Hey guys, I've made this blog for anyone who might want to post summaries of the readings we've done. I figured this might be easier than emailing back and forth.
Cho and McLeod Article 9/29 Political knowledge and active political engagement are prime mechanisms through which democratic systems bring about the social good. Participation has a strong connection to social power in that it reflects attempts by individuals to influence the world around them. The authors describe political knowledge as “factual information about “the rules of the game, the substance of politics, and people and parties. They also tie education as one the major reasons people are either politically active or not. They say education alters communication skills, ability and motivation. Political participation rises as the age of the person gets older. People who are involved in local politics are better informed. News media also increases political knowledge. The authors say “high-pluralism communities are characterized by high population density, education levels, and per capita. They also have highly differentiated economic infrastructures and exhibit more conflicts among diverse groups contending for power. Conflict tends to increase knowledge and participation levels.” The authors also say “social gatherings are not necessarily “political” because they are not intended to exert a direct influence on the governing process”. The knowledge gap hypothesis predicts that high-socioeconomic status individuals will possess higher levels of political and scientific knowledge than low-SES individuals. They measured the gap with standard deviation. Community density means there are higher levels of community heterogeneity and pluralism. The density is higher when there are more groups contending for power and resources. They measured different types of participation such as religious engagement, protest participation, and giving and volunteering. At the individual level knowledge was significant positive predictor. Make sure to look at the charts and tables in the article.
Three explanations for why women are not elected to Public office:
Sociological Theory: Emphasizes the cultural explanation for the low proportion of women holding public office. The patriarchal culture of American society with its 1950’s social norms and role expectations, has assigned women to domestic life or narrowly prescribed work roles, such as clerk, secretary, nurse, or teacher. Social norms and legalized discrimination allowed women to be denied equal opportunity to obtain education and skills to obtain political office. The Civil Rights of 1964 was passed by Congress that ended legalized sex discrimination and allowed women rights to the same opportunities as men. A variant of the cultural theory focuses on time demands associated with being a woman in America and the idea of a lack of support for women seeking work outside the home. In American society people feel women have an obligation to raise the kids and take care of the home. If women run for political office who will take care of those obligations?
A second explanation for women’s low rates of elected office holding emphasizes in addition to family care responsibilities and time demands associated with employment outside the home the different acquisition of skills relevant to a political career through involvement in nonpolitical activities. The idea that men more frequently than women engage in organizations that foster skills for American politics.
A third explanation is that the gatekeepers who determine who can run for office in American Politics successfully are not picking women because they feel they cannot win. The majority of gatekeepers or people who recruit for the Republicans and Democrats are mostly men and they may feel a woman cannot win and not actively recruit women to run for political office. Sometimes gatekeepers may feel a woman cannot raise enough to win a race or just maybe more comfortable with the idea of men running for office.
Out-group Effect pinpoints gatekeepers’ discrimination against those whom they see as different from themselves.
Distribution Effect suggests that selectors believe male candidates are more likely to be successful in the general election because they always have been successful.
In Jo Freeman’s conclusion there are two paths to influence: the individual and the organized bloc. Individual- requires sponsorship, which women do not often receive. Organized bloc- provides necessary resources, such as votes, money, or volunteers, but the formation of an organized bloc requires individuals who are willing to work together. Freeman notes that empowerment requires group solidarity and resources and both these routes were fraught with problems for women because neither was readily available.
