the civic.
The ones who are Israelis and think they are better than some of those others who are also Israelis fit into the national.
Or as the study says, the second group are the miserable bastards:yeah:

That would be racism....don't confuse with zionism:haha: which should not be confused with nationalism based on racism.

Now close the borders of EU and deal with it->its sort of like jugling.

OK ...racist are unhappy bastards.:yep:

[Penguin]

Culturally grown/educated own understanding of "identity" plays a role here. And if that "identity" of the foreigner collides with the "identity" of the native, both identities being expressed both in sentiments and thought-about views, then you have a problem: a conflict that cannot be solved without the one being dominated and overturned by the other, most likely by fighting of any kind, which can be physically, but must not be restricted to that, but can take on other forms of conflict as well. Even greater problems you have if the foreigner'S background prohibits him by dogmatic order, or by education/brainwashing prevents him to adopt to the native culture, which is true in case of religious such dogmas.

Some French thinker said patriotism is kind of love to thy people and their culture and its heritage, rules and achievements. Nationalism tends to be more about hate against other nations, fighting them or minimising them. You cannot claim to be patriotic for another nation that you move into as a migrant when you still put our original cultural origin over that of your new home, or even just equal to it. there is a difference between immigration, and colonisation. The first means the newcomer adapts to the rules and dsettings of the new environment he has moved to. The latter means the newcomer tries to make the new environment like the one he has left at home, and/or doing so at the cost of the native population in the new environment.

For these reasons I for example strictly oppose German - typically leftist - ideas about dual citizenship. I also say it is not enough that a foreigner just obeys the law and pays taxes, that makes him a citizen of the new cou7ntry he lives in. There is more to the issue,. much more. Feeling of identity. Cultural shaping of mind, habits, emotions. Readiness to give up one's own past cultural identity in favour of adapting - ohne Wenn und Aber - to that of the new world one lives in. Like I was already no Christian anymore 25 ago when I still formally was in the church and had to pay church taxes, you do not become a German citizen al of a sudden just by paying taxes and not violating criminal laws. Certain pltila cirtcles inEurope thoiugh wants to minimise the issue to this, though, in ortder to continue with their social engineering experiment - unopposed and beyond reach of ciritical reflection and critcism, is possible.

But as a matter of fact Multi-Kulti worked with only some cultures and countries migrants came from. Wiuth the migration especially from Muslim countries, multi-culti not only has failed, but proves to be disastrous social consequences for the hosting European societies. So, here again one sees that migratiuon is not just migration. One needs to look at what places migration comes from. Some cause problems. Some do not.

And this is where we need to be choosy, welcoming the unproblematic ones if they are qualified and can contribute to our countries, but recting those that deamnd more than threy could give back, or cause problems in integration.

Just throwing people without discriminating them into one pot and stirr and expect that to go well - that is an illusion.


Yeah, we had this discussion already this year, in the thread about Germany and multicultural identity http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=178538 - so much I'd say to this would be repetition.
We still see the much of the cultural/national heritage of immigrants, dominantly in th efirst generation. In most cases it disappeared later, when 2nd gen immigrants just called themselves Germans - with ....background.
I still fail to see how you can't be a German with a turban on the head - if you accept the values which our constitution is built upon, the values of the Age of Enlightment if you want to call it this way.
Identitiy is what you give to yourself, a voluntary choice, you can have a victim identity/mentality "ohh, nobody accepts me" or go into the offensive. Same with cultural or regional feelings, I feel much more attached to my region here than to the whole entity of Germany - what do I have with them in common? Also regarding heritage: you won't find two persons (except siblings) who share the same heritage.

Of course it'es easier said than done. And we don't have to be blind: most immigrants of today are here for economic reasons, not for freedom, democracy or Merkel's good looks. However like you stated in your example with paying church taxes without belief in its values anymore. You can't look into the head of the people.
Germany nowadays does at least require a commitment to our basic laws and values, an example: "Für Ihre Einbürgerung ist es wichtig, dass Sie die nachfolgend beschriebenen Elemente der freiheitlichen demokratischen Grundordnung verstanden und akzeptiert haben" (http://www.info4alien.de/einbuergerung/material/FDGO.htm)

Anything else would be not feasible and going against the freedom of opinion. Personally, I'd like to see people kicked out who don't accept or break those very basic laws - the first ones of our constitution (I hate to call them Western as they are universal imo)

And this is where patriotism coms to play: the study showed that it can make people feel happier through it - or maybe vice versa. This is where Germany or Europe has failed: to give a cover for common values.
We often smile above the American patriotism here, which often looks so naive to us Europeans, but say what you want: it works for them, as a sauce or cover to bind "newcomers" into their society. Still, many have their heritage but cover up the salad bowl (not melting pot) with an American topping.

But this all, has nothing to with the fact that immigrants can't be patriots to their new country. Hell, I am none, so I have migrant friends who are one :DL

(tbc, gotta go now)