Relationship between Subordinate Concepts of Nationalism and Political

Values: Empirical Assessment in the Ethnic Nation

Kunisuke Hamada and Shunsuke Tanabe

1. Introduction: Modern nationalism

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and other federated nations with communist principles, the

majority of nations in the world have taken on the form of the nation-state, unified as such by the

principle of nationalism. Even within established nations, many people demand a more rigorous

application of the nationalist principle; the demands of ethnic groups like those of the Catalan and

Basque regions of Spain and the French speaking region in Belgium for independence can no longer

be ignored.

Most of the developed countries also face a certain kind of nationalism like populist political

movements. For example, the National Front has appealed to the purity of French culture and the

exclusion of Islamic immigrants from France's former colonies. The popularity of the National Front

has been generally increasing. Jean-Marie Le Pen won 11.7% of the vote in the March 2010 election,

the third largest vote of any party, while his daughter, Marine Le Pen, secured 17.9% in the

presidential election of 2012. The Freedom Party of Austria, another right-wing party in Europe,

joined with the coalition to form a government in 2000. Radical right parties that advocate strong

nationalism thus now present a significant political force in Europe. Political movements tinged with

nationalism are also active in the United States. Religious right-wing groups supported the

Republican administration of George W. Bush, whereas more recently the so-called ‘Tea Party’

movement has been critical of the Obama administration. In Japanese case, Prime Minister Shinzô

Abe is very famous for his strong nationalistic advocacy. And a party leader of the Japan Restoration

Party which won 54 seats in the election 2012 is Shintarô Ishihara who is also notorious for his

jingoistic discourse toward China and Korea. As the result of those political situations in many

advanced countries, many scholars criticize and give an alarm on the upsurge of nationalism.

Although nationalism can reveal its many faces depending on time and place, it is oversimplified

frequently not only by critics but also by advocators. For example, the relationship between

nationalism and political stances is often understood with a simple schema: the right defends

nationalism while the left rejects it. It is said that the right wing are strongly nationalistic and laud

the authority of the nation, seeking tighter state control over morals and security and zealously

pursuing a high-handed approach on the diplomatic front. The left wing, on the other hand, are said

to regard nationalism as a dangerous idea that leads to militarism, abhorring the authority of the

nation that applauds such nationalism.

One of the reasons for this confusion may be that a simple schema does not specify the variety of

factors contained within the term ‘nationalism’. In fact, supporters and opponents of nationalism

may define the term, and what it comprises, in entirely different ways. Consequently, more often

than not, their discussions go astray. Supporters argue that people should have patriotic feelings

towards their nation by observing the national flag and anthem; some others argue that cultural or

linguistic purity of national member is essential for national integration. In contrast, opponents pick

out the exclusionist sentiment towards immigrants and condemn it as nationalism. Is loving one’s

country the same as seeking cultural purity for the nation? Must this same ‘nationalism’ embrace an

exclusionist stance towards foreigners? Could there not be patriotism in a form that does not seek the

nation’s ethnic purity?

This paper attempts to reveal the multi-dimensionality of nationalism in Ethnic nation and clarify

the relationship between subordinate concepts nationalism and other political values. For that

purpose, next section gives a brief overview of previous studies on nationalism. The following

section three and four explain and analyze data from the public opinion survey conducted in Japan.

2. Previous Researches: Perspectives on nationalism

What does it mean “nationalism”? This in itself is a subject of considerable debate. Someone

criticizes anti-foreign attitudes as nationalism, but the others defend love for their own country as

nationalism. This confusion is not only in the everyday conversation, but also in the academic field.

There is no universally accepted definition of nationalism among the scholars; this is a problem

which is considered to be a major obstacle in studies of nationalism (Hutchinson & Smith 1994). For

that reason, this section reviews several academic perspectives to apprehend the main discussions

about nationalism.

2.1. Theoretical Studies of nationalism

Many nationalists see nationalism as a natural sentiment of people towards their nation that has

continuously existed since ancient times. On the other hand, scholars such as Gellner (1983) and

Anderson (1991) argue that nationalism is in fact a phenomenon that first emerged in modern times,

an approach that is termed the ‘modernist approach’. According to this perspective, the emergence of

nationalism precedes the nation, as opposed to the view that sees nationalism as rising from the

nation itself.

