Nationalism and Exclusion of Migrants

Cross-National Comparisons

Mérove Gijsberts, Louk Hagendoorn

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• Edition: 1
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351915762
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Emigration & Immigration
• Index: Social Sciences

The association of exclusionist and nationalist relations, termed ethnocentrism, has been previously explored within single-country contexts. Studies have shown that dispositional factors, such as social identity and personality traits, affect ethnocentric reactions and that attitudes differ between social categories. However, broader national and international explanations have been neglected in the literature. This book fills this major gap by providing a unique account of the relationship between nationalist attitudes and the exclusion of migrants across a range of European countries, the US, Canada and Australia. Drawing on a variety of comparative surveys, the authors assess whether ethnic exclusionist reactions and nationalist attitudes are indeed systematically related across countries, and whether variations in such attitudes reflect country-level as well as individual-level differences. The authors consider the multidimensionality of the concepts of nationalism and exclusionism as well as the empirical associations, and analyze the attitudes of both majority and minority groups within the countries studied.

1

Introduction

Marcel Coenders, Mérove Gijsberts, Louk Hagendoorn and Peer Scheepers

Global processes have made many societies more multicultural and multiethnic than ever before in history. Two major trends are taking place worldwide: massive migration waves and increased inter-ethnic conflict. Many nations have seen exclusionist reactions towards these new minorities. Such reactions may be a source of latent conflicts between ethnic groups. In recent years, inter-ethnic conflicts became manifest: there has been an upraise in ethnic conflicts and violence in many regions in the world (Gurr, 2000; Gurr and Harff, 1994; Tägil, 1984). Most clearly, this has been demonstrated by the violent ethnic struggles in Burundi and Rwanda (see Lemarchand, 1996). But there are many more persistent ethnic conflicts around the world such as the ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, the repression of the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq and the riots between major ethnic groups in Indonesia and Malaysia (Banton, 2000).

This study focuses on the attitudes¹ of individuals towards, on the one hand, their own ethnic group and, on the other hand, ethnic outgroups and thus, concerns the issue of latent conflicts between ethnic groups. The study of ethnic attitudes and interethnic relations is a major research area in the social sciences. To a large extent, previous research focused exclusively on exclusionist reactions. Exclusionism may manifest itself in various ways, such as in unfavourable attitudes towards ethnic minorities, in the opposition towards equal treatment of minorities, in the denial of civil rights or in voting for extreme right-wing parties who question the presence of ethnic outgroups in their country. Fewer studies claimed that people who support ethnic exclusionism also strongly support nationalism, more particularly nationalist attitudes, such as feelings of national pride or even national superiority. Previous research disentangled many different dimensions of both exclusionist reactions and nationalist attitudes and revealed that support for each of these dimensions varied. However, no study so far directly compared several dimensions of nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions. Therefore, the first aim of this book is to fill this gap and to consider different aspects of exclusionist reactions and nationalist attitudes simultaneously.

Some research focused on both types of attitudes simultaneously and showed that positive attitudes toward the ethnic ingroup are accompanied by negative attitudes towards ethnic outgroups, a phenomenon labelled as ‘ethnocentrism’ (Sumner, 1906; Adorno et al., 1950/1982; Billiet et al., 1996; Scheepers et al., 1989). However, the presumed association between exclusionist reactions and nationalist attitudes has until now only been tested in a few single-country studies (see Poppe, 1998). Therefore, the second aim of this book is to analyse whether ethnic exclusionist reactions and nationalist attitudes are indeed systematically related in many countries, thereby considering the multidimensionality of both concepts as well as their empirical associations.

Previous research has shown that people differ in their nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions. Classical studies on this topic have shown that social identity and personality traits affect nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions (for example, Adorno et al., 1950/1982). More recently, these attitudes were shown to differ between social categories (for example, Billiet et al., 1996). However, these studies focused exclusively on the individual level, thereby neglecting country-level explanations. So far, we do not know much about differences in nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions between social contexts (see Williams, 1994). This study will therefore not only examine whether variations in nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions reflect individual-level differences, but also whether they reflect country-level differences. So, the third aim of this book is to describe and explain differences in nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions on a broad cross-national comparative scope.

