The Content of National Identity in North America

Taken together, much of the research on national identities in North America shows that the way people conceive of and feel about their national identities is strikingly similar, with sub-national and racial groups coalescing around a shared definition of national identity that emphasizes predominantly attainable, or inclusive, attributes. In the United States, surveys have shown Americans across all ethnic and racial groups broadly endorse civic republican and liberal democratic values, though other ethnocultural or “ascriptive” attitudes continue to be important for some (Schildkraut Reference Schildkraut2007, Reference Schildkraut2014). Scholars repeatedly find that Americans tend to conceive of their national identity as a combination of what might be termed “civic” (liberal and civic republican) norms, such as freedom, equality, and civic participation, as well as “ethnic” norms, such as speaking English, being born in the United States, or being Christian (Citrin, Reingold, and Green Reference Citrin, Reingold and Green1990; Schildkraut Reference Schildkraut2007). Additionally, “incorporationist” elements, or a belief in the notion that the United States is a “nation of immigrants,” is also commonly seen as an important aspect of American national identity (Schildkraut Reference Schildkraut, Schwartz, Luyckx and Vignoles2011, Reference Schildkraut2014). In terms of national attachment, Americans across all racial subgroups appear to be just as committed (Shelton Reference Shelton2010) and attached to their national identities (Greene et al. Reference Greene, Gray, Carter and Block2020). Despite fears that Latinx migrants might threaten key aspects of American culture (see Huntington Reference Huntington2004), research finds that Mexican Americans are just as likely to endorse individualistic values as the American public at large (de la Garza, Falcon, and Garcia Reference de la Garza, Falcon and Garcia1996), and Latinx migrants have been shown to be just as hard-working, religious, and patriotic as native-born individuals (Citrin et al. Reference Citrin, Lerman, Murakami and Pearson2007). Rather than discrete or coherent “civic” nationalists or “ethnic” nationalists, recent scholarship has argued that in the United States there are four distinct varieties of national understanding that emphasize various civic and ethnic components (Bonikowski and DiMaggio Reference Bonikowski and DiMaggio2016). They find that roughly half of American adults are likely to endorse aspects of both civic and ethnic nationalism or are only lukewarmly committed to either form (25).

Similar findings about the content of the nation can be seen in Canada, where a policy of multicultural nationalism and the existence of a sub-national population of French-Canadians or Quebecers might theoretically complicate a shared sense of national identity. Research suggests, however, that the boundaries of Canadian and Quebec national identity are defined similarly for most people with the majority favoring attainable, or inclusive, characteristics, such as feeling national or respecting institutions and laws over ascriptive characteristics such as ancestry, place of birth, or being Christian (Bilodeau and Turgeon Reference Bilodeau and Turgeon2021, 536). These findings hold true for both Canadians raised in Canada as well as those who immigrated as adults (Grant Reference Grant2016). In terms of national attachment, Canadian findings parallel the United States with Canadians, even those who more strongly identify as Quebecers, possessing a strong attachment to Canadian national identity (Mendelsohn Reference Mendelsohn2002).

Likewise, scholars find that national identity in Mexico is widely conceived of as a more “civic” national identity in that it typically emphasizes values, such as liberal democracy, property rights, and anti-clericalism, but also consists of ethnocultural aspects such as pride in past Indigenous civilizations as well as feelings of racial uniqueness embodied in the concept of mestizaje, with the mestizo, or combination of European and Indigenous ethnicity, being regarded as “the racial expression of the nation” by many (Morris Reference Morris1999, 370). More recently, Mexican national identity has adopted a more explicitly multicultural national identity that celebrates Indigenous peoples, though this has been primarily through “softer” forms of multicultural recognition (de la Peña Reference de La Peña2006).

However, while we see what seems to be widespread support in North America among the public for national identities that are defined inclusively rather than exclusively, it is important to address the glaring impact of race. There is a deep connection to race in North America in terms of who is considered prototypically national with White individuals most often being considered “true” nationals as opposed to other racialized minorities.

