identification among the various American Indian peoples. Ideological differences are also in evidence. African Americans are difficult to pinpoint ideologically because they may be liberal on government involvement in certain areas but conservative on some social issues. Mexican Americans are just as likely to be moderate as conservative, while Cubans are conservative on foreign policy issues but somewhat liberal on some social issues. Asian Americans are more conservative on economic issues but liberal on many social issues. Consequently, it should be recognized that generalizations developed from the study of urban African Americans should not be expected to hold for southwestern Mexican Americans. Moreover, it should not be assumed that a scholar whose specialty is black politics is automatically an authority on Latino politics, or vice versa.
The first edition of this book, published in 1983, did not contain a chapter on racial minority group politics. Our task for this edition, therefore, necessitated the reconstruction of the history as well as a delineation of current themes and directions prevailing in each field. Projecting into the future, what would we expect this chapter to contain and how would it be structured in the third edition?
First, we anticipate that the developments in each field, particularly black and Latino politics, will require separate chapters, clearly signifying their acceptance by the discipline. Second, some of the questions currently plaguing the fields will have been resolved, but in keeping with the dynamism of the areas, new ones will have surfaced. For instance, scholars in black politics will once again seriously question the appropriateness of traditional political science explanations for the political attitudes and behaviors of African Americans. Latino politics will no longer suffer from lingering concerns about legitimacy, and inter-group political differences will be more sharply focused. Many more scholars will focus on the politics of American Indian peoples but, heeding the mistakes made by anthropologists, will approach the subject from frameworks that account for the uniqueness of the situation of Indian peoples in the United States. In addition, the "model minority" paradigm in Asian- American politics will have gone the way of the ethnic politics approach in black politics.
Finally, and most importantly, the chapters in the third edition will, we hope, no longer talk about the small numbers of minority political scientists in political science generally and the even smaller number writing in the various areas specifically. For it is our hope that the numbers of black, Latino, American Indian, and Asian- American political scientists, expecially females, will increase as the discipline's recognition and commitment to the study of the politics of America's racial minority groups grow.
We would like to thank Steven Tauber, research assistant in the Woodrow Wilson Department of Government and Foreign Affairs at the University of Virginia, for his invaluable assistance in locating much of the research referenced in this chapter.
Abramson, Paul R. 1972. "Political Efficacy and Political Trust Among Black School Children." Journal of Politics 34:1243-1275.
Abramson, Paul R. 1977. The Political Socialization of Black Americans: A Critical Evaluation of Research on Efficacy and Trust. New York: Free Press.
Acuna, R. 1981. Occupied America: A History of Chicanos. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row.
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: Political Science:The State of the Discipline II. Contributors: Ada W. Finifter - Author. Publisher: American Political Science Association. Place of publication: Washington, DC. Publication year: 1993. Page number: 271.