eritage-and ideology-based national identities and their implications or immigrant citizen relations in the United States and in Germany uth

The present research examines the meaning of national identity in the United States and Germany and its implications for immigrant citizen relations. In Study 1, American and German participants responded to the question “What does it mean to be American [German]? ” Results revealed that the American national identity is ideology-based as characterized by an endorsement of a core set of transcendent and abstract values. The German national identity is heritage-based as characterized by self-descriptive traits and cultural traditions. In Study 2, American participants were less likely than German participants to express exclusion from national identity in response to an immigrant who gave affective versus pragmatic reasons for becoming a citizen. The reverse was true for German participants. In sum, culture shapes national identity and responses to immigrants. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Heritageand ideology-based national identities and their implications for immigrant citizen relations in the nited States and in Germany How a citizen treats an immigrant in his or her society of settlement is more than a matter of personal preference. Reactions o immigrants often reflect assumptions about national identity—ideas about “us” as citizens and “them” as outsiders—that re collectively shared. Because these assumptions are a product of historical, legal, and cultural forces (Brubaker, 1992; eldblum, 1997; Fetzer, 2000; Joppke, 1999; Kastoryano, 2002; Sassen, 1999; Soysal, 1994), the concept of national identity an have different meanings and evoke different responses towards immigrants in one national context compared to another. or example, citizens might have different conceptualizations of what their national identity means to them and thus how ully immigrants can and should claim that identity. In particular, a citizen in one national context might have what we have termed an “ideology-based” national identity, n identity that is characterized by an endorsement of a core set of transcendent and abstract national values (e.g., freedom, emocracy). By contrast, a citizen in another national context might have what we have termed a “heritage-based” national dentity, an identity characterized by expression of self-descriptive traits (e.g., personality traits) and cultural traditions. One implication of this divergence in national identity is that the conditions under which citizens have inclusive attitudes owards immigrants should systemically vary with the predominant national identity type. Citizens with an ideology-based ational identity should be open if immigrants express emotional attachment towards their adopted country because that ∗ Corresponding author at: Yale University, Department of Psychology, Box 208205, New Haven, CT 06520-8205, USA. Tel. : +1 203 444 9704; ax: +1 203 432 7172. E-mail addresses: Ruth.Ditlmann@yale.edu (R.K. Ditlmann), vjp12@columbia.edu (V. Purdie-Vaughns), reibach@uwaterloo.ca (R.P. Eibach). 1 Present address: Columbia University, Department of Psychology, 355B Schermerhorn Hall, 1190 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY 10027, USA. 2 Present address: University of Waterloo, Department of Psychology, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 3G1. 147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. oi:10.1016/j.ijintrel. 2010.07. 002 396 R.K. Ditlmann et al. / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 35 (2011) 395– 405 validates the abstract values that constitute their country’s identity. By contrast, citizens with a heritage-based national identity should be closed if immigrants express emotional attachment to their adopted country because that threatens the distinctiveness of their country’s identity that is defined by specific traits and traditions. Our research strategy was to advance these basic ideas in two cross-cultural studies, comparing a country that we posit has a predominately ideology-based national identity, the United States, and one that we posit has a predominately heritagebased national identity, Germany. Both are large countries of immigration that differ in their policies for defining citizenship, with the United States representing jus soli (Latin: right of soil) and Germany representing jus sanguinis (Latin: right of blood; Joppke, 1999). 1.1. Models of citizenship and types of national identity Drawing from cultural psychological approaches showing that historical conditions can shape present-day psychological experiences (Cohen, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Nisbett, 2003), we suggest that ideologyand heritage-based national identities evolved from historical conditions related to how nation-states conceptualize citizenship. Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, for instance, define citizenship according to jus soli, ascribing citizenship to all persons born within their territorial boundaries (Brubaker, 1992). Any individual, regardless of their parents’ country of origin, is automatically granted citizenship if they are born within these territories, as citizenship runs “through the soil”. Jus soli laws developed in historical contexts where the state was first an abstract political fact and national sentiments developed later (Brubaker, 1992). If the concept of the state pre-existed the people who were to become citizens, as in jus soli countries, then we propose that an ideology-based national identity evolved. An ideology-based identity is expressed when members adhere to a core set of transcendent and abstract values, such as peace, democracy, and freedom. Depending on a given nation’s culture and history these values will vary. But because of citizens’ diverse backgrounds and ancestry, endorsing broad transcendent values is the necessary adhesive that unites individuals into a single nation-state. As such, an ideology-based identity is an example of a “common identity group”, where individuals define their membership based on direct attachment to the group identity rather than on a feeling of similarity to other group members (Prentice, Miller, & Lightdale, 1994). In contrast, many European countries define citizenship according to jus sanguinis, ascribing citizenship to the descendents of citizens (Brubaker, 1992). At its core, descendants of citizens are ascribed citizenship regardless of where they reside, as citizenship runs “through the blood”. Jus sanguinis laws developed in historical contexts where national feelings, cultures, and groups of individuals pre-existed the nation-state (Brubaker, 1992). Consequently, self-understanding in these countries does not expect immigrants with diverse cultural heritages to join the nation-state. If shared ancestry, customs, and daily practices preceded the nation-state, as in jus sanguinis countries, then we propose that a heritage-based national identity evolved. A heritage-based identity is expressed when members perceive that they share self-descriptive traits and cultural traditions. These traits are dispositions that are associated with a social category and embraced as self-descriptive by members of that category (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004). A heritage-based identity is similar to an ethnic identity (Phinney, 2000) in that individuals define their membership based on shared ancestry and cultural elements. We acknowledge that the association between citizenship laws and types of national identity is complex and the type of national identity a citizen expresses is determined by a multitude of factors (Salzar & Salzar, 1998). Nevertheless, our central argument is that citizenship laws, as elements of the cultural context in which citizens exist, may contribute to how citizens perceive and express their national identity (see also Pehrson, Vignoles, & Brown, 2009). Accordingly, we hypothesize that citizens of countries with a jus soli tradition should be more likely than citizens of countries with a jus sanguinis tradition to define national identity in terms of a given core set of transcendent and abstract values. By contrast, citizens of countries with a jus sanguinis tradition should be more likely than citizens of countries with a jus soli tradition to define national identity in terms of a given set of shared self-descriptive traits and cultural traditions. As an initial investigation (Study 1), we focus on the United States, where we should find evidence of an ideology-based national identity, and Germany, where we should find evidence of a heritage-based national identity, and examine everyday lay definitions of national identity that American and German citizens report. 1.2. The United States and Germany as examples of ideologyand heritage-based national identities 1.2. 1. The United States as an example of an ideology-based national identity The American national identity has always been political. An ethnically diverse group of pilgrims created the American state as a political construct; hence, the national identity formed around the ideology of the founding values. These values—equality, liberty, individualism, populism and laissez-faire economics3 (Fukuyama, 2007; Lipset, 1996)—are values that citizens from diverse backgrounds can easily reconcile with their individual ethnic identities. Moreover, the history of the United States is a history of immigration (Handlin, 1951). Indeed, the American naturalization law is the epitome of the jus soli citizenship policy. Citizenship is granted based on whether one is born in the United States, and there are few 3 The founding value of laissez-faire economics may have changed following the economic crisis in 2009.