Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (11)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Jones, F.L.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

European Sociological Review 17:103-118 (2001)
© 2001 Oxford University Press

Individual and Societal Bases of National Identity. A Comparative Multi-Level Analysis

F.L. Jones and Philip Smith

Sociology Program RSSS (Building 9), Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 0200. FRANK.JONES{at}ANU.EDU.AU

In a previous study (Jones and Smith, 1999) we established that much the same core pattern of national identity characterizes many developed countries. Using the national identity module from the 1995 International Social Survey Programme, we identified two dimensions of national identity: an ascriptive dimension resembling the concept of ethnic identity described in the historical and theoretical literature, and a voluntarist dimension closer to the notion of civic identity. Some writers view these dimensions in terms of a historical sequence but we find that both constructs coexist in the minds of individual respondents in the nations we examine (we exclude Bulgaria and the Philippines from the present but not the earlier analysis). The dataset used for the multilevel analyses reported here consists of 28 589 respondents in the remaining 21 countries included in the national identity database for the 1995 round of surveys.

The macrosociological literature on national identity does not offer well-defined predictions about what precise patterns of national identification we might expect to find among the masses of the developed countries. There are, however, recurring themes from which one can construct plausible hypotheses about how countries might differ according to their level of development, broadly conceived. Thus, we hypothesize that forces such as post-industrialism and globalization tend to favour the more open voluntaristic form of national identity over the more restrictive ascribed form. We develop different multi-level models in order to evaluate specific hypotheses pertaining to such issues, by simultaneously relating individual and societal characteristics to the relative strength of individual commitment to these different types of national identity.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur Sociol RevHome page
F. Koster
Globalization, Social Structure, and the Willingness to Help Others: a Multilevel Analysis Across 26 Countries
Eur. Sociol. Rev., September 1, 2007; 23(4): 537 - 551.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Human RelationsHome page
S. Gibson and J. Abell
For Queen and Country? National Frames of Reference in the Talk of Soldiers in England
Human Relations, July 1, 2004; 57(7): 871 - 891.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.