They assert that nations are generated as the result of modernization and industrialization. Gellner

(1983), for instance, had the idea that nations were born in order to re-unify, by linguistic and

cultural means, people who had been cut off by industrialization from such fundamental connections

as territorial or blood relationships. Furthermore, Anderson (1991) argued that the space and time in

which newspapers and novels in a specific vernacular spread widely along with the expansion of

print-capitalism, and which people came to imagine as the domain where they could communicate in

that language, was a nation as an ‘imagined community.’ But, in counter to those modernist theories,

Anthony D. Smith (1998) argues that ethnic communities (he calls it “ethnie”) have existed since

pre-modern times in many nations, and that one cannot ignore the fact that their cultural/historical

continuity has become the core of their present-day nation.

Along the line of typology of nationalism (Kohn 1948 etc), Smith (1991) also asserts a distinction

between civic and ethnic nationalism. The civic nationalism concerns the contents of the bond

uniting features of territory, a community of laws and institutions, and common civic culture. The

uniting features of the ethnic nation are common descent, vernacular languages, religion, customs

and traditions. As Smith also points out, however, “in fact every nationalism contains civic and

ethnic elements in varying degrees and different forms. Sometimes civic and territorial elements

predominate; at other times it is the ethnic and vernacular components that are emphasized” (Smith

1991: 13). In many empirical studies, this dichotomy is one of the most cited topics to reveal. For

that reason, we also adopt Smith’s classification of nationalism in this article.

The other type of theoretical studies about nationalism can be classified as “Normative theories”.

The normative theories of political philosophy and social theory focus on the question: is

nationalism necessary? Miller (1995) defends the need for nationalism, arguing that loyalty to the

nation is the basis of a democratic political community. This is because the nation state is, for the

time being, the most practical basis for democratic social unity and political responsibilities such as

income re-distribution. Similarly, Tailor (1996) argues that patriotism and a sense of bonding are

necessary for the establishment of democracy. Also, Tamir (1993) asserts that liberalism and

nationalism can be assimilated with each other.

On the other hand, a number of commentators emphasize the need to overcome nationalism. They

argue that nationalism is externally a cause of wars and conflicts and internally used to justify

suppression of immigrants and minority groups. From his republican standpoint, Viroli (1997)

regards nationalism as an exclusivist force that seeks cultural purity and unity within a nation; he

argues that it is hostile towards multicultural coexistence and the mixing of different groups and

races. He then advocates the need to escape nationalism and regenerate republican patriotism, which

he defines as a love of both polity and freedom. Beck (2002) argues about the trap of methodological

nationalism that nationalism is a ‘cognitive trap’ that enables people to falsely believe that global

problems can be solved within a national unit.

All of these theories can hold within the sphere of intellectuals and elites, but can they be

understood in relationship to the views of ordinary people? While it might be desirable to build a

‘correct’ theory of nationalism, the reality of nationalism means that it is prone to be affected by

social conditions. It is therefore necessary to understand what kind of nationalism people actually

embrace.

2.2. Empirical analysis of nationalism

Nowadays, after the International Social Survey Program (hereafter ISSP) picked up national

identity as its topic, many previous researches have been done by ISSP data. For that reason,

experimental studies about nationalism or national identity are far more advanced in last 10 years.

But, those studies still have critical defect that they use their own conceptual framework in each

study and there are few comparative conceptual frameworks among those studies.

Many studies considered contents of ISSP national identity module about criteria for "being truly

nationals". Scholars treated those items in many ways as "national identity" (Hjerm 1998),"criteria

for national membership" (Jones & Smith 2001), "conditions for membership of the nation"(Tanabe

2008=2011), "content of national identity categories" (Kunovich 2009) and "definition of

membership"(Wright 2011). Not a few scholars also explored the dimensionality of the concept

(Jones & Smith 2001;Tanabe 2001; Shulman 2002; Kunovich 2009; Heath, Martin & Spreckelsen

2009; Medina, Smith & Long 2009; Reeskens & Hooghe 2010; Wright 2011)．Most of the studies

investing the data of the Western nations, they found two dimensions as "ascribed/objective form"

and "civic/voluntaristic form"(Jones & Smith 2001), "ethnic factor" and "civic factor"(Kunovich

2009), and "ascriptive" and " achievable"(Wright 2011). But, the contents of "ethnic" or "civic"

attributions are still ambiguous (Medina, Smith & Long 2009).

