See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/324361609

A cultural approach to patriotism

Article  in  Journal of International and Intercultural Communication · April 2018

DOI: 10.1080/17513057.2018.1454974

CITATION READS

1 687

4 authors, including:

Tina M Harris Kevin Bryant

Louisiana State University University of Southern Mississippi
45 PUBLICATIONS   907 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carrie Reif-Stice
Columbus State University
3 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Racial microaggressions View project

Raced and gendered representations View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tina M Harris on 12 February 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of International and Intercultural
Communication

ISSN: 1751-3057 (Print) 1751-3065 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjii20

A cultural approach to patriotism

Marcus J. Coleman, Tina M. Harris, Kevin L Bryant & Carrie Reif-Stice

To cite this article: Marcus J. Coleman, Tina M. Harris, Kevin L Bryant & Carrie Reif-Stice (2018)
A cultural approach to patriotism, Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 11:3,
173-191, DOI: 10.1080/17513057.2018.1454974

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2018.1454974

Published online: 09 Apr 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 139

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjii20
JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION
2018, VOL. 11, NO. 3, 173–191
https://doi.org/10.1080/17513057.2018.1454974

A cultural approach to patriotism

Marcus J. Colemana, Tina M. Harrisb, Kevin L Bryanta and Carrie Reif-Sticec
a
Communication Studies, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS; bCommunication Studies,
University of Georgia, Athens, GA; cCommunication Studies, Columbus State University, Columbus, GA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This study explores an under-researched phenomenon of how Received 22 February 2016
African Americans communicate about patriotism via ordinary Accepted 4 February 2018
political conversation. We conducted two studies that offer a
KEYWORD
critical-qualitative analysis of how patriotism is colloquially Patriotism; culture; ordinary
articulated among African Americans. In study one, focus group political conversation; ritual
interviews were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed using
constant comparative method. In study two, we conducted a
quantitative content analysis. The findings from study one
revealed that there are three relational conceptualizations that
help characterize one’s orientation to their nation (i.e., community:
subordinate, guardian, and tumultuous). Participants expressed
having an attachment to, identification with, and commitment to
their communities.

Although socio-economic, political, and cultural cleavages within the United States have
been well documented and have produced many inflection points, recent controversies
related to standing (or not) for the National Anthem highlight the symbolic relationship
between African Americans1 and their communities in the United States.2 Not only did it
bring attention to African Americans’ perceptions of American idealism, but it also ampli-
fied the conversation about patriotism. Despite the persistent struggle of African Ameri-
can communities to be engaged civically (i.e., connected), perpetual efforts toward that
end are patriotic, although such a connection between African American cultural and
national identities is rarely, if ever discussed, in those terms. In order to better understand
this relationship, between culture and patriotism, this study was conducted in two parts in
an effort to identify the communicative aspects of the affective connection that African
Americans have to the United States. Moreover, this project is an effort to find general
aspects of African American colloquy related to patriotism through focus groups. We
anticipate that the findings will aid in offering communicative characteristics of
patriotism.
In the following sections, we provide conceptualizations of both patriotism and Black
patriotism, and we explore the theoretical tenets of ordinary political conversation (OPC),
which embraces a communication-centered reconceptualization of patriotism. We also
offer a thorough description of the qualitative method used to conduct our study and a

CONTACT Marcus J. Coleman marcus.coleman@usm.edu Communication Studies, University of Southern Missis-

sippi, 118 College Drive #5131, Hattiesburg, MS
© 2018 National Communication Association
174 M. J. COLEMAN ET AL.

rationale for our quantitative content analysis. In sum, we believe both approaches to data
analysis contribute to the overall importance of our topic and operates as heuristic to
understandings of identity and politics as they relate to the unique experiences of
African Americans in the United States.

Conceptualization of patriotism
Patriotism has primarily been studied from a socio-psychological perspective, with little
attention to a communicative approach (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswkick, Levinson, &
Sanford, 1950; Delamater, Katz, & Kelman, 1969; Huddy & Khatib, 2007; Kosterman &
Feshbach, 1989; Li & Brewer, 2004; Tsai, 2010). By extension, there has been no systematic
assessment of how African Americans communicate about patriotism (Huddy & Khatib,
2007; Parker, 2010; Sullivan, Fried, & Dietz, 1992). Given that most African Americans are
very likely descendants of Africans who were subsequently enslaved throughout the U. S.,
they are a cultural group whose conceptions of, and experiences with, the notion of patri-
otism—a complex phenomenon—are not well understood and oftentimes ignored in
studies on this topic (Wanzo, 2009). On its most basic level, patriotism is defined as
“the degree of love for pride in one’s nation” (Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989, p. 271).
Using the aforementioned socio-historical perspective, we assess how communication is
used to create and maintain constructs that define patriotism, its audience, and how
African Americans fit within that audience. Before we assess African American colloquy
about patriotism, we first consider the theoretical tenets of patriotism.
While the phrase “Love of country” is a colloquial definition for patriotism (Huddy &
Khatib, 2007; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016; Sullivan et al., 1992),
widespread disagreement exists about how to conceptualize patriotism due to the histori-
cal dynamism and dysplasia of American social relations (Davis, 1999; Huddy & Khatib,
2007; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Parker, 2010; Schatz, 1994; Sullivan et al., 1992). In
other words, patriotism, in each of its extant forms, was operationalized and conceptual-
ized from a Eurocentric cultural perspective (Parker, 2010; Sullivan et al., 1992), and one
that does not embody the experiences of racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse citizens
within the United States (Huddy, Sears, & Levy, 2013) or other countries.
Patriotic typology. Adorno et al. (1950) distinguish between genuine patriotism (con-
structive) and pseudopatriotism (blind). The former is described as freedom from cultural
rigidity and imperialism, while the latter is a blind attachment to uncritical conformity and
imperialism. Relatedly, contemporary empirical definitions of these respective forms of
patriotism describe a “rigid and inflexible attachment to country, characterized by unques-
tioning positive evaluation, staunch allegiance, and intolerance of criticism,” and a “ques-
tioning and criticism of certain group practices that are driven by a desire for positive
change” (Schatz, Staub, & Lavine, 1999, p. 153). While these definitions offer some
insight into this intangible phenomenon, tendency exists to operationalize patriotism
from the perspective of political change (Huddy & Khatib, 2007), thus inferring a level
of instability or change over time or circumstance.
Research on patriotism also reveals a relationship between patriotism and nationalism
(Adorno et al., 1950; Huddy & Khatib, 2007; Schatz, 1994; Schatz et al., 1999). Nationalism
is associated with authoritarianism, militarism, and intolerance, while patriotism is associ-
ated with internationalism, diversity, and liberalism (Li & Brewer, 2004). Patriotism in the
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 175