The Racial Divide in National Identity

Experimental data from Canada and the United States from implicit association tests (IATs) consistently find a racial linkage to nationhood in the United States. Devos and Banaji (Reference Devos and Banaji2005) assess implicit attitudes and find that the prototypical American national is implicitly thought of as a White American, even among Latinx and Asian American participants. These results showing true nationals = White have been replicated in the United States (see Devos, Gavin, and Quintana Reference Devos, Gavin and Quintana2010; Devos and Ma Reference Devos and Ma2008) and elsewhere in North America as well. Girling (Reference Girling2014) found Canadians were significantly quicker to associate White individuals with Canadian nationhood as compared to Indigenous or East Asian people (111). This echoes previous scholarship (Mahtani Reference Mahtani2002) that finds being considered a “real,” or prototypical Canadian, means having White skin. For Mexico, data on implicit association tests linking race to national identity are lacking, but we know that race is often an important aspect governing social relations, even if it is formally disavowed (see Villarreal Reference Villarreal2010). So, while survey-based research indicates that most individuals in North America claim national identities should be inclusive or attainable, implicit associations reveal that race is often a determining factor in how one sees the prototypical national, at least in Canada and the United States.

Beyond this experimental data, we also have observational data detailing widespread racial gaps in policy attitudes and national understandings in the United States. There are stark differences between racial groups on issues such as government spending on social services, optimal size of government, guarantees of equal opportunity (Hutchings and Valentino Reference Hutchings and Valentino2004) as well as differences in how various racial groups conceive of their national identities. Scholars have found that Black Americans are less likely to express positive feelings or express pride in the country compared with White Americans (Citrin and Sears Reference Citrin and Sears2014). They are also on average less likely to emphasize the importance of “respect for US political institutions and laws” than White Americans (Graeber and Setzler Reference Graeber and Setzler2021, 183). Additionally, Black and Latinx Americans are more likely than White Americans to possess a conception of American national identity that balances the importance of assimilation with cultural diversity (Schildkraut Reference Schildkraut2014). Furthermore, we know ascriptive characteristics shape immigrants’ self-identification with the nation, with those of darker skin and less knowledge of English less likely to identify as American, especially if having experienced discrimination (Jones-Correa et al. Reference Jones-Correa, Marrow, Okamoto and Tropp2018).

These racial linkages also seem to be less than benign. When implicit attitudes are linked to behavior, we see prototypes about who is national can result in discriminatory actions and judgments such as refusing to hire qualified, racialized candidates for national security jobs or dismissing immigration policies proposed by those seen as not prototypically national (Yogeeswaran and Dasgupta Reference Yogeeswaran and Dasgupta2010). Likewise, racialized understandings of nationalism in the United States have been linked to support for harsher immigration policies. Bracic, Israel-Trummel, and Shortle (Reference Bracic, Israel-Trummel and Shortle2022) find those embracing ethnocultural understandings of American nationalism, particularly those that hold exclusive views regarding who is a “true” American, are much more likely to support immigration policies such as separating children from their parents at the border.

In part, we can explain these racial gaps through social identity theory and social dominance theory (Peña and Sidanius Reference Peña and Sidanius2002) frameworks, which predict higher status groups will seek to reinforce their privileged position. As Carter and Perez (Reference Carter and Pérez2016) argue, we can look at race in the United States as a marker of status with Whites seeing themselves as occupying a higher place in the racial order. In turn, this causes Whites to construct national attachments that bolster their station such as creating racial restrictions on who can be a “true” national, expressing outgroup hostility, and projecting an image of other Americans being like themselves. Conversely, non-Whites’ perceived lower status in the racial order leads them to avoid projecting their traits onto national attachments, resulting in lower levels of attachment to the nation, seeing the higher-ranking racial order (i.e., White Americans) as more prototypical, and constructing national attachments that are more inclusive and less racially restricted (Carter and Perez Reference Carter and Pérez2016, 500). Others have also found that White racial identity is a motivating factor for many in the United States, causing individuals to behave in ways that will maintain the White ingroup’s higher status in the racial order (see Jardina Reference Jardina2021).

The Effects of National Identity

In North American scholarship on nationalism, how people set the boundaries around the national group and how they identify with the nation has been repeatedly shown to have effects on important metrics. Individuals that strongly identify with the nation seem to be more civically engaged but also more likely to set hard, sometimes ascriptive, boundaries around the national group. Additionally, how one defines the national group impacts their attitudes toward immigration, cultural diversity, and race.