For example, Kunovich (2009) divided them into two categories as ethnic and civic attributions

and he confirmed them by confirmatory factor analysis. He also calculated "civic + ethnic national

identity" and "civic - ethnic national identity" to analyze the relationship between strength of

national identification and preference for restrictive views on immigrants. The result showed that

multiple nationalist who emphasis both on ethnic and civic criteria “are less willing to grant

citizenship to children born to noncitizens in their country”, but “willing to grant citizenship to

children born abroad to parents who are citizens of the country” (Kunovich 2009: 588).

Other studies focused on some kinds of esteem or pride for the nation. As for Coenders &

Scheepers (2003) or Raijman, Davidov, Schmidt & Hochman (2008), they treated pride for

democracy and political intuitions as “patriotism” and showed such kinds of pride correlated

negatively with anti-immigrant attitudes. But, in Japan and South Korea, which are typical ethnic

nation, the correlations between political national pride and xenophobia are "positive" (Tanabe

2011). It implies that structural relations among subordinate concepts of nationalism may differ

between the civic and the ethnic nation.

Many scholars also conducted analysis on items of attitudes toward immigrants. Some study

treated such items as “attitude toward immigrants”(Facchini & Mayda 2008) as value-neutral. Other

researches considering group threat theory dealt with them as a kind of perceived threats (Raijman,

Davidov, Schmidt & Hochman 2008). Some studies cited them as a "anti-immigrants prejudice"

which was accordance with social psychological studies of prejudice (Kunovich 2004; Pehrson,

Vignoles & Brown 2009). The other studies viewed them as "xenophobia" (Hjerm 1998, 2003),

"anti-foreignism"(Tanabe 2001, Tsutsui 2008), "exclusion of immigrants" (Coenders & Scheepers

2003). Their naming of the concept emphasized the point that those negative feelings against

immigrants were a kind of attitudes toward outsiders of "nationals".

Some previous researches also explored civic and ethnic, or the west and the east dichotomy

(Kohn 1948; Smith 1991). For example, Shulman (2002) analyzed ISSP data to consider the

dichotomy by comparing the West, Central and Eastern Europe countries. He concluded that cultural

national identity was stronger in nations of the western model than in the Central and Eastern Europe

countries. But, he compared just simple average scores of importance for national membership items

and did not analyze their relationship between civic national identity and ethnic national identity.

Hjerm (2003) also examined the classical dichotomy of the West and the East by comparing the

strength of nationalist sentiments and national pride between Eastern and Western Europe by using

ISSP 1995 data. The result of his analysis was not accordance with the assumptions of the classical

division that Western countries have stronger cultural national pride than Eastern countries. In most

Western European countries, “the strong sense of national pride based in the cultural dimension was

related to xenophobia” (Hjerm 2003: 427). However, he just compared the simple correlation

between summed scores of each concept. For that reason, it was not considered the structural

differences of nationalism between the civic and the ethnic nationalism.

Following the previous researches above, we cite four different aspects of nationalism which are

drawn out of preceding studies: they are purism, patriotism, anti-foreignism and perceived threat.

These four concepts, though not exhaustive, are important aspects of nationalism according to many

commentators.

2.3. Relationship between nationalism and political values

As mentioned above, Anderson (1991) argued that nationalism is a phenomenon constructed

socially and politically in modern times. He also defined a nation as “an imagined political

community.” These reference indicate that the concept of nation and nationalism are strongly related

to political values.

Since authoritarian personality had been theorized by Adorno et al. (1950), authoritarian

personality have been considered as one of an important explanatory factor of prejudice.

Furthermore, Altemeyer (1996) pointed out “right-wing authoritarianism” had strong correlation

with race-based prejudice and conservative attitude.

On the other hand, Pratto et al. (1994) proposed “social dominance orientation” which was

strongly correlated with prejudice and attitude towards minorities. Also, van Hiel and Mervielde

(2005) indicated that “social dominance orientation” predicted racism as much as “right-wing

authoritarianism.”

3. Hypothesis

3.1. Japanese Case

As cited the above, there are long discussions about the civic-ethnic dichotomy of nationalism. To

reveal the puzzle of this confusion, we consider a typical ethnic nation to control many disturbing

factors such as ethnic diversity or immigration policy. For that reason, we think Japan as an ideal

sample of ethnic nation. Japan is one of the most ethnically homogeneous nations in the world and

its immigration policy is very strict to accept immigrants still now. Although the number of

foreigners who live in Japan long-term is increasing, Japan is still considered to be a very

homogenous society by most of Japanese people themselves. And Japanese politics adopted a single-

ethnic myth, wherein ethnicity and nationality were interchangeable. So that reason, Japanese case is

the best case to resolve the question about the ethnic nationalism. Additionally, Japanese society and

politics are in the period of instability in the post-cold war environment. During the cold war era,

Japan was regarded as a stable country both in society and politics. After the end of the cold war,

however, many shifts and changes have occurred in Japanese society.

