Raza En Latino Amercia

Political Psychology

Inclusionary Discrimination: Pigmentocracy and Patriotism in the Dominican Republic

Jim Sidanius Yesilernis Peña Mark Sawyer UCLA

Send correspondence to: Jim Sidanius 1

Department of Psychology UCLA Email address: Sidanius@psych.ucla.edu

This research was supported by the following grants: UCLA's Summer Mentorship Fellowship and the UCLA Latin American CenterGrant.

2

Abstract This study explored the nature of racial hierarchy and the connection between racial identity and Dominican patriotism using a questionnaire given to an in situ sample in the Dominican Republic. The analyses compared the contradictory expectations of the “racial democracy/Iberian exceptionalism” thesis and social dominance theory. Results showed that despite the very highlevel of racial intermarriage in the Dominican Republic, there was strong evidence of a “pigmentocracy,” or group-based social hierarchy based largely upon skin color. Furthermore, despite a slight tendency for people to give slightly higher status ratings to their own “racial” category than was given to them by members of other “racial” categories, this pigmentocracy was highly consensual acrossthe racial hierarchy. These results were most consistent with the expectations of social dominance theory. However, in contrast to similar analyses in both the United States and Israel, these Dominican findings showed no evidence that members of different “racial” categories had different levels of patriotic attachment to the nation. Also in contrast to recent American findings, there was noevidence that Dominican patriotism was positively associated with anti-Black racism, social dominance orientation, negative affect towards other racial groups, nor ethnocentrism, regardless of the “racial” category one belonged to. These latter results were quite consistent with the thesis of “racial democracy/Iberian exceptionalism.” conflicting findings are discussed. The theoretical implications ofthese somewhat

3

A casual glance around the world cannot but impress one with the spectacle of continuous and ferocious interethnic and inter-“racial” conflict in the post-communist era. Despite strenuous, and at times, even brutal efforts at ethnic and “racial” assimilation (e.g., Kinnane-Roelofsma, 1998), it seems clear that ethnicity and “race” remain highly salient social identitiesthat show no sign of being given up any time soon. Given this reality, one of the important issues then becomes trying to understand how these various ethnic and “racial” subidentities can be united with commitment to and identification with larger national and even transnational social identities. Because of this seemingly chronic interethnic tension within the context of large, complex andmultiethnic states (e.g., Bosnia, Rwanda, Spain, Germany, Russia, the USA, etc.), a number of social scientists have recently begun to focus specifically on the interface between ethnic and national attachment (see e.g., Citrin, Haas, Muste & Reingold, 1994; Citrin, Wong, & Duff; in press; de la Garza et al., 1996; de Figueiredo & Elkins, 2000; Hofstetter, Feierabend, & Klicperova-Baker, 1999; Lambert,Mermigis, & Taylor, 1986; Sidanius, Feshbach, Levin, and Pratto, 1997; Sidanius & Petrocik, in press; Sinclair, Sidanius & Levin, 1998). Two aspects of the interface between ethnic and national attachment have been of primary focus in some of this recent research. First, is the question of whether or not members of different ethnic and “racial” communities are equally committed to and identifiedwith their superordinate identities as citizens of the nation as a whole. Thus, one wonders whether African-Americans can be as “American” as native-born Whites, whether a Hausa can be as committed a “Nigerian” as an Ibo, or whether or not Jews can be equally committed and patriotic Russians as non-Jews. The second aspect of the interface between ethnic and national attachment that has been...