An edited piece on the sociology of xenophobia ..

THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF XENOPHOBIA AND OTHER-ISMS

Tom R. Burns,1 Masoud Kamali,2 and Jens Rydgren3

This paper has been prepared for the EU Workshop on _Racism and

 Xenophobia: Key Issues,Mechanisms, and Policy Opportunities,_ April 5-6, Brussels. This is a very preliminary work.
 

Introduction

European societies have exhibited high levels of xenophobia and racism

 in attitude surveys, a desire tolimit immigration and acceptance of

 refugees, and a readiness to exclude foreigners from certain social areas and arenas (Hargreaves & Leaman 1995; Solomos & Wrench 1993;

 Eurobarometer surveys forEUMC). Furthermore, there is a persistent threat that racist socio-political movements will arise and establish themselves, introducing a  _racist agenda,_ pressuring established parties to shift their position, and blocking or reversing institutional re-alignment in favor of pluralism, equality, and

justice. It is paradoxical that established elites within Europe stand

 for increased pluralism and opposition to xenophobia and racism, but

 that they have been largely unable to prevent or limit socio- political movements articulating ethno-nationalism (implying an ardent

 xenophobia), and authoritarian views on socio-cultural matters (e.g. law-and-order).  Nor have they been able to overcome much of the institutional inertia and resistance in  order to effectively address the problems of widespread  institutionalized discrimination.

      These notes identify in Section I normal group and community

 processes that lie at the root of xenophobia and racism, and related forms  of negative response to diverse
 _others_ _ _otherisms_ is the term we  have coined. Our main point is that problems of xenophobia and otherism,  including racism, are particular radical expressions or forms processes taking place in all social groups and communities, but, of course,  taking different forms and having different consequences. By  undesrstanding these basic processes, we can better analyze and most effectively address problems of racism and xenophobia.This view differs, of course,  from those that see xenophobia as largely pathological, as something purely irrational and exceptional The notes go on to examine two major forms of xenophobia and otherism in contemporary societies:  on the one hand, taken-for-granted and institutionalized forms (

I. GENERAL THEORY:
 BASIC GROUP AND COMMUNITY PROCESSES5

  1. Paradigms, Classification Schemes, and Strategies in Dealing with

 Problematic

Other.

All human groups conceptualize and grapple with problems, some of which

 are flet to be very serious problems defined as _dangers_ and

 _threats._ These are collectively conceptualized and organized in category  systems. Some of these dangers have to do with internal _deviants._ Others  are connected with outside agents who are economic, military,  political, or other _competitors_ _ possibly _enemies_. In some cases, the  latter are linked to internal groups, who may be defined as potentially  disloyal, and possibly _traitors._ This is illustrated in the case of  conceivably aggressive neighboring countries or regions with ties to  internal minorities of the same ethnicity, religion or political ideology.                                                         

Obviously, for such purposes the group or community must be able to

 distinguish itself in its right and proper states or conditions from its  environment. This entails then the
 construction and articulation of a  collective identity _ which can be distinguished not only from an

 environment but from deviant or divergence forms of its own structure and  processes that are considered improper or  failings, even threats to the  integrity, status, or survival of the group. _Dangers_ may be attributed  not only to human social agents but to natural conditions, or  supernatural beings.The dangers arising from natural causes

differ from those embodied or generated by willful human agents. Social

 agents, whether internal deviants or external powers, may be seen as

 possessing certain values and loyalties, and an identity, different

  from those of the community in question. Thus, a collectively_s self  is  differentiated from that of another (or that of a class of agents).

_Other_ may be distinguished on any of a number of dimensions: in terms

 of skin color or other biological characteristics, their institutions

 (economic, political, family), cultural patterns (norms, values,

 rituals), their territory or the place they live, their orientations to one_s  collective _self_, the history of one collective _self_ compared to the _other._ This model  points up the great variety of elements that can be built on to define  the _other._ It also points to the great variety of dangerous or  threatening factors that give meaning to the definition of the _other__  including those that are figments of an extraordinary imagination facilitated through the creative use of  language. But all _threats_ or _dangers_ are conceptualized as  differentiated from the group or community, its _core,_ even if in some cases  dangers are embodied in persons or subgroups of the community (contaminated or subverted agents). In sum, a community or group distinguishes then between itself  as a system and its _environment._ In interacting with internal and/or  external agents which are judged or perceived as different, possibly  dangerous or threatening, the community or group asserts, possibly  re-constructs, its identity by differentiating itself
 from _other._

What we are proposing then is the following: 

(1)In general, groups or communities operate with shared models or

 paradigms6 relating to their collective self and to their environment. A  social order is distinguished from its environment and, in particular,  from any factors which are believed to undermine or destroy the order.  The collective paradigms identify problems, dangers or threats, which  must be taken into account if a community is to to function effectively or  to survive as a community or group.7

(2)Groups and communities make distinctions, operating with

 institutionalized category systems
 that distinguish _inside_ from _outside._ With  respect to both the _inside_ and _the outside,_ they identify and  distinguish types of problems, threats, and dangers. These include  potentially problematic agents, in some cases defined or perceived as _enemies_  or _potential enemies._ Thus, values are associated with many category  or distinction systems, which give rise to a hierarchy: good/bad,  pleasant or gainful versus harmful or painful.

(3) Among the internal threats to a group are loss of respect and/or

 loyalty to institutions, refusal of some or many group members to uphold  the symbols, rules, and boundaries that are essential to maintaining  social
 order, integration, and solidarity in the community. Also  important are major tensions and conflicts between key individuals or sub-groups in a  community or group. 

External agents may be threatening or dangerous in a number of ways.

 They may be competitors for the same scarce resources or social space. They may  have a dislike or hate for one_s  grounded in transcendental truth and  morality, that come from _outside_or from groups. Or, they may be  considered a potential threat simply because they are _different_ on one or  more dimensions and rapidly growing in numbers, although there is no  immediate or clear and present danger. They may be considered
 threatening or  dangeroous because they are impure and polluting in a certain sense.  As suggested earlier, danger may be real or imaginary. It is important  to note, however, that belief in such a danger may become  self-fulfilling Acting on such beliefs elicits response from the _other_ defined as dangerous or threatening. They may behave in ways  which validate the belief  hence, the model of self-fulfilling prophesy  is an appropriate one to analyze and understand the vulnerability of  human communities to self-perpetrated problems, dangers, and conflicts.

(4) Moreover, the groups and communities have or develop strategies to

 deal with categories of entities
 seen as problematic, possibly

 threatening or dangerous. They must be dealt with, controlled, avoided,  possibly even destroyed (provided one has, or believes oneself to have the  power to do so). A community deals with problematic _other(s)_through  systematic discrimination, marginalization, and exclusion of individuals and subgroups that differ from community  ideals or are perceived as a threat or dangerous. They may be excluded from  access to resources or to power by barring them; by dividing and ruling  them or, in other ways, preventing them from forming strong  communities; by carrying out group cleansing; by terrorizing them; by ultimately  extermination either through mass murder or allowing them to
 die.

(5) Discourses and rituals9 directed at the _other_ serve to displace

 (or minimize) internal tensions and conflicts toward an object

 considered a threat or dangerous to the community.10 The community gains in  cohesion and power, its capacity to mobilize and to deal with _danger._ As  discussed later in the dynamics of the politics of xenophobia, political entrepreneurs and  organizations may try to frame a situation or create or define a situation  as one of clear and present danger from other(s), as a means to gain  support, to mobilize and integrate a group or community. The group is  _pulled together_ around a common problem, threat, or danger. In this 
 sense, the mobilization and integration and support of the authority of

 the group (or an aspiring authority) may become ends. The means entail

 the attribution of danger to another group or community. This is a common  strategty used by political elites as much as another elite strategy, that  of _divide and rule_. They both work  under a wide range of conditions.

In sum, the above suggests that that there is a potentially unlimited

 number of possible dangers and threats. There may be diverse agents who  are perceived or defined as _causes_ or _sources_ of threat or danger.  Each may relate to or arise in connection with a particular crisis,
 a  growing sense of uncertainty and anxiety. Communities have institutionalized strategies to deal with  problematic, threatening or dangerous groups. This is grounded in  group processes _ which may perceive or identify threats from inside and  well as outside the group. Thus, there is not one xenophobia or  ethnicism, or racism, but many. This is the basis for our coining the term  _otherisms._

There is a certain logic to _otherism_ in defining problems facing the

 community as associated with or caused by _other._11 It facilitates the  community_s development of  a common orientation and values. 

The group is integrated in the face of a _danger._ Under these

conditions, deviance from group normsand values, erosion of community

authority, internal conflicts and aggression are controlled or reduced. The destructive potentials are displaced from within the social order toward an  object, which may be aggressed, even destroyed, at the same time, strengthening solidarity  and unit of the group. In general, otherisms are a basis for defining 
 clear and present danger or threat, which may be accepted by some or  many, and which may operate in an immediate way to increase solidarity and  integration. Indeed, groups and communities may be held together  largely by perception or fear  of threat from the _other_ Conceptions  of the _enemy_ -- real or potential _ are the basis upon which mobilizing agents can construct consensus converting fear of  terror into solidarity, confidence in the group, a strong identity. The  boundary is between _our goodness_ and  _their evil._ Indeed, some groups  have their identity closely connected with conflict with another group.  _We exist as long as long as there is someone who represents what we  are not.  Social identity (and definition of the other) are thus  constructed through actions, particularly symbolic actions, and rituals that  define and reinforce the contrasting difference to others considered  _evil_ or _monstrous._

A clear and present _enemy_ or other immediate threat provides a value

 ordering. That is, in a certain sense, this logic involves a

 redefinition or reframing of dangers. An external problem or threat is defined as  more serious than internal ones. Value hierarchies are thus

 re-ordered. People downplay or _bracket_ certain problems, tensions or conflicts  in order to deal with the _major_ problem or
 threat.

2. Institutionalized and Emergent Otherism

A major distinction in our theoretical framework is that between

 institutionalized otherism and emergent otherism where the later is

 constucted and institutionalized as part of a _political_ process. That is, the  distinction between known and institutionalized conceptions of  problems, particularly _dangersous ones_ and vague, undefined experiences of threat or danger,  which become the point of departure for social construction and  institutionalization of otherism.

