Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

8. CONCLUSION
8.1 INTRODUCTION
8. Conclusion | Introduction
In the last chapter of this book I will assess to what extent I have been successful in answering
the core question of the book; what might be the sociological reasons for the fact that some
people belonging to particular ethnic groups, situated in time and place, hold more (or less)
ethnic hostility than others? I will refl ect on the theoretical implications of my empirical fi ndings,
and will give my opinion on which direction future research should take. But fi rst let me briefl y
sketch the structure of this book again and recapitulate the different focuses of its two parts.
Part 1 attempted to shed more sociological light on the question of why some people
express more ethnic hostility than others, by examining the impact of social mobility experiences
and of characteristics of the local living environment on ethnic hostility. Previous research mainly
identifi ed current or static characteristics of individuals that are related to ethnic hostility. I argued
in Chapter 2, the fi rst chapter of Part 1, that more dynamic explanations for ethnic hostility should
be taken into account as well. I therefore applied a ‘dynamic perspective’ and investigated the
impact of social mobility on ethnic hostility. The second chapter of Part 1, Chapter 3, assessed the
importance of various characteristics of municipalities and neighbourhoods with respect to ethnic
hostility. Up to now, such a ‘local context perspective’ had received relatively little attention.
The third and last chapter of Part 1, Chapter 4, investigated the importance of various locality
characteristics on indicators of social cohesion. Chapter 4 built on Chapter 3 in two important
ways. In Chapter 3, I assessed, among other things, to what extent different indicators of ethnic
hostility are affected differently by the locality. In Chapter 4, I investigated to what extent
explanatory models and the theoretical frameworks for ethnic hostility could also be applied to
explain other indicators of social cohesion not related to ethnic hostility. Secondly, both Chapters
3 and 4 took into account a multi-ethnic group perspective but in different and complementary
ways. Chapter 3 investigated the impact of locality characteristics on ethnic hostility among
natives directed towards different ethnic outgroups, Chapter 4 the impact of the locality on ethnic
hostility and other social cohesion indicators among both the native Dutch population and among
different ethnic minority groups.
In the fi rst part of this book I not only endeavoured to identify novel determinants
of ethnic hostility, but by looking at ethnic hostility from three different perspectives – i.e. a
dynamic, local context, and multi-ethnic group perspective – I was able to provide new empirical
tests for frameworks commonly used to explain ethnic hostility, such as Ethnic Competition Theory
(cf. Coenders, 2001; Coenders & Scheepers, 1998; Scheepers et al., 2002) and Contact Theory
(Allport, 1979 [1954]; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).
In the second part of this book, my aim was to contribute to the understanding of
ethnic hostility by focusing on the role played by educational attainment in the formation of
ethnic hostility among ethnic minorities. From previous research I already knew that educational
attainment is an important determinant of ethnic hostility among dominant or native populations.
I expected however that effects of education might differ across ethnic groups. This expectation was
founded on previous research that describes differential distributions of educational levels across
171