Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:28:02.072Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding Xenophobia in Greece: A Correspondence Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 June 2014

Sotiris Chtouris ,
Anastasia Zissi ,
George Stalidis  and
Kostas Rontos
Sotiris Chtouris
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of the Aegean, Mytilène [[email protected]].
Anastasia Zissi
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of the Aegean, Mytilène [[email protected]].
George Stalidis
Affiliation:
Department of Business Administration, Alexandrian Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki [[email protected]]
Kostas Rontos
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of the Aegean, Mytilène [[email protected]].
Get access

Abstract

Studies of xenophobia have focused either on socio-economic context that accentuates xenophobic attitudes or on perceptions of immigrants, namely symbolic and realistic threats as well as on social distance from immigrants. This study examines closely the relationship among various components of xenophobia and their contribution in the formation of particular xenophobic groups. The analysis identified four different xenophobic groups, i.e. a) The distant xenophobic group, b) The core xenophobic group, c) The subtle xenophobic group and d) The ambivalent xenophobic group. The groups’ profiles are synthesized through negative, neutral and positive properties of overall attitudes towards immigrants, perceived threats, political xenophobia, social distance, authoritarian attitudes and individual social characteristics. The survey results demonstrate that a multidimensional conceptualization of xenophobia is needed both at the level of objective social condition and of individual and collective perceptions.

Résumé

Les études sur la xénophobie se sont focalisées soit sur le contexte socio-économique, soit sur la façon dont les immigrations sont perçues, autrement dit des peurs symboliques ou réalistes et la distances sociale. L’article scrute de près la contribution de diverses composantes à la formation de quatre groupes xénophobes identifiables.

- Xénophobes de la barrière ;

- Xénophobes fondamentaux ;

- Xénophobes subtils ;

- Xénophobes ambivalents.

Les profils des groupes se distinguent par leurs attitudes globales devant les immigrants, les peurs, la xénophobie politique, la barrière sociale ainsi que l’autoritarisme et autres caractéristiques sociales individuelles. L’enquête démontre la nécessité d’une conceptualisation multidimensionnelle de la xénophobie.

Zusammenfassung

Studien zum Thema Ausländerfeindlichkeit beschränken sich entweder auf sozialwirtschaftliche Zusammenhänge oder auf die Art und Weise wie Einwanderer wahrgenommen werden, anders gesagt die symbolischen oder realistischen Ängste und den sozialen Abstand. Dieser Beitrag untersucht besonders genau, in welcher Form verschiedene Komponenten zur Herausbildung vierer ausländerfeindlichen, identifizierbaren Gruppen führen.

- Die distanzierte ausländerfeindliche Gruppe;

- die fundamentale ausländerfeindliche Gruppe;

- die feinsinnige ausländerfeindliche Gruppe;

- die ambivalente ausländerfeindliche Gruppe;

Die Gruppenprofile werden nach negativen, neutralen und positiven Eigenschaften bezüglich ihrem Verhalten gegenüber Einwanderern, Ängsten, politischer Ausländerfeindlichkeit, sozialer Distanz, autoritärer Verhaltensweisen und individuellen sozialen Charakteristika unterschieden. Die Untersuchung verdeutlicht die Notwendigkeit einer multidimensionalen Konzeptualisierung der Ausländerfeindlichkeit.

Keywords

Xenophobic groupMultiple correspondence analysisPolitical xenophobiaExtreme right GreeceGroupe xénophobeAnalyse des correspondances multiplesXénophobie politiqueExtrême droiteGrèceAusländerfeindliche GruppenMehrdimensionale EntsprechungsanalysePolitische AusländerfeindlichkeitRechtsextremismusGriechenland
Type
Modes of Violence
Information
European Journal of Sociology / Archives Européennes de Sociologie , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , April 2014 , pp. 107 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © A.E.S. 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno, Theodor W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, Daniel J. and Sanford, Nevitt, 1950. The Authoritarian Personality (New York, Harper & Row).Google Scholar
Allport, Gordon W., 1958. The Nature of Prejudice (Garden City, Doubleday).Google Scholar
Altemeyer, Bob, 1981. Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Manitoba, The University of Manitoba Press).Google Scholar
Altemeyer, Bob, 1988. Enemies of Freedom (San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers).Google Scholar
Altemeyer, Bob, 1998. “The Other Authoritarian Personality” in Zanna, Mark P., eds., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (New York, Academic Press: 47-92).Google Scholar
Benzecri, Jean-Paul, 1973. L’analyse des correspondances (Paris, Dunod).Google Scholar
Benzecri, Jean-Paul, 1992. Correspondence Analysis Handbook (New York, P. Dekker).Google Scholar
Benzecri, Jean-Paul, Lebeaux, Marie-Odile et Jambu M, Michel. 1980. « Aides à l'interprétation en classification automatique », Cahiers de l’analyse des données, 5: 101-123.Google Scholar
Bobo, Lawrence, 1988. “Group Conflict, Prejudice and the Paradox of Contemporary Racial Attitudes” in Katz, Phyllis A. and Taylor, Doris, eds., Eliminating Racism: Profiles in Controversy (New York, Plenum: 85-116).Google Scholar
Bohman, Andrea, 2011. “Articulated Antipathies: Political Influence on Anti-immigrant Attitudes”, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 52 (6): 457-477.Google Scholar
Canetti-Nisim, Daphna and Pedahzur, Ami, 2003. “Contributory Factors to Political Xenophobia in a Multi-cultural Society: The Case of Israel”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 27: 307-333.Google Scholar
Canetti-Nisim, Daphna, Halperin, Eran, Hobfoll, Stevan E. and Johnson, Robert E., 2006. Xenophobia Towards Palestinian Citizens of Israel among Russian Immigrants in Israel: Heightened by Failure to Make Gains in a New Democratic Society (Kellogg Institute, The Helen Institute for International Studies).Google Scholar
Chtouris, Sotiris, 2004. Orthologika Symbolika Diktya [Rational symbolic networks] (Athens, Nissos) (in Greek).Google Scholar
Cohrs, Christopher and Stelzl, Monika, 2010. “How Ideological Attitudes Predict Host Society Members’ Attitudes Toward Immigrants: Exploring Cross-national Differences”, Journal of Social Issues, 66(4): 673-694.Google Scholar
Devine, Patricia G., 1989. “Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (1): 5-18.Google Scholar
Duckitt, John, 2001. “A Dual-process Cognitive-motivational Theory of Ideology and Prejudice” in Mark P., Zanna, eds., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (New York, Academic Press: 41-113).Google Scholar
Esses, Victoria M., Dovidio, John F., Jackson, Lynne M., Armstrong, Tamara L., 2001. “The Immigration Dilemma: The Role of Perceived Group Competition, Ethnic Prejudice and National Identity”, Journal of Social Issues, 57 (3): 389-412.Google Scholar
Eurobarometer, 1997. Opinion Poll Racism and Xenophobia in Europe, n° 41.Google Scholar
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (eumc), 2003. Majorities’ Attitudes Toward Minorities in European Union Member States. Results from the Standard Eurobarometers 1997-2000-2003 (Ref. no 2003/04/01).Google Scholar
European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (eumc), 2005. Majorities’ Attitudes Toward Minorities: Key Findings from the Eurobarometer and the European Social Survey. Summary.Google Scholar
Gaasholt, Oystein and Togeby, Lise, 1995. “Interethnic Tolerance, Education, and Political Orientation: Evidence from Denmark”, Political Behavior, 17 (3): 265-285.Google Scholar
Greenacre, Michael J., 2007. Correspondence Analysis in Practice (2nd ed.) (Boca Raton, Chapman & Hall/CRC).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjerm, Mikael, 1998. “National Identities, National Pride and Xenophobia: A Comparison of Four Western Countries”, Acta Sociologica, 41 (4): 335-347.Google Scholar
Hughes, Joanne and Donnelly, Caitlin, 2003. “Community Relations in Northern Ireland: A shift in Attitudes”, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29 (4): 643-661.Google Scholar
Karapistolis, Dimitrios, 2002. “The mad Software”, Data Analysis Bulletin, 2: 133 (in Greek).Google Scholar
Katz, Irwin and Hass, Glen, 1988. “Racial Ambivalence and American Value Conflict: Correlational and Priming Studies of Dual Cognitive Structures”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55 (6): 893-905.Google Scholar
Méthodes d’Analyses des Données - MAD. http://www.mkt.teithe.gr/index.php/el/ereuna/65/202-mad (Last visited: 11/10/2013).Google Scholar
Pettigrew, Thomas F. and Meertens, Roel W., 1995. “Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Western Europe”, European Journal of Social Psychology, 25 (1): 57-75.Google Scholar
Quillian, Lincoln, 1995. “Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition and Anti-immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe”, American Sociological Review, 60 (4): 586-611.Google Scholar
Riek, Blake M., Mania, Eric W. and Gaertner, Samuel L., 2006. “Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-analytic Review”, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10 (4): 336-353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rouanet, Henry, Ackermann, Werner and Roux, Brigitte Le, 2000. “The Geometric Analysis of Questionnaires: The Lesson of Bourdieu’s la Distinction”, Bulletin de méthodologie sociologique, 65 (1): 5-18.Google Scholar
Sampson, Robert J., Raudenbush, Stephen W. and Earls, Felton, 1997. “Neighbourhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy”, Science, 227 (5328): 918-924.Google Scholar
Scheepers, Peer, Gijsberts, Merove and Coenders, Marcel, 2002. “Ethnic exclusionism in European countries. Public Opposition to Civil Rights for Legal Migrants as a Response to Perceived Ethnic Threat”, European Sociological Review, 18 (1): 17-34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semyonov, Moshe, Raijman, Rebeca and Gorodzeisky, Anastasia, 2006. “The Rise of Anti-Foreigner Sentiment in European Societies, 1988-2000”, American Sociological Review, 71 (3): 426-449.Google Scholar
Stalidis, George and Karapistolis, Dimitrios, 2012. “Data Analysis to Support Business Planning: Application to a Novel Internet Radio Business”, Data Analysis Bulletin, 13/12: 59-72.Google Scholar
Stephan, Walter G., Ybarra, Oscar and Bachman, Guy, 1999. “Prejudice Toward Immigrants”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29 (11): 2221-2237.Google Scholar
Stephan, Walter G. and Stephan, Cookie W., 2000. “An Integrated Threat Theory of Prejudice”, in Oskamp, Stuart, ed., Claremont symposium on applied social psychology (Hillsdale Lawrence, Erlbaum: 23-46).Google Scholar
Stephan, Walter G., Renfro, Lausanne, Esses, Victoria M., Stephan, Cookie W. and Martin, Tim, 2005. “The Effects of Feeling Threatened on Attitudes Toward Immigrants”, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29 (1): 1-19.Google Scholar
Van de Geer, Peter, 1993. Multivariate Analysis of Categorical Data: Applications (Newbury Park, Sage Publications Inc. Advanced Quantitative Techniques in the Social Sciences Series Vol. 3).Google Scholar
Watts, Meredith W., 1996. “Political Xenophobia in the Transition from Socialism: Threat, Racism, and Ideology among East German Youth”, Political Psychology, 17 (1): 97-126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watts, Meredith W., 1997. Xenophobia in United Germany: Generations, Modernization, and Ideology (New York, St. Martin’s Press).Google Scholar