For example, many Japanese people had viewed Japan as a single-ethnic society, but in reality it is

just a myth. A number of foreign residences in Japan are incising very rapidly under the influence of

globalization and it transforms an ethnic composition of Japanese society that had been called as

“mono-ethnic”. Furthermore, most Japanese had been considered for a long time having middle class

mentality for a long time. However, inequality of society and instability of employment have been

rapidly growing under the circumstance of expanding globalization and neo liberalism since 2000s.

In the political situation, the Liberal Democratic Party which was a long-term government party

from 1955 lost the election witheringly in 2009 and it led to changes of government. However, the

Liberal Democratic Party won a landslide victory by general election, 2012. It shows a perfect example

of the instability in Japanese politics. The election, 2012 also shows that nationalism and populism are

very influential factors for current Japanese politics, because a new Japanese Prime Minister Abe is

very famous for his revisionist view of history and strong nationalistic advocacy. For these reasons,

geopolitical conflict between Japan and Korea or China have emerged in recent years in Japan.

Of course, those changes are somewhat unique in Japan. But, those kinds of transformations have

happened not only in Japan, but also in most of the developed nations, because most developed

countries face similar problems such as a rapid increasing of immigration and a spreading the

globalization and neo liberalism.

3.2. Hypothesis

To focus on the conceptual structure of nationalism in the ethnic nation, we consider five

subordinate concepts: ethnic criteria of purism, civic criteria of purism, patriotism and anti-

foreignism. We will explore the structural relationships among them.

According to social psychological literature on Social Identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979 etc),

categorization of in-group and out-group itself generates in-group favoritism and sometimes provides

hostility toward out-group (Tajifel et al. 1971). From this point of view, purism which implies

boundary of categorization for national members has an influence on patriotism that is a typical in-

group favoritism. The ethnic criteria of purism also have an effect on anti-foreignism, but the civic

criteria don't lead hostility as anti-foreignism, because ethnic criteria are difficult to change, but civic

criteria are changeable more easily. These considerations lead to a further set of two parallel

hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Ethnic criteria of purism have an effect on patriotism and anti-foreignism.

Hypothesis 2: Civic criteria of purism have an effect on patriotism, but not on anti-foreignism.

According to previous studies on Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominant Orientation,

Right Wing Authoritarianism will be related to attitudes towards “danger groups”. On the other hand,

Social Dominant Orientation has a correlation with attitudes towards “derogated groups” (Duckitt and

Sibley 2006).

In Japanese case, because of geopolitical conflicts against Japan, Korea and China could be

perceived as “dangerous” countries. On the other hand, foreigners from Philippines and Brazil

(Japanese Brazilians) might be considered as derogated immigrants, because they are treated as cheap

labor resources and there are considerable differences between their cultures and Japanese Culture.

Therefore, we can assume following hypothesis.

Hypothesis 3: Authoritarianism has an effect on anti-foreignism toward Korean and Chinese

(Later, we also called as “Anti-Korean and Chinese Attitudes”).

Hypothesis 4: Social Dominant Orientation has an effect on anti-foreignism toward Philippines

and Brazilian (Later, we also called as “Anti-Philippines and Brazilian Attitudes”).

4. Data and Variables

4.1. Data

The data utilized in this study derived from mail survey conducted in 2013 with a sample 20 years

and older. Consistent with the purpose of the project to investigate, the questionnaire includes

consciousness toward foreigners, contact with foreigners, political attitudes and so on.

We used stratified random sampling as a sampling method; firstly municipalities in Japan were

stratified by rate of foreign residence, and 51 municipalities were selected. From each municipality,

200 cases are chosen from electoral registers, which only includes Japanese nationals. The total

number of sampled case is 10,200. We send our questioners by mail and 4,134 cases returned with

self-completing. A response rate is 42.2 percent by excluding undeliverable cases or so. This rate is

relatively high compare to other mail surveys in Japan.

