Search

This paper argues that U.S. political science was significantly reoriented in the early twentieth century, becoming in important ways a science of politically relevant differences within populations. The post-civil war cohort that founded the formal institutions of discipline in the 1880s sought a basis for cohesion and democratic legitimacy in a vision of "the state," which they understood as a national and even racial soul. But competing visions soon emerged, including Woodrow Wilson's demystifiation of the state as a set of governing institutions, and Charles Beard's analysis of the class basis of U.S. democracy. Influential as these visions were, neither can claim a meaningful and continuous lineage in the discipline as it subsequently developed. More successful in this regard were Charles Merriam and his protégés in the so-called "Chicago School" of political science in the interwar years. I argue that they generated an alternative set of practices and a vision of the discipline that rendered the study of politically relevant difference rooted in individual psychological or even biological traits a central task. I show, moreover, that this vision and these practices are linked to political scientists' engagement with changing notions of group and racial difference then emerging from anthropology and psychology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

World migration has more than doubled since 1975 (United Nations, 2006). Social scientists in several disciplinary fields, including political science, anthropology, and sociology, have investigated how an individual's movement across national borders may or may not change their attitudes and behaviors. This burgeoning literature has given rise to numerous definitions of the terms "diaspora" and "diaspora identity" (Brukmann 2005). Diaspora identity has been linked to a wide variety of transnational behaviors, including diaspora lobbying and political mobilization (Shain and Barth 2003), diaspora philanthropic activity (Mohan and Zack-Williams 2002), and diaspora remittances and investment in countries of origin (e.g., Nielsen, Riddle, Majid 2009). Despite the many existing definitions of diaspora identity, few robust empirical measures of this complex concept exist. In this paper, we first draw on the extant theoretical and descriptive diaspora studies literature to identify four main components of the diaspora concept prevalent in the literature: a group consciousness of belonging and solidarity with the country of origin (e.g., Safran 1991, Shain 2007), group consciousness of belonging and solidarity with the country of residence (e.g., Cohen 1997), contact with the country of origin (e.g., Sheffer 2006), and a commitment to the maintenance or restoration of the country of origin (e.g., Safran 1991, Ionescu 2006). Utilizing a survey of over 450 Liberians living in the United States, we then test the reliability and validity of these new measures. We also explore to what degree causal relationships exist among these variables. We conclude by discussing implications of our findings for future research. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]