Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Social Mobility and Ethnic Hostility | Expectations that socialization is a process that operates most strongly in childhood and adolescence, and thus class-based socialization infl uences should largely refl ect origin class position. Under the view that socialization experiences are of primary importance in the formation of negative attitudes towards ethnic outgroups, we expect the ‘Class Origin Hypothesis’ to hold: The impact of the destination class on indicators of ethnic hostility is weaker than the impact of the origin class on indicators of ethnic hostility. Another approach suggests that attitudes towards outgroups are more closely related to individuals’ perceptions of their material self-interest and related collective identities, especially their current class position. In line with this view, Ethnic Competition Theory states that members of ethnic groups compete with each other for scarce resources such as jobs, housing, and income (Blalock, 1967; Blumer, 1958; Bobo & Hutchings, 1996; Coenders, 2001; Coser, 1956; Olzak, 1992; Scheepers et al., 2002; Tajfel, 1982). Especially in conditions in which new competitors come from ethnically distinct groups, many individuals perceive this competition as refl ecting collective competition between ethnic groups. Since workers and the self-employed can rely on fewer resources and are more directly in competition with ethnic outgroups than other social categories, these categories perceive competition most strongly. Perceived ethnic threat evoked by perceptions of ethnic competition enhances in turn negative sentiments against ethnic outgroups (Coenders & Scheepers, 1998; Quillian, 1995, 1996; Scheepers et al., 2002). According to Ethnic Competition Theory, members of a social class thus share similar attitudes towards ethnic outgroups because of their shared competitive economic environment and because of their perceived mutual interest to protect their social class from ethnic outgroups. This theory suggests the ‘Class Destination Hypothesis’: The impact of the destination class on indicators of ethnic hostility is stronger than the impact of the origin class on indicators of ethnic hostility. 2.2.2 Educational origin and destination status Past research has consistently found that level of education to be one of the strongest correlates of prejudice and attitudes towards outgroups, with higher education associated with less ethnic hostility. Many have theorised that this holds in part because schools are socializing agents and transmit the prevailing norms of society, which in most Western societies favour tolerance. Moreover, education develops cognitive competence, increases open mindedness, and reduces authoritarian attitudes, all of which tend to foster a more tolerant stance towards ethnic outgroups (Hello, Scheepers, & Sleegers, 2006). Studies have generally not examined the relative impact of parental level of education versus own educational achievement on attitudes towards ethnic outgroups. Applying the distinction we made earlier between socialization and instrumental theories of class position, socialization theory predicts that more educated parents are likely to transmit their tolerant attitudes to the child during both school and pre-school years. This suggests the ‘Educational Origin Hypothesis’: The impact of one’s own educational achievement on indicators of ethnic hostility is weaker than the impact of father’s educational achievement on indicators of ethnic hostility. While parental education is also likely to have an impact on attitudes, we expect a stronger impact of respondent’s own education, consistent with past research. There are two 33
easons for this. First, education itself has a socializing infl uence that increases acceptance of norms of tolerance, at least in societies in which tolerance is the dominant value orientation. Second, education is important because it has a strong impact on job and class position, and thus affects perceived ethnic competition experiences. In fact, Hello, Scheepers, and Sleegers (2006) fi nd education affects social distance attitudes towards ethnic outgroups largely because of its effect on perceived ethnic competition, suggesting this second mechanism is predominant. Because of the combined effect of these mechanisms, we suggest that the more likely hypothesis with regard to education is the ‘Educational Destination Hypothesis’: The impact of one’s own educational achievement on indicators of ethnic hostility is stronger than the impact of father’s educational achievement on indicators of ethnic hostility. Table 2.1 Prevalence of ethnic threat, stereotypes and opposition to ethnic intermarriage in the Netherlands Ethnic Threat (N=2898) a Agree (%) Dutch people fi red because of minorities 18 Minorities are a threat to our own culture 30 Stereotypes (N=2520) a Agree (%) Never know whether Moroccans aggressive 24 People from Surinam work slowly 25 Gypsies are never to be trusted 16 Turks are backward 7 Extra careful with Jews in business dealings 14 Intermarriage (N=7420) b I would mind (%) Intermarriage with Turc OK? 39 Intermarriage with Moroccan OK? 44 Intermarriage with Surinamese OK? Source: 32 a : SOCON 1995, 2000, 2005 (pooled); b : NKPS 2002 2.2.3 Tolerance and the national culture Individuals are infl uenced by ‘the social pressure resulting from the shared values of the other members of the group’ (Blau, 1960, p. 191). We assume that this social pressure will not only originate from one’s ‘educational group’ or one’s ‘social class’ but also from the group formed by the people of a nation. The stronger the value climate of tolerance is in a country, the more individuals are thus stimulated to subscribe to these values. The Netherlands, like many other societies, offi cially condemn intolerance and discrimination. Although support for discrimination has been more widespread in times of high levels of immigration and during times of increasing unemployment, the Dutch majority did not support ethnic discrimination in the period from 1979 to 2002 (Coenders, Lubbers, Scheepers, & Verkuyten, 2008). Even after experiencing an ideological shift from multiculturalism towards assimilation (2001 to 2004), tolerance is the dominant attitude among older and younger generations in the Netherlands (Coenders et al., 2008). As can been seen from Table 2.1, the majority of the Dutch people do not agree that ethnic minorities form a threat, do not hold ethnic stereotypical attitudes, and do not oppose ethnic intermarriage. Intolerant attitudes are therefore diffi cult to express without facing social criticism; pressures of 34