The World Context: Immigration Waves and Ethnic Composition

The central question in our study is to what extent people in a number of societies show different reactions towards other ethnic groups. For this purpose, we have to consider the specific societal circumstances in which nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions occur. A distinction can be made between three types of societies: longstanding immigration countries, Western-European nations and the former state-socialist societies of Eastern Europe.

Firstly, we regard the USA, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand as longstanding immigration countries. These countries have had a long history of large-scale immigration, in which over time the immigrant groups of European ancestry have become the majority group, while the indigenous ethnic groups have become the subordinate group in terms of their control of the state and economy. These countries were ethnically heterogeneous from the start, consisting of many different ethnic groups, and still continue to receive new immigrant groups. Figure 1.1 presents immigration rates for several western countries, including the so-called ‘immigration countries’, where immigration rates are highest.

Secondly, in Western-European nations immigration is of a more recent date. Four decades ago, colonial minorities arrived in Western Europe, followed by the ‘guest workers’ in the 1960s. By the 1980s, the new minorities were growing because of the increase in refugees and asylum seekers (see Pettigrew, 1998). Table 1.1 presents the 1995 inflow of asylum seekers in countries of the European Union. We can see that large differences exist between these nations. Countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Belgium receive many asylum applications, while others such as Italy and Portugal hardly receive any.

Figure 1.1

Net migration rate (number of migrants per 1000 inhabitants) in 10 Western countries in 1995

Source: CIA World Fact Book (1995)

Thirdly, we will consider Eastern-European countries following the political and economic transformation of Eastern Europe. A distinction can be made between former Soviet Republics and Vassal States of the former Soviet Union. The inflow of refugees is generally low in Central and Eastern Europe. However, most of the former socialist-state countries can be characterized as complex multiethnic states, with national minority groups and additional minority groups from other titular republics, or groups without a republic (Poppe, 1998). This is illustrated in Table 1.2, which shows the ethnic composition of the most important ethnic groups in several Central and Eastern-European countries. For instance, in the states of the former Soviet Union, Russians form a large – and in some instances the largest – minority group: in Kazakhstan almost 40 per cent of the population is Russian, in Ukraine 22 per cent, and in Belarus and Moldova, over 13 per cent is Russian (see Hagendoorn, Linssen and Tumanov, 2001). Many other minority groups are also present in Central and Eastern-European countries such as Turks in Bulgaria, Roma in Hungary, Slovaks in the Czech Republic, Ukrainians in Moldova, Armenians in Georgia and Germans in Kazakhstan.

Table 1.1 Number of asylum seekers per 100,000 inhabitants in countries of the European Union in 1995^a

Austria	74.78
Belgium	126.80
Denmark	111.32
Finland	15.03
France	36.67
Germany	148.30
Greece	13.65
Ireland	18.52
Italy	2.43
Luxembourg	58.33
Netherlands	223.93
Portugal	5.39
Spain	19.05
Sweden	125.09
United Kingdom	76.47

Source: SOPEMI (1998)

^a To correct for yearly fluctuations the average has been taken of the number of asylum seekers in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996

Table 1.2 Ethnic composition in various Central and Eastern European countries in percentages of the total population

Country	National majority	Largest minority	% Second minority
Poland	96.0%	<1.0% Germans	<1.0% Belarussian, Ukrainians
Czech Republic	94.9%	3.1% Slovaks	< 1.0% Poles
Hungary	88.9%	5.8% Roma	1.9% Germans
Bulgaria	85.8%	9.7% Turks	3.4% Gypsies
Belarus	77.9%	13.2% Russians	4.1% Poles
Ukraine	72.7%	22.0% Russians	<1.0% Jews
Moldova	64.5%	13.8% Ukrainians	13.0% Russians
Georgia	70.0%	8.0% Armenians	7.0% Russians
Kazakhstan	38.5%	37.8% Russians	5.8% Germans

Source: Hagendoorn, Phalet, Henke and Drogendijk (1994), based on census data and estimates

General Problem Definition

In this study, we will address questions such as what kind of people show nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions; and under what circumstances are people more or less nationalistic and exclusionistic? Previous research typically focused on antagonistic feelings between members of different ethnic groups residing in the same country; for instance, negative feelings of white Americans towards African-Americans or vice versa (Schuman et al., 1997). Consequently, empirical research so far commonly concentrated until now on attitudes of indigenous people towards inhabitant ethnic outgroups. However, given the large migration waves and increased multiethnic shaping contemporary society, we will address the wider spectrum of nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions (see Pettigrew, 1998).

