Each racial and ethnic group has a set of normative characteristics which, in addition to its more purely racial characteristics distinguish it from other groups. In turn, differences in normative characteristics between racial and ethnic groups can be qualitatively ranked according to how functional they are. That is to say, certain norms will be more conducive to the construction and maintenance of a high level of civilization, and these norms will be more characteristic of some groups than others. And, differences in normative characteristics between racial and ethnic groups are most responsible for the different levels of success that these groups enjoy in the same society, and for the different levels of success between societies which have different racial and ethnic compositions. This is a normative argument, as opposed to a racial argument.  The only alternative to this argument would be a racial argument, or an argument which suggests that racial differences per se are responsible for different levels of success.

The fact that norms rather than racial characteristics are mainly responsible for the different levels of success that the different racial and ethnic groups have been able to achieve suggests that certain remediation efforts might be successful, namely, education. In fact, the conventional wisdom holds that education has the ability to improve the norms of groups which are relatively less functional, or that it has the ability to bring all in society up to a certain level of success and achievement. However, this is a false assumption. Because of their pre-existing norms (whether due to culture, history, or inherent characteristics tied to race does not matter), different racial and ethnic groups will be either more or less likely to place a high value education in the first place. Consequently, some groups will be more resistant to the normalizing and leveling influence of education than others, even under conditions in which there is mandatory education for all groups in a society. Thus, dysfunctional norms that are more characteristic of certain racial or ethnic groups will tend to persist in these groups from one generation to the next.

So that there will be no misunderstanding, I will say it even more explicitly, and in terms that might not be as politically correct. This nation became great largely because of the normative characteristics of the dominant group, or because a group with certain normative characteristics (i.e. Europeans) was the "major" group, if you don't like the term dominant. Members of this group were responsible for most of the technological and cultural innovations that define life in our civilization today. They were responsible as well for most of the institutions that would determine our economic and political system. They were ultimately responsible for the level of civilization that all the other groups in this country would eventually be able to enjoy. And while members of this group overwhelmingly belonged to a single race (i.e. they were predominantly of Northern European descent) this alone is not sufficient for us to conclude that is was their racial characteristics that were responsible for their success.  Rather, it was their normative characteristics (which may have been influenced by race) that led them to create a system that would provide fertile ground for the achievements that would ultimately lead to a higher level of civilization. However, even if  their normative belief systems were the immediate source of the level of civilization which we have attained, the argument can still be made that the racial characteristics of the dominant group had some influence of their normative characteristics. That is, you can still argue that certain racial differences (such as those related to cognitive ability, temperament and appearance) had some influence on the values, attitudes and beliefs which this group would adopt. However, we will not attempt to make this argument here. We will merely assert that the normative characteristics of the major group (and certain values in particular) were more responsible for our success as a nation than any others. These values included thrift, industriousness, independence, honesty, and a belief that through their hard work and good deeds, that they were following a divine calling, or that they were securing a favored place for themselves in an afterlife (i.e. the Calvinist or Protestant work ethic). Such beliefs provided them with a transcendental source of meaning for their efforts. It included other values as well, which are aspects of an overall belief system that Max Weber described in his work Protestantism and the Spirit of Capitalism. Some Asian societies, especially that of Japan, emphasize values that parallel the operation of the Protestant work ethic in our own culture. Due to their emphasis on hard work, thrift and achievement, .the Japanese, and other Asian societies have been able to achieve levels of success approaching those that have been achieved in the United States and Europe.

Modal Normative Characteristics
As a practical matter and for whatever reason, be it prior historical circumstances or differences in temperamental and cognitive propensities between racial groups, or some interaction between these, people with certain racial and or ethnic characteristics tend to have certain normative characteristics in common. We call the most commonly shared normative characteristics of a group its "modal" normative characteristics. That is to say,  individuals picked at random from a racial or ethnic group would be more likely to share these characteristics than randomly picked members of another racial or ethnic group. How the different racial or ethnic groups came to hold their modal normative characteristics is not for us to determine here. Rather, our main concern here is that such differences exist, and they can be qualitatively ranked in functional terms.