4.2 Variables

4.2.1 Civic and Ethnic Criteria of Purism

Purism is the belief that defines the bounds which identify people as ‘nationals’. As pointed out by

Kunovich(2009), ISSP 2003 data showed the two-factor structure of national identity. Therefore, we

assume the bounds of ‘nationals’ is figured out by two criteria: civic criteria and ethnic criteria. The

civic and the ethnic Criteria of Purism is measured by following questions which are borrowed from

ISSP questionnaire.

How important are the following characteristics in defining a person as genuinely Japanese:

Some people say that the following things are important for being truly Japanese. Others say they

are not important. How important do you think each of the following is.

A. Being born in Japan

B. Being able to speak Japanese

C. Thinking that they are Japanese themselves

D. Respecting political institutions and laws

E. Having Japanese ancestry.

Reponses are represented by 4 point scale: very important, fairly important, not very important, or

not important at all. High scores indicate that the respondent think the criterion is very important.

We use three questions, “Being able to speak Japanese”, “Thinking that they are Japanese

themselves”, and “Respecting political institutions and law”, to measure civic criteria of purism.

Kunovich(2009) shows factor loadings of these three questions from ISSP 2003 National Identity II

Module to civic national identity. Therefore, we also use similar questions based on ISSP 2003. On

the other hand, we use “Being born in Japan” and “Having Japanese ancestry” to measure ethnic

criteria of purism.

4.2.2 Anti-foreignism

Anti-foreignism is measured by following questions. Anti-foreignism or exclusive attitudes toward

immigrants are asked in many social surveys. Most of them ask about the overall attitudes toward

immigrants. However, group positions of each immigrants group differ substantially in Japan.

Therefore, we asked the attitudes toward each immigrants group separately and we attempted to

measure anti-foreignism totally by various questions asking attitudes toward immigrants from the

specific countries.

How much do you agree or disagree about the increase of foreigners who come to live in your

community from following countries?

A. Increase of Chinese

B. Increase of Koreans

C. Increase of foreigners from Philippines

D. Increase of Japanese ancestry from Brazil

Responses to these questions are coded 1 (strongly agree), 2 (agree), 3 (disagree) or 4 (strongly

disagree). High score indicate negative attitudes toward foreigners.

4.2.3 Patriotism

The concept of patriotism varies substantially across countries. In other words, this concept is

largely dependent on social context in each nation. As Coenders and Scheepers (2003) pointed out,

there were positive relations between patriotism and exclusionary views toward immigrants only in

Germany and Japan. Furthermore, Tanabe (2011) showed that there was a similar relationship in South

Korea. Therefore, we use following questions to measure patriotism in Japan. In Japan, national

anthem and national flag have been regarded as the symbol of Japanese imperialism in World War

Two by many Japanese teachers. For this reason, national anthem and national flag haven’t been taught

in most Japanese public schools and they have placed on peace education that is called “post-war

education”. Recently, conservative politicians such as Shinzô Abe, who became a prime minister of

Japan again, have appealed to the public frequently for departing from the “post-war regime” and for

cultivating the spirit of patriotism. Therefore, we use the questions about the attitude toward “post-

war education” and teaching national anthem and national flag in public schools.

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

A. It is natural for the national flag and the national anthem to be taught in schools.

B. I feel proud to be Japanese.

C. We must reassess post-war education and teaching children the spirit of patriotism and

their duties as Japanese nationals.

The respondent was asked to respond to each statement with one of the following five choices:

Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, or Strongly disagree. High scores indicate

that the respondent agrees the statements strongly.

4.2.4 Authoritarianism

To measure Authoritarianism personality, F-scale (Adorno et al. 1950) or Right Wing

Authoritarian scale (Altemeyer 1981) have frequent been used. We use following questions

alternatively, because our questionnaire didn’t include these well-known scales.

How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

A. We must always pay respect to those in positions of authority.

B. Those who cast doubt on tradition and customary practices eventually cause problems.

C. The best way to know what to do in this complex world is to rely on leaders and experts.

The respondent was asked to respond to each statement with one of the following five choices:

Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, or Strongly disagree. High scores

indicate that the respondent agrees the statements strongly.

4.2.5 Social Dominance Orientation

Pratto et al. (1994) proposed Social Dominance Orientation and SDO scale to measure it.

However, we didn’t ask SDO scale in our survey. For this reason, we use following four questions

alternatively to measure Social Dominance Orientation.

