Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T03:35:04.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Contemporary Ethnicity: The Moral Dimension in Comparative Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

John A. Armstrong
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The surge of national assertion in the USSR, generally unanticipated by American decision-makers, focusses attention on ethnic issues worldwide. But the moral dimension of ethnicity has rarely been examined in a comparative context, especially from the religious point of view. Issues now critical in the Soviet Union, such as justification for educational and occupational quotas for disadvantaged minorities, and the right of vulnerable ethnic collectivities to preserve their cultures by limiting immigration, have major implications for Third World and European countries, which are briefly surveyed. In the United States, concern for producing a united national culture based on the ideal of equal opportunities for individuals has usually precluded attention to preservation of ethnic collectivities distinct from the majority culture. Since most of these collectivities have been traditionally Catholic, their preservation has been especially sensitive to changes in American Catholicism.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , Spring 1990 , pp. 163 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The only major effort in English I have encountered is the series of recent publications by Van Dyke, Vernon: Human Rights, Ethnicity and Discrimination (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985);Google Scholar“Collective Entities and Moral Rights: Problems in Liberal-Democratic-Thought,” Journal of Politics 44 (1982): 21–40;CrossRefGoogle Scholar“The Cultural Rights of People,” Universal Human Rights 2 (04–06 1980): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar As the 186 titles suggest, Van Dyke, although using numerous factual examples, is mainly concerned with legal instruments, from which he deduces a moral consensus related to natural rights. In contrast to the present treatment, his concern for religious views, especially American, is peripheral.

2. Parsons, Talcott, “Evolutionary Universals in Society”, American Sociological Review 29 (1964): 351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See Obolensky, Dmitri, The Byzantine Commonwealth (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1971), pp. 139ff.Google Scholar

4. Quoted by Dietrich, Donald J., The Goethezeit and the Metamorphosis of Catholic Theology in the Age of Idealism (Bern: Lang, 1979), p. 146.Google Scholar

5. On the similarities and their limits, see Armstrong, John A., Nations before Nationalism (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1982), pp. 6, 56–58, 213.Google Scholar

6. For a rather critical but thorough analysis of Vatican policy toward nationalism between the World Wars, see Alix, Christine, Le Saint-Siège et les nationalismes en Europe (Paris: Sirey, 1962).Google Scholar

7. Armstrong, John A., “Collaborationism in World War II: the Integral Nationalist Variant in Eastern Europe,” Journal of Modern History 40 (1968): 396–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Haushofer, Karl, Grenzen in ihrer geographischen und politischen Bedeutung (Berlin: Vowinckel, 1927), p. 87.Google Scholar

9. Fishman, Joshua A., “A Systematization of the Whorfian Hypothesis,” Behavioral Science 5 (1960): 335–36.Google Scholar

10. Van Dyke, , “Collective Entities and Moral Rights,” p. 26.Google Scholar

11. Armstrong, , Nations before Nationalism, pp. 4–5, 21–27, 34–46.Google Scholar

12. Similar views apparently prevail among contemporary Washington foreign policy makers. See New York Times, “Tough Choice for the U.S.: Baltic States or Gorbachev,” 13 January 1990.Google Scholar

13. See Temperley, H. W. V., A History of the Peace Conference of Paris, vols. 3, 6 (London: Joint Committee, 1920);Google Scholar United States Department of State, Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States: Paris Peace Conference, 1919, vol. 13 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947), pp. 141, 213.Google Scholar

14. Franck, Thomas L. and Hoffman, Paul, “The Right of Self-Determination in Very Small Places,” New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 8 (1976): 384.Google Scholar

15. Armstrong, , Nations before Nationalism, pp. 28–37,Google Scholar and references cited in footnotes, pp. 304–306; Young, M. Crawford, The Politics of Cultural Pluralism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1976), pp. 230–31.Google Scholar

16. This cautionary remark is in no way intended as an endorsement of theories like Immanuel Wallerstein's concept of center versus a “victim” periphery in a capitalist world order (see, for example, his The Capitalist World Economy: Essays [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979], pp. 293ff).Google Scholar On the contrary, I see the extension of First and Second World influence to have arisen from many circumstances, and to have varied widely in its impact. To me, nothing in the colonialists' life disgraced them like the manner of their leaving — India, Palestine, Indochina, Panama, Algeria, Nigeria, Sudan, and the Congo. It is these tragic departures which morally demand a continued measure of responsibility by the former colonial powers.

17. See especially Smith, Anthony D., The Ethnic Revival in the Modern World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981);Google ScholarBreton, Roland, Les öthnies (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1981);Google ScholarVeiter, Theodor, Nationalitätenkonflikt und Volksgruppenrecht im 20. Jahrhundert (Munich: Internationales Institut für Nationalitätenrecht und Regionalismus, 1977).Google Scholar

18. Minor provisions were made for the small German element. I base much of this paragraph on personal observations during and shortly after World War II.

19. Initial legal provisions appear, in the original Spanish, in Esterbach, Fried, Regionalismus (Munich: Internationales Institut für Nationalitätenrecht und Regionalismus, 1978), pp. 245–53.Google Scholar

20. Tortosa, José M., Politico linguistica y lenguas minoritarias: De Babel a Pentecostes (Madrid: Editorial Tecno, 1982), pp. 52–73,Google Scholar presents statistics which suggest roughly comparable levels of Catalan usage in the three Catalan regions.

