Ethnicity was supposed to become less and less important, as modernization and globalization take place. This chapter discusses how ethnicity has continued to be central to the lives of humans in the twenty-first century, and in some respects has become even more important. Ethnicity is often confused with race, even in academic research. Ethnicity is a social construct, whereas race is based on biological characteristics. Since the 1970s there has been ethnic mobilization and collective action in order to improve the conditions of disadvantaged ethnic groups. There has also been ethnic conflict and discrimination against ethnic minorities. Psychological research using the minimal group paradigm, as well as case studies of ethnic groups such as the Tutu and the Hutsi of Rwanda, demonstrates that there need only be minor or trivial differences between groups in order for individuals to show bias in favor of their ingroup. The arrival of large numbers of dissimilar others in North America and Western Europe has also added fuel to the fire of ethnic conflict.

The concept of political plasticity leads us to identify areas of human behavior that are highly resistant to change and need special planning in order to bring about reforms, and also areas that have more potential for change and, through their change, will bring about larger transformations in societies. In domains such as ethnicity, leadership, rich–poor divide, and religion, planning for change must be undertaken taking into account, first, the great obstacles to change and, second, the possibility of backward movement away from democracy. But there are other domains where political plasticity is much higher and which can bring about more widespread transformations. The illustrative example of women in education is discussed in this chapter. The rapid progress of women in education throughout much of the world since World War II has been truly astonishing. If managed well, the progress of women in education can lead to progress in other areas, including population control and global warming.

What do you see when you look at Figure 11.1? (And how many children do you see? Many people do not immediately see the infant in the lower right of the image.) What do you imagine the woman is thinking and feeling? How about the children? Do you react emotionally to this image? Often called Migrant Mother, this photograph was taken by the great American photographer Dorothea Lange on a cold and rainy day in February, 1936, in the small town of Nipomo, California (Gordon, 2009). The woman in the photograph had gone to Nipomo to work in the harvest, but unusually cold weather had frozen the crop. That meant no work and no income for her family (Gordon, 2009). When the San Francisco News published this photograph and one other by Lange the following month, readers sent contributions totaling $200,000 (the equivalent in 2020 dollars of $3.7 million) for the stranded farmworkers of Nipomo (Gordon, 2009).

In the city or town where you live, are there tent cities such as the one shown in Figure 10.1? Have you or someone you know ever lived in a tent city? How might people be affected by living outside instead of indoors? Why do you think there are tent cities in a nation as wealthy as the United States?

The electronics revolution was assumed to help democratization around the world. Enormous changes were expected to come about, opening up societies as people gained access to more and more information. The electronics revolution was supposed to open the world and open minds and societies around the world. In this sense, it was assumed that political plasticity would increase through electronic communications. However, as discussed in this chapter, the impact of the electronics revolution has been mixed and far more complex. First, dictators have learned to limit and censor electronic communications within their own borders (e.g., the Great Firewall of China). Second, dictatorships such as Russia and China have used electronic communications to influence events in countries around the world, working to strengthen dictatorships and weaken democracies. Third, the masses in democracies do not have the critical thinking skills needed to avoid being influenced by conspiracy theories and false information, spread by authoritarian strongmen (such as Donald Trump) and their supporters. Consequently, political plasticity has not been changed much through the electronic revolution. For example, mass participation in decision-making has not happened.

Globalization seemed like an irresistible, unstoppable force. Political plasticity seemed to be pushed to higher levels, as globalization accelerated and impacted all humankind. The development of larger units such as the European Union signaled, for many, the end of the nation state – a borderless world. Economic and technological forces seemed to be forcing globalization, and all humankind, down a one-way road. On closer examination, however, we realize that globalization has been taking place in a fractured manner: Just as economic and technological forces have been pushing us toward the global, basic identity needs have been pulling us back toward the local. Thus, just as Europe is integrating, there is Brexit and Basque and Scottish independence. Just as the North American Free Trade Agreement comes into place, there is Quebec nationalism and the effort by Quebec nationalists to break away from the rest of Canada. The deglobalization movement has been accelerated by the rise of authoritarian strongmen and their extremist nationalist supporters. As this chapter shows, it seems that basic identity needs and allegiances to local groups and nations have influenced developments, so that political plasticity remains limited in this domain.

Despite the war on poverty declared in different ways by various politicians in different countries since World War II, the rich–poor divide continues as it has been more or less the same for the last ten thousand years or so. Also, the rich–poor divide continues across revolutions and across societies that describe themselves using different labels, such as communist, capitalist, socialist, liberal-democratic, and Islamic. For example, the number of billionaires in communist China rivals that in the capitalist United States, and the rich–poor divide in Islamic Iran is even great than in most European countries. Various legitimizing ideologies are used to justify the rich–poor divide, with the rich using their power and resources to shape education, the media, religious ideology, and the various other avenues for socialization and communication. The tendency for both the rich and the poor to believe in a just world and to blame the victim is discussed in this chapter, in relation to false consciousness and legitimizing ideologies, to explain the continuity of societies with enormous rich–poor divides.

This is a common scene on many city streets and may be one that is familiar to you. When you look at the man with the sign, do you feel empathy? Anger? Frustration? Why do you think he is in this situation? What would need to happen for him to be economically secure? What do you feel when you look at the woman? How do you think she came to be financially secure? If you walked past the man in this photo, would you stop to talk with him or give him money if you had any to spare? Would you support paying higher taxes if it assisted low-income people in your community? Would you vote for a politician who supported fining people who ask for money in public places?