Page 1 and 2: ETHNIC HOSTILITY AMONG ETHNIC MAJOR
Page 3: Promotores: prof. dr. N. D. de Graa
Page 6 and 7: Science is so much more fun when yo
Page 8 and 9: 3.4.1 Opposition to ethnic intermar
Page 10: 8.3.1 Theoretical implications for
Page 14 and 15: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 NEW QUESTIONS 1
Page 16 and 17: 1. Introduction | New questions ski
Page 18 and 19: 1. Introduction | The setting of th
Page 20 and 21: 1. Introduction | Research question
Page 26 and 27: Table 1.1 Outline of empirical chap
Page 28: 1. Introduction | Notes 27
Page 32 and 33: 2. SOCIAL MOBILITY AND ETHNIC HOSTI
Page 36 and 37: social conformity favour more toler
Page 38 and 39: 2. Social Mobility and Ethnic Hosti
Page 40 and 41: e more important than the infl uenc
Page 42 and 43: 2.4 RESULTS 2. Social Mobility and
Page 48: 2. Social Mobility and Ethnic Hosti
Page 51 and 52: 1987). Assessment of the importance
Page 53 and 54: The actual ethnic competition withi
Page 55 and 56: (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Wagner e
Page 57 and 58: seven categories: no-religion, Roma
Page 59 and 60: the lower the opposition to ethnic
Page 61 and 62: Table 3.1 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 63 and 64: Table 3.2 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 65 and 66: In model 8 we focus on the characte
Page 67 and 68: Table 3.3 Comparison of explanatory
Page 69 and 70: 3.5 CONCLUSIONS We observed a weak
Page 71 and 72: 9. The models presented in this cha
Page 74 and 75: 4. THE LOCAL LIVING ENVIRONMENT AND
Page 76 and 77: unit such as states or countries, w
Page 78 and 79: 4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 84 and 85:
4.4 RESULTS 4. The Local Living Env
Page 86 and 87:
Table 4.2 continued Household compo
Page 88 and 89:
4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92:
Page 96 and 97:
5. TRENDS IN ETHNIC EDUCATIONAL INE
Page 98 and 99:
5. Trends in Ethnic Educational Ine
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
the worsening economic conditions o
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Table 5.3 continued Male (Female=re
Page 112 and 113:
Table 5.4 continued Male (Female= r
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
6. EXPLANATIONS FOR ETHNIC EDUCATIO
Page 120 and 121:
To answer our research questions, w
Page 122 and 123:
6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Table 6.1 continued Pre-university
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Table 6.2 continued Lower general t
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Model 4 includes both the ability m
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
7. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND ETHNI
Page 146 and 147:
among four ethnic minority groups i
Page 148 and 149:
7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Table 7.1 Summary of hypotheses Cor
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Table 7.2 continued Control variabl
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Table 7.3 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Table 7.4 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168:
Page 172 and 173:
8. CONCLUSION 8.1 INTRODUCTION 8. C
Page 174 and 175:
8.2 QUESTIONS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSI
Page 176 and 177:
8. Conclusion | Questions, results
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
local living environments (on ethni
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
8. Conclusion | Theoretical implica
Page 192 and 193:
ethnic hosting threat contact / res
Page 194 and 195:
8. Conclusion | Retrospect and pros
Page 196 and 197:
8. Conclusion | Notes 195
Page 198 and 199:
APPENDIX Appendix 197
Page 200 and 201:
APPENDIX 2.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Page 202 and 203:
Appendix 2.3 continued Mobility typ
Page 204 and 205:
APPENDIX 2.4 TUTORIAL DIAGONAL MOBI
Page 206 and 207:
*********MEANS and OLS***********.
Page 208 and 209:
impact on depY. *The relative impac
Page 210 and 211:
Appendix *The impact of the destina
Page 212 and 213:
vector d = d1 to d6. vector p = p1
Page 214 and 215:
*and with constraints our model wou
Page 216 and 217:
Appendix 215
Page 218 and 219:
Appendix 3.1 continued father’s s
Page 220 and 221:
APPENDIX 3.3 OPPOSITION TO ETHNIC I
Page 222 and 223:
Appendix Appendix 4.1 continued Eco
Page 224 and 225:
Appendix APPENDIX 4.3 VARIANCE COMP
Page 226 and 227:
Appendix 5.1 continued Ethnicity N
Page 228 and 229:
APPENDIX 5.3 ROBUSTNESS OF ES ASSOC
Page 230 and 231:
Appendix APPENDIX 5.5 MULTI-NOMINAL
Page 232 and 233:
Appendix 7.1 continued 2nd gen. 2nd
Page 234 and 235:
Appendix 233
Page 236 and 237:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Abu-Rayya
Page 238 and 239:
Bibliography Buijs, F. J., Demant,
Page 240 and 241:
Bibliography (pp. 345-383). Oxford:
Page 242 and 243:
Bibliography euthanasia, homosexual
Page 244 and 245:
Bibliography Onderzoek (ISEO). Mart
Page 246 and 247:
Bibliography Politics, 58(1), 41-72
Page 248 and 249:
Bibliography Worchel (Eds.), The so
Page 250 and 251:
Bibliography 249
Page 252 and 253:
Summary in Dutch / Nederlandstalige
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
CURRICULUM VITAE Curriculum Vitae J
Page 266 and 267:
ICS DISSERTATION SERIES ICS dissert
Page 268 and 269:
ICS dissertation series 37) Andreas
Page 270 and 271:
ICS dissertation series 76) Inge Si
Page 272 and 273:
ICS dissertation series 115) Martin
Page 274:
Why do some individuals express mor
show all

Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?