|
?:abstract
|
-
This article describes how the inhabitants of contemporary nation states think about nationhood along Kohn’s classic distinction between “civic” and “ethnic” nationalism. The article establishes a conceptual framework that facilitates the interpretation of the two-dimensional structure found in this and previous empirical studies of public attitudes. The article uses three rounds of ISSP data on national identity, which enables analyses across 44 countries and across two decades. The article applies MCA-analyses, as the first in the field. The article finds congruence between public criteria for being national and measures of national proudness, national belonging, attitudes to foreign mass media content and attitudes towards migration and migrations. The congruence supports the established two dimensional conceptual framework. The article finds evidence that Kohn’s classic distinction, if applied in a two-dimensional manner, is (still) relevant. In the north Western European countries, republican stories of nationhood (still) dominate, whereas national conservative stories (still) dominate in Eastern Europe. However, the study also finds a number of deviant cases and countries with an overweight of national liberals, e.g. the US, and an overweight of de-constructivists, e.g. Japan, that are not well captured by Kohn’s original framework.
(xsd:string)
|
![[This page as RDF]](https://data.gesis.org/gesiskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}