Identity Brief Ings Group

‘ethnic’ Scots when their proposals are dissonant with our broad norms seems to suggest that we expect more of such people than ‘civic’ Scots, for the former are in some way seen as more ‘really’ Scottish than the latter. Constitutional Change and Identity Policy Implications One simple and important policy implication flows Findings from The Leverhulme Trust’s research programme from our work. Concern about the way in which migrants and minorities are treated in society on Nations and Regions tends to be focused on addressing how ‘they’ are perceived. The purpose is to alter stereotypes of the outgroup. Our work underscores the importance of looking at how we perceive ourselves as a Identity Brief ings group. That is, the focus must be on the ingroup. An inclusive and harmonious Scotland depends upon an inclusive definition of Scottishness. We are still a long way from achieving this. Hence, whether it is a matter of the school curriculum, of museum policy, of tourist advertisements or of anti-racist campaigns, it is critical to concentrate on creating a Who is Scottish? Political arguments, popular representation of Scotland and Scottish identity that embraces the entire present and future population. understandings and the implications for social inclusion Briefing No. 14, January 2006 Related Publications Key Points Reicher, S. D. and Hopkins, N. (2001) Self and Nation. London: Sage. Hopkins, N. and Reicher, S. D. (2005) ‘Identity definition • The public position of the mainstream political parties is to define Scottishness in a way that accepts as Scots all and social inclusion: the effects of “ethnic” and “civic” claims those resident in Scotland and committed to Scotland: an inclusive definition. to Scottish identity upon ingroup influence’. Unpublished manuscript. University of Dundee. • However, the ordinary young Scots we studied tend to differentiate between people claiming Scottishness on grounds of ethnicity and those claiming Scottishness on grounds of civic commitment. • This could lead to the exclusion of migrants and potentially reduces their influence in Scottish society. This Identity Briefing was written by Nick Hopkins ([email protected]), Department of Psychology at Dundee University and Steve Reicher ([email protected]), Department of Psychology at University of St Andrews. Further details of the research can be found at http://www.institute-of-governance.org/forum/Leverhulme/summaries/yp_mobility_summary.html The research programme on Constitutional Change and Identity was set up in 1999 with funding from The Leverhulme Trust to investigate the importance of national identity and constitutional change in the UK. The research team comprised sociologists, social psychologists, social anthropologists and political scientists at universities in Scotland and England, and was coordinated by David McCrone at The University of Edinburgh Further Information about the programme as a whole See the programme website at http://www.institute-of-governance.org/forum/Leverhulme/TOC.html, or contact the coordinator, Professor David McCrone at the Institute of Governance, University of Edinburgh, Chisholm House, High School Yards, Edinburgh EH1 1LZ. Tel: 0131 650 2459; fax: 0131 650 6345; email: [email protected] The Leverhulme Trust Introduction The second set of studies, part of the Leverhulme expression to my commitment to Scotland. It ethnic grounds. Furthermore, it seems that our participants programme, used a very different approach because we allowed me to bind my future and that of my were equally likely to agree with the speakers when they Who belongs to the nation? The answer to this question were interested in a different matter. For politicians, what children with the wonder that is Scotland’s nature. went on to highlight the importance of certain issues (e.g., can have legal repercussions in terms of who has rights counts is what they say more than what they ‘privately’ So to those who have questioned my credentials, dangers to the Scottish environment). However, we did find of citizenship, welfare and protection. It also has social believe. It is what they say and do in public that matters. In I can say that I am as committed to Scotland’s an extremely interesting effect. When the two speakers implications in terms of who is accepted as ‘us’ or rejected the case of the general population, the reverse is true. What environment and its protection as anyone. went on to propose solutions that directly violated widely as ‘them’, of who is included in community activities, and of counts is less what they say than what they believe, which endorsed Scottish norms (for instance, in the land access who is seen as having the right to represent us at a local tends to determine how they act. This is particularly true If one claim to Scottishness is seen as more valid than the study, when he argued that landowners should have the or