Ethnoracial Hierarchy and Theories of Democratic Citizenship

Political theorists have long argued that hierarchical systems have distortionary consequences for democratic citizenship formation (Cohen Reference Cohen2009; Mills Reference Mills1997; Shapiro Reference Shapiro1999; Young Reference Young1990). Ethnoracial hierarchies, in particular, construct tiers of citizens in which divergent allocations of power and agency accrue to members of different groups (Cruikshank Reference Cruikshank1999). Moreover, when oppression is systemic, as with the ethnoracial hierarchies we analyze here, it is “embedded in unquestioned norms, habits, and symbols, in the assumptions underlying institutional rules,” and in the collective consciousness that stems from being immersed in these patterns (Young Reference Young1990, 41).

These theoretical foundations suggest two key points. First, a contradiction exists between the hierarchical logic that characterizes entrenched systems of ethnoracial inequality and the premise of democracy that purports to accord equal political rights to all (Hanchard Reference Hanchard2018), and this contradiction has the potential to disrupt people’s commitments to democracy (Hooker Reference Hooker2017). Second, the repercussions of ethnoracial hierarchies are likely to extend across society, affecting privileged group members as well as minoritized individuals. This is the basic theoretical intuition informing our argument that ethnoracial hierarchies undermine all citizens’ commitments to democracy and its core principles.

Ethnoracial Hierarchy Limits Support for Egalitarian Policy

Beyond these theoretical foundations, we draw insights from several lines of empirical research to flesh out this argument. First, an extensive body of work has examined the relationship between ethnoracial inequality and attitudes toward egalitarian policies. This work provides ample evidence that ethnoracial inequalities undermine solidarity across groups, mute public demand for pro-poor policy, and enable the maintenance of inequitable resource distributions (e.g., Baldwin and Huber Reference Baldwin and Huber2010; Eger Reference Eger2010; Gilens [Reference Gilens1999] 2009; Kelly Reference Kelly2020; Lieberman and McClendon Reference Lieberman and McClendon2013; Morgan and Kelly Reference Morgan and Kelly2017). This literature tells us that inequalities along ethnoracial lines reinforce difference within society and create barriers to building empathy between groups (Pettigrew and Tropp Reference Pettigrew and Tropp2006). These dynamics encourage people to justify inequalities as rooted in the shortcomings of minoritized groups, limiting support for egalitarian policies like redistribution (Brown-Iannuzzi et al. Reference Brown-Iannuzzi, Cooley, Marshburn, McKee and Lei2021; Hancock Reference Hancock2004; Luttmer Reference Luttmer2001).

Studies examining how ethnoracial inequalities undermine between-group solidarity and limit support for egalitarian policies and outcomes have focused on these processes in the realm of material resource distributions. But the underlying logic has potential implications for the political realm as well. In essence, we know that people enmeshed in systems characterized by deep group-based hierarchies tend to accept and justify inequality. Here we argue that this rationalization of hierarchy is likely to encompass not only preferences about the distribution of resources, as previous political economy scholarship has found, but also preferences about the distribution of political rights and influence. Moreover, because political regimes are pivotal mechanisms for shaping the distribution of these political resources, it follows that the degree of ethnoracial hierarchy in society will influence people’s regime attitudes, much like it influences their policy attitudes.

Many democratic principles are premised on some form of equality. For instance, free and fair elections reflect the idea of “one person, one vote,” which supposes equal opportunities for political influence. Likewise, civil rights and liberties are intended to be equally available to all citizens. Put differently, one important feature of democracy is that it is meant to limit inequalities in the distribution of political rights and influence, similar to the way pro-poor redistribution aims to limit inequalities in material resources. Since democracy is premised on basic political equality, people’s commitments to democracy may be weaker in contexts of deeper ethnoracial hierarchy because these contexts promote acceptance of unequal resource distributions, not only in material terms but also in terms of political rights.

While existing research has not directly examined this link between ethnoracial hierarchy and democratic commitments across society, some empirical evidence suggests such a possibility. For instance, scholarship on the social dominance theory of intergroup relations has shown how group-based inequalities perpetuate themselves in part because they promote hierarchy-enhancing myths that encourage individuals embedded in these hierarchies to accede to and even rationalize inequality and oppression (e.g., Levin et al. Reference Levin, Sidanius, Rabinowitz and Federico1998; Sidanius et al. Reference Sidanius, Pratto, Van Laar and Levin2004). Research in this vein also provides evidence that hierarchy-enhancing myths contribute to activating less egalitarian and more authoritarian attitudes (e.g., Solt Reference Solt2012). Although most of these studies have focused on psychological predispositions, a handful have examined regime attitudes, providing evidence that acceptance of hierarchy promotes acquiescence to authoritarianism and undermines liberal democratic commitments like tolerance for out-groups (Morgan, Christiani, and Kelly, Reference Morgan, Christiani and Kelly2024; Morgan and Kelly Reference Morgan and Kelly2021; Velez and Lavine Reference Velez and Lavine2017).

