Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-684899dbb8-489z4 Total loading time: 0.611 Render date: 2022-05-16T11:26:36.489Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Enigmas of Intolerance: Fifty Years after Stouffer's Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2006

James L. Gibson
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis and the Centre for Comparative and International Politics, Stellenbosch University, South Africa (jgibson@wustl.edu)

Abstract

Scholars seeking to understand the causes and consequences of political intolerance are now celebrating the fifty-year anniversary of Stouffer's pathbreaking research on intolerance and repression. Yet despite substantial advances in our understanding of intolerance, several major unanswered questions remain. The purpose of this article is to identify and discuss these tolerance enigmas, while proffering some ideas about how future research on intolerance might proceed. The article begins by documenting the significance of understanding intolerance and concludes with speculation about how resolving these enigmas might contribute to a more peaceful and democratic world.James L. Gibson is Sidney W. Souers Professor of Government in the Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis and a Fellow at the Centre for Comparative and International Politics, Stellenbosch University, South Africa (jgibson@wustl.edu). This is a revised version of the Alexander George Award Lecture, delivered at the International Society for Political Psychology Annual Conference, Eden Hall, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, July 15–18, 2004. The author is indebted to many for their comments and suggestions on earlier versions of this paper, including Dennis Chong, Jamie Druckman, Leonie Huddy, Jim Kuklinski, Marc Peffley, Brian Silver, and John Transue, and especially Stanley Feldman and Donald Green. He also appreciates the research assistance of Marc Hendershot. Support for the research on which this paper is based has been provided by the Weidenbaum Center on the Economy, Government, and Public Policy at Washington University in St. Louis, and Steven S. Smith in particular. This paper makes use of data collected from Russia with the support of the National Science Foundation (SBR-9423614 and SBR-9710137). The South African data were collected with support from NSF's Law and Social Sciences Program (SES 9906576). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2006 American Political Science Association