The respondent was asked which of the following statements their view was closest to:

A. Income differences should be made more equal.

B. Large income differences are an incentive for individual effort.

Respondents chose one of the following positions: 4 Close to A; 3 Somewhat closer to A; 2

Somewhat closer to B; 1 Close to B.

How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

A. Most unemployed people can find a new job if he or she look for a job seriously.

B. It is shameful for receiving livelihood protection from the government.

C. The cause of discrimination is often attributed to the discriminated people themselves.

The respondent was asked to respond to each statement with one of the following five choices:

Strongly agree, Agree, Neither agree nor disagree, Disagree, or Strongly disagree. High scores

indicate that the respondent agrees the statements strongly.

5. Analysis and Results

5.１ Conceptual structure of nationalism

In this section, we show the conceptual structure of nationalism using structural equation modeling.

Figure 1 shows conceptual relations among four subordinate concepts of nationalism: civic criteria of

purism, ethnic criteria of purism, patriotism and anti-foreignism. Furthermore, we divide anti-

foreignism into two groups: the first group is composed of Korea and China and the other group is

Philippines and Brazil because of model fit. The overall model fit is adequate as you can see in figure

1.

Firstly, ethnic criteria of purism have statistically significant effect on both patriotism and anti-

foreignism. The standardized path coefficient between ethnic criteria and patriotism is 0.13. On the

other hand, the standardized coefficient of path from ethnic criteria to anti-foreignism toward Pilipino

and Brazilian is 0.32. This results support hypothesis 2 which expects that the ethnic criteria of purism

affect on both patriotism and anti-foreignism.

Finally, we can find the result that civic criteria of purism have positive effect on patriotism. The

coefficient of the path from civic criteria to patriotism is relatively higher than the path coefficient

from ethnic criteria to patriotism. On the other hands, there is no statistically significant effect from

civic criteria of purism to anti-foreignism. This results support hypothesis 3 that the civic criteria of

purism affect on patriotism, but not on anti-foreignism.

Civic

Criteria

Anti PHL

and BRA

Anti KOR

and CHNd1 d2

χ2(DF) =615.577(44)

GFI =.975

AGFI =.955

CFI =.963

RMSEA =.058

N =3849

Ethnic

Criteria

-.03.32

.13

.69

Patriotism

.00

.32

.22

.66

d3

.19-.10

Figure 1. Conceptual Structure of Nationalism (Standardized Coefficient)

5.2 Relationship between nationalism and political values

Next, we confirm the result of model 2 that includes latent concept of “Authoritarianism”. Figure 2

shows the relationships among five subordinate concepts of nationalism and authoritarianism. We can

see the positive effect of authoritarianism on patriotism. The standardized path coefficient is 0.29.

However, authoritarianism has only weak correlation with Anti-Korean and Chinese attitude. This

result partially support hypothesis 3 that authoritarianism has an effect on anti-foreignism toward

Korean and Chinese because it has indirect effect through patriotism. The authoritarianism also have

only weak positive effect on Anti-Pilipino and Brazilian attitude. Therefore, we can assume that

authoritarianism doesn't have strong direct effect on anti-foreignism, but has indirect effect only on

anti-foreignism toward Korean and Chinese.

Figure 2. Relationship between nationalism and authoritasianism (Standardized Coefficient)

Figure 3 indicates the result of model 3 that includes latent concept of “SDO”. As it shows, we

can see the positive effect of SDO on both type of anti-foreignism. Hypothesis 4 assumed that

SDO affects only Anti-Pilipino and Brazilian attitude. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is supported

partially. In Japan, Korea and China might have also been regarded as “derogated” countries,

because Japan dominated and colonized Korea and China in World War II.

Civic

Criteria

Anti PHL

and BRA

Anti KOR

and CHNd1 d2

χ2 (DF) =751.210 (75)

GFI =.975

AGFI =.960

CFI =.961

RMSEA =.049

N =3828

Ethnic

Criteria

.69

Patriotism

.66

d4

Authoritarian

.23

.39

.30

.05

-.03

-.09

-.02

.19.22

.09

.29.34

.01

Figure 3. Relationship between nationalism and SDO (Standardized Coefficient)

6. Conclusions and Discussions

The purpose of this article was to investigate the conceptual structure of nationalism and clarify

the relationships among subordinate concepts of nationalism. We investigated the conceptual

structure of subordinate concepts of nationalism (purism, patriotism and anti-foreignism) using

Japanese survey data. The results of structural equation modeling indicate that the ethnic criteria of

purism affect both patriotism and anti-foreignism, but the civic criteria of purism only influences

patriotism.