United States is unique due to our lack of common origin and the organic conditions of
democratic development via the constantly shifting subject positions inherent in commu-
nities and communication (Adam, 1990; Carey, 1997).
Patriotism and inclusion. While research on patriotism has been enlightening, find-
ings are limited, as they are not generalizable. They fail to address racial and ethnic diver-
sity that exists within most countries, and in this case the United States. Typically, Black
participants make up less than 15% of the sample in studies that explore patriotism,
whereas Caucasian participants typically represent 90% of study participants, which is
six times the number of Black participants (Delamater et al., 1969; Huddy & Khatib,
2007; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Li & Brewer, 2004). The dearth of African American
people included in empirical research on patriotism does not allow for a comprehensive
appraisal of how African Americans conceptualize patriotism. American identity research
on ethnic and racial minorities suggests that American identity is not ideological (Citrin,
Wong, & Duff, 2001; Huddy & Khatib, 2007). Consequentially, researchers have found
that, regardless of how patriotism is conceptualized (i.e., constructive, symbolic, uncritical,
or as nationalism), African Americans are significantly less patriotic than Caucasians
(Huddy & Khatib, 2007). In sum, patriotic identification, it seems, is not ideological
and racial identity is a significant predictor of it. Existing research implies that African
Americans exhibit significantly less identification with the United States than do Cauca-
sians. While these findings are enlightening and significant, assessing how a racial identity
informs patriotism, is imperative but sadly missing. Thus, research must be conducted that
is inclusive of such diverse ways of conceptualizing patriotism.
Subjectivity and patriotism. In contrast to research that posits a priori categories of the
individual perspectives of national identity, Davis (1999, p. 32) asserted that, “National
identity is a function of emotional attachment and value-laden interpretations, and any
study of the phenomenon should allow individuals to express their ties without restrictive
categories imposed by the researcher.” Davis’ (1999) study helps legitimate a subjective
investigation of individuals’ attachment to their nation. In order to provide an inductive
starting point for the conceptualization of patriotism, we look at how Black patriotism has
been discussed in previous research.

Conceptualization of Black patriotism

Patriotism is emblematic of commonalities and cooperative action, including social
obstacles, common purpose, and heritage, toward achieving goals among people of multi-
ethnic communities (Adam, 1990; Kosterman & Feshbach, 1989; Sekerdej & Roccas,
2016). However, North American patriotism has not been conceptualized with such cul-
tural nuance. Rather, it has been an exclusive designation for Anglo-Americans that is
rarely, if ever, associated with African Americans (Parker, 2010; Sullivan et al., 1992;
Wanzo, 2009; Wilkins, 2002). The scarcity of research on the relationship between patri-
otism and culture that exists results in under-articulated relationships between African
Americans and the United States (Huddy et al., 2013).
This relationship is best understood through the seminal works of scholars Wanzo
(2009) and Wilkins (2002). Wanzo (2009) explored the patriotic identity of African Amer-
icans during World War II via an adaptation of the Captain America comic book series
entitled Truth: Red, White, and Black. Black patriotism, as described by Wanzo (2009,
176 M. J. COLEMAN ET AL.

p. 341), is melancholic, “an existing strand of African American patriotic identity …

resulting from its phantasmagoric nature for many citizens.”
Wanzo’s (2009) description of Black patriotism as melancholic is reflective of experi-
ences particular to African American communities within the United States. This
absence of a true believer rested on the assumption fissures exist between what the
United States espoused and what was possible for African Americans. The time period
chosen by Wanzo provides a glimpse into the highly contentious relationship of
African Americans to the United States prior to the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the
Voting Rights Act (1965).
Conversely, Wilkins’ (2002) work looked at the historical development of African
American nationalistic identity through the actions of the founders of the United
States. Within the text, Wilkins contrasted the founders’ decision-making regarding the
country’s political development with their relationship to the institution of slavery and
their own personal slaves. Jefferson’s Pillow (2002) chronicled the unique positionality
of African Americans in the development of the United States and firmly placed the cre-
ation of America in the hands of all of its inhabitants, from the time of its inception. What
was not apparent in the works of these authors were the communicative principles that
undergird Black patriotism as an ideological stance. Communication-centered works in
this area are important because they allow for a general overview and understanding of
the practical consciousness of African Americans (Marx & Engels, 2011).
Patriotism, communication, and culture. Communication is a building block of patri-
otism. To unpack this notion, we look to Carey’s (1989) cultural conception of communi-
cation via Dewey’s often-quoted assertion that “Society not only continues to exist by
transmission, by communication, but it may fairly be said to exist in transmission, in com-
munication … There is more than a verbal tie between the words common, community, and
communication … ” (Carey, 1989, p. 18). Thus, communication is viewed as inextricable
from commonality and community; so, patriotism should be viewed in a similar vein of
duality of and by transmission. Further, transmission, as message exchange, has historically
been cast as the expressed goal of communication, while less attention has been paid to how
the ritualistic aspects of communication, the symbolic expression of shared beliefs, help
connect disparate individuals and communities (Carey, 1989; Dewey, 1927).
The transmission of messages is contingent on symbolic representations of difference
and relationship, but the organic ritualistic practice of organizing to assert patriotic civility
may be assessed via ordinary political conversation (OPC) described as “talk about
common political subjects within everyday spaces and contexts-entered into casually,
voluntarily, and without specific purposes or agenda” (Wyatt, Katz, & Kim, 2000,
p. 100). Other conceptualizations of conversation involved a focus on rule-governed
formal deliberation (Schudson, 1997) or purposeful argumentation and willingness to
argue (Wyatt et al., 2000). While these are importation dimensions of communication,
they are not our focus of study because they do not address daily colloquy. Thus, our
first research question is designed to explore the political attitudes of African Americans
about patriotism via OPC:
RQ1: Given the historical experiences of African Americans in the United States as a largely
enslaved people, how do African Americans communicate about patriotism via ordinary pol-
itical conversation?
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 177

The attempt to explore patriotism from an African American cultural perspective takes
seemingly antithetical concepts, culture and patriotism, and explores how they fit together.
Thus, we also pose this research question:
RQ2: How do African American individuals colloquially conceptualize patriotism?

Study one
Participants
For this study, purposive sampling was used to recruit African American participants.
Three focus groups were held in rural northeast Georgia, while two focus groups were con-
ducted in the Atlanta metro area, totaling five focus groups. Participants were recruited
through fliers posted in local beauty salons and barbershops. Social media posts on Face-
book and Graduate Student Association listserve at a Southeastern University were also
used to collect responses. Additionally, colleagues from the same university also helped
to recruit participants. The recruitment announcement was posted on the departmental
webpage.
A total of 30 African Americans participated, which includes both a student sample
(n = 18) and a community sample (n = 12). African American men (n = 15) and women
(n = 15) were recruited ranging in age from 18 to 80. All non-student participants were
offered a $10.00 honorarium, while student participants successfully fulfilled their intro-
ductory course research requirement. No extra academic credit or other incentives were
provided. Students were not enrolled in a class with the primary researcher of this study.
Participants came from various income brackets. In addition, participants were of
various education levels, including high school/GED (n = 5); some college (n = 5);
college graduate (B. A./B. S. (n = 11); and post-graduate school (Master’s degree; n = 9).
Thus, each participant had at least a high school diploma or a GED.

Interview guide
Focus groups were conducted using an interview guide with questions about the political
orientation of African Americans toward the United States. The interview protocol included
13 questions designed to create a healthy discussion on Black Patriotism. Questions 1 to 4
engendered discussion among participants on their projections of affiliation with the United
States individually and as a group. Also, their ideas of patriotism, in general, were noted, and
a discussion ensued about African Americans’ perception of patriotism. Questions 5 to 9
generated discussion on the principles Black Patriotism and the association of those patriotic
principles to African Americans. Lastly, questions 10 to 13 fostered discussion about partici-
pants’ political perspectives, including their domestic and foreign policy concerns (e.g., edu-
cation, immigration, taxes, and economics) (See Appendix).

Protocol
We used the constant comparative method (CCM) to analyze 86 pages of data. CCM is
based on categorical clarity and saturation (Glaser, 1965). Three types of coding are used
during CCM: open, axial, and selective (Boeije, 2009; Wahyuni, 2012). Open coding is
178 M. J. COLEMAN ET AL.

described as the disaggregation of the text; axial coding is described as the categorization of
data; and selective coding is described as identification of emergent themes from the system-
atically categorized data. CCM helps answer three essential topics: the variation between
elements, what the objectives of different types of categories are, and the varying types of
comparisons as they relate to each other (Boeije, 2002). This method helped us identify
some commonalities between focus groups that we discuss below.
Relational metaphors emerged as the primary theme from initial read of the data. Par-
ticipants used relational metaphors to describe how participants identify with their nation.
Using axial coding, we identified points in the discussions with the focus groups where
relational metaphor frameworks were explicitly used to describe understandings of patri-
otism. Emergent themes were highlighted, as were the relevant participant speaking turns,
which were then coded by participant and focus group. To identify themes, participants
and then focus groups were compared to each other to identify similar themes. Ultimately,
three emergent relational types were identified: tumultuousness, subordination, and guar-
dianship. Findings are discussed below.3

Results
Relational patriotism
RQ1 asked how African Americans talk about patriotism via OPC in light of the history of
African Americans in this country. Participant narratives’ indicated African Americans
have a deep and abiding love for the United States. When asked about the association
of patriotism with African Americans, routinely, participants would use the most suitable
metaphor they could muster to describe the relationship. Three themes were identified
regarding the relationship between African Americans and the United States: complicated
relationship, parental guidance, and subordination. Responses provided representative
and holistic view of how patriotism manifests itself among African Americans. Customary
of CCM, participants in each focus group did not discuss specific metaphors of patriotism.
Instead, they outlined the tenets of each metaphor as a portion of their respective focus
group conversation.
Complicated relationship. Metaphorical vagueness was apparent in each focus group.
Because participants struggled to associate patriotism with African American commu-
nities, they would use vague metaphors. For example, Dan, a 24-year-old male participant
in focus group one, used metaphors to describe patriotism:
Yes, I am patriotic and the reason that I know that I am patriotic … it’s almost like the
Supreme Court definition of pornography almost … You don’t know what it is, you can’t
define it, but you know it when you see it. And it is the same thing for me with and my patri-
otism … . I would fight for … in the interest for our nation and our flag and I know that the
colors means something to me. So, I can’t define as a specific definition, but I know it when I
see it, I know it when I hear it and I know that it unifies us know matter what race.

Dan’s description captures the essence of the vagueness of patriotism among the partici-
pants. His comparison of patriotism to the Supreme Court’s definition of pornography
calls attention to the legitimacy of both African Americans and patriotism. The difficulty
of describing patriotism was evident throughout all five focus groups. Adrina, a female
participant in focus group two, describes her ambivalent relationship with patriotism:
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 179

I kind of look at it as, um, a complicated relationship. Um, just kind of in terms of the tran-
sition in progress that we’ve made. Um, for instance separate, but equal um … instead of not
having anything … I mean before you weren’t even considered a full American citizen. You
had a value of like 13% of you know like a White counterpart, so it’s kind of like … we’ll give
you this to kind of soothe you over because it’s better than what you have.

Her use of the metaphor, a complicated relationship, helps describe not only her relation-
ship to patriotism, but also the connection between patriotism and being African Amer-
ican. Adrina’s particular utterance demonstrates her ambivalence toward the United
States. Because she assumed that all relational parties were equal, the United States
should show respect toward all citizens. Adrina’s stance indicates that African Americans
should be treated with equal standing among other ethnic groups.
Subordination. This theme can be described in terms of a hierarchical relationship,
where the United States is depicted as an unsuitable parent and African Americans are
cast as disgruntled children. Rory, a 29-year-old participant in focus group one, offers
his perception and understanding of African American patriotism:
I don’t know … It’s kind of like a bad parent, I guess. You know like, you got the parent who
basically provides for you, they’re not the best parent, they do somethings to piss you off, but
at the end of the day, that still you know, the person who kinda makes a way for you, so that
kinda what it sound like what you’re saying. You know um, so you still on that negative thing.
You just don’t agree with everything. That’s how I kinda feel like I don’t know if I put too
much stock in being an American patriot.

Rory suggests that African Americans love a country that does not adequately care for
them, yet they continue to serve its interests despite the inadequacy of the provided
care. He views this parent/child relationship as a negative relational connection which
is not to be severed but corrected.
Parental guidance. Jamie, a 35-year-old male participant of focus group four, addresses
the issue of patriotism using a metaphor of the guardian:
Um, patriotism. … for me, patriotism does not mean an undying commitment to all ideals.
There may be some ideas that you disagree with, but, patriotism is … for me, is having pride
in being American and supporting America in things that you should support America about
but also in being willing to criticize America for things that it should be criticized about
… .You know, sometimes my mother, she is hard, she is hard on her kids and what not
but not because she doesn’t love them, because she loves them so much or what not. But,
patriotism is being willing to support and criticize and to be a part of America and to be
proud of being an American but not necessarily everything that America stands for.
That’s what it is to me.

Jamie does not allow for an absolutist definition of patriotism. Instead, criticism is central
to his view of patriotism in that he thinks it demonstrated a true, possibly unconditional,
love for another (e.g., like a mother/child relationship). Jamie asserts that African Amer-
icans have been placed in the position of a parent and the United States is the child who
needs guidance and critical support. The findings from this thematic analysis highlights
participants view of patriotism as relational.
In response to our explicit inquiry of how African Americans talk about patriotism via
OPC in light of the history of African Americans in this country, we found that vagueness
regarding how African Americans talk about patriotism within their communities may
help provide a rationale for participants’ use of interpersonal relationships as a theoretical
180 M. J. COLEMAN ET AL.

bridge from perception to experience. In order to address RQ2 regarding how African
Americans communicatively conceptualize patriotism, participant-generated relational
categories, such as complicated relationship, subordination, and parental guidance, were
explored.

Study two
Qualitative analysis revealed participant narratives expressing culture-specific elements in
individuals’ relationship to the United States. Generally, patriotism researchers give cre-
dence to cultural identity, which helps mediate the relationship of the individual to
their community, whether sentimental (affective) or instrumental (benefits/rewards;
Kelman, 1969). Delamater et al. (1969) explored the nature of national involvement by
assessing the dimensionality of patriotism by positing three components: symbolic, nor-
mative, and functional. Symbolic involvement is characterized by “strong emotional
investment in the nation and its values, and a positive affect orientation to its symbols”
(Delamater et al., 1969, p. 322). Normative involvement is described as less emotional
than symbolic involvement and tied primarily to the “sanctions attached to national
role expectations as the individual perceives them” (p. 323). Lastly, the functional commit-
ment to one’s nation was dependent on the perceived rewards available from participating
in the system.
Delamater et al.’s (1969) relational categorizations have been the empirical model for
contemporary definitions of diverse forms of patriotism, including constructive, sym-
bolic, uncritical, and nationalism (Davis, 1999; Huddy & Khatib, 2007). Huddy and
Khatib (2007) highlighted the deficiencies in previous conceptualizations and operatio-
nalizations by asserting that ideological bias influences how patriotism has been empiri-
cally evaluated.

Communicative aspects of relational patriotism

Schatz (1994) discussed the affective link between individuals and their nation in relation
to blind patriotism versus constructive patriotism. Schatz also explained that there have
been various aspects of the relationship investigated, such as belongingness, responsibility,
loyalty, and pride. Relational communication was built on communicative aspectives prin-
ciples of interpersonal communication. Relational messages were branded as the core of
interpersonal exchanges and function as an apparatus to identify, command, report, affili-
ate, and define the connection between relational partners (Burgoon & Hale, 1984). As a
consequence, a person’s commitment to their nation may be exhibited through a combi-
nation of various common topoi of interpersonal relationships: immediacy (affection,
trust/receptivity, and similarity/depth), equality, composure, economic valence/task orien-
tation, formality/recognition, and dominance (Burgoon & Hale, 1984; Fiske, 1991). Sub-
sequently, dependent upon a person’s level of relational identification and the evaluative
description of that relationship, the person’s patriotic type (e.g., symbolic, functional, or
normative) may become apparent. This mixture of relational communication, psycho-
social research, and American politics theoretically broadens our capability to see the
interpersonal nuances of patriotism (Brito, Waldzus, Sekerdej, & Schubert, 2011; Fiske,
1991; Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016).
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 181

Method
After completing the thematic analysis of focus group data in study one, a quantitative
content analysis was conducted. Two trained undergraduate researchers analyzed tran-
scripts and divided the information into discrete units of texts. The units were agreed
upon by each student and reviewed by the primary research, who then organized the
1544 discrete units into a coding sheet for coders.

Coding scheme protocol

Based on findings from the previous study, a coding scheme was created using two distinct
measures: the Patriotism/Nationalism Scale (P/NS) and the Relational Communication
Scale (RCS). Using these measures, a coding scheme was constructed to better understand
the cultural elements of African American interpersonal relationships, such as dating
(complicated) relationships, subordination, and guardian relationships. Hecht, Jackson,
and Ribeau’s (2002) work on African American communication was used to define the
elements of each relational type. Finally, statements were crafted that followed the
language of the Patriotism/Nationalism scale.

Measures
Two graduate student coders were trained to assess each unitized focus group utterance.
Krippendorff’s alpha (α), a reliability coefficient used to measure coder’s agreement (Krip-
pendorff, 2010), was used to assess agreement of coders. Coders calculated Krippendorff’s
alpha via statistical package R 3.1.2 (for a full view of reliabilities see Table 1). Convention-
ally, a Krippendorff’s α greater than .80 is desirable (Krippendorff, 2004); however, an α
greater than .667 is acceptable, depending on the basis of the research (Krippendorff,
2012). To calculate Krippendorff’s alpha, coders merged their respective coding sheets
and created “text” files for each message feature category assessed. The reliability scores
for each message feature are as follows: attachment (α = .759), identity (α = .793), commit-
ment (α = .778), attentive (α = .888), resourceful (α = .749), reciprocity (α = .734), racism
(α = .829), education (α = .807), feels included (α = .838), rewarded (α = .874), benefit country
(α = .798), patriotic (α = .816), and not patriotic (α = .714). Categories that did not meet the
level of agreement (α < .667) were not included in this study: spiritual, emotion, gender disad-
vantage, satisfaction, anxious, knowledge, unconditional love, economic and caring.
After identifying which message features were reliable, a binomial test for non-para-
metric data was conducted, using IBM SPSS Statistics 22, on each reliable message
feature to determine if there was a significant difference between the number of positive
and negative statements. Subsequently, a qualitative data analysis software, NVivo 11 was
used, to assess the thematic nuances of each message feature that demonstrated a signifi-
cant difference between positive and negative statements.

Results
Relational models offered by participants may help to communicatively characterize the
affiliation that an individual feels toward their community. For example, a person who
182 M. J. COLEMAN ET AL.

Table 1. Binomial test results for positive colloquy statements indexed by relational type and relational
subcategory.
Category Test statistic Number of observations
Functional (guardianship)
Attachment 5.47 (4.84)*** 94
Attentive .000 (1.658) 11
Benefits Country −6.219 (4.58)*** 84
Resourceful 1.33 (1.87) 14
Symbolic (complicated relationship)
Commitment 5.23 (3.53)*** 50
Reciprocity .505 (.667) 9
Rewarded .055 (1.91) 22
Identity −5.78 (5.09)*** 104
Normative (subordination)
++Racism 10.24 (7.12)*** 203
Education 2.17 (4.61)** 85
++Feels Included 2.49 (5.22)* 109
Combined Positive and Negative Statements −.528 (13.25) 703
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
++Note: Unlike any other relational type and/or category, Normative (subordinate) characterizations, racism and inclusion,
had significantly more negative statements than positive statements.

conceptualizes that they are a part of a tumultuous relationship may communicate charac-
teristics of symbolic affiliation to their community. Further, those who express a guardian
relationship may be prone to have a functional affiliation to their community; however,
those who express a subordinate relationship may be prone to have a normative affiliation
to their community. These categories are not mutually exclusive, which only enhances a
richer understanding of the communicative aspects of patriotism.
As mentioned above, participants were generally positive regarding their relational
orientation to the United States. Of the reliable message features assessed, racism
(p < .001) and inclusion (p = .013) had significantly more negative statements than posi-
tive statements, which were less than or equal to an α level of .05, respectively. Conversely,
participants reported significantly more positive statements regarding the message
features of: attachment (p < .001), identity (p < .001), commitment (p < .001), education
(p < .001), and benefit country (p < .001).
For the purpose of analysis, both positive and negative statements were combined, thus
revealing no significant difference in the overall use of positive statements and negative
statements. More specifically, African Americans engaged in OPC about patriotism
used more negative than positive statements regarding racism and inclusion. Conversely,
African Americans may employ more positive statements regarding attachment to, iden-
tity with, commitment to, emotion toward, knowledge of, education in, and providing
benefits to their communities. To provide a rich description of the findings reported
above, qualitative responses encapsulated within the significant message features of patri-
otism; functional, symbolic, and normative relational statements will be reported below.

Functional relationship
The significant positive communicative aspects of the functional patriotic relationship
characterization are categorized as attachment to and as benefit to and from one’s
nation. These categories help conceptualize the functional elements of African American
colloquy about patriotism.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 183

Attachment. Participants overwhelmingly referred to the United States as home. For

example, Corey, a 32-year-old Black male states, “The first thing that came to my mind
when you said what does the U.S mean to me; I thought home.” Also, others express
attachment to the United States, but with a sense of apprehension and uncertainty
about belonging. For example, Gray, a 59-year-old male states, “as an African American,
I feel like, you know, we contributed so much to this country from the very beginning. I
just think … said, the reason I love my country, that’s why I criticize it every day.” Here, we
ostensibly see an appeal to constructive patriotism.
Benefit. Predominantly, participants outlined several benefits gained from United
States citizenship, included exercising rights and hard work. To illustrate the former,
Karesha, a 37-year-old engineer proudly stated, “when I had a chance to vote for
Obama … you know, in 2008, I exercised that … that right.” Regarding the latter, Pop,
an octogenarian who raised his family in Chicago discusses hard work, “You know,
raise our kids, work hard, uh, do the things that you’re supposed to do and there has
always been obstacles in the way, you know. Now, it’s not to say you can’t overcome
them.” Both participants voiced an idea about being active in their respective commu-
nities. The experiences had by African Americans in their respective communities
points to positive attachment, benefits, and the ability to challenge the status quo; with
the understanding that there are and have always been intentional subversive practices.

Symbolic relationship
The significant positive communicative aspects of the symbolic patriotic relationship character-
ization are categorized as commitment to and identification with one’s nation. These categories
help conceptualize the symbolic elements of African American colloquy about patriotism.
Commitment. Participants’ commitment to the United States is couched in their
support for service members, the national anthem, and other symbols of American
ideals. Although support for the symbols of American idealism is a significant element
of African American colloquy about patriotism, it is tempered. Cheryll, a 36-year-old
female who is raising her family in a southern suburb illustrates this point, “patriotism
is being willing to support and criticize and to be a part of America and to be proud of
being an American but not necessarily everything that America stands for.” Similar to
the sentiment expressed regarding attachment, criticism and support are both central to
the commitment element of colloquial patriotism for her.
Identity. Support for one’s nation is embedded in participants’ identification with the
United States. The most frequently used term provided by participants was that of Amer-
ican. Again, as with each of these categories, there is a sense of disillusionment identifying
as an American. Andrea, a 34-year-old mother of three says, “I mean, I see myself as an
African American … .and I have got to get some viewpoints on that because although my
family history of origin is from Africa, I am not from African, I am a Black American.”
Similarly, Corey states, “It’s like I’m more so proud to be African-American instead of
just American.” So, participants provide their African American cultural bent to American
identification. Further, the significant symbolic aspects of African American colloquial
patriotism are built upon a foundation of pride in one’s national emblems and ideals.
Even so, we must consider that pride places the accomplishments of African Americans,
within the United States, at its core.
184 M. J. COLEMAN ET AL.

Normative relationship
Constructive critique of community practice is a significant piece of African American
conversation about patriotism. As noted in the Results section, this relational category
contained the largest volume of coded statements made by participants. Our findings
suggest that those who view the United States through a normative, that is, subordinate,
relational characterization may express their views about racism and inclusion negatively.
Conversely, those negative statements do not extend to educational opportunity; admit-
tedly, this finding may be skewed due to the economic achievement of the sample.
Taken together, there is much gradation regarding education, race, and inclusion that is
central to the African American experience.
Education. Largely, the normative aspect of African American colloquy about patrio-
tism and education is characterized by opportunity and access. While participants readily
referenced opportunity and access, they revealed that neither had been guaranteed for
their predecessors. Shawn, a 44-year-old software developer states,
And when you understand all of the different opportunities that are out there … and you are
raising your family, you know, to that symbol that you can be all that you can be, so you
know, it sounds cliché, but the fact is that you can be all that you can be.

Shawn’s assumptions regarding the possibility to attain more and to pass it along to
your family is a normative expectation for participants. Thus, opportunity and the
ability to reach your potential are accessible via educational attainment.
Inclusion. Antithetical to our descriptions of functional and symbolic relational aspects
of African American colloquy about patriotism is the ever-present sentiment of separation
within American institutions. Lynn, a 30-year-old teacher described her experience in pre-
dominantly White institutions of learning, “Even in the classroom, we come in and yes we
are the only one, you know the one Black person in a room full of White people, so sub-
consciously we are separating ourselves from that environment.” Further, Bret, is 38-year-
old unemployed financial analyst lamented, “You kind of realize you know we got civil
rights and you still kind of do have that separation between … you see the White
people, they are moving out of the neighborhood and they are going somewhere else.”
The separation inherent in discussion of patriotism by African Americans may be seen
as a desire for more inclusion. As seen from participant statements, institutional and com-
munal separation maim functional and symbolic expressions of African American collo-
quial patriotism.
Race. Participants’ discussion of race is manifold in nature because it undergirds
each dimension of their experience. We identified race as a significant element of par-
ticipant communicative expressions about their community interactions and experi-
ences. In an attempt to characterize racial elements of African American colloquy
about patriotism, we highlight Melina, a 40-year-old college-educated mother of
three who describes her experience within the United States based on neighborliness.
She specifically recalls the neighborhood she and her family lived in when her son
was five years old. Melina states:
We had African American, we had Asian, Hispanic, and Caucasian you know all of us there
… And these kids playing grew up together over the five years that we were there.” She con-
tinues by describing a change that she has seen in the parents, but not the children. The
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 185

White parents would keep their kids away … My son is 15 years old, and we still live next
door to two of the families that when we first moved there and they have a daughter and
a son … They don’t associate with us … they will speak and keep going, but the kids
would come over and play, they would come over and eat dinner … I could send my son
over there, and, you know, after school, but I noticed now that they are 15, 16, and 11
that it’s totally different and I don’t understand why.

Due to having a son who is African American, Melina experienced acceptance, neighbor-
liness, and presumed rejection. Within her collective experience, there are elements of
both functional and symbolic expressions of patriotism; however, she is left wondering
what went wrong. Melina’s experiences demonstrate where race and culture intersect.
Regardless of the divergence in perceptions of how neighbors interact, the practice of com-
munity has been colonized, as it were, by the perception of racial difference.

Discussion
In the face of a history that includes both subjugation and institutional repression that dis-
proportionally encumbers the social, economic, and political ascendance of African Amer-
icans, how do they conceptualize love of one’s country via ordinary political conversation?
Throughout the focus group interviews, respondents struggled to communicate a cogent
definition of patriotism. Participants’ inability to conceptually articulate patriotism high-
lights the dialectical tensions between race and patriotic identity. Frederick Douglass’ 1852
speech commemorating the signing of the Declaration of Independence provides a com-
pelling and quite telling diatribe illustrating a deep skepticism common to African Amer-
ican communities regarding patriotic idealism, he states “Fellow-citizens, above your
national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wail of millions!” (Douglass, 1852).
While the topic of patriotism within African American communities is not a novel concept,
it has not been systematically explored. Although the findings of this qualitative study are not
generalizable, our results provide a deeper understanding of how African Americans may talk
about patriotism. The literature on constructive versus conventional patriotism is couched
within social identity and has been repeatedly verified to be partly shaped by identification
with one’s nation (Adorno et al., 1950; Huddy & Khatib, 2007; Li & Brewer, 2004; Schatz,
1994; Schatz et al., 1999). Regardless, that conceptualization of patriotism has systematically
excluded African Americans from its analysis and therefore experiences that make up a par-
ticularized United States patriotism that cannot be divorced from our unique history.
As previously stated, empirical data continues to show that African Americans conco-
mitantly are significantly less patriotic than their White counterparts, regardless of patrio-
tic characterization, and report significantly lower levels off closeness to and identification
with an American identity (Huddy & Khatib, 2007). Yet, the actions of African Americans
within the United States, historically, have largely been an effort to engage in the ritual of
coming together (Valelly, 2006). From this paradox, a re-imagining of patriotism is
necessary and therefore the voices of African Americans as starting point is appropriate.
What we found was that ought of what the United States should be is not the determinant
of relationship or the lack thereof (Brito et al., 2011; Sekerdej, 2016), but instead relative
disenchantment with the United States is what colors communication about relationship
development between a person and their nation. We do not argue that values and close-
ness (Sekerdej, 2016) are not central to building relationships, but we do seek to reimagine
186 M. J. COLEMAN ET AL.

the terrain of relationships to include the process by which individuals and/or groups
evaluate values and the ability to build closeness, or intimacy, with another, i.e., relational
communication. Communication is commonly defined as the process of reaching mutual
understanding (Duck & Wood, 1995; Hall, 1980; West & Turner, 2010; Wood, 1998).
Within this process of building relationship via communication, self-disclosure is essential
to progressing through stages of relationship building, and by extension, managing the
flow of information (Rosenfeld, 2000; Taylor & Altman, 1968). Nevertheless, we see par-
ticipants in this study disclosing about their community experiences to help illustrate their
bi-lateral relationship to their nation, which denotes how patriotism his conceptualized via
ritual and material practices (Althusser, 1998). Therefore, their expressed disenchantment
emanates from a history within the United States, and may be generally indicative of
human relationships, of a persistent effort to be recognized in the law, in their commu-
nities, in industry, and by their nation.
While most relational characterizations were expressed as positive, some statements
were significantly more negative. When compared to other relational statements, racism
and inclusion appeared at a higher frequency. Similarly, Sniderman and Piazza (2002)
found that perceived discrimination and marginalization are essential characteristics of
the African American political experience. African Americans who seek to belong to a
larger American society and work toward united a community, often face significant
obstacles resulting in disillusionment. The problem with patriotism is not embedded
within the definition, but perceptions of what it represents. For participants, there was
a swift repudiation of uncritical patriotism, also referred to as pseudopatriotism.
Regarding RQ1, participant-generated relational metaphors implicitly cast African
Americans as willing partners, but with an acknowledgement of cultural skepticism.
The complicated relationship denotes that, although, participants perceived both parties
as having the ability to be invested in the relationship, they assert that one party may
be less invested. For participants, America is a country they often feel neglected and
detached from, despite showing love through service and sacrifice. The parental metaphor
was used in two distinct ways, as both guardian and subordinate. Some participants cast
themselves as mature wards of the state responsible for upholding democratic ideals and
principles. Conversely, other participants articulated themselves as having a subordinate
relationship with the government. For these respondents, the United States is responsible
to its citizens and should continually provide new opportunities for advancement.
Because patriotism is recognized as love and service to country, those who expect to be
protected by the government are often demonized for displaying unpatriotic behavior.
Participants’ use of the relational metaphors: complicated (tumultuous), guardian, and
subordinate relationships illustrates their view of how African Americans dramatistically
cast themselves as American patriots.
Regarding RQ2, participant-generated metaphors are used as guides to inform the
quantitative content analysis. Resultantly, we are able to provide communication-specific
categorizations of functional, symbolic, and normative patriotism typologies that lead us
toward a discernable conceptualization of patriotism informed by African American cul-
tural perspectives.
While participants positively talk about the United State, this study suggests that patri-
otism does not mean absolute devotion to the United States (Adorno et al., 1950; Staub,
1991; Schatz, 1994; Schatz et al., 1999; Sekerdej, 2016). Instead, patriotism is a delicate
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 187

negotiation between managing relational disenchantment and affective attachment to

one’s nation. Patriotism is on a continuum of disillusionment. Although this upends tra-
ditional notions of patriotism, our findings indicate that one can be disillusioned and still
be patriotic. Further, not only can one be both disillusioned and patriotic, the findings
suggest that one must be disillusioned, to a degree, to be patriotic. Thus, disillusionment
is a key component of a person’s affective attachment to their nation.
Further, the ritual of relationship building includes both the coming together stages of
relationships and the coming apart stages (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2005). Relational develop-
ment between a person and their nation, i.e., mediated by community experiences, adheres
to stages of interpersonal relational development. Stone, Heen, and Patton (2010) assert
that effectively engaging in difficult conversations can help strengthen a relationship.
Disillusion is inherent to difficult conversations. Further, the inverse of disillusion may
be repression. Andrews (1997, p. 802) addresses how repression can backfire, he states,
the key factors in the literature on repression that account for the positive impact of repres-
sion … are the micro-mobilization context and the temporal location … with repression
being an effective deterrent prior to the emergence of a protest cycle and toward the end
of a protest cycle.

This passage suggests that, although repression can both lead to action and inaction, it has
systematically functioned in ways that are predictable. Andrews’ findings may signal that
disillusion also functions in ways that are systematically predictable. Thus, leading us to
ask, in the context of assessing love of one’s country, “At what point does disenchantment
lead to more intimacy?”
The sample for this project only included African Americans and did not assess the
community stories of other races or ethnicities. As such, the decision to limit our focus
to this particular microculture simultaneously highlights African American experiences,
while disallowing comparison to other ethnic perspectives. While some may view this
as a limitation of our study, we view it as a strength, as it showcases the experiences
that many African Americans have as they attempt to manage, negotiate, and understand
the intersectionality of their racial and national identities. By diversifying participants and
directing attention to their cultural experiences as citizens, we contribute to scholarship by
drawing a conceptual roadmap that aids in operationalizing a relational patriotism that
illuminates the communal experiences of African American participants that assumes
that their experiences are American experiences.

Conclusion
As the current literature stands, community and relationships are not notions that are
central to typical conceptualizations of patriotism (Bar-Tal, 2000; Schatz, 1994; Staub,
1991). The findings from our study suggest that the use of such metaphors introduces a
more inclusive and diverse approach to understanding the various microcultural groups
that make up the citizenry of the U. S. The narratives that unfolded during the focus
groups reflected an association between OPC and patriotism, which is a unique finding
that is unique to African Americans. As Grossberg (1992) noted, the communicative
nature of patriotism is characterized by the active occupation of certain political, social,
and economic positions within a non-arbitrary constellation of experiences. This
188 M. J. COLEMAN ET AL.

observation was further supported by our results, in that participants revealed markedly
different experiences with the U. S. in the efforts to describe and explain what it means
to be patriotic or to espouse patriotism. More specifically, the narratives from the inter-
views and focus groups offer evidence that the nation’s history of and individual experi-
ences with systemic oppression undoubtedly have a direct impact on how African
Americans make sense of their place in the local communities and in the nation. By exten-
sion, this identity negotiation process ultimately informs what they think and how they
actively participate (or not) in their communities, which is inherently a form of civic
engagement, i.e., political communication. As a theoretical and practical extension of pre-
vious works on patriotism, this research highlights the lack of empirical research and
social commentary concerning patriotism among African Americans.
Using both a qualitative and quantitative approach to understanding patriotism has
revealed the importance that African American participants in this study place on
being a part of (and connected to) a collectivistic culture. A sense of belonging was a
strong desire that many participants recognized as being at the center of how they
connect to the United States. Additionally, what became quickly apparent from our inter-
actions with participants was that they filter patriotism through their community experi-
ences. By reconceptualizing patriotism from a more inclusive cultural perspective, there
may be justification for an operationalization of patriotism as relational, subordinate,
tumultuous, or guardian, while employing a community-level perspective regarding
attachment to, identification with, and love for one’s nation.

Notes
1. African American and Black, as racial labels will be used interchangeably.
2. American football player and quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, Colin Kaepernick,
refused to stand for the National Anthem during a pre-season football game in protest of
police brutality against Black bodies and in solidarity with Black Lives Matter. Subsequently,
President Donald J. Trump has labeled those who kneel or refuse to stand for the National
Anthem as unpatriotic. His refusal to stand led to other high-profile athletes participating in
silent protests across professional sports leagues. Colin Kaepernick was not the first member
of a professional sports league to refuse to stand for the National Anthem; rather, it was pro
basketball player Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf of the Denver Nuggets who was the first to take a
political stance in this manner. Abdul-Rauf was suspended in 1996 for refusing to stand
for the United States of American National Anthem and willingly risked the $31,707 fine
from the NBA. He had the support of the players union and reportedly “quickly reached a
compromise with the league that allowed him to stand and pray with his head down
during the anthem” (Washington, 2016).
3. Participant names were changed to pseudonyms for protection of participant confidentiality.

References
Adam, H. (1990). Exclusive Nationalism versus inclusive patriotism: State ideologies for divided
societies. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 3(4), 569–587. https://
doi.org/10.1080/13511610.1990.9968234
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswkick, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, N. (1950). The authoritarian
personality. New York: Harper.
Althusser, L. (1998). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 189

Andrews, K. T. (1997). The impacts of social movements on the political process: The civil rights
movement and black electoral politics in Mississippi. American Sociological Review, 800–819.
Bar-Tal, D. (2000). Shared beliefs in a society: Social psychological analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Boeije, H. (2002). A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis of
qualitative interviews. Quality and Quantity, 36(4), 391–409. https://doi.org/10.1023/
A:1020909529486
Boeije, H. R. (2009). Analysis in qualitative research (1st ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Brito, R., Waldzus, S., Sekerdej, M., & Schubert, T. (2011). The contexts and structures of relating to
others: How memberships in different types of groups shape the construction of interpersonal
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(3), 406–432. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0265407510384420
Burgoon, J. K., & Hale, J. L. (1984). The fundamental topoi of relational communication.
Communication Monographs, 51(3), 193–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758409390195
Carey, J. W. (1989). A cultural approach to communication. In Communication as culture; Essays
on media and society (pp. 13–36). Boston, MA: Uwin Hyman.
Carey, J. W. (1997). The Chicago School and the history of mass communication research. In E. S.
Munson & C. A. Warren (Eds.), James Carey: A critical reader (1st ed., pp. 14–33). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Citrin, J., Wong, C., & Duff, B. (2001). The meaning of American national identity: Patterns of
ethnic conflict and consensus. In R. D. Ashmore, L. Jussim, & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social identity,
intergroup conflict, and conflict reduction (pp. 71–100). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Davis, T. C. (1999). Revisiting group attachment: Ethnic and national identity. Political Psychology,
20(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00136
Delamater, J., Katz, D., & Kelman, H. C. (1969). On the nature of national involvement: A prelimi-
nary study. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 13(3), 320–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/
002200276901300303
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: H. Holt and Company.
Douglass, F. (1852). The meaning of July fourth for the negro. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/
wgbh/aia/part4/4h2927t.html
Duck, S., & Wood, J. T. (Eds.). (1995). Confronting relationship challenges (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Fiske, A. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations:
Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing. New York: Free Press.
Glaser, B. G. (1965). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Social Problems, 12
(4), 436–445. https://doi.org/10.2307/798843
Grossberg, L. (1992). We gotta get outta this place: Popular conservatism and postmodern culture.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/Decoding. In Stuart Hall, & Dorothy Hobson (Eds.), Culture, Media,
Language; Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972–79 (pp. 128–138). London: Hutchinson & Co.
Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L., & Ribeau, S. A. (2002). African American relationships and cultural
identity negotiation. In African American communication: Exploring identity and culture (2nd
ed., pp. 179–225). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.
Huddy, L., & Khatib, N. (2007). American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement.
American Journal of Political Science, 51(1), 63–77. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.
00237.x
Huddy, L., Sears, D. O., & Levy, J. S. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of political psychology:
Second edition (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kelman, H. C. (1969). Patterns of personal involvement in the national system: A social-psychologi-
cal analysis of political legitimacy. In J. N. Rosenau (Ed.), International politics and foreign policy
(Revised, pp. 276–288). New York: The Free Press.
Knapp, M. L., & Vangelisti, A. L. (2005). Relationship stages: A communication perspective.
Interpersonal Communication and human relationships, 36–49.
Kosterman, R., & Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic attitudes.
Political Psychology, 10(2), 257–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791647
190 M. J. COLEMAN ET AL.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis. Human Communication Research, 30(3),