In the degree that racial or ethnic stereotypes are based on an understanding of the modal normative characteristics of a racial or ethnic group, they can be a largely accurate summary way of assessing  the normative characteristics of a group. Even so, it is obviously not accurate to attempt to apply a racial or ethnic stereotype (no matter how closely it reflects the mode) to every member of a group. For, due to their own unique life experiences, presumably, some members of a group will have normative characteristics that are closer to the modal normative characteristics of their group, while others will have normative characteristics that are further away from the mode. In qualitative terms, some will have "better" characteristics than the mode for their group, and others will have characteristics that are "worse" than the mode for their group. Each group will have good and bad representatives, and the proportion of good and bad representatives will be different for every group, depending on the mode for their group. Some groups will rank higher in the functionality of their modal normative characteristics than others. Consequently, some groups will be more likely to be successful and more likely to be assets to the societies in which they live than others.

Once again, you can argue that differences in the proportions of people who have good normative characteristics (i.e. those which rank high in functional terms) between the racial or ethnic groups are more the product of historical circumstances that they were born into, and that they were not affected by their race or their genetics. This is not the point. The point is that, for whatever reason, these modal differences between groups exist, and they have an important bearing on the course of the civilizations in which these groups are present. This is not a racist conclusion; it is a sociological fact. Admittedly, this fact could be used to make a racial argument. But properly, the argument is not made along racial lines. For, to make such an argument would automatically tend to favor one set of variables, when the evidence is still too inconclusive to assign determinative primacy to either heritable biological characteristics (race) or to the socio-cultural circumstances that people are born into (i.e. their environment) as the principal determinant of values or other normative characteristics. Again, this is not the claim that is being made here. Rather, the claim that is being made here is simply that such differences in modal normative characteristics exist between racial and ethnic groups, and different ethnic and racial groups can be ranked according to the functionality of their modal normative characteristics.

Modal normative characteristics of groups include the group's values, attitudes and beliefs more generally. These characteristics typically have an important relationship to the level of success a group has been able to enjoy or to the level of civilization is it has been able to create for itself. Relatedly, these characteristics typically go a long way in determining such things as how hard members or a group are willing to work, how honest they are, how well they treat their own members, what kind of family life they have, and generally what kind of citizens they make. Yet, modal characteristics are not simply stereotypes.

There are some important distinctions between modal normative characteristics and stereotypes. A stereotype is a general impression of the characteristics of a group that someone has typically formed on the basis of anecdotal evidence, and which tends to be popular in the degree that it accurately reflects the modal normative characteristic of a group. Stereotypes can be essentially correct, to the extent that they are based on an accurate assessment of the modal normative characteristics of a group. However, because they depend on anecdotal evidence, as opposed to more scientifically valid methods for their determination, stereotypes are less reliable than modal normative characteristics. Modal normative characteristics can be determined by reliable survey methods which can be replicated by other researchers. This makes them a more reliable way of determining the normative characteristics of a group than simply relying on stereotypes which are typically arrived at and communicated by less formal and accurate means. Yet, even though the concept of modal normative characteristics allows for a more accurate assessment of the normative characteristics of a group, there will remain an element of unfairness in its use.

Where attempts to evaluate human beings are concerned, virtually all generalizations involve some degree of unfairness. There will be an element of unfairness involved in attempts to apply the concept of modal normative characteristics as well, in those cases where members of a racial or ethnic group do not conform to the modal normative characteristics of their group. This unfairness will be most apparent in cases where attempts are made to apply the modal concept to individuals who have normative characteristics that, in terms of their functionality, are above the mode for their group. Thus, it can be unfair to apply either stereotypes or the concept of modal normative characteristics, to the extent that all racial and ethnic groups will contain individuals who do not conform to the modal normative characteristics of the groups to which they belong. However, in the vast majority of cases, using the concept of modal normative characteristics to form a summary judgment about the normative characteristics of a group can be useful for making policy determinations.

Despite an element of unfairness to its application, where attempts to control the normative course of a civilization are concerned, it is necessary to apply the concept of modal normative characteristics of racial and ethnic groups. Policy determinations cannot be based on exceptions, but must be based on general rules. This applies to the design of immigration policies especially. Despite the element of unfairness that may be involved in the use of the modal normative characteristics concept, we cannot be overly concerned with those individuals who do not conform to the mode for their groups. Rather, immigration policies must be mainly concerned with the normative characteristics of the most typical representatives of different racial and ethnic groups. And there are good reasons to believe that certain groups should be denied immigration to the United States, even as other groups should be given immigration preferences based upon their modal normative characteristics. Based upon their modal normative characteristics, some groups promise to be the best custodians of our civilization than others. And regardless of how politically incorrect it may be to focus on such facts, some groups  have more functional normative modal characteristics than others. Hence, the modal normative characteristics of different racial and ethnic groups should be a primary determinant of who we allow to become citizens of this country and who we do not.

Normative Implications of Changes in our Racial and Ethnic Composition
Where the future prospects of a civilization are concerned, it is the "relative proportions" of people who hold more functional norms that is most important . Again, racial and ethnic groups will differ in the proportions of their members who hold more functional normative characteristics (values attitudes and beliefs).  In our own civilization there has been constant change in the proportions of groups which hold more functional norms as a result of different tides of immigration of people with different normative characteristics an as a result of changing cultural influence in our own society on those characteristics, with regard to influences effecting the presence of functional norms in the population at large the popular culture has tended to have a generally negative influence on is generally a negative normative influence as is the Zeitgeist more generally (see chapter) In addition, most of the current wave of immigration to our country is coming from countries whose populations rank lower in terms of the functionality of their modal normative characteristics. Primarily as a result of such patterns of immigration, in combination with differential fertility, the proportion of groups in our population which have more "functional normative characteristics." has been declining.

Although it remains controversial and although there will obviously be many exceptions to its application as a general rule the concept of modal normative characteristics remains a useful barometer for determining the potential direction and potential of a civilization. As such, it should have a bearing on the determination of public policies and on our immigration policies in particular.  On the basis of their modal characteristics, we can say that, as a general rule, people of Western and Northern European descent especially, and people of European descent more generally, should receive first preference in our immigration quotas. Because, based upon a functional analysis of their modal characteristics, they are most likely to be assets to our civilization. Secondary preference should be given to Asians, and particularly people of Japanese descent, because, based upon an assessment of their modal normative characteristics, they are also more likely to be assets to our civilization than any other Asian groups. And while extending this secondary preference to people of Asian descent might seem to go against the aim of creating a more racially homogeneous society, because Asians are already such a small percentage of the total population, their numbers could be increased significantly without representing a threat to the goal of achieving a higher level of racial homogeneity. The ultimate aim of our immigration policies should be to increase the proportion of our population which ranks highest in terms of its modal normative characteristics. For just as the level of civilization which we have been able to achieve can be attributed to the fact that a relatively high proportion of our population has had relatively functional normative characteristics, in the degree that the proportion of those having functional normative characteristics is attenuated we can expect that the prospects of our civilization will be diminished accordingly.

Again, it is not our aim here to attempt to identify the ultimate source of the normative differences that exist between racial and ethnic groups, but merely to assert that they exist, that they have real implications for our society, and that therefore, they should a primary consideration in the determination of our immigration policies. In order to avoid assigning ultimate causes to these values, and in order to avoid saying that they are attributable to race or to heritable characteristics, we will merely say that these normative characteristics tend to "coincide" with certain racial or ethic groups, and that they could easily be the result of unique socio-cultural and historical influences. So even if we were to reach the conclusion that differences in modal characteristics are mainly due to the cultural or historical circumstances that people are born into, it does not necessarily mean that these characteristics are more easily changed. For due to the fact that they are the product of primary socialization, these characteristics can be extremely resistant to change. Hence, remedial efforts, or efforts to improve the modal normative characteristics of people through education may not always meet with great success, at least for the first generation. And as we have seen above, due to  their prior normative characteristics, people will be more or less likely to seek education.

While our changing racial and ethnic composition is one of the most important factors affecting the course of our civilization, there are other factors that we should be paying attention to as well for their potential to affect our norms. Presumably, normative changes can occur in the dominant group as well. Presumably, even a group which has historically held relatively functional norms can experience a deterioration of its norms due to cultural influences. Economic success itself may tend to have this effect over time. Or, conversely, groups with less functional norms can show some improvement in their norms. Yet, for reasons cited earlier, the major or dominant group will be less likely to experience abrupt normative changes as a result of media influences. Conversely, media influences are likely to have more of an effect on those groups that are more at risk or less resistant to normative changes as a result of media influences

Although normative change can result from a number of different influences, they often take place over such an extended period of time that it may be difficult to assess the exact cause of the changes or their long term effects on society. It is also difficult to predict the direction of normative changes in a society with any degree of certainty. Having said this, there are clear signs that the normative condition of our society is not getting any better and appears to growing subtantially worse. And these worsening normative conditions are closely correlated with changes in the racial and ethnic composition of our society. Again, racial and ethnic groups will differ in the proportions of their members who hold more functional normative characteristics (values, attitudes and beliefs).  As the proportion of groups with more functional modal normative characteristics declines in our society, due to changes in the racial and ethnic composition of our society, our prospects as a civilization can be expected to dim accordingly.
 

COPYRIGHT 2008 BY ALEX VAN ALLEN