Nationalism is the ideology that establishes a nation as a particular political unit. In this article, we

also investigate the relationship between nationalism and other political values: Authoritarianism

and Social Dominance Orientation. The results show that each subordinate concept of nationalism

has different relationship with authoritarianism and SDO.

Structural relationships between nationalism and political value are complicated. Furthermore, we

need to be careful when we use the word “nationalism,” because it includes many different concepts

which have variant relations and impacts on political values. This study is just a “start point.” We

need to advance this kind of empirical research and to theorize structural relation among nationalism

and other political values.

Because the age of globalization has destabilized the self-evident nature of the nation-state, many

countries may experience an upsurge of seemingly paradoxical nationalist movements. In this

Civic

Criteria

Anti PHL

and BRA

Anti KOR

and CHNd1 d2

χ2 (DF) =867.568 (89)

GFI =.973

AGFI =.958

CFI =.956

RMSEA =.048

N =3813

Ethnic

Criteria

.69

Patriotism

.66

d4

SOD

.24

.32

.28

.18

.00

-.08

-.08

.14.12

.23

.41.29

.02

climate, the importance of sociological studies of nationalism will also increase, and we therefore

hope that this investigation of conceptual structure will help to advance understanding of

nationalism.

Due to data limitations, this study concentrated on Japan as a typical ethnic nation, but to confirm

the findings of this study, other ethnic nations, such as Germany or South Korea, should be analyzed.

These findings should also be compared with those from a typical civic nation, such as the United

States, to extend our research and to establish the validity of our conceptual diagram of nationalism.

Further research should examine the adequacy of our model, but the conclusions of this article

provide a key for clarifying conceptual frameworks of nationalism.

[References]

Adorno, T. W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson and Nevitt Sanford, 1950, The Authoritarian

Personality, New York: Harper and Row.

Altemeyer, Bob, 1996, The Authoritarian Specter, Cambridge; Harvard University Press.

Anderson, Benedict, 1991, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism,

London: Verso, 2nd ed.

Beck, Ulrich, 2002, Macht und Gegenmacht im Globalen Zeitalter: Neue weltpolitishe, Ökonomie.

Brown, Rupert, 1995, Prejudice: Its Social Psychology, Oxford: Blackwell.

Coenders, Marcel and Peer Scheepers, 2003, “The Effect of Education on Nationalism and Ethnic

Exclusionism: An International Comparison,” Political Psychology, 24(2):313-343.

Davidov, Eldad. 2009，”Measurement Equivalence of Nationalism and Constructive Patriotism in the

ISSP:34 Counties in a Comparative Perspective,” Political Analysis 17:64-82.

Duckitt, John and Chris Sibley, 2007, “Right Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation and

the Dimensions of Generalized Prejudice,” European Journal of Personality, 21(2):113-130.

Facchini, Giovanni and Anna Maria Mayda, 2008, "From Individual Attitudes towards Migrants to

Migration Policy Outcomes: Theory and evidence," Economic Policy October:651-713.

Gellner, Ernest, 1983, Nations and Nationalism, Oxford: Blackwell.

Heath, Anthony, Jean Martin and Thees Spreckelsen, 2009, "Cross-National Comparability of Survey

Attitude Measures," International Journal of Public Opinion Research 21(3):293-315.

Hjerm, Mikael, 1998, "National Identities, National Pride and Xenophobia: A Comparison of Four Western

Countries," Acta Sociologica 41: 335-47.

Hjerm, Mikael, 2003, "National Sentiments in Eastern and Western Europe,” Nationalities Papers: The

Journal of Nationalism and Ethnicity 31(4): 413-429.

Hutchinson, John & Anthony D. Smith, 1994, “Introduction,” Nationalism, Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Jones, F. L. and Philip Smith, 2001, “Individual and Societal Bases of National Identity: A Comparative

Multi-level Analysis,” European Sociological Review 17(2):103-118.Kohn, Hans, 1948, The Idea of

Nationalism: A Study in Its Origins and Background, The Macmillan.

Kunovich, Robert M., 2004, “Social structural position and prejudice: an exploration of cross-national

differences in regression slopes,” Social Science Research 33:20-44.

