Stephen D. Morris attempts to understand Mexican Nationalism in various scenarios to determine what it is and how it is affected. He argues that understanding Nationalism is crucial as it can assist in understanding civilization theories, the success and failure of foreign policies, and specifically the nature of being Mexican. (Morris, 397) Morris uses defined constructs of nationalism as a lens to develop theories of Mexican nationalism. Although his analysis does shed light on the nature of nationalism Morris admits the conclusion reveals more questions than answers. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of the nationalist constructs set forth by Stephen D. Morris and implications his theories have on Mexican Nationalism.
…show more content…
Morris lays out an analytical framework that defines nationalism across three dimensions. The first dimension is national identity which is defined by the degree of feelings or sentiments of loyalty to an “imagined community”. This type of identification is distinguished by internal beliefs of cultural/politics and external beliefs of the “view of self as reflected in others”(Morris, 385). The second dimension consists of national interest which concerns itself with the formation of ideas and ideologies about the nation rather than the degree of loyalty the people have towards it. Specifically it defines the identity of the nation, the threats that impose on it, and the role of the state to protect it. Morris states that national interest cannot be clearly defined and because of this the role of the state becomes a common point of contention.(Morris, 386) Finally the third dimension, nationalist politics, deals with the creation of policies and the actions taken by the state. This particular dimension is refined into three components, the political policies that promote the action of the state, the economic policies that favor nationalist/domestic markets, and finally the cultural policies that nurture loyalty to the culture. In summary Morris argues that separating nationalism into these three area’s help distinguish the social/psychological phenomena and …show more content…
Morris divides these constructs into socioeconomic class, region, and proximity to USA. Researchers attempted to determine the effect of class by creating surveys that measured nationalist beliefs against economic class, education, and standard of living. Survey results from Bustamante found that people with a higher standard of living have less attachment to national identity (Morris, 389). While surveys from Zavala found that less educated and lower middle class to exhibit the lowest levels of Mexican pride (Morris, 390). Zavala also found that higher income and educated respondents disagree with forsaking cultural identity for economic development (Morris, 390). In contrast, two Mori Polls (1992 and 1995) and Beltran et al revealed a strong relationship between income level and support for closer ties to the USA and/or NAFTA (Morris, 389). Surveys also suggested that respondents did not perceive integration with the US as a threat to cultural identity. In summary research suggest many possible explanations, however there appears to be no direct relationship with socioeconomic status and nationalist beliefs. Research on regional factors and proximity to the USA across nationalistic constructs revealed correlations as well. For example survey data exhibited the greatest level of support for NAFTA from the Central region while support from the Northern and Southern borders
Morris lays out an analytical framework that defines nationalism across three dimensions. The first dimension is national identity which is defined by the degree of feelings or sentiments of loyalty to an “imagined community”. This type of identification is distinguished by internal beliefs of cultural/politics and external beliefs of the “view of self as reflected in others”(Morris, 385). The second dimension consists of national interest which concerns itself with the formation of ideas and ideologies about the nation rather than the degree of loyalty the people have towards it. Specifically it defines the identity of the nation, the threats that impose on it, and the role of the state to protect it. Morris states that national interest cannot be clearly defined and because of this the role of the state becomes a common point of contention.(Morris, 386) Finally the third dimension, nationalist politics, deals with the creation of policies and the actions taken by the state. This particular dimension is refined into three components, the political policies that promote the action of the state, the economic policies that favor nationalist/domestic markets, and finally the cultural policies that nurture loyalty to the culture. In summary Morris argues that separating nationalism into these three area’s help distinguish the social/psychological phenomena and …show more content…
Morris divides these constructs into socioeconomic class, region, and proximity to USA. Researchers attempted to determine the effect of class by creating surveys that measured nationalist beliefs against economic class, education, and standard of living. Survey results from Bustamante found that people with a higher standard of living have less attachment to national identity (Morris, 389). While surveys from Zavala found that less educated and lower middle class to exhibit the lowest levels of Mexican pride (Morris, 390). Zavala also found that higher income and educated respondents disagree with forsaking cultural identity for economic development (Morris, 390). In contrast, two Mori Polls (1992 and 1995) and Beltran et al revealed a strong relationship between income level and support for closer ties to the USA and/or NAFTA (Morris, 389). Surveys also suggested that respondents did not perceive integration with the US as a threat to cultural identity. In summary research suggest many possible explanations, however there appears to be no direct relationship with socioeconomic status and nationalist beliefs. Research on regional factors and proximity to the USA across nationalistic constructs revealed correlations as well. For example survey data exhibited the greatest level of support for NAFTA from the Central region while support from the Northern and Southern borders