First of all, nationalist attitudes are by no means a uniform phenomenon (Hagendoorn et al., 2000).² Nationalist attitudes can be differentiated according to more or less ‘negative’ types of ingroup attitudes (see, for example, Kosterman and Feshbach, 1989).³ On the moderate side of the spectrum we will study national identification or identification with one’s own ingroup: people cognitively acknowledge that they belong to a natural (majority) group, often acknowledge that they share a common heritage (Hagendoorn and Pepels, 2000). Second of all, we will address patriotism or feelings of national pride: people feel emotionally proud of their national (majority) group (cf., Bar-Tal and Staub, 1997). Finally, we will examine chauvinism, which refers to feelings of superiority of one’s own country and its residents. We will apply the label ‘nationalist attitudes’ as a generic term for favourable attitudes towards the national ingroup and country. Note that this conceptualization of ‘nationalist attitudes’ diverges from another concept of nationalism commonly defined by Bar-Tal and others, which is applied as a political- sociological term referring to the political claim of a separate, distinct, and independent nation-state.

Exclusionism may also manifest itself in various ways. Because of the diversity of ethnic outgroups, stances towards such groups can be expected to be multidimensional. Firstly, we will study people’s opposition to the arrival of new immigrant groups or asylum seekers. Secondly, we will examine their opposition to the presence and civil rights of the already established ethnic minorities. Avoidance of any social contacts with the already established immigrant community constitutes another exclusionist reaction. Therefore, our study will also take this social distance into account. Finally, exclusionism can also manifest itself in voting for anti-immigrant parties, i.e., parties generally opposed to the immigration and presence of ethnic minorities (Fennema, 1997). This is the last exclusionist: reaction we will consider.

So far, previous research mostly focused on nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions of majority groups. A country’s majority group is defined as the dominant ethnic group of that country, in terms of political power and economic status. In most countries, such as in Europe, this coincides with the indigenous ethnic group. In other countries, which have had a long history of large-scale immigration, such as Australia, the indigenous ethnic group is the subordinate group (or minority group), in terms of their control of state and economic organizations. Conversely, the immigrants (of European ancestry) have become the super ordinate, that is, the majority group. In yet other countries, minority groups previously belonged to the dominant group, such as the Russian minorities living in the former Soviet Republics. This study will concentrate on attitudes of both these majority and minority groups.

In exploring the varying support for these different types of nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions of both minority and majority groups, we will consider both individual-level and contextual-level explanations and their interrelationships. This leads to the following general research questions:

1. Which are the differences between countries and between specific social categories within these countries regarding nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions?
2. To what extent do individual and contextual characteristics explain these differences between countries and between categories within countries?

Theories

In the present section, several theories will be examined that shed light on why people hold nationalist attitudes and show exclusionist reactions, as well as on social conditions in which people have stronger nationalist attitudes and exclusionist reactions. We will particularly discuss two theoretical approaches, realistic group conflict theory and social identity theory, which have especially dominated social- psychological and sociological research since the seventies and eighties (cf., Duckit, 1992; Devine, 1995), although their theoretical ancestors date back to the fifties. Within realistic group conflict theory, the social-psychological and sociological research traditions have mostly developed independently from one another. Social psychologists, inspired by the experiments of Sherif (1966) in the 1950s, have studied the effects of intergroup competition and conflicts of interests on mfragroup and intergroup relations, mostly within experimental situations. Yet sociologists like Coser (1956) have focused on the sources of intergroup competition and conflicts of interests in real-life situations. Whereas both social psychologists and sociologists have contributed to realistic group conflict theory, social identity theory stems, for the greater part, from the social-psychological tradition.

Realistic Group Conflict Theory: Social-Psychological Approach

Central in realistic group conflict theory is the conflict of interest between social groups, such as ethnic groups, which arises from competition over scarce resources and values (Le Vine and Campbell, 1972; Austin and Worchel, 1979). This conflict of interest acts as a catalyst to antagonistic intergroup attitudes and conflicts. In essence, realistic group conflict theory is base...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 INTRODUCTION
• PART I NATIONALIST ATTITUDES
• PART II EXCLUSIONIST REACTIONS
• PART III ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN NATIONALIST ATTITUDES AND EXCLUSIONIST REACTIONS
• Appendices
• Bibliography
• Author Index
• Subject Index