4
phenomena. If so, some pattern of connection between demographic characteristics and attitudes
toward groups (in this case, nonconformist/ extremist groups) should emerge. My argument is
that if the level of intolerance toward particular groups can be shown to be socially determined,
we are right to infer that the prospects of tolerance are also socially determined.
Practically, we cannot really distinguish between a society in which people exercise
tolerance because they are maximally committed to civil liberties, and a society in which no one
hates anybody to the extent of limiting their rights.
Theoretically, commitment to civil liberties is a historical phenomenon endorsed by
modern democracies and it was found de facto varying across countries (e.g., by the ISSP
surveys). The reasons for practicing exclusion of certain groups may shed light on the roots of
this variation.
Closest to my concerns about the prospects of tolerance is the analysis of 1984 GSS data
conducted by Bobo and Licari (1989). They found an impact of education on attitudes, mediated
by the level of cognitive sophistication of the respondents. They used social background
measures as control variables in their research, and these controls showed some asymmetrical
influences, like:
- Wealthier people tend to be less intolerant toward racists than toward left-wing groups.
- Black people tend to be more intolerant toward militarists than toward left-wing groups.
- Urban dwellers tend to be less intolerant toward left-wing groups than toward right-
wing groups.
In addition, Amy Katnik (2002), in her cross-national analysis based on 1996 ISSP
results, found a significant impact of religion and social class on people’s tolerance levels.
Convention