Princeton Conference on Identity and Inequality
|
Friday, October 16, 2015
The conference brings together political scientists who study processes of inequality and identity involving class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or religion in American or comparative contexts. |
|
Location
016 Robertson Hall (lower level) (only those who have pre-registered and received email confirmation of registration may attend)
Princeton University Princeton, New Jersey 08544-1013 Parking
Mass transit is a much preferred way to get to the Princeton University campus, as parking is extremely limited. NJ Transit (Northeast Corridor line) stops at Princeton Junction, allowing visitors to either grab a taxi to campus from there or to transfer to the "Dinky" Princeton station (about a 15-20 minute walk across campus to Robertson Hall). One-day Visitor Parking Visitors coming to campus on weekdays from 8 am to 5 pm may park in Lot 21, near Jadwin Gym or the visitor parking area in Lot 23, near the West Garage. TigerTransit operates frequently from both locations during weekdays until early evening. There is 10 hour metered parking along (part of) Prospect Street and William Street on either side of Robertson Hall, but these spots are generally taken by early morning. |
Ismail White, The George Washington University:
Black by Popular Demand: A Social Accountability Model of Black Political Unity (with Chryl Laird)
In this paper we depart from the shared/linked fate model of black political behavior. We argue that because there exist such clear and common understandings of in-group expectations for the political behavior of blacks (well-established group norms of support for the Democratic party and opposition to the Republican party) and of likely social consequences for defection from the group norms, the political behavior of individual blacks might best be understood as conformity to perceptions of how one is expected to behave politically as a black person (or injunctive norms of black political behavior). We evaluate this expectation through a series of behavioral experiments that offer black subjects individual incentives to defect from the position most favored by black Americans as a group, we test the effects of social pressure to conform. We find that racialized social pressure and internalized beliefs in group solidarity are constraining, and depress self-interested behavior. Our results speak to a common conflict—choosing between maximizing group interests and self-interest—and also offer insight into how blacks remain so homogeneous in partisan politics despite their growing ideological and economic variation.
Discussant: LaFleur Stephens, Princeton University
Thad Dunning, UC Berkeley:
Race, Resources, and Representation: Evidence from Brazilian Politicians (with Natalia Bueno)
Abstract: What explains the persistence of racial or ethnic inequalities in political representation, in the absence of strongly politicized racial or ethnic cleavages? The racial divergence between Brazilian citizens and elected politicians is puzzling, given Brazil's alleged "racial democracy," the presence of non-white majorities in some regions of the country, and electoral institutions that should be favorable to racial inclusiveness. This paper uses new, original data to document for the first time the size of this racial representational gap and tests several alternative explanations for it. First, using an experiment in which we varied at random the race and class background of faux candidates for city council, we find some class effects but no discernible effects of candidates' race on voters' preferences, suggesting that race-related preferences are unlikely to account for failures of descriptive representation. Next, we use a regression-discontinuity design and other methods to explore and reject several possible institutional explanations for the gap. Instead, we document the importance of resource disparities between whites and non-whites -- especially differences in personal assets and in campaign contributions -- and highlight the persistence of long-lived political families among the white elite, especially in the Brazilian northeast. Our evidence suggests how the power of racial minorities may persist in democracies, even in the absence of racialized politics.
Discussant: Rafaela Dancygier, Princeton University
Taeku Lee, UC Berkeley:
Identity, Inequality, and the Paradoxes of “Asian American”
Abstract: Asian Americans occupy a defined and by now established corner of America’s “ethnoracial pentagon.” Yet mention “inequality” or “identity” and “Asian American” is unlikely to come to mind. In fact, kindle what we think we know about Asian Americans and the light shines on their putative heights of educational and socioeconomic achievement or it shimmers on the dizzying within-group diversity that calls to question the very coherence of the pan-ethnic category itself. These allegedly defining characteristics, however, obscure what is analytically informative about Asian Americans—namely, that they pose puzzles and paradoxes that force our rethinking of established understandings of inequality, identity, and their relation to politics writ large. The paper synthesizes empirical findings that illustrate these paradoxes in the areas of group consciousness, political participation, party identification, socioeconomic mobility, and the like. It then considers how identity and inequality operate in three different group definitions of “Asian American”: “Korean American” as a case of within-group variation; “Asian” and “woman” as an intersectional identity; “Asian” and “other” as a liminal form of mixed race identity. The paper concludes with implications for further analysis of Asian Americans as a “critical case” for the study of identity and inequality.