national level. So we should take very seriously what where there are strong social norms against expressing other, then this could be reflected in a number of ways. right to limit access), levels of agreement fell dramatically. can sometimes seem rather arcane or even ridiculous certain views. Then people will tell you what they think you Most obviously, there could be higher levels of agreement Indeed at these points in the speech, agreement with the arguments about who is ‘really’ Scottish. They underlie want to hear rather than what they themselves think. There with the speaker making the approved claim during the time ‘ethnic’ speaker showed a greater and steeper fall than for questions of inequality and equality, inclusion and exclusion, is ample evidence that people nowadays understand that the claim is being made. Or, there could be higher levels the ‘civic’ speaker. thus having widespread implications both for the lives of there is a strong norm against appearing prejudiced, and of agreement with the speaker making the approved claim individuals and for the health of the society in general. so they may hesitate before giving an ‘ethnic’ definition of after the claim is made, even though what is being said at What are the implications of this? On the one hand, we Scottishness. It makes sense, then, to investigate this issue in this point is exactly the same in both conditions. However, did not find that the claim to be Scottish on ethnic grounds How, then, to define nationhood? Is being Scottish a matter a more subtle manner – one which won’t invoke defensive acceptance of membership claims could also be revealed in was received better than the claim to be Scottish on of being descended from a long line of Scots; and if so, how reactions. a well-known phenomenon whereby we are more hostile to civic grounds. Yet, on the other, the finding that the ‘ethnic’ far back does one have to go? Should one ignore ancestry ingroup members than to outgroup members who betray speaker suffers more rejection when violating Scottish and simply define a Scot as someone born in Scotland? When people listen to an argument, they are more likely our standards. That is, if the ethnic claim is more potent than norms is subtle evidence that descent may still be seen as a What about someone who has grown up in Scotland, to be influenced by someone they think of as part of their the civic claim, it may be revealed by greater rejection of the more powerful criterion of Scottishness than commitment. someone who has lived in Scotland for a long time, or group (an ingroup member) rather than someone they don’t speaker making the ethnic claim when the content of his simply someone who lives in Scotland and feels committed (an outgroup member). Accordingly, we asked young Scots proposal violates ingroup norms (because he – as in ingroup to the country? to watch different versions of a speech. In one study, the member – really should know better). descent may still be seen as a more speech dealt with the need for greater funding in the arts; One could choose any of those criteria or any combination, in another, with the need to restrict land access in order to Findings powerful criterion of Scottishness as a mark of who is Scottish. However, it is possible to draw protect the environment. We used a special computerised than commitment . a broad distinction between ‘ethnic’ and ‘civic’ definitions system to indicate, as the speech went along, how much Studies of political rhetoric: In our private interviews some of nationhood. The former are rooted in our personal and they agreed with the speaker. The two versions differed politicians defended stringently ethnic views of Scottishness, familial past. They therefore accord people less choice over only in that, in one version, the speaker claimed Scottishness while others defended the most inclusive civic views. Indeed, it seems to reflect a well-known phenomenon their nationality, by both including people who have left the on the grounds that he was of Scottish descent (the ethnic Equally, in their public pronouncements, some organisations whereby we are more hostile to ingroup members than to country and may not wish to see themselves as Scottish, condition) and in the other, that he had committed his future defended exclusive views of Scottishness rooted in descent. outgroup members who betray our standards. Certainly, and excluding people who have migrated to Scotland and to Scotland (the civic condition). In our study referring to the Thus, an organizer of ‘Scottish Watch’, a small but highly this isn’t to say that the ‘civic’ claim is entirely rejected. wish to be seen as Scottish. ‘Civic’ definitions are rooted issue of land access, the relevant versions of the text read as visible pressure group at the time, declared that those However, the fact that our participants differentiate more in our personal or familial present and future.

Load more