Migrants, Minorities, Belongings and Citizenship. Glocalization and ...

negatively to each other explain 46,57% of the total variance. However, this does not
mean that European and national identities are compatible or incompatible with each
other. The results rather mean that, in our specific data set, some multidimensional
belonging modes do not comprise European belonging as a component and some others
do. And, there are different reasons for this.
2.2.5. Participation/involvement in multiple channels of voice and
influence
Most respondents attending to the glocal and multicultural/intercultural sites are
politically active. Reading these results, one should bear in mind that the respondents in
this study are the attendants of the glocal spaces; and the findings relate to the
characteristics of the glocal sites rather than the populations of individual countries. This
is also true for the other results in this study.
Most attendants of the glocal sites are also active in other channels of participation. This
was also confirmed with high certainty in the in-depth interviews. Indeed, the reason
why some people attend the glocal sites is their involvement in certain organizations
which the glocal sites accommodate. The general tendency is that for all our 7
categories, participation level in the numeric channel is quite low. This is also true when
the level of participation is controlled for citizenship (e.g. whether the persons have
acquired citizenship or not).
Apart from the historical new minorities and second country nationals, respondents’
participation level in corporate-plural channels is considerably high. Those who use the
essentialized sites the most – such as ethnicity and religion-based organizations – are
historical native minorities and imperial minorities. These groups are also the ones whose
participation level in glocal sites is the lowest. One last thing to mention here: It is
important to note that the high participation level of the second country nationals
(nationals of the EU-member states) in glocal sites (60%) is due to the Hungarian
cosmopolitan situation. In the other 5 countries in this study, second country nationals’
participation in glocal spaces is quite low.
Multidimensional participation patterns in glocal spaces
Table 7 illustrates results from a CATPCA-procedure applied to four variables measuring
respondents’ degree of participation in different channels. The procedure resulted in two
dimensions. Since all the variables’ loadings on the first dimension have the same sign
this is a common underlying dimension for all the respondents. The first dimension,
therefore, measures the degree of respondents’ general participation in all spaces of
74