411–433. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00738.x
Krippendorff, K. (2010). On communicating: Otherness, meaning, and information. New York:
Routledge.
Krippendorff, K. (2012). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (3rd ed.). Los
Angeles; London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Li, Q., & Brewer, M. B. (2004). What does it mean to be an American? Patriotism, nationalism, and
American identity after 9/11. Political Psychology, 25(5), 727–739. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.
00395.x
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2011). The German ideology, including theses on Feuerbach (Paperback ed.).
Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
NVivo (11.0) [Computer software]. http://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo/nvivo-products/nvivo-
11-for-windows
Parker, C. S. (2010). Symbolic versus blind patriotism: Distinction without difference? Political
Research Quarterly, 63(1), 97–114.
Rosenfeld, L. B. (2000). Overview of the ways privacy, secrecy, and disclosure are balanced in
today’s society. Balancing the secrets of private disclosures, 3–18.
Schatz, R. T. (1994). On being a good American: Blind versus constructive patriotism (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University Microfilms International, Amherst, CT.
Schatz, R. T., Staub, E., & Lavine, H. (1999). On the varieties of national attachment: Blind versus con-
structive patriotism. Political Psychology, 20(1), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00140
Schudson, M. (1997). Why conversation is not the soul of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass
Communication, 14(4), 297–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295039709367020
Sekerdej, M., & Roccas, S. (2016). Love versus loving criticism: Disentangling conventional and
constructive patriotism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(3), 499–521. https://doi.org/10.
1111/bjso.12142
Sniderman, P. M., & Piazza, T. L. (2002). Black pride and black prejudice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
SPSS Statistics (22.0) [Computer software]. https://www.ibm.com/analytics/data-science/
predictive-analytics/spss-statistical-software
Staub, E. (1991). Blind versus constructive patriotism: Moving from embeddedness in the group to critical
loyalty and action. Presented at the International Society for Political Psychology, Helskinki.
Stone, D., Heen, S., & Patton, B. (2010). Difficult conversations: How to discuss what matters most.
New York, NY: Penguin Random House.
Sullivan, J. L., Fried, A., & Dietz, M. G. (1992). Patriotism, politics, and the presidential election of
1988. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 200–234. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111430
Taylor, D. A., & Altman, I. (1968). Communication in interpersonal relationships: Social pen-
etration processes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 75(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224545.1968.9712476
Tsai, S. W.-H. (2010). Patriotic advertising and the creation of the citizen-consumer. Journal of
Media and Communication Studies, 2(3), 076–084.
Valelly, R. M. (Ed.). (2006). The Voting Rights Act: Securing the ballot. Landmark Events in U.S.
History Series. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Wahyuni, D. (2012). The research design maze: Understanding pardigms, cases, methods and
methodologies. Journal of Applied Management Accounting Research, 10(1), 69–80.
Wanzo, R. (2009). Wearing hero-face: Black citizens and melancholic patriotism in Truth: Red,
White, and Black. The Journal of Popular Culture, 42(2), 339–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1540-5931.2009.00683.x
Washington, J. (2016, September 1). Still no athem, still no regrets for Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf. The
Undefeated. Retrieved from https://theundefeated.com/features/abdul-rauf-doesnt-regret-
sitting-out-national-anthem/
West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2010). Understanding interpersonal communication: Making choices in
changing times. Boston: Cengage Learning.
 JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND INTERCULTURAL COMMUNICATION 191

Wilkins, R. W. (2002). Jefferson’s Pillow: The founding fathers and the dilemma of Black Patriotism.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Wood, J. T. (1998). But I thought you meant--: misunderstandings in human communication.
Mountain View, CA: McGraw-Hill Humanities, Social Sciences & World Languages.
Wyatt, R. O., Katz, E., & Kim, J. (2000). Bridging the spheres: Political and personal conversation in
public and private spaces. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 71–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1460-2466.2000.tb02834.x

Appendix

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
Facilitator:

First, let me begin by thanking you for your participation in this very important study. Your insight is
most appreciated. For the next 30–60 minutes I will be asking you a series of questions about your
experience with American foreign policy in general and African-American patriotism in particular. If
at any point you are unclear about a question, feel free to ask for clarification. If there is a question
asked that you do not wish to answer, you are free to cease your participation. The questions are
designed to create healthy discussion on the topic of African-American patriotism.

1. What does the United States of America mean to you? What does it mean to be an American?
2. What kind of conversations do you have with family, friends, and colleagues/peers about your
relationship with America?
3. How would you describe the African-American community’s relationship with the US, in
general? How do you speak about yourself as an African-American in relationship to being
American?
4. What does it mean to be a black nationalist? In what ways is it a realistic stance to put into
practice as an African-American community?
5. How would you define patriotism? Do you consider yourself an American patriot? Why or why
not?
6. Do you associate African-Americans with patriotism? Why or why not? In your opinion, how
do you describe the patriotism of African-Americans?
7. What significance, political, economic, social, or otherwise, do you see in the election of the
first African-American President of the US? What kinds of conversations have you had
that have been extremely important to you that have shaped your political and cultural
identities?
8. What impact, if any, will it have on race relations in the US?
9. Specifically what impact, if any, will it have on African-American’s relationship with the US?
10. As a group, how would you rank these political issues in their level of importance to you? (Are
you going to have each person share their ranking? Or will you just ask them to explain what
they believe is their primary? With 6–8 people, this might get messy.

Education
Immigration
Economics
GWOT (Global War on Terror)
Taxes

11. Why have you chosen to rank these issues this way?
12. Probe on GWOT (Global War on Terrorism)

Is there anything else you would like to add that has not been discussed?

View publication stats