Discussant: Ali Valenzuela, Princeton University
Identity, Inequality, and the Paradoxes of “Asian American”
Abstract: Asian Americans occupy a defined and by now established corner of America’s “ethnoracial pentagon.” Yet mention “inequality” or “identity” and “Asian American” is unlikely to come to mind. In fact, kindle what we think we know about Asian Americans and the light shines on their putative heights of educational and socioeconomic achievement or it shimmers on the dizzying within-group diversity that calls to question the very coherence of the pan-ethnic category itself. These allegedly defining characteristics, however, obscure what is analytically informative about Asian Americans—namely, that they pose puzzles and paradoxes that force our rethinking of established understandings of inequality, identity, and their relation to politics writ large. The paper synthesizes empirical findings that illustrate these paradoxes in the areas of group consciousness, political participation, party identification, socioeconomic mobility, and the like. It then considers how identity and inequality operate in three different group definitions of “Asian American”: “Korean American” as a case of within-group variation; “Asian” and “woman” as an intersectional identity; “Asian” and “other” as a liminal form of mixed race identity. The paper concludes with implications for further analysis of Asian Americans as a “critical case” for the study of identity and inequality.
Discussant: Ali Valenzuela, Princeton University
Shana Kushner Gadarian: Complex Interactions: Candidate Race, Sex, Electoral Institutions, and Voter Choice (with Melody Crowder-Myer, Jessica Trounstine, and Kau Vue)
Despite an enormous amount of research on the connection between electoral systems
and the representation of underrepresented groups, we still do not have a clear understanding of
what systems positively or negatively affect representation for women and racial and ethnic
minorities. Existing scholarship has been unable to determine exactly how institutions and
representation are linked because insufficient attention has been paid to the mechanisms through
which district or at-large elections influence electoral outcomes. Using two experiments we find
that women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to win elections than white men
overall. However, both types of candidates are disadvantaged in elections that feature more than
two candidates. We argue that this is a result of the complexity of the task facing voters in multicandidate
races.
Discussant: Ben Newman, University of Connecticut
Despite an enormous amount of research on the connection between electoral systems
and the representation of underrepresented groups, we still do not have a clear understanding of
what systems positively or negatively affect representation for women and racial and ethnic
minorities. Existing scholarship has been unable to determine exactly how institutions and
representation are linked because insufficient attention has been paid to the mechanisms through
which district or at-large elections influence electoral outcomes. Using two experiments we find
that women and racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to win elections than white men
overall. However, both types of candidates are disadvantaged in elections that feature more than
two candidates. We argue that this is a result of the complexity of the task facing voters in multicandidate
races.
Discussant: Ben Newman, University of Connecticut
Dara Strolovitch, Princeton University:
Policy Biteback: Self-Undermining Rhetoric and the Queer Politics of Same-Sex Marriage (with Adam Levine and Andrew Proctor)
Among the two most common -- and many argue, most persuasive -- frames used by advocates for same-sex marriage and LGBT rights more generally are “equality” frames and “normalcy” frames. But while these may be the most compelling frames through which to persuade members of the mostly straight mass public to support same-sex marriage, each one is also at odds with some aspects of the self-image and political commitments of many members of the LGBT community. As a consequence, although LGBT people themselves overwhelmingly support the legalization of same-sex marriage in the abstract, the political rhetoric that has made it possible may lead the very set of people who are the intended targets of the policy to resist it in practice. Using new data from a survey experiment that includes an over-sample of LGBT respondents, we examine whether normalcy and equality frames increase support for same-sex marriage among heterosexuals while also dampening some LGBT people’s desire to actually take advantage this new right themselves.
Discussant: Pat Egan, New York University
Policy Biteback: Self-Undermining Rhetoric and the Queer Politics of Same-Sex Marriage (with Adam Levine and Andrew Proctor)
Among the two most common -- and many argue, most persuasive -- frames used by advocates for same-sex marriage and LGBT rights more generally are “equality” frames and “normalcy” frames. But while these may be the most compelling frames through which to persuade members of the mostly straight mass public to support same-sex marriage, each one is also at odds with some aspects of the self-image and political commitments of many members of the LGBT community. As a consequence, although LGBT people themselves overwhelmingly support the legalization of same-sex marriage in the abstract, the political rhetoric that has made it possible may lead the very set of people who are the intended targets of the policy to resist it in practice. Using new data from a survey experiment that includes an over-sample of LGBT respondents, we examine whether normalcy and equality frames increase support for same-sex marriage among heterosexuals while also dampening some LGBT people’s desire to actually take advantage this new right themselves.
Discussant: Pat Egan, New York University
|
Panel Discussion of New Research Ideas and Collaborations
Kanchan Chandra, New York University Chris Achen, Princeton University |
|
Contact Us |
For questions about accessibility or to request accommodations, please contact Michele Epstein at 609-258-6493. Two weeks advance notice will allow us to provide seamless access.
|
2015 Princeton Conference on Identity and Inequality
|
This conference is in collaboration with IPRG (Identity Politics Research Group) and co-sponsored by Princeton's Center for the Study of Democratic Politics (CSDP), Bobst Center for Peace and Justice, and Princeton Research in Experimental Social Sciences (PRESS)
|
