Suchergebnisse

The empirical & normative aspects of the long-range conse quences to US foreign policy of minority group pressures, & the effect which such influences have had on the US pol'al & soc systems, are explored & hypo's & arguments advanced for further investigation. The major over-all result of the mutual impact of foreign policy & minority group claims has been to thwart Anglo-US friendship, & other consequences have been the mitigation of econ class conflict, the elevation of congressional participation in foreign affairs & the loosening of party discipline. Judgment on the process depends to some extent on judgment of its consequences, & the results may be evaluated in terms of one's view of the Anglo-US alliance, of class conflict in the US, & of party responsibility & congressional participation in foreign affairs. The problem of justifying minority claims on behalf of other nations is the most crucial normative question at the core of any controversy over the interaction of foreign policy & minority group pressures, & the principal arguments on each side of the issue are set forth. IPSA.

Human groups display phenomena which seem unconsciously motivated and which are revealed in labels, stereotypes and modem myths. Such phenomena can be under stood through a methodology applied by both Freud in psychoanalysis, and modern structuralists in anthropology. The forces operating behind myths and stereotypes are opposites. Assimilation on the one hand works toward forming larger group units. Ethocentrism on the other, resists assimilation by mechanisms such as splitting, projections, condensations and displacements. People belonging to minority groups are vulnerable to projected distortions and through a mechanism of projective-identification they enter into a collusion in order to embody projected elements. Illustrations are provided and neo-Freudian modifications are suggested to replace Freud's explanation by means of an aggressive instinct, and extensive sampling from clinical practice as well as scientific and folk literature is used. The so called "Puerto Rican Syndrome" is analyzed as a modem myth.

Several definitions of majority and minority groups can be found in the social psychological literature. They involve numeric size, power/status, and counternormative position, but size is most commonly used in experimental research to manipulate minority/minority status. Does this practice mirror real-world conceptualizations? To address this question, 77 participants were asked to describe majority and minority groups using a structured openended measure. Content analysis of their responses revealed that majority and minority groups were conceptualized along eight dimensions, which included power, number, distinctiveness, social category, group context, dispositions, and being the source or target of behavior. Although these dimensions were relevant to both majorities and minorities, they often were applied differentially. Also, minorities were associated with more divergent thinking and viewed more negatively than were majorities. On the basis of these findings, a new typology of groups was proposed that could be used in future experimental research to advance our understanding of majorities and minorities.

Women's small share of professional and managerial occupations compared with their share of the total labor force is examined for the 11 largest racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. Gender-related characteristics—women's labor force participation rates, marital status, and the sex ratio—influence women's share of the top jobs, as do class and ethnic variables such as place of birth, population size, and class of worker. Labor market gender inequality is greatest among the smaller, more affluent minorities, many of whom are recent immigrants to this country. The larger, frequently indigenous, minority groups exhibit less of this kind of inequality. Minority and gender status intersect, so that men monopolize surplus resources among the more affluent minority groups and use these resources to secure a more advantaged labor market position.

Several definitions of majority and minority groups can be found in the social psychological literature. They involve numeric size, power/status, and counternormative position, but size is most commonly used in experimental research to manipulate minority/minority status. Does this practice mirror real-world conceptualizations? To address this question, 77 participants were asked to describe majority and minority groups using a structured openended measure. Content analysis of their responses revealed that majority and minority groups were conceptualized along eight dimensions, which included power, number, distinctiveness, social category, group context, dispositions, and being the source or target of behavior. Although these dimensions were relevant to both majorities and minorities, they often were applied differentially. Also, minorities were associated with more divergent thinking and viewed more negatively than were majorities. On the basis of these findings, a new typology of groups was proposed that could be used in future experimental research to advance our understanding of majorities and minorities.