These sorts of hierarchy-enhancing myths are readily identifiable in Latin American ethnoracial relations. Namely, myths about mestizaje in Spanish Latin America and “racial democracy” in Brazil have been instrumental in promoting indifference to the ethnoracial foundations of hierarchies throughout the region. These ideologies have perpetuated the idea that any inequalities that exist are based on class or regional differences as opposed to ethnic or racial discrimination. Although empirical evidence unmasks these ideas as myths and reveals highly racialized histories and ongoing realities in many Latin American societies, these myths have helped to disguise group-based inequalities and legitimate their perpetuation as part of the natural social order (Clealand Reference Clealand2017; Howard Reference Howard2001; O. Johnson Reference Johnson1998; Nobles Reference Nobles2000). Previous research has shown how these myths have been routinely deployed in efforts to depress citizen support for egalitarian policies and to impede the deepening of democracy across the region (Hanchard Reference Hanchard1994; Morgan, Hartlyn, and Espinal Reference Morgan, Hartlyn and Espinal2011; Paschel and Sawyer Reference Paschel and Sawyer2008; Twine Reference Twine1998). Together, these two bodies of research suggest that mestizaje and racial democracy are hierarchy-enhancing myths and that these sorts of myths help to make hierarchies self-sustaining by encouraging people to accept more exclusionary systems and reject more inclusionary ones. Building on these arguments, we suggest that because democracy follows an inclusionary logic, these hierarchy-sustaining myths, which predominate in Latin American countries with deep ethnoracial inequality (Peña, Sidanius, and Sawyer Reference Peña, Sidanius and Sawyer2004), may also operate to limit citizens’ commitments to democracy.

Economic Inequality Limits Support for Democracy

Pointing to a similar empirical expectation is another line of research, which examines the relationship between economic inequality and support for democracy. While this work has not focused on the effects of inequality between ethnoracial groups specifically, it helps to establish the idea that inequality (of another sort, at least) undermines support for democratic regimes. The most pertinent finding from this literature for our purposes here is that economic inequality is associated with weaker regime support within democracies (Andersen Reference Andersen2012; Carlin Reference Carlin2006; Fierro Reference Fierro2022; Karl Reference Karl2000; Krieckhaus et al. Reference Krieckhaus, Son, Bellinger and Wells2014; Sprong et al. Reference Sprong, Jetten, Wang, Peters, Mols, Verkuyten and Bastian2019). The basic logic in this literature is that inequality makes people dissatisfied with economic performance, and in democratic contexts this discontent undermines support for the democratic regime.

If we extend this to our thinking about the effects of inequalities between groups, we would similarly expect ethnoracial inequality to undermine support for democracy. Specifically, this line of theorizing suggests that people living in democracies characterized by deeper hierarchies along ethnoracial lines will become disillusioned with the regime and express weaker commitments to democracy than those in less hierarchical contexts. Where ethnoracial hierarchies are pronounced, certain predictable segments of the population are routinely kept on the margins. Like economic inequality, persistent inequalities between ethnoracial groups reflect a performance failure that has the potential to undermine the legitimacy of democracy (Hanchard Reference Hanchard2018).

Moving beyond economic inequality, research on the attitudinal consequences of gender hierarchies lends further credence to the idea that the negative relationship between inequality and support for democracy might exist for other kinds of hierarchical social relations as well. This scholarship has found that more inclusive gender distributions of power increase commitments to democratic ideals, not only with regard to gender equality specifically, but also concerning general democratic principles (Clayton, O’Brien, and Piscopo Reference Clayton, O’Brien and Piscopo2019; Hinojosa and Kittilson Reference Hinojosa and Kittilson2020; Kerevel and Atkeson Reference Kerevel and Atkeson2015; Morgan and Buice Reference Morgan and Buice2013; Walker and Kehoe Reference Walker and Kehoe2013). These insights push us to consider how group hierarchies may have harmful consequences that include weaker commitments to democratic rights and governance overall.

In essence, the ongoing exclusion of historically minoritized groups despite the presence of democratic procedures reminds citizens that democracy is not really delivering on its promises. The messages that emanate from these ethnoracial hierarchies juxtapose formally democratic institutions against a backdrop of profound inequalities between groups. As a result, ethnoracial inequality “poses challenges to [democracy’s] ideological legitimacy,” undermining support for the regime (Hanchard Reference Hanchard2018, 188).