Scholarship on the effects of strength of identification suggests those who more strongly identify with the nation are more likely to be civically involved. Huddy and Khatib (Reference Huddy and Khatib2007) find that stronger national identification in the United States was associated with paying more attention to politics, greater knowledge about current events, and a greater likelihood to vote. However, strong identification with one’s national identity can also mean setting strong, sometimes ethnocultural, group boundaries around membership. Theiss-Morse (Reference Theiss-Morse2009) finds that those who strongly identify as American are more likely to identify as “typical Americans,” or prototypical members, and are more likely to hold less inclusive, more ascriptive views of American national identity (e.g., emphasizing attributes, like being born in the United States, being Christian, and speaking English) since erecting hard boundaries to separate the national group from others is of great importance to strong group identifiers (84, 87). The types of boundaries people set around their national identity also correlate with political attitudes.

Findings from North America have shown that how individuals conceive of national identity affects their support for immigration. More exclusive definitions of national identity have been linked to lower levels of support for immigration and greater in-group favoritism in the United States (Citrin and Wright Reference Citrin and Wright2009, 15). Evidence also indicates that more inclusive conceptions of national identity enhance support for immigration. Using what they argue is a more accurate, quasi-ranking system, Wright, Citrin, and Wand (Reference Wright, Citrin and Wand2012) find a positive link between civic conceptions of nationhood and more inclusive positions on issues such as immigration. Comparable findings from Canada, including Quebec, exhibit a similar pattern with more exclusive or ascriptive national identities linked to greater distrust in people and negative attitudes toward immigration (Bilodeau and Turgeon Reference Bilodeau and Turgeon2021). The relationship between national identity conceptions and attitudes also affects attitudes related to cultural diversity.

Goodman and Alarian (Reference Goodman and Alarian2021) use data from 35 advanced democracies, including Canada, Mexico, and the United States to analyze the relationship between national identity and multiculturalism. They find more inclusive national identities are associated with greater support for multiculturalism. In the United States, Citrin and Sears (Reference Citrin and Sears2014) have shown Americans with more civic conceptions of national identity by and large support aspects of soft multiculturalism (i.e., blending cultural preservation with assimilation). When we compare the United States and Canada, we see some interesting differences that suggest the relationship between national identity conceptions cannot be boiled down to simply civic versus ethnic identities. For instance, when analyzing the relationship between pride and anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States we see that pride in the nation has no effect on anti-immigrant sentiment. In Canada, however, pride in the nation appears to decrease anti-immigrant sentiment across all Canadians, including Quebecers (Citrin, Johnston, and Wright Reference Citrin, Johnston and Wright2012, 541). When looking at support for multiculturalism in the two countries, the authors find that greater pride in the United States is associated with decreased support for multiculturalism while greater pride in Canada is associated with increased support for multiculturalism. What this suggests is that national identity conceptions, even Canadian and American ones that are widely defined as inclusive, are also shaped by specific national understandings, such as Canadians’ perceptions of themselves as a humanitarian, multicultural people (Citrin, Johnston, and Wright Reference Citrin, Johnston and Wright2012, 540, 544; Kymlicka Reference Kymlicka2003).

One of the clearest takeaways we see from research on nationalism and national identity in North America is that the way one perceives the nation has potentially significant implications in terms of political attitudes and behaviors. Inclusivity and the setting of group boundaries affects attitudes, but attitudes are also affected by the idiosyncrasies of how national identities are framed by elites and non-elites alike.

Explaining Differences through Historical Development

We see then that national identities in North America exert powerful effects on political attitudes and behavior, but the reasons for this are not always clear. Historical scholarship on national development has been an important source of information hinting at how identities have shifted in response to elite intervention and why they look the way they do. Such research provides a much-needed context for making sense of the findings we see in survey-based data.

