|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table 6.11b: Early 1960s: Supranational Integration
Lipset and Rokkan identify as one of four critical lines of systematic cleavage "the conflict between the central nation-building culture and the increasing resistance of the ethnically, linguistically, or religiously distinct subject populations in the provinces and the peripheries" (1967, p. 15). Coleman and Rosberg also state that "ethnic, regional, and other parochialisms, not transcended or contained by [a] sense of national community or by habitation to national institutions . . . dispose party to serve as the main instrument, singly, or through auxiliary instrumentalities it controls, for national integration" (1964, p. 657). Within the defining context of these two statements, our concept of national integration focuses on the party's predisposition vis-a-vis the preservation or reduction of distinctive cultural and regional (but not clerical) characteristics on the horizontal dimensionthat is, exclusive of wholly class phenomena. It is the intent of this variable to identify the focus of functional and symbolic authority advocated by the party and to note whether national or subnational influences predominate in the desired arrangement. While distinctly relevant to nation-states confronted with the task of building a coherent national political culture, this issue is not irrelevant to advanced states, which may |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
*This section was drafted by Gilbert Rotkin. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||