Voting: 1948 in Elmira Younger people are more likely to be idealistic, expected to be more likely to deviate from their party’s affiliation, but they’re actually less likely to “revolt” from their tradition. In essence, families vote as a unit. Just as young people learn manners and religion, they learn politics as a sort of a “natural selection” or a “correct way to life.” You can choose your friends more freely, so your friend group is most likely to be homogeneous. Only about one in five Republicans have a Democrat in his close circle, and two in five democrats have a Republican. In a Democracy, the individual is expected to have available to him, not only in formal channels of communication, but informal channels of personal contact, a rich variety of experience, a diversity of information, a competition of ideas, and a maximum number of choices. Those predisposed to a democratic vote (working class, Catholics) are more likely to have democratic friends; and conversely for those predisposed Republican. Those with friends in both camps are less sure of their vote. Social environment of the typical voter is homogeneous. Political discussion stays within the friendship groups. Age stays the same. Lower occupations look to higher occupations for political advice and not vice versa. Opinion Leaders
• Viva Voce—voting by voice, hand, or feet • 1634 was the introduction of voting by paper (required own paper and ability to spell and write candidates). Didn’t spread for a long time. • 1787 left voting up to states. • Then after paper ballots came printed ballots that came to be called “party tickets”. Led to fraud and intimidation. Too expensive for candidates to print and pay for name to appear on the paper. • Victoria’s Electoral Act of 1856—required that election officials print ballots and provide booths or a room containing compartments where voters could vote in secret. • Controversy was that voting in private would enable the voter to vote “badly” and in his own interest and only when he votes in public is when he votes for the public good. • Britain adopted the Australian ballot in 1872. • Corrupt elections in New York led to 50,000 illegal votes. People would sell votes with, an obvious sign they were not doing it for the greater good. • 1888 Massachusetts passed the nation’s first state-wide Australian ballot law. Most states swiftly followed suit. • Caused votes to drop due to literacy and education because of the printed ballot. Only literate and educated then voted. • 1880s was the first patent for the first punch card machine.
political democracy- representative democracy- population is too big. Advantages/ disadvantages: political participation • Trip 1831, French aristocrat, Lawyer, Politician • 1st modern work of Political Science • Equality in the US- heart of argument really like equality, N than S • Equality meaning, economic, work ethic, war history, free and equal publication • Don't have aristocracy (title) cant break into, out of system • Stress equality • Social structure effect on government, different values, different government representative democracy • Democracy in France was different, powerful and democratically elected govt branches, not located in church as in France • Main point- equal social structure in US makes people want a powerful government and having democratic government gives rise to equal social structure. (main difference) • Relationship? One without the other mindset/attitude • deductive research-have theory and then deduce • Most political scientists are deductive • Inductive- gather data, build theory • He did both while in America • Political associations: talking about Politics in Clubs, goes against democracy, split, take issues and go with club. Ternary- of majority, "anarchy" • Lists dangers of having political associations, Americans need party because there is no aristocracy, suspicious about this but it is needed. • Party: guilds, labor union
Rock, Paper, Scissors How people vote has changed. Voting used to be done by using words-viva voce. Only a small percent of the population was able to vote- 6%. It was considered courageous to make your way to the polls (even if there were riots). Early paper voting was a hassle because you needed to bring your own ballot, and remember the name of the person you were voting for and how to spell the name- if not the votes would be cast out. People began bringing pre written ballots and handing them out with money-“soap.” This wasn’t illegal. Printed ballots became known as “Party Tickets.” This made it easier for uneducated people to cast a vote. Party tickets led to massive fraud and intimidation. The Australia Ballot in 1856- Chapman. Mil insisted that voting is a trust. A secret vote is a selfish vote. 1888 Massachusetts passed the nation’s first statewide Australian- ballot law. This made it much harder for immigrants, former slaves and uneducated poor to vote. Voting percentages decreased from 80%. 1889 the first punch card machine was made and in 1892 lever machine. 2002 Help America Vote act game 3 billion dollars for machines to be used. In 2004 when the machines were used there were many problems. Many of the machines have been thrown out. Voting is a historical problem. Is voting now too quiet?
