First of all, we found that the identity markers covered by the ethnic-civic
framework clustered in three dimensions - ethnic, cultural and political. The
identification of a separate cultural factor, distinct from the ethnic dimension, is an
important new finding. The studies based on the ISSP data set could not explore the
degree of interrelatedness of cultural and ethnic factors because the ISSP survey
lacked questions on ethnic markers. As noted before, the existence of a separate
cultural dimension confirms the contention of some critics of the ethnic-civic
framework that cultural markers of nationhood should not be grouped in the ethnic
category because of their inclusive nature. Another point of interest concerns the
boundaries between identity markers. Whereas our findings conform to the
commonly held opinion that there are distinct political, ethnic and cultural
dimensions to national identifications, Jones & Smith’s voluntarist and ascriptive
constructs based on the ISSP data cut right across these traditionally conceived
dimensions, the former clustering respect for law, learn the dominant language and
self identification and the latter combining born, citizenship, length of residence
and dominant religion. These contrasting results seem to support Zimmer’s
contention that the ethnic-civic framework should be disaggregated into two
different modes of interpreting national identity - one relating to boundary
mechanisms and another to symbolic resources. Jones & Smith’s dimensions seem
to confirm the existence of boundary mechanisms, while the present study taps into
symbolic resources. Zubrzycki’s (2001) study on the debate about the meaning of
Polishness in the media prior to the adoption of the Polish Constitution in April
1997 lends further support for Zimmer’s theory. The liberal intelligentsia engaging
in this debate turned to events in the past (i.e. a symbolic resource) to support their
27