Ethnicity, Religion and Class in Israeli Society

Ben‐Rafael, Eliezer; Sharot, Stephen

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511520600

Cited by 85 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Ben-Rafael and Sharot (1991), "most Israeli Jews will rank their Jewish and Israeli identifications before any subethnic identification based on country or area of origin-and these ethnonational identities have no doubt been reinforced by the protracted conflict of Israeli Jews with Arab countries and with the Arab population in the West Bank and Gaza" (p. 9). Therefore, while ethnic inequality still exists, Ashkenazim and Mizrachim share powerful superordinate identities as Jews and Israelis, and there is a great deal of intermarriage between the two Jewish ethnic groups (Ben-Rafael & Sharot, 1991).…”

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Dominance and Social Identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Derogation?

Levin

Sidanius

1999

Political Psychology

164

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

American and Israeli university students completed questionnaires in their native languages assessing ingroup identification, social dominance orientation (SDO), and ingroup and outgroup affect. The interrelationships among the variables were examined for high-and low-status groups in three intergroup contexts: whites and Latinos in the United States, Ashkenazim and Mizrachim in Israel, and Jews and Arabs in Israel. Theoretical predictions of social identity theory and social dominance theory were tested. Results indicated that for all high-and low-status groups, stronger ingroup identification was associated with more positive ingroup affect, and for nearly all groups, higher SDO was associated with more negative affect toward the low-status group. In addition, SDO was positively associated with ingroup identification for all high-status groups, and negatively associated with ingroup identification for almost all low-status groups. Explanations for cross-cultural differences in the factors driving group affect are suggested, and theoretical refinements are proposed that accommodate them.

show abstract

Section: Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Dominance and Social Identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Derogation?

Levin

Sidanius

1999

Political Psychology

164

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among Jews, the Ashkenazim have been shown to rate somewhat higher than the Mizrachim on similar indices of social status (Ben-Rafael & Sharot, 1991;Kraus, 1982;Smooha & Kraus, 1985). However, the perceived gap in status between the Ashkenazic and Mizrachic Jews is not nearly as large as the status gap between Jews (as a superordinate group) and Arabs (Levin, 1996).…”

Section: Overview Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnic Identity, Legitimizing Ideologies, and Social Status: A Matter of Ideological Asymmetry

Levin

Sidanius

Rabinowitz

et al. 1998

Political Psychology

188

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines the ideological asymmetry hypothesis with respect to the interface between legitimizing ideologies and psychological attachment to one's ethnic group. The ideological asymmetry hypothesis suggests that hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing ideologies should be positively associated with ingroup attachment among high-status groups, but that among low-status groups these associations should be either less positive in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or negative in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The opposite pattern should be found with respect to the interface between hierarchy-attenuating legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment: Among high-status groups these associations should be negative, but among low-status groups these associations should be either less negative in magnitude (isotropic asymmetry) relative to high-status groups or positive in direction (anisotropic asymmetry). The presence of isotropic versus anisotropic asymmetry is hypothesized to depend on the degree of disparity in status between the groups being compared: Wider status gaps should tend toward anisotropic asymmetries. The relationships between legitimizing ideologies and ingroup attachment were compared for (1) relatively high-status ethnic groups (European and Asian Americans) versus relatively low-status ethnic groups (Latinos and African Americans) in the United States, (2) the higher-status Jewish ethnic group (Ashkenazim) versus the lower-status Jewish ethnic group (Mizrachim) in Israel, and (3) the high-status Israeli Jews versus the low-status IsraeliArabs. The data were largely consistent with the ideological asymmetry hypothesis. The implications of these findings are discussed within the theoretical frameworks of social dominance theory and other approaches to intergroup relations.

show abstract

“…The non-ethnic, 'one-nation' leanings of Sephardi Israelis have been widely noted, e.g. Ben-Rafael & Sharot, 1991. Initial studies (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inside the language planner's head: Tactical responses to a mass immigration

Glinert

1995

Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To add a sudden 10% to its population in the form of 0.5 million Soviet migrants, professionalised and wedded to Russian culture, would test any monolingual society. Faced with this, Israel's traditional Hebrew-enforcement policy in the Ingathering of the Diaspora is apparently in retreat. Israel is now officially committing large resources to fostering an immigrant language as a channel of information, education and culture. This study documents and evaluates this policy shift, with particular reference to the procedures and rationales of decision makers themselves. In 1993-94 I conducted interviews across central and local government and quasi-official agencies. Instead of a centralised language policy, I found a multiplicity of individual Russian-language initiatives and creative budgeting within ministries and agencies, made possible by the privatisation of absorption and policy fragmentation. These measures were widely portrayed as an emergency tactic for coping with the scale and alien nature of the influx, while maintaining traditional strategies of hebraisation. Vote-catching and budget-boosting have also played a part, helped by the low level of administrative and public opposition (reflecting the general decline in Hebraic nation-building ideology). This is evidence of a powerful faith in the instrumental motive for acquiring a host language, however low the immigrants' integrative motive may be. However, a positive promotion of Russian culture in some quarters points to changes of a strategic kind.

show abstract

Ethnicity, Religion and Class in Israeli Society

Cited by 85 publications

References 0 publications

Social Dominance and Social Identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Derogation?

Social Dominance and Social Identity in the United States and Israel: Ingroup Favoritism or Outgroup Derogation?

Ethnic Identity, Legitimizing Ideologies, and Social Status: A Matter of Ideological Asymmetry

Inside the language planner's head: Tactical responses to a mass immigration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About