Defining Political Participation “Political Participation affords citizens in a democracy an opportunity to communicate information to government officials about their concerns and preferences and to put pressure on them to respond.” “By political participation we refer simple to activity that has the intent or effect of influencing government action-either directly by affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies. “ Volunteer- receives no pay or only token financial compensation. Exclude political discussion among friends, letters to the editor, calls to talk shows- in which the target audience is not a public official. 3 main analytical distinctions among those studied: (1) focuses on what a particular form of participation requires of the activists in terms of the mix of resources of time, money, and skills. (2,3) focus on the factors affecting what a participatory act can produce in the way of response. Time, Money, Skill- Requirements for Participation Participatory acts vary in the extent to which they convey information about the circumstances and preferences of the participant. The volume of activity: Exerting pressure- Political acts vary in the extent to which they generate pressure on policymakers to pay attention. The vote is an extreme case of volume of political input- little potential leverage, can only vote once. Augmenting the volume of activity produces an increase in pressure n policymakers to respond. Table 2.1
Political participation is defined as those activities of citizens that attempt to influence the structure (1)of Govt., the selection (2) of Govt. authorities, or the policies (3) of govt.
Political Activities -LEAST-VOTING MOST-OFFICE SEEKING/MEMBER OF A POLITICAL PARTY ORG. tHOSE IN BETWEEN: SIGNING PETITIONS,ATTENDING SCHOOL BOARD/CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND WRITING TO STATELEG'S OF CONGRESS...WHOAAA CAPSLOCK.
Overall since 70's women have made significant gains. Public opinion polls have since favored women running for office in multiparty and proportional member districts.
dammit! this fucking computer deleted my fucking huge comment on Nir's Ambivalent Social Networks!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHH, I want to murder this computer!!!!!
NIR'S AMBIVALENT SOCIAL NETWORKS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES FOR PARTICIPATION
Nir says there are two levels of ambivalence: Individual and Network. Nir states that most of the previous research (of which Lazarsfeld was a major contributor) confounded the two levels. If you have internal Ambivalences, you are not more or less likely to vote than a non-ambivalent individual. Furthermore, if there are "cross-cutting" networks (which have conflicting views-CROSS-PRESSURES--on the candidate/s) the ambivalent Individual will take longer to form their vote preference, whereas the non-ambivalent individual will crystallize their vote preference RAPIDO! According to John Stuart Mill 1859, these non-Amb Ind's are inoculated by a dose of counter-attitudinal info, which makes them resistant to persuasion.
Voting, Participation Activities, and Vote Decision timing were the variables. Voting: Ambivalent and Non-amb Individuals will vote regardless of cross-pressures in the Network. Participation Activities: People are more likely to participate if they have high political knowledge, read the newspaper, have a high income, are a certain age (47) and have a large network.
Individual level of ambivalence is inversely associated with participation activities, and Network level of amb. failed to predict Participation Activites.
Also, Nir wanted to point out that cross-pressures were analyzed as a balance between opposing forces (agree or disagree with two parties) as opposed to just pointing out a bunch of different reasons why someone is ambivalent. Nir says ambivalence suggests a willingness to take seriously the tenor and tide of political debate taking place within a democracy (Guge 99), and we may be less happy, but have a stronger country. There is a balance of two-opposing sides causing enough of a cleavage to stimulate debate and action and enough concensus to hold society together under strain!
