Search results

AbstractThis article calls for revisiting the predominant yet flawed nationalism‐patriotism dichotomy, which has to date remained unchallenged. It advocates for a more nuanced triad: nationalism, exclusively referring to the nation; patriotism, revolving around the homeland; and democratic patriotism, with democracy as its object of attachment. This novel conceptual approach explicitly theorizes these three objects of attachment, which have hitherto rarely been considered. In so doing, the article synthesizes the field's predominant research traditions that have not been fully recognized as diverging nor been simultaneously investigated. By responding to calls for more theoretically robust measures, it not only makes a theoretical but also an empirical contribution to the field. Drawing on data from a representative sample (N = 1875) in Germany in 2022, the study introduces a three‐factor measurement model of nationalism, patriotism, and democratic patriotism. Taking into account both the antecedents of the triad and its impact on outgroup hostility, the measures are further validated. To establish its applicability in non‐German contexts, the model is additionally supported using data from a representative sample (N = 1164) in Denmark in 2022.

AbstractFor more than two decades, the work of Blank and Schmidt has greatly influenced empirical research on national attachment. Distinguishing between nationalism, patriotism, and national identity, it rests on a set of item batteries that have since been taken up by numerous researchers. In this contribution, we argue that the categorization of most of these items is inconsistent with the perception of a nonexpert sample and, in some cases, even in direct opposition to it. To substantiate this claim, we present the results of an online survey of German university students (N = 424) who were tasked with assigning all items from Blank and Schmidt's 1997 article to one of the three categories. As hypothesized, the majority of respondents assigned only a few items correctly—so few that their overall agreement with Blank and Schmidt was even lower than what would normally be expected from a random distribution. We also asked about item understandability and found that while some items were considered relatively difficult to understand, there was no obvious correlation between these and the miscategorized ones. Taking this discrepancy between academic and nonacademic concept use into account can further our understanding of national attachment and help us refine existing survey techniques.

AbstractThis article brings, for the first time, two of the most pivotal distinctions in nationalism studies into extended dialogue: the civic–ethnic distinction (CED) and the nationalism–patriotism distinction (NPD). By reviewing both the evolution of those distinctions over the previous decades and the ways in which they have been used in quantitative empirical research, we argue that the CED's evolution has been a partial success story, whereas discourse around the NPD has not seen substantial development. Despite lingering inconsistencies, researchers drawing on the CED have been successful in addressing different lines of critique and in using the CED as a heuristic for investigating notions of nationhood as expressed in public perceptions. In contrast, there has been only limited dialogue between theoretical and empirical approaches to the NPD. The article illustrates how research drawing on the NPD could profit from the CED's evolution. We close by providing a conceptual roadmap to guide the path towards more terminological clarity and to construct more theoretically robust measures for nationalism and patriotism. We specifically suggest that nationalism and patriotism should be consistently understood as ideal types that citizens can simultaneously hold to varying degrees.

In research on national identity, scholars have developed a wide variety of approaches to measure and better understand this ubiquitous yet complex concept. To date, most of these approaches have been theory-driven, while only a very few have been data-driven. In this article, we aim to contribute to the latter by introducing a new data-driven method that has not been applied yet - that of non-linear principal component analysis (NLPCA). In contrast to other commonly used methods such as factor analysis, NLPCA distinguishes itself by making relatively few assumptions about the data and by allowing for greater flexibility when discovering underlying dimensions of such a complex concept as national identity. Drawing on the 2013 ISSP National Identity module, our analysis focuses on the case of Germany, also taking into account Western and Eastern Germany. Running an NLPCA, we find four dimensions that cover the multidimensionality of national identity: nationalistic attitudes, national pride and attachment, cosmopolitan beliefs, and membership criteria defining national belonging. This article contributes to the empirical debate on measuring national identity by suggesting a new and flexible methodological approach that better grasps the concept's complexity and which we believe can move empirical research on national identity forward in and beyond Germany.