IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v103y2022i4p773-788.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The new culture wars: Why critical race theory matters more than cancel culture

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Kaufmann

Abstract

Background A set of ‘New Culture Wars’ over questions of majority identity protection and free speech have become important in American politics, but have not received attention from empirical political science Objective Compare the relative size of partisan differences on issues of ‘Cancel Culture’ and ‘Critical Race Theory’. Method Logistic regression models using attitudes toward real‐world Cancel Culture and Critical Race Theory examples to predict partisanship. Results Data show that Republican voters are no more likely to fear career consequences or dismissal for speech than Democrats. Republicans are also more opposed to teaching critical perspectives on race and history in schools than they are to employees being fired for dissenting speech within organizations. Strong white identifiers are both more opposed to diversity training which emphasizes white racism and less opposed to firing people for disputed cases of racist or sexist speech. Conclusion Due to the distinctive moral foundations of conservative voters, this paper argues that perceived attacks on white and American identity are a more powerful source of grievance for Republican voters than concerns over freedom of expression. It is hypothesized that the conservative moral foundation of group loyalty helps to explain these findings.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Kaufmann, 2022. "The new culture wars: Why critical race theory matters more than cancel culture," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(4), pages 773-788, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:4:p:773-788
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13156
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13156
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13156?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reny, Tyler T. & Newman, Benjamin J., 2021. "The Opinion-Mobilizing Effect of Social Protest against Police Violence: Evidence from the 2020 George Floyd Protests," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 115(4), pages 1499-1507, November.
    2. Thomas M. Carsey & Geoffrey C. Layman, 2006. "Changing Sides or Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 464-477, April.
    3. Liesbet Hooghe, 2007. "What Drives Euroskepticism?," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(1), pages 5-12, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:373-380 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Ferdik, Frank & Frogge, George & Cooney, Mikaela, 2022. "Exploring further determinants of citizen satisfaction with the police: The role of strain," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    3. Paul Goren & Christopher M. Federico & Miki Caul Kittilson, 2009. "Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 805-820, October.
    4. Mirko Seithe & Lena Calahorrano, 2014. "Analysing Party Preferences Using Google Trends," CESifo Working Paper Series 4631, CESifo.
    5. Kehrberg Jason, 2020. "Authoritarianism, Prejudice, and Support for Welfare Chauvinism in the United States," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 195-212, December.
    6. Kevin Deegan-Krause & Zsolt Enyedi, 2010. "Agency and the Structure of Party Competition: Alignment, Stability and the Role of Political Elites," EUI-RSCAS Working Papers 9, European University Institute (EUI), Robert Schuman Centre of Advanced Studies (RSCAS).
    7. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    8. Arifovic, Jasmina & Eaton, B. Curtis & Walker, Graeme, 2015. "The coevolution of beliefs and networks," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 46-63.
    9. Barbara Gomez‐Aguinaga, 2021. "One Group, Two Worlds? Latino Perceptions of Policy Salience Among Mainstream and Spanish‐Language News Consumers," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 238-258, January.
    10. Christos Mavridis & Orestis Troumpounis & Maurizio Zanardi, 2022. "Protests and Police Militarization," School of Economics Discussion Papers 0122, School of Economics, University of Surrey.
    11. Jamila Michener, 2022. "Race, power, and policy: understanding state anti-eviction policies during COVID-19 [Pandemic politics: Timing state-level social distancing responses to COVID-19]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(2), pages 231-246.
    12. Jonathon P. Schuldt & Adam R. Pearson, 2023. "Public recognition of climate change inequities within the United States," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(8), pages 1-14, August.
    13. Yarrow Dunham & Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand, 2019. "From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 373-380, May.
    14. Gabriel S. Lenz, 2009. "Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(4), pages 821-837, October.
    15. Charlotte Cavaillé & Karine van Der Straeten & Daniel L. Chen, 2023. "Willingness to Say? Optimal Survey Design for Prediction," Working Papers hal-04062637, HAL.
    16. Greg Goelzhauser, 2024. "Constitutional accountability for police shootings," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(1), pages 92-108, March.
    17. Elizabeth U. Cascio & Na'ama Shenhav, 2020. "A Century of the American Woman Voter: Sex Gaps in Political Participation, Preferences, and Partisanship since Women's Enfranchisement," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 24-48, Spring.
    18. Marino De Luca, 2022. "Methods for analysing citizens’ attitudes: a hypothetical Italian referendum about the membership of the European Union as a case study," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(3), pages 1681-1699, June.
    19. Anja Neundorf & James Adams, 2014. "The Micro-foundation of Party Competition and Issue Ownership: The Reciprocal Effects of Citizens' Issue Salience and Party Attachments," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 692, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    20. Shyam Gouri Suresh & Scott Jeffrey, 2017. "The Consequences of Social Pressures on Partisan Opinion Dynamics," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 43(2), pages 242-259, March.
    21. Štěpán Strnad, 2013. "Crisis of the European Union Legitimacy - No European Demos in Sight [Krize legitimity Evropské unie - evropský démos v nedohledu]," Současná Evropa, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2013(1), pages 123-140.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:4:p:773-788. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.