Masuoka / Latino Identity and Political Participation The purpose of this study is dualistic: to inspect the different forms of Latino group consciousness and to reveal the connection of each with political participation. Delineates the three major forms of Latino group consciousness: 1. national origin- National origin can be considered the principle identity category for Latinos. As with all other new immigrant groups, Latinos strongly identify with their country of origin. 2. Panethnic- However, once Latinos arrive in the United States, they are classified into a panethnic “Hispanic” or “Latino” umbrella categories. Proponents of a Latino panethnic identity primarily focus on the idea that Latinos share a similar culture, religion, and language. 3. Racial- Although race is a contested third category for Latino group identity, it is plausible that Latinos could be using a shared racialized group identity in their political choices. Uses three of the major Latino public opinion surveys for data. First, Latino group consciousnesses are classified into the three major group consciousness forms identified above. Second, it compares the effects of each on three different forms of participation—voter registration, voter turnout, and participation in Latino-specific causes—to conclude which group consciousness is most pertinent to political participation. In order to develop hypothesis to understand the Latino group consciousness, you look toward studies of other ethnic groups and their past trajectories. Previous racial identity evolution studies help create a conceptual scale for the three forms of Latino group consciousnesses and their anticipated significance to politics over time. At one end of the scale is national origin consciousness, mirroring the European ethnic pattern, which is stronger in newer immigrants and weakens in later generations. At the opposite end of the scale is racial group consciousness, which would mirror the Black experience involving racial inequality. Panethnicity is placed in the middle, and is largely an “American” construct, based on identification with other Latinos residing in the US. Overlap of these identities is not only possible but inevitable. Hypothesis 1: Immigrants are more likely to identify with a national origin consciousness than are the native born. (Found to be true.) Hypothesis 2: The native born are more likely to identify with a panethnic and racial group consciousness than are the foreign born. (Found to be true.) Hypothesis 3: Attachment to the Spanish language, which is used to establish a sense of shared culture, heightens a panethnic consciousness. (Found to be true.) Hypothesis 4: Increased education heightens a racial group consciousness. (Found to be false.) Hypothesis 5: For Latinos, a racial group consciousness has a significant and positive impact on political participation, even controlling for socioeconomic status and immigrant generation. (Found to be true.) Issues with the study: Cannot make direct comparisons across the three different categories. 10-year difference between the administration of the LNPS and the 1999 Kaiser and 2002 PEW surveys. Since Latino’s are the new largest ethnic minority group in the US, studies revolving around the paths of their group identities are going to become more essential. This study finds that not all Latino group identities are important to political behavior. Racial group consciousness is linked more commonly with political behavior than the other group identities examined in this study, continuing to have a noteworthy effect on both registration and nonvoting participation after controls for socioeconomic and immigrant status are implemented. This group consciousness therefore pushes Latinos to break down the biggest barrier they have toward political participation- registration, and also compels them to become more active in community politics. National origin identities, however, currently are the strongest construct for Latinos, but are not maintained over generations.
Cho and McLeod Article 9/29
ReplyDeletePolitical knowledge and active political engagement are prime mechanisms through which democratic systems bring about the social good. Participation has a strong connection to social power in that it reflects attempts by individuals to influence the world around them. The authors describe political knowledge as “factual information about “the rules of the game, the substance of politics, and people and parties. They also tie education as one the major reasons people are either politically active or not. They say education alters communication skills, ability and motivation. Political participation rises as the age of the person gets older. People who are involved in local politics are better informed. News media also increases political knowledge. The authors say “high-pluralism communities are characterized by high population density, education levels, and per capita. They also have highly differentiated economic infrastructures and exhibit more conflicts among diverse groups contending for power. Conflict tends to increase knowledge and participation levels.” The authors also say “social gatherings are not necessarily “political” because they are not intended to exert a direct influence on the governing process”. The knowledge gap hypothesis predicts that high-socioeconomic status individuals will possess higher levels of political and scientific knowledge than low-SES individuals. They measured the gap with standard deviation. Community density means there are higher levels of community heterogeneity and pluralism. The density is higher when there are more groups contending for power and resources. They measured different types of participation such as religious engagement, protest participation, and giving and volunteering. At the individual level knowledge was significant positive predictor. Make sure to look at the charts and tables in the article.
Women and Political Participation
ReplyDeleteThree explanations for why women are not elected to Public office:
Sociological Theory: Emphasizes the cultural explanation for the low proportion of women holding public office. The patriarchal culture of American society with its 1950’s social norms and role expectations, has assigned women to domestic life or narrowly prescribed work roles, such as clerk, secretary, nurse, or teacher. Social norms and legalized discrimination allowed women to be denied equal opportunity to obtain education and skills to obtain political office. The Civil Rights of 1964 was passed by Congress that ended legalized sex discrimination and allowed women rights to the same opportunities as men. A variant of the cultural theory focuses on time demands associated with being a woman in America and the idea of a lack of support for women seeking work outside the home. In American society people feel women have an obligation to raise the kids and take care of the home. If women run for political office who will take care of those obligations?