Together then, several strands of previous research point toward the possibility of a negative relationship between ethnoracial hierarchy and support for democracy in the mass public. These bodies of work suggest that ethnoracial hierarchies are likely to promote acquiescence to more authoritarian forms of political order and weaken commitments to the democratic regime and its guiding principles. Our core hypothesis, then, is that deeper ethnoracial hierarchies will be associated with weaker public support for democracy and weaker support for basic democratic rights, while less pronounced hierarchies will be associated with stronger commitments to these outcomes.

Previous scholarship also suggests that this pattern is likely to manifest across society—not only among minoritized individuals but among privileged group members as well. For instance, Krieckhaus and colleagues (Reference Krieckhaus, Son, Bellinger and Wells2014) identify society-wide effects in their work on the consequences of economic inequality, showing that rich and poor are both less supportive of democracy and more willing to accept authoritarian rule in higher-inequality contexts, and Andersen (Reference Andersen2012) finds that the negative relationship between income inequality and support for democracy is actually more pronounced among the wealthy than the poor. Likewise, social dominance theory research has shown that dominant group members are at least as accepting of hierarchy-enhancing myths as minoritized individuals, if not more so (Sidanius et al. Reference Sidanius, Levin, Federico, Pratto, Jost and Major2001). This work further supports our expectation that the negative relationship between ethnoracial hierarchy and democratic commitments will be present across society.

Two Potential Responses to Experiencing Ethnoracial Exclusion

In democracies with deep ethnoracial hierarchies, Indigenous and Afrodescendant citizens may be especially dissatisfied with the regime and skeptical about the value of democracy. This dynamic could undermine democratic commitments among minoritized group members. Previous research has shown that members of minoritized ethnoracial groups express lower trust in government and less satisfaction with state institutions, especially when they experience the sorts of discrimination, exclusion, and exploitation that are common in hierarchical systems (Huebert and Liu Reference Huebert and Liu2017; Levitt Reference Levitt2015; Nunnally Reference Nunnally2012; Soss, Fording, and Schram Reference Soss, Fording and Schram2011). The inverse is also true. Experiences of inclusion bolster support for certain democratic institutions and processes among minoritized group members (Hayes and Hibbing Reference Hayes and Hibbing2017; Hunter and Sugiyama Reference Hunter and Sugiyama2014; Madrid and Rhodes-Purdy Reference Madrid and Rhodes-Purdy2016; West Reference West2015).

This pattern essentially aligns with a performance-based logic: when people see institutions as performing poorly on their behalf, their views of those institutions are less favorable (e.g., Booth and Seligson Reference Booth and Seligson2009; Mattes and Bratton Reference Mattes and Bratton2007). Although most previous studies in this vein have emphasized how ethnoracial hierarchy prompts minoritized group members to withhold support from specific institutions, some suggest that the negative attitudinal implications of poor performance also apply to people’s views of democracy overall (Bouchard and Bourgeois Reference Bouchard and Bourgeois2023). In effect, minoritized individuals may be reluctant to support democracy because they experience it as being of poor quality. If this is the case, then Afrodescendant and Indigenous Latin Americans would be just as likely as, or perhaps even more likely than, fellow citizens to express weak democratic commitments in contexts where ethnoracial hierarchies are particularly deep. Such a response would, in fact, be quite logical given democracy’s failure to deliver on their behalf.

However, it is one thing to be dissatisfied with the operation of government institutions and another thing to turn away from democratic ways of doing politics entirely. People from minoritized groups may have much to lose if democracy gives way to autocracy. Authoritarian regimes in Latin America have historically been particularly repressive and exploitative of Indigenous and Afrodescendant communities (Cadeau Reference Cadeau2022; Leiby Reference Leiby2009; Ulfe and Sabogal Reference Ulfe and Sabogal2021), and when democratization swept the region in the final decades of the twentieth century, people from historically marginalized groups gained rights they had long been denied (Htun Reference Htun2016; O. Johnson Reference Johnson1998; Kröger and Lalander Reference Kröger and Lalander2016). These legacies may prompt Indigenous and Afrodescendant Latin Americans to remain committed to democracy, despite encountering pronounced ethnoracial inequalities in the here and now.

Indeed, studies have shown that when people from minoritized groups are confronted with injustice, they can be especially supportive of and engaged in efforts to deepen democracy (Andrews Reference Andrews1992; Boulding and Holzner Reference Boulding and Holzner2021; Paschel and Sawyer Reference Paschel and Sawyer2008). We also know that political losers tend to hold especially firm democratic commitments because autocracy is often most threatening to those permanently relegated to the margins (Carlin and Singer Reference Carlin and Singer2011). It is hard to imagine groups that have been more persistently relegated to the margins of political power in Latin America than Indigenous and Afrodescendant people. Thus, ongoing marginalization as well as historical experiences of oppression may motivate the maintenance of democratic commitments among these groups. If Afrodescendant and Indigenous Latin Americans continue to see democracy as offering a potential vehicle to protect their rights or advance their interests, they may sustain commitments to democracy even in contexts of extreme hierarchy.

These two lines of argument suggest different ways that ethnoracial hierarchies might shape democratic legitimacy among minoritized group members. The first expects a negative relationship between ethnoracial hierarchy and support for democracy among Indigenous and Afrodescendant Latin Americans, and this negative relationship will be just as pronounced as it is among other groups. The second logic suggests that minoritized group members may remain committed to democracy despite encountering profound ethnoracial hierarchies. In this instance, we would observe a less pronounced negative effect for ethnoracial hierarchy among minoritized group members. Existing scholarship concerning the relationship between membership in minoritized ethnoracial groups and support for democratic institutions and processes in Latin America lends credence to both lines of thought. Although some empirical studies have pointed toward a negative relationship (e.g., Levitt Reference Levitt2015; West Reference West2015), others have found little evidence of such an effect (e.g., Fierro Reference Fierro2022; Sanchez, Doherty, and Dobbs Reference Sanchez, Doherty and Dobbs2021).

These apparently mixed findings may actually be the result of differences in the ways that individual members of minoritized ethnoracial groups respond to the hierarchical systems that they confront. Whether their democratic commitments are weaker (as in the first logic) or persist (as in the second) may depend on other factors that shape how people respond to exclusion. Rather than being uniform across minoritized group members, these patterns may vary in theoretically predictable ways and therefore produce different relationships in different samples, as the inconsistent findings from previous studies seem to suggest. To unpack the possibility that minoritized group members’ responses to exclusion are conditional on their preexisting attitudes and experiences, we join calls to move beyond identity itself as explanation and theorize the link between identity and its political consequences (De Micheli Reference De Micheli2024; Lee Reference Lee2008; Sen and Wasow Reference Sen and Wasow2016).

Group Consciousness and the Maintenance of Democratic Commitments

But what precisely conditions the way that ethnoracial hierarchy shapes democratic commitments among minoritized group members? We argue that ethnoracial group consciousness plays this moderating role. We focus on the potential effect of group consciousness because extensive research on race and ethnic politics has emphasized how different dimensions of group consciousness are consequential for structuring political attitudes and behavior (Clealand Reference Clealand2017; Lee Reference Lee2008; McClain et al. Reference McClain, Carew, Walton and Watts2009). These studies typically treat group consciousness as a set of individually held beliefs concerning one’s group and its interests as well as the group’s relationship to other groups and to politics and society overall (Avery Reference Avery2006; Clealand Reference Clealand2017; De Micheli Reference De Micheli2021; Laniyonu Reference Laniyonu2019; Lien Reference Lien1994; Miller et al. Reference Miller, Gurin, Gurin and Malanchuk1981; Sanchez Reference Sanchez2006), and the evidence suggests that group consciousness provides an important psychological resource for minoritized group members (Dawson Reference Dawson1994; De Micheli Reference De Micheli2024; Smith et al. Reference Smith, Clemons, Krishnamurthy, Martinez, McLaren and White2023). Unlike other more tangible political resources, such as time, money, or education, group consciousness provides a resource through an individual’s internalized predisposition in favor of their group and its interests (for a detailed discussion of this logic, see Smith et al. Reference Smith, Clemons, Krishnamurthy, Martinez, McLaren and White2023). In the Latin American context specifically, studies have shown how group consciousness helps to make minoritized group members more likely to challenge racism, confront ethnoracial inequalities, and support candidates and organizations aligned with their identity (for a review, see Clealand Reference Clealand2022, 350).

We build on this body of work and theorize that certain forms of group consciousness might also provide a resource that minoritized individuals may draw on to maintain commitments to democracy. Much like how group consciousness can facilitate support for more equity-minded policies, it may also enable minoritized individuals to support democracy as a way to protect their group’s rights from the vicissitudes of autocratization or as a path toward improving their group’s status. In this way, ethnoracial group consciousness may promote the maintenance of democratic commitments among marginalized group members in contexts of profound ethnoracial hierarchies.

To be more precise, we expect this moderating effect to be exerted by a particular structural dimension of group consciousness. We define structural group consciousness as a form of consciousness in which minoritized individuals recognize the systemic sources of ethnoracial disparities. In other words, when members of historically marginalized groups understand ethnoracial hierarchies as originating in socioeconomic or political systems—not simply as the result of individual or group-level differences or shortcomings—they are expressing structural group consciousness. This understanding of group consciousness is less about individuals’ identification with the group or affinity with its collective culture and is especially concerned with centering the systemic nature of ethnoracial inequality (M. Johnson Reference Johnson2020b).

Previous research suggests that structural understandings of ethnoracial disparities are important for shaping minoritized individuals’ commitments to group-centered attitudes and behaviors (Lien Reference Lien1994; Miller et al. Reference Miller, Gurin, Gurin and Malanchuk1981; Paschel Reference Paschel2016). The race and ethnic politics literature tells us that group consciousness has multiple dimensions that do not always cohere into a single construct across groups or individuals (Clealand Reference Clealand2017; M. Johnson Reference Johnson2020b; Lien Reference Lien1994; Sanchez and Vargas Reference Sanchez and Vargas2016), and while the different dimensions of group consciousness may all carry political weight, their precise effects often vary (Lee Reference Lee2008, 463). Our emphasis here on the concept of structural group consciousness builds on a series of studies that have identified “system blame” as a component of group consciousness that is particularly consequential for the political stances of minoritized individuals (Lien Reference Lien1994). This literature suggests that holding this structural dimension of group consciousness makes people more likely to see a need for systemic reforms that aim to level hierarchies and to embrace political or policy solutions that advance this goal (McClain et al. Reference McClain, Carew, Walton and Watts2009). For instance, in their classic treatise on group consciousness, Miller and colleagues (Reference Miller, Gurin, Gurin and Malanchuk1981) argued that holding a belief that systemic injustices “are responsible for a group’s disadvantaged status in society” is crucial for activating engagement for minoritized individuals. More recently in Latin America, Paschel (Reference Paschel2016) has shown how recognizing systemic race-based disadvantage is crucial for mobilization toward greater ethnoracial equality.

These studies suggest that minoritized individuals equipped with structural group consciousness are more likely to challenge the hierarchical status quo through democratic institutions or processes (De Micheli Reference De Micheli2024; Miller et al. Reference Miller, Gurin, Gurin and Malanchuk1981; Mitchell-Walthour Reference Mitchell-Walthour2018; Slaughter Reference Slaughter2021; Smith et al. Reference Smith, Clemons, Krishnamurthy, Martinez, McLaren and White2023). While studies have emphasized how structural understandings of ethnoracial disparities operate to foster support for equity-minded policies, we build on this idea by theorizing that a similar process may also work to sustain minoritized group members’ support for equity-oriented systems. If people see democracy as a potential avenue for advancing equality, then the negative effects of hierarchy on their support for democracy may be mitigated (Sanchez, Doherty, and Dobbs Reference Sanchez, Doherty and Dobbs2021). Therefore, when minoritized group members possess structural group consciousness, we expect democratic commitments to be more stable even in the face of hierarchy.

If this is the case, then minoritized individuals who possess structural group consciousness will respond to ethnoracial hierarchies in line with the second theoretical logic outlined above. Namely, they will maintain support for democracy because they see it as a potential path toward protecting group rights and interests. We would therefore expect minoritized individuals with high structural group consciousness to remain committed to democracy regardless of the depth of hierarchy they confront, mitigating the negative effect of ethnoracial hierarchies on their support for democracy. In empirical terms, we would expect these individuals to diverge from the general negative relationship between group-based hierarchy and commitments to democracy.

On the other hand, minoritized individuals with low levels of structural group consciousness may be more prone to become disenchanted with democracy. Group consciousness provides a psychological resource that facilitates an orientation in favor of the group’s interests despite extreme forms of oppression and marginalization. Without this resource, minoritized individuals may be less firmly committed to prioritizing group-centered policies and practices. If this process is relevant not only for attitudes toward public policies and political actors, as shown in previous work, but also for attitudes toward democracy, then we would expect minoritized group members with low group consciousness to respond in line with the first logic outlined above. This logic simply expects minoritized group members to become less supportive of the democratic regime in contexts of deeper inequality. In essence, minoritized individuals with low group consciousness will become disillusioned with the democratic regime, and their democratic commitments will be weaker as a result. Empirically, we would not expect to see much difference in the negative effects of ethnoracial hierarchy for these individuals as compared to members of other ethnoracial groups.

The interviews that we conducted with Afrodescendant and Indigenous activists, politicians, government officials, and other experts across Peru lend additional insights into the way that structural group consciousness moderates how Indigenous and Afrodescendant Latin Americans respond to ethnoracial hierarchy.Footnote ³ As part of these conversations, we asked Indigenous and Afro-Peruvians a series of questions about their understandings of their identity, about how they became active in the Indigenous or Afrodescendant movement, and about the formulation of group goals, their strategies for advancing them, and their relationship to the state. These prompts opened up many interesting lines of conversation, but for our purposes here, the relevant insights concern the dimensions of group consciousness that our interlocutors emphasized in thinking about their group as well as how these facets of their consciousness connected to politics. We want to emphasize that the interview data as presented here are not meant to provide a test of our argument concerning the moderating effect of structural group consciousness: such a test would require more extensive analysis, which lies outside the scope of this paper. Rather, we draw from the interviews to illustrate the logic and plausibility of our argument and to situate it in the Latin American context. The reflections from our interlocutors suggest that structural group consciousness has consequences not only for policy attitudes and patterns of engagement as previous research has shown, but for how minoritized group members view democracy as well.

In our conversations, we found that Afrodescendant and Indigenous activists who articulated structural forms of group consciousness were more inclined to engage with the democratic system, to support democracy overall, and to express clear commitments to democratic rights and principles. In contrast, when their group consciousness had other underpinnings, our interlocutors tended to express more disillusionment with democracy and more willingness to circumvent democratic institutions and procedures.

For instance, an Afrodescendant activist who took a structural stance in his understanding of racial disparities also maintained a firm commitment to continued engagement with democracy. First, in reflecting on the experiences of Afro-Peruvian organizations, this activist emphasized the structural nature of the impediments he encounters: “It is a fight against the demons of the system—against a system or against a structure that has generated, shall we say, an entire framework to understand the Afro-Peruvian as subaltern, as abject, as unworthy of being taken into consideration.” Then, when talking about Afro-Peruvians’ stances vis-á-vis the democratic system, he emphasized the need for continued engagement—to work through the system to pursue “better policies of greater quality that redistribute for the Afro-Peruvian population.”Footnote ⁴ His clear expression of structural consciousness was followed by a commitment to the democratic process as a means to advance equality for Afro-Peruvians.

Likewise, when recounting his personal story of activism, an Indigenous organization leader emphasized the central role of recognizing “not what I would call the racism of the street … but what I would call, on the other side, the state’s systematic structural racism,” which he defined as “the absence of effective policies to protect Indigenous people, the failure to allocate state resources to Indigenous communities, and the lack of processes of prior consultation or consent.” He then immediately followed this straightforward articulation of structural group consciousness with a discussion affirming that Indigenous organizations exist to promote “representation and to have or, hmm, to exercise the rights of Peruvian citizenship.”Footnote ⁵ For this activist, concern for democratic rights and representation were directly linked to his structural group consciousness.

In contrast, an Indigenous leader whose group consciousness was less structural and more cultural expressed considerable indignation about the democratic state. Her responses to questions about identity formation and group goals focused on connecting to Indigenous culture and heritage. Later, when asked about the group’s interactions with the state, she critiqued democratic procedures for their failure to “respect our rights. … They stigmatize us. … We can make demands but the rules are not followed or there are other norms that contradict them. People become frustrated.”Footnote ⁶ This activist’s conception of group consciousness emphasized its cultural dimensions, and her thinking about the democratic system primarily reflects frustration and alienation. Similarly, an Afrodescendant activist, whose work is dedicated to recognizing Afrodescendant cultural contributions as opposed to rectifying legacies of injustice and inequality, showed limited investment in routine democratic processes. Instead, when asked directly about the possibility of engaging in conventional democratic procedures like elections, he maintained his position outside and in opposition to the system, “because being outside, you can denounce and protest.”Footnote ⁷ While these practices are certainly legitimate and not necessarily antidemocratic, this activist set his critical stance resolutely apart from the electoral procedures that are core elements of the democratic system.

Based on our interviews as well as previous research, then, we articulate two hypotheses concerning the moderating effect of ethnoracial group consciousness among minoritized group members. First, for minoritized group members with low levels of structural group consciousness, ethnoracial hierarchies will have a negative relationship with democratic commitments, similar to the effects for society at large. Second, for minoritized group members with high levels of structural group consciousness, we expect the negative effects of ethnoracial hierarchy to be weaker or disappear entirely. For these individuals, democratic commitments will be more stable despite the depth of group-based hierarchies.

Consequences of Hierarchy for Democratic Commitments

Table 1 presents the main results for both dependent variables, with the measure of support for democracy overall in the first two columns and the index capturing support for core liberal democratic rights in the third and fourth columns. Columns 1 and 3 focus on the effects of between-group inequality while columns 2 and 4 examine the effects of political exclusion. In addition to the core explanatory variables, the models include individual ethnoracial identity and the full battery of controls. The democracy best item was asked in more years than the democratic rights index, making the sample sizes smaller in columns 3 and 4.

Table 1 Multilevel Models of Ethnoracial Hierarchy and Attitudes toward Democracy

Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. Reference category for ethnoracial identity: white. Models include random intercepts. Constant estimated but excluded from table. † p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

The first two rows report the relationships that BGI and political inequality have with support for democracy (columns 1 and 2) and for basic democratic rights (columns 3 and 4).Footnote ¹⁰ We immediately see that democratic commitments are more muted in contexts of greater ethnoracial hierarchy. BGI is strongly and significantly associated with weaker democratic commitments. Concentration of political power in the hands of the dominant group also has negative relationships with support for democracy and for democratic rights.

Figure 1 and 2 visualize these results across observed values of BGI and political exclusion. The negative slopes in figure 1 illustrate that overall support for democracy deteriorates as both economic and political hierarchy increase. The decline in predicted support for democracy is especially large across levels of political hierarchy (figure 1b): as ethnoracial political exclusion moves from its lowest to highest observed level, support for democracy as the best form of government declines by a full point. This change is roughly equivalent to the difference between Costa Rica—the Latin American country with the second-highest score on this outcome—and Peru—the country that scored lowest.

Figure 1 How Support for Democracy Changes as Ethnoracial Hierarchies Increase

Figure 2 How Support for Democratic Rights Changes as Ethnoracial Hierarchies Increase

Figure 2 depicts predicted support for liberal democratic rights. Again, we see negative slopes. Here the relationship with economic hierarchy stands out (figure 2a). As BGI moves from its lowest to highest observed value, support for basic democratic rights declines by approximately a point and a half. This change is comparable to the difference between Argentina and Bolivia, with Argentina ranking among the top third of countries on this index and Bolivia placing last.

This evidence supports our core hypothesis that ethnoracial hierarchies are negatively associated with democratic commitments in the mass public. We observe these effects society-wide, which indicates that ethnoracial inequalities are broadly associated with lower democratic legitimacy.

In the online appendices, we report additional models showing the effects separately for white respondents (appendix H) as well as Indigenous and Afrodescendant people (appendix I). These results are substantively similar to the results for the full sample, demonstrating that the general findings reported here are not driven by those from minoritized groups but manifest among members of privileged ethnoracial groups as well. Together, these findings align with our expectation that citizens living in democracies characterized by deep group-based hierarchies will have weaker support for democracy and for liberal democratic rights, and that these negative effects will exist across society as a whole.

Group Consciousness Moderates Exclusion’s Effects among Minoritized Groups

We now consider how hierarchies shape democratic commitments among those who suffer most directly within Latin American systems of ethnoracial inequality: Indigenous and Afrodescendant people. We delineated two different lines of argument in this regard, and we have theorized that the way these patterns play out is moderated by the nature of ethnoracial group consciousness. The first argument expects contexts of deeper hierarchy to limit democratic commitments among minoritized Latin Americans at least as much as they do among other ethnoracial groups (if not more so). Empirical evidence in line with this hypothesis would be negative relationships between ethnoracial inequality and democratic commitments among those who identify as a member of a minoritized ethnoracial group. If minoritized group members have low levels of structural group consciousness, we expect patterns in line with this first conditional hypothesis.

The second line of argument suggests that people from minoritized groups may sometimes confront exclusion by holding onto democratic commitments because they see the meaningful enactment of democracy as a potential avenue for countering oppression. Evidence for this view would be flatter slopes for the relationships between hierarchy and democratic commitments among minoritized group members (i.e., the negative effects of hierarchy will be less pronounced). If marginalized group members have strong structural group consciousness, we expect patterns that align with this second conditional hypothesis.

To consider these possibilities we use a measure of structural group consciousness available in some of the AmericasBarometer data. Respondents were asked a question about the causes of ethnoracial disparities in poverty. Response options included “because of culture” and “because of unjust treatment.” Indigenous and Afrodescendant people who saw this ethnoracial inequality as the product of unjust treatment recognize systemic injustices as important sources of group-based disparities. This survey item aligns with our concept of structural group consciousness, which we have defined as minoritized individuals acknowledging the structural causes of ethnoracial disparities. This item is also similar to survey items used in previous studies to measure dimensions of group consciousness that have structural underpinnings. For instance, in one of the most cited articles on group consciousness, Miller and colleagues (Reference Miller, Gurin, Gurin and Malanchuk1981) use a measure that specifically captures “the belief that a [minoritized] group’s social status is attributable to individual failings or [alternatively to] structural inequities” (McClain et al. Reference McClain, Carew, Walton and Watts2009, 477). They see this item as measuring whether minoritized individuals recognize that ethnoracial disparities are caused by systemic factors as opposed to individual or group characteristics. This is the precise logic reflected in the survey item that we use to measure structural group consciousness in our analysis. Overall, then, this measure is conceptually suitable and aligned with previous scholarship. We consider structural group consciousness to be high for respondents who saw unjust treatment as the predominant cause of ethnoracial inequality and low for those who did not. This item was asked in all AmericasBarometer countries in 2012, and in Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Mexico, and Peru in 2010.

To test how structural group consciousness moderates the consequences of ethnoracial hierarchy among minoritized individuals, we incorporate this measure into multilevel models similar to those reported earlier (although data availability on the group consciousness measure means fewer country-years are analyzed). Unlike the previous models where we simply included indicator variables for Indigenous and Afrodescendant identity, we instead include group consciousness. The measure takes on a score of one for Afrodescendant and Indigenous respondents who express structural group consciousness (labeled high group consciousness in our tables). We also include an indicator variable for marginalized group members who do not evidence structural group consciousness (labeled low group consciousness in our tables). Then, to evaluate whether having structural group consciousness moderates the effects of hierarchy, we interact these two indicator variables with BGI and political exclusion separately.

The results are detailed in table 2. The key coefficients in each column are the multiplicative interactions between high and low structural group consciousness and the two measures of hierarchy. A significant interaction term indicates the effect of hierarchy for those included in the interaction (minoritized individuals with high or low structural group consciousness) differs from the white baseline category. To determine whether the association between hierarchy and the outcome is different between those with high and low group consciousness, we conduct a test of the equality of the two interaction terms in each column. This is the central test of our conditional hypothesis, as we expect significant differences between minoritized individuals who have high versus low group consciousness.

Table 2 Multilevel Models with Structural Group Consciousness as a Moderator of Ethnoracial Hierarchy among Minoritized Group Members

Notes: Standard errors in parentheses. Reference category for ethnoracial identity: white. Reference category for group consciousness: non-Indigenous and non-Afrodescendant. BGI is centered when included in interaction terms. The political exclusion measure follows a centered scale already. Models include random intercepts plus random coefficients for individual-level variables that are part of interactions. Constant estimated but excluded from table. † p < 0.10; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

We find that overall support for democracy among Indigenous and Afrodescendant respondents is more resilient to increasing inequality when they possess structural group consciousness. The interaction terms for minoritized individuals with and without group consciousness are in opposite directions, and the differences between the coefficients on the two interaction terms are statistically significant (at p < 0.10 for BGI and p < 0.01 for political inequality). Similar interaction effects are not present for the democratic rights outcome variable. We note, however, that support for these basic liberal democratic rights is generally higher among minoritized groups members across the board, as indicated by the positive and statistically significant coefficients for Indigenous and Afrodescendant Latin Americans in table 1 (at p < 0.05 and p < 0.10, respectively). These patterns suggest that minoritized group members support these core democratic rights more consistently than their white neighbors across all levels of ethnoracial hierarchy, whereas their support for the democratic system is conditioned by their group consciousness. We did not theorize about this possibility, but it may be that minoritized group members remain steady in seeing the basic protections that democracy offers as important because implementing these protections helps to shield them from some degree of oppression. On the other hand, support for the overarching idea of a democratic regime is more conditional.

In Figure 3, we chart the predicted level of support for the democratic system for those with high and low structural group consciousness across values of economic (left panel) and political hierarchy (right panel). The figure clearly illustrates that structural group consciousness moderates the deleterious effects of both forms of hierarchy on support for democracy among minoritized group members. When Afrodescendant and Indigenous people possess structural group consciousness, their support for democracy remains essentially the same across all observed levels of economic and political inequality. Conversely, minoritized individuals who do not possess this sort of group consciousness manifest significantly lower support for democracy when economic and political inequality are high. These findings lend support to our expectation that structural group consciousness serves as a psychological resource that minoritized group members draw on to maintain support for the idea of democracy, even when they encounter profound economic and political exclusion.

Figure 3 Effects of Ethnoracial Hierarchy on Support for Democracy by Group Consciousness among Minoritized Individuals