Mershon International Studies Review 

About: Mershon International Studies Review is an academic journal. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Politics & International relations. It has an ISSN identifier of 1079-1760. Over the lifetime, 187 publications have been published receiving 3712 citations.

Nationalism, patriotism, and group loyalty: A social psychological perspective

Abstract: The purpose of this essay is to introduce the reader to a social psychological perspective on the roots of nationalism. At its heart is the description of how individuals develop feelings about and attachments to groups-how they build loyalty to groups. The review explores how such loyalty can lead to hostile reactions to other groups, can become translated into stereotypes that are shared by individuals, can shape the collective behavior of groups, and can help differentiate the multiple groups that define any political environment. At a time when ethnic nationalism seems insurgent and capable of pushing much of the world into chaos and war, there is increased need both to understand and to learn how to cope with the conditions that promote such extreme group loyalty. While each of the social sciences has something to say about nationalism, social psychologists have, over the years, contributed, in often neglected ways, to our knowledge about the roots of nationalism. Specifically, they have explored the factors that arouse feelings of group loyalty when such group loyalty promotes hostility toward other groups; how cross-cutting or multiple loyalties can change the face of nationalism; and how individual group loyalties influence and shape collective behavior. It is the purpose of this article to discuss this literature and show its relevance to what is happening in the postCold War world. Focusing their attention primarily on individuals and small interacting groups, social psychologists have sought basic knowledge about the ways in which people relate to groups and nations. Central to this focus is the role played by feelings of loyalty to groups and the conditions that arouse or reduce attachments. While relying largely on data from laboratory experiments and surveys of college students, the results are relevant to a wide variety of situations and populations. Whether or not the findings have such broad implications depends on the conditions under which we can reasonably draw conclusions from them about the behavior of national aggregates. It may be that the phenomena do, in fact, aggregate directly from the individual to the collective much as votes can be aggregated. Or, we may be able to make a strong analogy between the behavior of individuals and small groups, on the one hand, and that of leaders, social movements, and whole national populations on the other. We will use both approaches and consider some of the implications of such issues as we review the research.

Broadening the Agenda of Security Studies: Politics and Methods

Abstract: The field of security studies has been the subject of considerable debate in recent years. Attempts to broaden and deepen the scope of the field beyond its traditional focus on states and military conflict have raised fundamental theoretical and practical issues. Yet, adherents to the prevailing neorealist approach to security studies have often reacted to these challenges in ways that preclude a recognition of the issues raised by alternative understandings. An examination of the debates over "rethinking security" in particular reveals an unfortunate tendency to foreclose debate between scholars taking critical and neorealist approaches. Coming to terms more fully with the foundations of these debates allows both a better view of the positions within the field and a clearer assessment of their relevance for understanding the dynamics of contemporary security.

In Search of Democratic Peace: Problems and Promise

Abstract: This essay reviews the growing literature on the democratic peace. It assesses the evidence on whether democracies are more peaceful and, if so, in what ways. This assessment considers the match and mismatch among the data, methods, and theories generally used in exploring these questions. The review also examines the empirical support for several explanations of the democratic peace phenomenon. It concludes with some observations and suggestions for future research.

Foreign Policy Analysis Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

Abstract: The catalytic shock of the end of the Cold War and the apparent inability of international relations (IR) theory to predict this profound change have raised questions about how we should go about understanding the world of today. Our inherited tools and ways of describing the international arena seem not to work as well as they once did. To explain and predict the behavior of the human collectivities comprising nation-states, IR theory requires a theory of human political choice. Within the study of IR, foreign policy analysis (FPA) has begun to develop such a theoretical perspective. From its inception, FPA has involved the examination of how foreign policy decisions are made and has assumed that human beings, acting individually or in collectivities, are the source of much behavior and most change in international politics. This article reviews the field of foreign policy analysis, examining its research core and its evolution to date. The overview also looks forward, pointing to the future, not only of FPA itself, but to the implications that future developments in FPA may have for the study of international relations.

Defining the American Public Opinion/ Foreign Policy Nexus

Abstract: This article provides an overview of a broad range of literatures in the development of a framework that specifies the role of public opinion in U.S. foreign policy. Normally, public opinion is latent on foreign policy issues with decision makers only concerned about the potential activation of popular interest. In the absence of public activation, officials feel free to act. The framework proposes the conditions under which public opinion will become activated. To activate the public, foreign policy issues must receive major media coverage in terms that are compatible with public frames of reference. Such media coverage is usually generated by elite debate. Typically, the media present positions articulated by government officials; however, when high-credibility expert commentators dissent from the government position, policymakers seek to enlist public support. When credible elites defect, government efforts to manage public opinion become increasingly problematic.