What am I?

Quote from: angus on April 13, 2004, 10:36:13 PM

Well, I don't know whether he invented the phrase 'political culture' but he's certainly credited with its explanation. I had assumed every freshman polisci textbook contained a discussion of political culture, as I believe it is the prime model for explanaining voting proclivities from the 50s onward.

Briefly, he identifies three groups, and locates them according to the original settlers in the 'colonies' of the American East:

Moralist (originating from puritan culture)

Traditionalist (originating from planter culture)

Individualist (originating from dutch/german/english cultural mix)

Since these groups were already in place before the revolution, they could be identified by the three regions of the East (east of appalachains):

Moralists are the dominant group in New England.
Individualists were the dominant group in the Middle Atlantic.
Traditionalists were the dominant group in the South.

(Daniel Elazar uses the orthodox Mason and Dixon surveyors line, the border between MD and PA, to demarcate the Middle Atlantic from the South.)

Moralists are associated with moralism. Egalitarianism, good schools, authoritarianism, community, church, etc.
Traditionalists are associated with elitism (think rich planters and their white endentured servants and black property), loyalty to tradition, etc.
Individualists are associated with mistrust of government, and populism, and limited governmental interference.

After about 1780 these groups spread out. Moralist culture now extends to the Great Lakes region, and as far westward as Central Minnesota. Nowadays it usually means good schools and hospitals, public spending on parks, etc, and of course the all-important authoritarianism (bitching about divisive symbols such as the battle flags). Massachusetts is a special case. As you know you could not get a tattoo in MA until very recently. And the restrictive liquor laws and blue laws are still in place. And the anti-sodomy laws (which took hold and spread throughout the country) which the SJC finally overturned in about 1998. By the way, moralist ideas prevail in the US in general. Boston has an effect on USA disproportionate to its relatively small population and size. It remains an educational and medical technology powerhouse, even though its metro area population ranks about tenth among US census SMSA at about five million.

Traditionalism spread westward too. Limited in the North by around Dayton/Columbus, or just a little south of there, all the way west to somewhere around San Antonio or San Marcos/New Braunfels area in the west in a curve. (Fort Worth is a Midwestern city whereas Houston is distinctly Southern). Traditionalists in these parts exhibit a high level of comfort with capital punishment, for example. Individualism was carried westward quickly and occupies pretty much the entire western half of the country, as well as a thin band connecting it with NJ/NY/Philly running just north of Columbus and just south of Cleveland, through Pittsburgh, which has elements of all three cultures. There are also pockets of moralism in the west and pockets of traditionalism in the west. But individualism dominates here. You may have noticed distinct differences when you drive down the Northeast corridor from Boston to New York to Washington. Nowhere else in the USA are these three regions so closely linked in such a heavy density that in a days drive you can really observe all three. Consider four states in which I've voted: CA, FL, MA, TX. California is certainly individualistic, Massachusetts is the epitome of moralism, Texas is usually described as TI (traditionalistic with a good mix of individualism, presumably owing to its geograhic placement), Florida is usually described as TM (traditionalistic with a good mix of moralism, though its geographic placement doesn't explain why). Never lived deep in Traditionalistic territory, but definitely on its periphery, nor deep in Individualistic territory (as this part of California is more IM or MI depending on how close to SF you get), but I have lived deep in Moralistic country (somerville and boston). My own observations make me think Elazar had developed a very good model. {California is a bizarre case of progressivism gone amuck, but that's for an entirely different thread.}

To be sure, you may come from a very individualistic familial culture and live in a traditionalist or moralist dominated area, or from a, whatever combination. I try to make the call based on posts not on Red and Massachusetts (but who knows how prejudiced I am...) We are the most mobile society in the world. where else can you drive for 3400 miles without showing a passport or bribing anyone?, and that accounts for mixing on a scale unprecedented, and the lines are beginning to blur. In fact, The Atlas has an excellent link to a commonwealth magazine article which attempts to give a new look at the old problem of political culture, and divides the counry into ten political regions. This is a new and untested idea, but I like it. So Elazar's model may be under review by some serious academics.

Nevertheless, Political Science textbooks will probably continue to use Daniel Elazar's model for some time. So it's good to be familiar with it. Here's a link I found about Elazar. You can probably find more detailed material if you search.
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/aboutdje.htm

Here's a bunch of links more relevant to the topic:
http://isbndb.com/d/person/elazar_daniel_judah.html

Very interesting, angus. Seems like a helpful model. In which book did he present it? The Elazar books in my local library seems mostly to have to do with Jewish topics.

	Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email? April 30, 2024, 12:50:42 AM

News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more