A second explanation for women’s low rates of elected office holding emphasizes in addition to family care responsibilities and time demands associated with employment outside the home the different acquisition of skills relevant to a political career through involvement in nonpolitical activities. The idea that men more frequently than women engage in organizations that foster skills for American politics.
A third explanation is that the gatekeepers who determine who can run for office in American Politics successfully are not picking women because they feel they cannot win. The majority of gatekeepers or people who recruit for the Republicans and Democrats are mostly men and they may feel a woman cannot win and not actively recruit women to run for political office. Sometimes gatekeepers may feel a woman cannot raise enough to win a race or just maybe more comfortable with the idea of men running for office.
Out-group Effect pinpoints gatekeepers’ discrimination against those whom they see as different from themselves.
Distribution Effect suggests that selectors believe male candidates are more likely to be successful in the general election because they always have been successful.
In Jo Freeman’s conclusion there are two paths to influence: the individual and the organized bloc.
Individual- requires sponsorship, which women do not often receive.
Organized bloc- provides necessary resources, such as votes, money, or volunteers, but the formation of an organized bloc requires individuals who are willing to work together.
Freeman notes that empowerment requires group solidarity and resources and both these routes were fraught with problems for women because neither was readily available.
Voting: 1948 in Elmira
ReplyDeleteYounger people are more likely to be idealistic, expected to be more likely to deviate from their party’s affiliation, but they’re actually less likely to “revolt” from their tradition. In essence, families vote as a unit. Just as young people learn manners and religion, they learn politics as a sort of a “natural selection” or a “correct way to life.”
You can choose your friends more freely, so your friend group is most likely to be homogeneous. Only about one in five Republicans have a Democrat in his close circle, and two in five democrats have a Republican.
In a Democracy, the individual is expected to have available to him, not only in formal channels of communication, but informal channels of personal contact, a rich variety of experience, a diversity of information, a competition of ideas, and a maximum number of choices.
Those predisposed to a democratic vote (working class, Catholics) are more likely to have democratic friends; and conversely for those predisposed Republican. Those with friends in both camps are less sure of their vote.
Social environment of the typical voter is homogeneous. Political discussion stays within the friendship groups. Age stays the same.
Lower occupations look to higher occupations for political advice and not vice versa.
Opinion Leaders
• Viva Voce—voting by voice, hand, or feet
ReplyDelete• 1634 was the introduction of voting by paper (required own paper and ability to spell and write candidates). Didn’t spread for a long time.
• 1787 left voting up to states.
• Then after paper ballots came printed ballots that came to be called “party tickets”. Led to fraud and intimidation. Too expensive for candidates to print and pay for name to appear on the paper.
• Victoria’s Electoral Act of 1856—required that election officials print ballots and provide booths or a room containing compartments where voters could vote in secret.
• Controversy was that voting in private would enable the voter to vote “badly” and in his own interest and only when he votes in public is when he votes for the public good.
• Britain adopted the Australian ballot in 1872.
• Corrupt elections in New York led to 50,000 illegal votes. People would sell votes with, an obvious sign they were not doing it for the greater good.
• 1888 Massachusetts passed the nation’s first state-wide Australian ballot law. Most states swiftly followed suit.
• Caused votes to drop due to literacy and education because of the printed ballot. Only literate and educated then voted.
• 1880s was the first patent for the first punch card machine.
De Tocqueville-
ReplyDeletepolitical democracy- representative democracy- population is too big. Advantages/ disadvantages: political participation
• Trip 1831, French aristocrat, Lawyer, Politician
• 1st modern work of Political Science
• Equality in the US- heart of argument really like equality, N than S
• Equality meaning, economic, work ethic, war history, free and equal publication
• Don't have aristocracy (title) cant break into, out of system
• Stress equality
• Social structure effect on government, different values, different government representative democracy
• Democracy in France was different, powerful and democratically elected govt branches, not located in church as in France
• Main point- equal social structure in US makes people want a powerful government and having democratic government gives rise to equal social structure. (main difference)
• Relationship? One without the other mindset/attitude
• deductive research-have theory and then deduce
• Most political scientists are deductive
• Inductive- gather data, build theory
• He did both while in America
• Political associations: talking about Politics in Clubs, goes against democracy, split, take issues and go with club. Ternary- of majority, "anarchy"
• Lists dangers of having political associations, Americans need party because there is no aristocracy, suspicious about this but it is needed.
• Party: guilds, labor union
Rock, Paper, Scissors
ReplyDeleteHow people vote has changed. Voting used to be done by using words-viva voce. Only a small percent of the population was able to vote- 6%. It was considered courageous to make your way to the polls (even if there were riots). Early paper voting was a hassle because you needed to bring your own ballot, and remember the name of the person you were voting for and how to spell the name- if not the votes would be cast out. People began bringing pre written ballots and handing them out with money-“soap.” This wasn’t illegal. Printed ballots became known as “Party Tickets.” This made it easier for uneducated people to cast a vote. Party tickets led to massive fraud and intimidation. The Australia Ballot in 1856- Chapman. Mil insisted that voting is a trust. A secret vote is a selfish vote. 1888 Massachusetts passed the nation’s first statewide Australian- ballot law. This made it much harder for immigrants, former slaves and uneducated poor to vote. Voting percentages decreased from 80%. 1889 the first punch card machine was made and in 1892 lever machine. 2002 Help America Vote act game 3 billion dollars for machines to be used. In 2004 when the machines were used there were many problems. Many of the machines have been thrown out. Voting is a historical problem. Is voting now too quiet?
Defining Political Participation
ReplyDelete“Political Participation affords citizens in a democracy an opportunity to communicate information to government officials about their concerns and preferences and to put pressure on them to respond.”
“By political participation we refer simple to activity that has the intent or effect of influencing government action-either directly by affecting the making or implementation of public policy or indirectly by influencing the selection of people who make those policies. “
Volunteer- receives no pay or only token financial compensation. Exclude political discussion among friends, letters to the editor, calls to talk shows- in which the target audience is not a public official.
3 main analytical distinctions among those studied: (1) focuses on what a particular form of participation requires of the activists in terms of the mix of resources of time, money, and skills. (2,3) focus on the factors affecting what a participatory act can produce in the way of response.
Time, Money, Skill- Requirements for Participation
Participatory acts vary in the extent to which they convey information about the circumstances and preferences of the participant.
The volume of activity: Exerting pressure- Political acts vary in the extent to which they generate pressure on policymakers to pay attention. The vote is an extreme case of volume of political input- little potential leverage, can only vote once.
Augmenting the volume of activity produces an increase in pressure n policymakers to respond.
Table 2.1
CONWAY's WOMAN PARTICIPATION
ReplyDeletePolitical participation is defined as those activities of citizens that attempt to influence the structure (1)of Govt., the selection (2) of Govt. authorities, or the policies (3) of govt.
Political Activities
-LEAST-VOTING
MOST-OFFICE SEEKING/MEMBER OF A POLITICAL PARTY ORG.
tHOSE IN BETWEEN: SIGNING PETITIONS,ATTENDING SCHOOL BOARD/CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND WRITING TO STATELEG'S OF CONGRESS...WHOAAA CAPSLOCK.
Overall since 70's women have made significant gains.
Public opinion polls have since favored women running for office in multiparty and proportional member districts.
dammit! this fucking computer deleted my fucking huge comment on Nir's Ambivalent Social Networks!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHH, I want to murder this computer!!!!!
ReplyDeleteNIR'S AMBIVALENT SOCIAL NETWORKS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES FOR PARTICIPATION
Nir says there are two levels of ambivalence: Individual and Network.
Nir states that most of the previous research (of which Lazarsfeld was a major contributor) confounded the two levels.
If you have internal Ambivalences, you are not more or less likely to vote than a non-ambivalent individual.
Furthermore, if there are "cross-cutting" networks (which have conflicting views-CROSS-PRESSURES--on the candidate/s) the ambivalent Individual will take longer to form their vote preference, whereas the non-ambivalent individual will crystallize their vote preference RAPIDO! According to John Stuart Mill 1859, these non-Amb Ind's are inoculated by a dose of counter-attitudinal info, which makes them resistant to persuasion.
