Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Do Praguers differ from Czechs? Selected topics of recent intergroup antagonism attempts
Abstract and Figures
Due to the recent attempts to divide Czech society based on the antagonism between Prague and the countryside, this study researches some of the aspects of this division—basic human values and the national identity of the inhabitants of Prague. These very basic level sources of the antagonism are researched via a combination of ISSP (National identity III module) and ESS (Round 8) surveys and two focus groups with Prague inhabitants. The results show that there are no real, or wrongly interpreted, differences between Praguers and people in the countryside with respect to both basic human values and Czech national identity. Regarding the basic human values of the two groups, only the conservation value dimension is stronger outside Prague. However, this value dimension is inherently ambiguous because its value of security is stronger within Prague, which is in contrast to values of conformity and tradition that are stronger outside Prague. In addition to this, conservation is still the stronger dimension within Prague compared with the openness to change value dimension. Praguers are rather compelled to be open and they are capable of adapting, even if their values are more conservative. The same values prevail among people within and outside Prague, which has been confirmed in the focus groups. There are also more similarities between the two groups in their national identities, e.g., when they are less nationalistic than patriotic. Both groups are of similar strength for patriotism and nationalism. The sources of national pride among the two groups are very similar and Praguers are those who can be labeled as being prouder in a few of the aspects of the Czech nation. The division between Praguers and non-Praguers seems to be rather artificial and based on inaccurate perceptions and/or interpretations.
Figures - available via license: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Content may be subject to copyright.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
The study explored the occurrence of cultural orientation in terms of individualism - collectivism across northern India. The four places identified for the purpose of this study differed on the level of urbanization according to the Census of India and comprised of a metro city (Delhi), a city at the state level (Chandigarh), a town (Rohtak) and many villages like Bohar, Kutana, Nandal and Rithal in the state of Haryana. Results revealed that there were no significant differences on individualistic cultural orientation across location groups. However, for collectivistic cultural orientation it was observed that at higher urbanization levels, collectivism level was lower (F=41.41, p<0.001). The present research also found that in most cases females had significantly higher scores on both individualism and collectivism as compared to males ensuing that females have an overall larger spectrum of cultural orientation.
This paper compares nationalism in the two ex-Czechoslovak countries—the Czech and Slovak republics. The aim is to analyze the measurement of nationalism in the 1995, 2003, and 2013 International Social Survey Program (ISSP) National Identity surveys. According to the nationalism measures from the ISSP survey – which are frequently used by authors analyzing nationalism—both countries experienced a significant rise in nationalism in the 1995 to 2013 period. Moreover, invariance testing of the nationalism latent variable confirms the possibility of comparing levels of nationalism between Czechia and Slovakia over time. However, the associations between nationalism, as measured in the study, and concepts related to nationalism—such as xenophobia, protectionism, or assertive foreign policy—suggest that what is measured as nationalism in 1995 is very different from what is measured in 2013. This is explained by a change of context which occurred in both countries between 1995 and 2013. While answering the same question had a strong nationalistic connotation in 1995, this was not the case in 2013. Based on our findings we advise against using the analyzed “nationalism” items as measurement of nationalism even beyond the two analyzed countries.
An examination of the differences between collectivists (those who view themselves primarily as part of a whole, and who are motivated by the norms and duties imposed by the collective entity) and individualists (those who are motivated by their own preferences and needs).
In the second half of the nineteenth century, Prague underwent a rapid transformation from provincial backwater to one of the major cities in the Habsburg realm. For Czech historian Zdeněk Šolle, this change began with the revolutionary year 1848: ‘the events of 1848 showed the key position of Prague in the future of the crownland, and of the Czech nation. We can honestly date this year … as the beginning of a new stage in the development of the capital city of Prague’.1 Although the 1848 revolution was relatively short-lived in Prague, weakened by disputes between its Czech and German leaders and crushed by military force in June 1848, its long-term impact re-made the city. The abolition of serfdom helped accelerate industrial development within the Habsburg Empire, and the neo-absolutist regime imposed after the revolution instituted liberal economic policies which fuelled the expansion of business. The results were spectacular, and turned Prague into a thriving industrial and banking centre whose population grew from 146, 418 in 1843 to 514, 345 by the century’s end.2 The migration of peasants from the Czech-speaking countryside driving this population growth shifted the ethnic balance of the capital at a time when national movements were challenging traditional loyalties and creating new societal fault-lines based on language and ethnicity.
The concept of identity has become widespread within the social and behavioral sciences in recent years, cutting across disciplines from psychiatry and psychology to political science and sociology. All individuals claim particular identities given their roles in society, groups they belong to, and characteristics that describe themselves. Introduced almost thirty years ago, identity theory is a social psychological theory that attempts to understand identities, their sources in interaction and society, their processes of operation, and their consequences for interaction and society from a sociological perspective. This book describes identity theory, its origins, the research that supports it, and its future direction. It covers the relation between identity theory and other related theories, as well as the nature and operation of identities. In addition, the book discusses the multiple identities individuals hold from their multiple positions in society and organizations as well as the multiple identities activated by many people interacting in groups and organizations. Finally, it covers the manner in which identities offer both stability and change to individuals. Step by step, the book makes the full range of this powerful new theory understandable.
Previous research has found only modest effects of community size on social psychological characteristics of residents. Focusing on urban experience, I find that urbanism's impact on personality may be stronger than previously thought. For respondents whose urban experience is adequately reflected by available community size measures, community size has strong positive effects on tolerance. Migration also promotes tolerance regardless of size of destination community.