Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T01:00:52.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

An Alternative Conceptualization of Political Tolerance: Illusory Increases 1950s–1970s*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John L. Sullivan
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
James Piereson
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
George E. Marcus
Affiliation:
Williams College

Abstract

This article proposes an alternative conceptualization of political tolerance, a new measurement strategy consistent with that conceptualization, and some new findings based upon this measurement strategy. Briefly put, we argue that tolerance presumes a political objection to a group or to an idea, and if such an objection does not arise, neither does the problem of tolerance. Working from this understanding, we argue that previous efforts to measure tolerance have failed because they have asked respondents about groups preselected by the investigators. Those groups selected as points of reference in measuring tolerance have generally been of a leftist persuasion. Our measurement strategy allowed respondents themselves to select a political group to which they were strongly opposed. They were then asked a series of questions testing the extent to which they were prepared to extend procedural claims to these self-selected targets. Using this approach, we found little change between the 1950s and the 1970s in levels of tolerance in the United States, a result that contradicts much recent research on the problem.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1979

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.)

Footnotes

*

We wish to express our thanks to the University of Minnesota Graduate School and to the National Science Foundation, grant SOC 77–17623, for supporting this study. Considerable appreciation is extended to the following for their most helpful comments on an earlier version of this article: David Booth, David Colby, William Flanigan, Daniel Minns, Leroy Rieselbach, W. Phillips Shively, James Stimson, Robert Weissberg, and James Davis. We could not take all of their advice because often it was contradictory, but the final product would have been considerably weakened were it not for their help.

References

Abrams v. United States (1919). 250 U.S. 616.Google Scholar
Berns, Walter (1962). “Voting Studies.” In Storing, Herbert J. (ed.), Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Cooke, Jacob, ed. (1961). The Federalist. Cleveland: World Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Crick, Bernard (1973). Political Theory and Practice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert (1976). Democracy in the United States. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Davis, James A. (1975). “Communism, Conformity, Cohorts, and Categories: American Tolerance in 1954 and 1972–73.” American Journal of Sociology 81:491513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Robert (1972). “Political Elites, Mass Publics, and Support for Democratic Principles.” Journal of Politics 34:753–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). “A General Approach to Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis.” Psychometrika 34:182202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. (1970). “A General Method for Analysis of Covariance Structures.” Biometrika 57:239–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K. G. (1973). “A General Method for Estimating a Linear Structural Equation System.” In Goldberger, A. S. and Duncan, O. D. (eds.), Structural Equation Models in the Social Sciences. New York: Seminar, pp. 85112.Google Scholar
Lawrence, David (1976). “Procedural Norms and Tolerance: A Reassessment.” American Political Science Review 70:80100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClosky, Herbert (1964). “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics.” American Political Science Review 58:361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunn, Clyde A., Crockett, Harry J. and Williams, J. Allen (1978). Tolerance for Nonconformity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prothro, James W., and Grigg, Charles W. (1960). “Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and DisagreementJournal of Politics 22:276–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stouffer, Samuel (1955). Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James E. and Marcus, George (1978). “Ideological Constraint in the Mass Public: A Methodological Critique and Some New Findings.” American Journal of Political Science 22:233–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James E., Marcus, George E. and Feldman, Stanley (1979). “The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same: The Stability of Mass Belief Systems.” American Journal of Political Science 23:176–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.