Kunovich, Robert M., 2009, “The Sources and Consequences of National Identification,” American

Sociological Review 74:573-593.

Medina, Tait R., Shawna N. Smith and J. Scott Long, 2009, "Measurement Models Matter: Implicit

Assumptions and Cross-National Research," International Journal of Public Opinion Research,

21(3):333-360.

Miller, David, 1995, On Nationality, Oxford University Press.

OECD, 2011, “OECD Factbook 2011: Economic, Environmental and Social Statistics.”

Pehrson, Samuel, Vivian L. Vignoles and Rupert Brown, 2009, “National Identification and Anti-Immigrant

Prejudice: Individual and Contextual Effects of National Definitions,” Social Psychology Quarterly

72(1):24-38.

Pratto, Felicia, James Sidanius, Lisa Stallworth, and Bertram Malle, “Social Dominance Orientation: A

Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes,” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 67(4): 741-763.

Raijman, Rebeca, Eldad Davidov, Peter Schmidt and Oshrat Hochman, 2008, “What Does a Nation Owe

Non-Citizens?: National Attachments, Perception of Threat and Attitudes towards Granting Citizenship

Rights in a Comparative Perspective,” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 49:195-220.

Reeskens, Tim and Marc Hooghe, 2010, "Beyond the civic–ethnic dichotomy: investigating the structure

of citizenship concepts across thirty-three countries," Nations and Nationalism 16(4): 579-597.

Semyonov, Moshe, Rebeca Raijman, Anat Yom Tov and Peter Schmid, 2004, “Population size, perceived

threat, and exclusion: a multiple-indicators analysis of attitudes toward foreigners in Germany,” Social

Science Research 33:681–701.

Shulman, Stephen, 2002, "Challenging the Civic/Ethnic and West/East Dichotomies in the Study of

Nationalism," Comparative Political Studies, 35:554-585.

Smith, Anthony D., 1991, National Identity, London: Penguin.

Smith, Anthony D., 1998, Nation and Modernism, London: Routledge.

Tajfel, Henry, M. G. Billig, R. P. Bundy and Cl. Flament, 1971, “Social Categorization and intergroup

behavior,” European Journal of Social Psychology 1:149-178.

Tajfel, Henry and John. C. Turner, 1979, “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict,” W. G. Austin &

S. Worchel eds. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations:33-47, Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole.

Tamir, Yael, 1993, Liberal Nationalism, Princeton University Press.

Takahashi, Tetsuya, 2004, Kyōiku to kokka (Education and state), Kōdansha. (in Japanese)

Tanabe, Shunsuke, 2001, Conceptual Structure of Japanese National Identity: Analyses of the 1995 ISSP

Data, Japanese Sociological Review 52(3):398-412. (in Japanese)

Tanabe, Shunsuke, 2008(in Japanese)=2012(in English), "What does it mean to be a ‘Japanese’? The

current state of ‘national identity’ in Japan based on ISSP 2003" in Pop Culture and the Everyday in

Japan: Sociological Perspectives by Minamida, Katsuya & Izumi Tsuji ed. Melbourne: Trans Pacific

Press.

Tanabe, Shunsuke, 2010, National identities in a comparative perspective, Keio University Press.(in

Japanese)

Tanabe, Shunsuke, 2011, Commonalities and Differences between Japanese and Korean National

Identity:Multi-population Covariance Structure Analysis Using ISSP2003 Data, Japanese Sociological

Review 62(3), 284-300. (in Japanese)

Tanabe, Shunsuke ed., 2013, Japanese Perceptions of ‘Foreigners’: Analysis of Nationalism in Japan by

Social Survey Data, Melbourne: Trans Pacific Press.

Taylor, Charles, 1996, “Why Democracy Needs Patriotism” in Cohen Joshua ed. , 1996, For Love of

Country: Debating the Limits of Patriotism, Boston: Beacon Press.

Tsutsui, Junya, 2008, "Attitudes toward Globalization: Cross-national Analyses of Trends and Factors,"

Paper presented at Chung-Ang International Symposium.

van Hiel, Alain and Ivan Mervielde, 2005, “Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation:

Relationships with Various Forms of Racism,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35(11): 2323-

2344.

Viroli, Maurizio, 1997, For love of the Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism, Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Wright, Matthew, 2011, "Diversity and the Imagined Community: Immigrant Diversity and Conceptions

of National Identity," Political Psychology 32(5): 837-862.