In Canada, immigration policies that emphasized Britishness, Whiteness, and assimilation were foundational to national identity from the late 19th century into the 1960s (Edwardson Reference Edwardson2008) before being replaced by a multicultural immigration policy and philosophy in the 1970s (Mann Reference Mann2012). This change to a multicultural nationalism due to the existence of a sub-national community of French descendants and a large influx of non-British migrants made a national identity centered on Britishness or Whiteness problematic. Furthermore, Canada’s choice to highlight its diversity through celebrating its accommodation of multiculturalism, indigenous communities, and a sub-national group make its identity distinct (Kymlicka Reference Kymlicka2003). These top-down changes in Canadian national identity have been successful in altering national understandings, according to survey data showing a marked shift in national identity with Canadians emphasizing a more inclusive conception of national identity in the decades following these changes (see Breton Reference Breton1988; Bilodeau and Turgeon Reference Bilodeau and Turgeon2021).

Like Canadians, Mexicans have gone from defining national identity in ways that encouraged cultural assimilation in the early 20th century before turning to more recent multicultural nation-building efforts. Mexican national identity has changed over time with regimes in the 19th and 20th century emphasizing a progression toward a national mestizo identity (Morris Reference Morris1999), though by the turn of the 21st century the tide had changed in favor of a more tolerant multiculturalism (de la Peña Reference de La Peña2006, 293). However, despite the existence of a more multicultural nationalism, the legacy of previous nation-building efforts continues to have an impact on the lives of Mexicans through the continued salience of race in social relations (see Saldívar and Walsh Reference Saldívar and Walsh2014).

Early attempts to explain American political culture emphasized its “creedal” nature, or the notion that Americans had always been bound together by shared adherence to liberal and democratic values rather than through other ethnic or cultural ties (de Tocqueville Reference De Tocqueville2003; Hartz Reference Hartz1983), even if this was something they often failed to live up to regarding the treatment of minority racial groups (Myrdal Reference Myrdal1962). Subsequent accounts provided a more accurate picture by showing how elites in the United States, particularly in the late 19th and early 20th century, developed illiberal ethnic, gender, and racial hierarchies in the United States and deliberately embedded these in laws concerning immigration, naturalization, voting rights, and citizenship (Smith Reference Smith1993; Reference Smith1997). Indeed, what it means to be American has often been shaped by explicitly ascriptive, or ethnocultural, factors, such as language, religion, and most of all, race.

Enslaved, enfranchised, and then subsequently disenfranchised in Southern enclaves of authoritarianism (Mickey Reference Mickey2015), Black Americans had to fight for basic civil rights in the 20th century (McAdam Reference McAdam1982; Valelly Reference Valelly2004). Looking at survey data, scholars have concluded that a history of racial discrimination is the most convincing explanation for the ethnic differences we see in the racial divide between Black Americans and others (Theiss-Morse Reference Theiss-Morse2009; Citrin and Sears Reference Citrin and Sears2014). When we examine American national identity from a development perspective, it becomes obvious why we see this curious mix of widespread adherence to creedal values alongside the belief that “true” Americans are in fact White.

This scholarship on the historical development of national identity is especially insightful when analyzed comparatively. While the differences between Canadian and American national identities, such as the relationship between pride and support for multiculturalism (Citrin, Johnston, and Wright Reference Citrin, Johnston and Wright2012), seem puzzling on the surface, we can explain such differences by looking to how these identities developed and changed over time. In the United States, support for multiculturalism largely took hold as an ideological defense of institutionalizing minority rights in the aftermath of the civil rights movement and remains politically divisive (Citrin and Sears Reference Citrin and Sears2014). In contrast, explicit adoption of a multicultural national philosophy in Canada entailed a change in culture among Canadians from a more ascriptive nationalism in the mid-20th century (Iguarta Reference Igartua2006; Mann Reference Mann2012) to a more inclusive one today (Bilodeau and Turgeon Reference Bilodeau and Turgeon2021).

Thus, historical development is a potentially fruitful way to interpret and understand the trajectory of national identities we observe today. However, there are few historical development studies in North America that focus explicitly on the development of nationhood, especially from a comparative perspective. One noteworthy exception, Marx’s comparative analysis of South Africa, the United States, and Brazil (Reference Marx1998) does this with great effect. Marx argues race in the United States and South Africa was an important aspect of nation-building and was used instrumentally to unify Whites through Black exclusion. Alternatively, a more unified national structure in Brazil did not require such top-down racial ordering.