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

Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. 1998. Economics, entitlements, and social issues: Voter choice in the 1996 presidential election. American Journal of Political Science 42 (4): 134963.Google Scholar
Bahry, Donna, Cynthia Boaz, and Stacy Burnett Gordon. 1997. Tolerance, transition, and support for civil liberties in Russia. Comparative Political Studies 30 (4): 484510.Google Scholar
Bobo, Larry, and Frederick C. Licari. 1989. Education and political tolerance. Public Opinion Quarterly 53 (3): 285308.Google Scholar
Carleton, Don E. 1985. Red scare! Right-wing hysteria, fifties fanaticism, and their legacy in Texas. Austin, TX: Texas Monthly Press.
Caspi, Dan, and Mitchell A. Seligson. 1983. Toward an empirical theory of tolerance: Radical groups in Israel and Costa Rica. Comparative Political Studies 15 (4): 385404.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis. 1993. How people think, reason and feel about rights and liberties. American Journal of Political Science 37 (3): 86799.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Davis, Darren W., and Brian D. Silver. 2004. Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of the terrorist attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science 48 (1): 2846.Google Scholar
De Figueiredo, Rui J. P. Jr., and Zachary Elkins. 2003. Are patriots bigots? An inquiry into the vices of in-group pride. American Journal of Political Science 47 (1): 17188.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Karen Stenner. 1997. Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology 18 (4): 74170.Google Scholar
Finkel, Steven F. 2002. Civic education and the mobilization of political participation in developing democracies. The Journal of Politics 64 (4): 9941020.Google Scholar
Finkel, Steven F., Lee Sigelman, and Stan Humphries. 1999. Democratic values and political tolerance. In Measures of political attitudes. Edited by John Robinson et al. New York: Academic Press.
Gibson, James L. 2006. Is intolerance incorrigible? An analysis of change among Russians. In Toleration on Trial, eds. Ingrid Creppell, Russell Hardin, and Stephen Macedo. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Gibson, James L. 2004a. Overcoming apartheid: Can truth reconcile a divided nation? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Gibson, James L. 2004b. Linking identities and intolerance: Conditional relationships. Paper delivered at the 2004 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2–5, 2004.
Gibson, James L. 2002. Becoming tolerant? Short-term changes in Russian political culture. British Journal of Political Science 32 (April): 30934.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1998. A sober second thought: An experiment in persuading Russians to tolerate. American Journal of Political Science 42 (July): 81950.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1996. The paradoxes of political tolerance in processes of democratisation. Politikon: South African Journal of Political Studies 23 (2): 521.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1992a. The political consequences of intolerance: Cultural conformity and political freedom. American Political Science Review 86 (2): 33856.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1992b. Alternative measures of political tolerance: Must tolerance be “least-liked”? American Journal of Political Science 36 (May): 56077.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1988. Political intolerance and political repression during the McCarthy Red Scare. American Political Science Review 82 (2): 51129.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L. 1986. Pluralistic intolerance in America: A reconsideration. American Politics Quarterly 14 (October): 26793.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Richard D. Bingham. 1985. Civil liberties and Nazis: The Skokie free speech controversy. New York: Praeger.
Gibson, James L., and Raymond M. Duch. 1993. Political intolerance in the USSR: The distribution and etiology of mass opinion. Comparative Political Studies 26: 286329.Google Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Amanda Gouws. 2003. Overcoming intolerance in South Africa: Experiments in democratic persuasion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, James L., and Marc Morjé Howard. Forthcoming. Russian anti-Semitism and the scapegoating of Jews: The dog that didn't bark? British Journal of Political Science.
Huddy, Leonie, Nadia Khatib, and Theresa Capelos. 2002. The polls—trends: Reactions to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Public Opinion Quarterly 66 (3): 41850.Google Scholar
Hurwitz, Jon, and Jeffrey J. Mondak. 2002. Democratic principles, discrimination and political intolerance. British Journal of Political Science 32 (1): 93118.Google Scholar
Kraus, Stephen J. 1995. Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21:5875.Google Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Ellen Riggle, Victor Ottati, Norbert Schwarz, and Robert S. Wyer Jr. 1991. The cognitive and affective bases of political tolerance judgments. American Journal of Political Science 35 (1): 127.Google Scholar
Kunovich, Robert M., and Randy Hodson. 1999. Conflict, religious identity, and ethnic intolerance in Croatia. Social Forces 78 (2): 64374.Google Scholar
Marcus, Georges E., John L. Sullivan, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, and Sandra L. Wood. 1995. With malice toward some: How people make civil liberties judgments. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marcus, George E., Sandra L. Wood, and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 1998. Linking neuroscience to political intolerance and political judgment. Politics and the Life Sciences 17 (2): 16578.Google Scholar
McClosky, Herbert, and Alida Brill. 1983. Dimensions of tolerance: What Americans think about civil liberties. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Mondak, Jeffrey J., and Mitchell S. Sanders. 2003a. Tolerance and intolerance, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 47 (3): 492502.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffrey J., and Mitchell S. Sanders. 2003b. Absolute and situational intolerance. Paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, April 3–6.
Mutz, Diana. 2002. Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review 96 (1): 11126.Google Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Jane Junn, and Kenneth Stehlik-Barry. 1996. Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. 1984. The spiral of silence: Public opinion, our social skin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nunn, Clyde Z., Harry J. Crockett Jr., and J. Allen Williams Jr. 1978. Tolerance for nonconformity. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Peffley, Mark, Pia Knigge, and Jon Hurwitz. 2001. A multiple values model of political tolerance. Political Research Quarterly 54 (2): 379406.Google Scholar
Peffley, Mark, and Robert Rohrschneider. 2003. Democratization and political tolerance in seventeen countries: A multi-level model of democratic learning. Political Research Quarterly 56 (3): 24357.Google Scholar
Peffley, Mark, and Lee Sigelman. 1989. Intolerance of Communists during the McCarthy Era: A general model. Western Political Quarterly 43:93111.Google Scholar
Rohrschneider, Robert. 1996. Institutional learning versus value diffusion: The evolution of democratic values among parliamentarians in Eastern and Western Germany. Journal of Politics 68 (May): 44266.Google Scholar
Sidanius, Jim, and Felicia Pratto. 1999. Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sniderman, Paul M. 1975. Personality and democratic politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sniderman, Paul M., Joseph F. Fletcher, Peter H. Russell, and Philip E. Tetlock. 1996. The clash of rights: Liberty, equality, and legitimacy in pluralist democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sniderman, Paul M., Louk Hagendoorn, and Markus Prior. 2004. Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review 98 (1): 3549.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Pierangelo Peri, Rui de Figuerido, and Thomas Piazza. 2000. The outsider: Prejudice and politics in Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sniderman, Paul M., Philip E. Tetlock, James M. Glaser, Donald Philip Green, and Michael Hout. 1989. Principled tolerance and the American mass public. British Journal of Political Science 19 (1): 2545.Google Scholar
Stenner, Karen. 2005. The authoritarian dynamic. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stouffer, Samuel C. 1955. Communism, conformity and civil liberties. New York: Doubleday.
Sullivan, John L., James E. Piereson, and George E. Marcus. 1982. Political tolerance and American democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sullivan, John L., Michal Shamir, Patrick Walsh, and Nigel S. Roberts. 1985. Political tolerance in context: Support for unpopular minorities in Israel, New Zealand, and the United States. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.
Sullivan, John L., and John E. Transue. 1999. The psychological underpinnings of democracy: A selective review of research on political tolerance, interpersonal trust, and social capital. Annual Review of Psychology 50: 62550.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L., Pat Walsh, Michal Shamir, David G. Barnum, and James L. Gibson. 1993. Why politicians are more tolerant: Selective recruitment and socialization among political elites in Britain, Israel, New Zealand and the United States. British Journal of Political Science 23 (January): 5176.Google Scholar
Wilson, Thomas C. 1994. Trends in tolerance toward rightist and leftist groups, 1976–1988: Effects of attitude change and cohort succession. Public Opinion Quarterly 58 (4): 53956.Google Scholar
113
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Enigmas of Intolerance: Fifty Years after Stouffer's Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Enigmas of Intolerance: Fifty Years after Stouffer's Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Enigmas of Intolerance: Fifty Years after Stouffer's Communism, Conformity, and Civil Liberties
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *