Beyond the United States and Japan: Testing Yamagishi's emancipation theory of trust across 31 nations

We examined the relationship between Individualism/Collectivism and generalized social trust across 31 European nations participating in the European Social Survey. Using multi-level regression analyses, the current study provides the first empirical investigation of the effects of cultural norms of Individualism/Collectivism on generalized social trust while accounting for individuals' own cultural orientations within the same analysis. The results provide clear support for Yamagishi and Yamagishi (1994) emancipation theory of trust, showing a significant and positive relationship between Individualism/Collectivism and generalized social trust, over and above the effect of a country political history of communism and ethnic heterogeneity. Having controlled for individual effects of Individualism/Collectivism it is clear that the results of the current analysis cannot be reduced to an individual-level explanation, but must be interpreted within the context Of macrosocial processes. We conclude by discussing potential mechanisms that could explain why national individualism is more likely to foster trust among people than collectivism.

The resilience of democratic institutions in Britain, Australia and the United States under conditions of total war

To what extent are democratic institutions resilient when nation states mobilise for war? Normative and empirical political theorists have long argued that wars strengthen the executive and threaten constitutional politics. In modern democracies, national assemblies are supposed to hold the executive to account by demanding explanations for events and policies; and by scrutinising, reviewing and, if necessary, revising legislative proposals intended to be binding on the host society or policies that have been implemented already. This article examines the extent to which the British and Australian parliaments and the United States Congress held their wartime executives to account during World War II. The research finds that under conditions approaching those of total war, these democratic institutions not only continued to exist, but also proved to be resilient in representing public concerns and holding their executives to account, however imperfectly and notwithstanding delegating huge powers. In consequence, executives—more so British and Australian ministers than President Roosevelt—were required to be placatory as institutional and political tensions within national assemblies and between assemblies and executives continued, and assemblies often asserted themselves. In short, even under the most onerous wartime conditions, democratic politics mattered and democratic institutions were resilient.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting documents relative to the commencement and progress of any acts or system of retaliation upon prisoners of war, by the Governments of Great Britain and the United States. --

13th Congress, 3d session. House. Doc. no. 13.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting communications from the plenipotentiaries of the United States charged with negotiating peace with Great Britain : showing the conditions on which alone that government is willing to put an end to the war. --

13th Congress, 3d session. House. Doc. 6.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of the instructions given to the ministers of the United States appointed to negotiate a peace with Great Britain. --

13th Congress, 3d session. House. Doc. no. 8.

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting communications from the plenipotentiaries of the United States charged with negotiating peace with Great Britain

Full Title: Message from the President of the United States, transmitting communications from the plenipotentiaries of the United States charged with negotiating peace with Great Britain : showing the conditions on which alone that government is willing to put an end to the war 13th Congress, 3d session. House. Doc. 6. October 10, 1814. Referred to the Committee of Foreign Relations. Printed by Roger C. Weightman

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of a convention concluded at St. Petersburg, the 12th day of July, 1822

Full Title: Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of a convention concluded at St. Petersburg, the 12th day of July, 1822, under the mediation of the Emperor of all the Russias, between the United States of America and His Britannic Majesty. United States. 18th Congress, 1st session, 1823-1824. House. Doc. no. 30. January 25, 1823. Read and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. Printed by Gales and Seaton

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of a letter from the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary of State, with the answer of the latter

January 6, 1814. Ordered to lie on the table. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At head of title: [22]. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13th Congress, 2nd Session, House. Doc. 22. Printed by Roger C. Weightman

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting copies of the instructions given to the ministers of the United States appointed to negotiate a peace with Great Britain

13th Congress, 3d session. House. Doc. no. 8. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- October 14, 1814. Read and referred to the Committee of Foreign Relations. Printed by Roger C. Weightman

Message from the President of the United States, transmitting documents relative to the commencement and progress of any acts or system of retaliation upon prisoners of war, by the Governments of Great Britain and the United States

13th Congress, 3d session. House. Doc. no. 13. October 28, 1814. Read, referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. Printed by A. and G. Way

Mr. Giles' speech, delivered in the Senate of the United States, on Thursday, 24th November, 1808, on the resolution of Mr. Hillhouse, to repeal the embargo laws

Printed by Pool and Palfray

An oration, delivered at Milford, N.H., March 9, 1815, occasioned by the Treaty of Peace, made and notified between Great Britain and the United States

Printed by R. Boylston

Message from the President of the United States, Recommending an Immediate Declaration of War Against Great Britain (1812)

"June 1st, 1812. Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. June 3d, 1812. Bill reported, declaring war ..."

Immigration, security and the public debate on US language policy : a critical discourse analysis of language attitudes in the United States of America

The narrative of the United States is of a "nation of immigrants" in which the language shift patterns of earlier ethnolinguistic groups have tended towards linguistic assimilation through English. In recent years, however, changes in the demographic landscape and language maintenance by non-English speaking immigrants, particularly Hispanics, have been perceived as threats and have led to calls for an official English language policy.This thesis aims to contribute to the study of language policy making from a societal security perspective as expressed in attitudes regarding language and identity originating in the daily interaction between language groups. The focus is on the role of language and American identity in relation to immigration. The study takes an interdisciplinary approach combining language policy studies, security theory, and critical discourse analysis. The material consists of articles collected from four newspapers, namely USA Today, The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Chronicle between April 2006 and December 2007.Two discourse types are evident from the analysis namely Loyalty and Efficiency. The former is mainly marked by concerns of national identity and contains speech acts of security related to language shift, choice and English for unity. Immigrants are represented as dehumanised, and harmful. Immigration is given as sovereignty-related, racial, and as war. The discourse type of Efficiency is mainly instrumental and contains speech acts of security related to cost, provision of services, health and safety, and social mobility. Immigrants are further represented as a labour resource. These discourse types reflect how the construction of the linguistic 'we' is expected to be maintained. Loyalty is triggered by arguments that the collective identity is threatened and is itself used in reproducing the collective 'we' through hegemonic expressions of monolingualism in the public space and semi-public space. The denigration of immigrants is used as a tool for enhancing societal security through solidarity and as a possible justification for the denial of minority rights. Also, although language acquisition patterns still follow the historical trend of language shift, factors indicating cultural separateness such as the appearance of speech communities or the use of minority languages in the public space and semi-public space have led to manifestations of intolerance. Examples of discrimination and prejudice towards minority groups indicate that the perception of worth of a shared language differs from the actual worth of dominant language acquisition for integration purposes. The study further indicates that the efficient working of the free market by using minority languages to sell services or buy labour is perceived as conflicting with nation-building notions since it may create separately functioning sub-communities with a new cultural capital recognised as legitimate competence. The discourse types mainly represent securitising moves constructing existential threats. The perception of threat and ideas of national belonging are primarily based on a zero-sum notion favouring monolingualism. Further, the identity of the immigrant individual is seen as dynamic and adaptable to assimilationist measures whereas the identity of the state and its members are perceived as static. Also, the study shows that debates concerning language status are linked to extra-linguistic matters. To conclude, policy makers in the US need to consider the relationship between four factors, namely societal security based on collective identity, individual/human security, human rights, and a changing linguistic demography, for proposed language intervention measures to be successful.