21. Monnerot, Jules in Le Figaro, 29 August 1979.Google Scholar

22. See Steinberg, Stephen, The Ethnic Melting Pot Race, Ethnicity, and Class in America (New York: Atheneum, 1981):Google Scholar “If there is an iron law of ethnicity, it is that when ethnic groups are found in a hierarchy of power, wealth, and status, then conflict is inescapable” (p. 170). For the view that once societal change became rapid strife was not averted by sharing such advantages in separate ethnic hierarchies, because the group (usually a diaspora) attaining wealth alone was usually resented intensely by otherwise dominant ethnic elements; see Armstrong, John A., “Mobilized and Proletarian Diasporas,” American Political Science Review 70 (1976): 405ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

23. Castles, Stephen and Kosack, Godula, Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe (London: Oxford University Press, 1973), p. 427.Google Scholar

24. Van Dyke, , Human Rights, p. 24.Google Scholar

25. Huntington, Samuel P., American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), pp. 23, 230.Google Scholar

26. Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), p. 138.Google Scholar Cf. Lipset, Seymour M., Political Man (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1963), p. xxxvi.Google Scholar

27. “Preferential Treatment or Coddling?” Izvestia, 27 November 1989Google Scholar (Current Digest of the Soviet Press, 41, No. 48, p. 24).Google Scholar

28. Hall, Peter D., The Organization of American Culture, 1700–1900 (New York: New York University Press, 1982), p. 10.Google Scholar Cf. Gordon, Milton M., Assimilation in American Life (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964):Google Scholar “But they seeking to assimilate found that at the primary group level a neutral American social structure was a myth—a mirage. What at a distance seemed to be a quasi-public edifice flying only the all-inclusive flag of American nationality turned out, on closer inspection, to be the clubhouse of a particular ethnic group — the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, its operations shot through with premises and expectations of its parental ethnicity” (p. 113).

29. Hall, , The Organization, p. 4.Google Scholar

30. Ibid.,

31. Herberg, Will, Protestant, Catholic, Jew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1955).Google Scholar

32. Fogarty, Gerald F., The Vatican and the American Hierarchy from 1870 to 1965 (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 1982), p. 66.Google Scholar

33. Ibid., p. 212.

34. Ibid., p. 62, 184.

35. Ibid., pp. 164, 200; see also p. 186.

36. Cogley, John, “The Future of an Illusion: Catholic Universities Face the Fate of the Papal States,” Commonweal 86 (2 06 1967): 310–16.Google Scholar Cf. Halsey, William M., The Survival of American Innocence: Catholicism in an Era of Disillusionment, 1920–1940 (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1980), pp. 2ff., 42, 52ff.Google Scholar

37. Huntington, , American Politics, p. 20.Google Scholar

38. “It is one thing when food is integrated into a larger cultural matrix, another when food is valued for itself, rather than as a symbol of something else” (Steinberg, Stephen, The Ethnic Melting Pot, p. 62).Google Scholar

39. Meyer v. State of Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 43 S. Ct. 625, 67 L.E.D. 1042, 29A. L.R. 1446; Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S. Ct. 571, 69 L.E.D. 1070, 39 A.L.R. 468 (1925).

40. Kommers, Donald P., “Liberty and Community in American Constitutional Law: Continuing Tensions,” Catholic Commission on Intellectual and Cultural Affairs Annual, 1989, p. 55.Google Scholar

41. Jackson, Richard M., The Machinery of Justice in England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1940), p. 50.Google Scholar

42. Henry W. Ehrmann, a comparative law expert trained in Europe, points out that to criticize the so-called inquisitorial system because it does not protect the accused in the same way that the Fifth Amendment does “amounts to cultural ethnocentricity.” Comparative Legal Culture (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1976), p. 93.Google Scholar Cf. the poignant lament for his terrorized parishioners by Msgr. Byrnes, Harry J., New York Times, 20 November 1979,Google Scholar editorial page: “Take the exclusionary rule of evidence & Is there not some other way of protecting against abuse of police power? Must society surrender the right to contain the criminal and protect itself against further depredations?” Conversely, Catholic clerics distrustful of things Roman in general tended to extend their doubts even to Canon law. Fogarty, , The Vatican, p. 153.Google Scholar

43. For a very recent comment on the status of the Code Civil, see “Louisiana Begins to Slip Its Legal Ties to France,” New York Times, 13 October 1989.Google Scholar For an expert comparison to English common law, see Watson, Alan, The Making of Civil Law (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981), especially pp. 1, 7, 29, 171, 191.Google Scholar Note that French legal institutions in Louisiana preceded United States annexation. As a rule, though, the American system (as in Florida and the Southwest) has made hardly any concessions to preannexation European populations and institutions.

44. Cogley, “The Future of an Illusion.”

45. McNeill, William H., “The Care and Repair of Public Myth,” Foreign Affairs 41 (1982): 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

46. Gordon, , Assimilation, p. 163.Google Scholar

47. McNeill, , “The Care and Repair,” p. 6.Google Scholar

48. Fogarty, , The Vatican, p. 346.Google Scholar

49. Ellis, John T., “In Defense of the Church's Memory,” America, 9 October 1982, pp. 185–88.Google Scholar