Voting, Participation Activities, and Vote Decision timing were the variables.
Voting: Ambivalent and Non-amb Individuals will vote regardless of cross-pressures in the Network.
Participation Activities: People are more likely to participate if they have high political knowledge, read the newspaper, have a high income, are a certain age (47) and have a large network.
Individual level of ambivalence is inversely associated with participation activities, and Network level of amb. failed to predict Participation Activites.
Also, Nir wanted to point out that cross-pressures were analyzed as a balance between opposing forces (agree or disagree with two parties) as opposed to just pointing out a bunch of different reasons why someone is ambivalent.
Nir says ambivalence suggests a willingness to take seriously the tenor and tide of political debate taking place within a democracy (Guge 99), and we may be less happy, but have a stronger country. There is a balance of two-opposing sides causing enough of a cleavage to stimulate debate and action and enough concensus to hold society together under strain!
Masuoka / Latino Identity and Political Participation
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of this study is dualistic: to inspect the different forms of Latino group consciousness and to reveal the connection of each with political participation. Delineates the three major forms of Latino group consciousness:
1. national origin- National origin can be considered the principle identity category for Latinos. As with all other new immigrant groups, Latinos strongly identify with their country of origin.
2. Panethnic- However, once Latinos arrive in the United States, they are classified into a panethnic “Hispanic” or “Latino” umbrella categories. Proponents of a Latino panethnic identity primarily focus on the idea that Latinos share a similar culture, religion, and language.
3. Racial- Although race is a contested third category for Latino group identity, it is plausible that Latinos could be using a shared racialized group identity in their political choices.
Uses three of the major Latino public opinion surveys for data. First, Latino group consciousnesses are classified into the three major group consciousness forms identified above. Second, it compares the effects of each on three different forms of participation—voter registration, voter turnout, and participation in Latino-specific causes—to conclude which group consciousness is most pertinent to political participation.
In order to develop hypothesis to understand the Latino group consciousness, you look toward studies of other ethnic groups and their past trajectories. Previous racial identity evolution studies help create a conceptual scale for the three forms of Latino group consciousnesses and their anticipated significance to politics over time. At one end of the scale is national origin consciousness, mirroring the European ethnic pattern, which is stronger in newer immigrants and weakens in later generations. At the opposite end of the scale is racial group consciousness, which would mirror the Black experience involving racial inequality. Panethnicity is placed in the middle, and is largely an “American” construct, based on identification with other Latinos residing in the US. Overlap of these identities is not only possible but inevitable.
Hypothesis 1: Immigrants are more likely to identify with a national origin consciousness than are the native born. (Found to be true.)
Hypothesis 2: The native born are more likely to identify with a panethnic and racial group consciousness than are the foreign born. (Found to be true.)
Hypothesis 3: Attachment to the Spanish language, which is used to establish a sense of shared culture, heightens a panethnic consciousness. (Found to be true.)
Hypothesis 4: Increased education heightens a racial group consciousness. (Found to be false.)
Hypothesis 5: For Latinos, a racial group consciousness has a significant and positive impact on political participation, even controlling for socioeconomic status and immigrant generation. (Found to be true.)
Issues with the study:
Cannot make direct comparisons across the three different categories.
10-year difference between the administration of the LNPS and the 1999 Kaiser and 2002 PEW surveys.
Since Latino’s are the new largest ethnic minority group in the US, studies revolving around the paths of their group identities are going to become more essential. This study finds that not all Latino group identities are important to political behavior. Racial group consciousness is linked more commonly with political behavior than the other group identities examined in this study, continuing to have a noteworthy effect on both registration and nonvoting participation after controls for socioeconomic and immigrant status are implemented. This group consciousness therefore pushes Latinos to break down the biggest barrier they have toward political participation- registration, and also compels them to become more active in community politics. National origin identities, however, currently are the strongest construct for Latinos, but are not maintained over generations.