Institutionalized Otherism

A community may have established patterns of thinking and
 response,

 institutionalized strategies, for dealing with others considered

 problematic or dangerous. That is, the community makes use of shared category  systems and organizational arrangements that systematically identify and respond to internal or external agents that are defined as problematic or dangerous. Some  real or anticipated _problems_ are attributed to categories of others,  for example, in Europe, _Jew,_ _Muslim,_ _gypsy,_ _foreigner,_ or  _immigrant,_ believed to have problematic and even highly negative, in some cases dangerous, characteristics.

The _other_ may be seen an economic or political competitor. This may

 be connected to feelingsof threat, resentment, or
 both. They are

 perceived as a threat if they are believed to be taking or   gaining from the  first group. Or they may have already succeeded, and resentment is felt  with  respect to their achievements and gains. Internal groups in a  community may be a threat in that they deviate from established community   norms and laws. In some societies, as in Northern Europe  (Netherlands, Scandinavia) deviation   from the laws is judged by most as highly  problematic and condemnable. _Immigrants should    adapt their culture to the laws_ ( XXX in Northern Europe as opposed  to YYY in Southern Europe). In Southern Europe, for instance Italy,  Spain, Portugal, and Greece), violation of the law is less of a problem.  More problematic is the preception of particular forms of criminality  which are a threat to physical security (e.g. crimes of violence). In  yet other countries immigrants or minorities are seen as a threat to  national loyalties and identity; they are polluting in relation to national  ideals. Authorities and people in the community may want to  distinguish
 between right and proper immigrants and irregular or _chaotic   immigrants, but institutions fail to do so affectively. This serves to generalize the _otherness._ For instance,  police and administration are incapable of distinguishing and dealing with illegitimateimmigrants as opposed to regular or legitimate immigrants. The former may be associated with crime or activities that violate community sensibilities. The risks is, under conditions of inability to discriminate, that _all_ immigrants become defined and perceived as potential violators or pollutants.

In general, _negative otherness_ _ the basis for one or another form of

 _otherism_ -- especially in combination with large numbers threatens

 loss of control and disturbance of  normal and normative
 patterns.

 Social life becomes uncertain and unpredictable. Some groups of _others_ may be seen as polluting, contaminating. _Other_ may be attributed the cause of criminality and other kinds of insecurity, e.g. they are violent. Or, _they steal, fight, sell drugs and rape women._ Or, they are seen as an economic threat or violator of established economic markets and patterns of distribution. They quickly and effectively accumulate substantial wealth, causing resentment and envy (Chinese in SE Asia, Indians in Uganda, Cubans in Florida, Jews in many parts of the world). They may be seen as a political threat or potential disturber of the political system (Poles and other East Europeans in the context of EU enlargement). They may be defined or perceived as abusers of the generosity of welfare states, a violation which translates
 into higher taxes, less resources for us, that is, _those of us belonging to the right and proper _ethno-nationality._ In general, any number of problems, dangers, or threats may be attributed to immigrants or foreigners.

The institutionalized categorization and organization _ to respond to

 and deal with problematic other(s) -- provide a basis for systematic

 forms of discrimination, marginalization and exclusion of persons and

 groups that differ from community ideals, or are perceived as a threat or dangerous, as indicated earlier.  Not all arrangements that discriminate and exclude may have been designed for this particular purpose. They may be unintended, the result of pursuing other goals _ but which nevertheless result in tragic outcome(s) for the
 _other(s)_.

Emergent Otherism

A modern, dynamic society generates and distributes stress and

 uncertainty as well as concrete gains and losses. For many, there may be a sense of uncertainty and threat that is yet to be identified or

 comprehended in the context of systemic transformations. This may arise because of  changing ways of work, consumption, politics, or of general life  patterns. At some level, there is an anxiety and fear. This occurs  especially in times of rapid change where everyday conditions are experienced as  increasingly uncertain, strange or alien. The transformation of modern  societies has differential impact on different groups. Stress and uncertainty as well as
 burdens and gains are  distributed unequally. As a result, some experience more discontent, resentment, frustration and anger than others. This sets the stage for   entrepreneurial actors and groups to initiate movements against one or more  _other(s)._ This becomes an important source of _otherisms_ in modern societies. 

In the system theoretical perspective outlined here, all groups and

 communities operate with a general open template entailing the general

 concept of potential hazards and dangers. This template can be activated  in times of crisis or unexplainable anomalies or new, not-yet-identified  or specified dangers.

In other words, community members are predisposed to a
 greater or

 lesser extent to the potentiality of new threats and dangers. In a certain  sense, they are thus prepared  for procsses of defining or constructing  dangers. And dangers may be imagined and constructed _ with little or  no evidence. A newly defined danger fits the template of potential  threats, threats operating in a yet-to be  identified or known way. The  logic need not be the logic of science or causality, but a logic of  guilt  by _association_ or other forms of everyday reasoning.

Given conditions where some or many in the community or group

 experience disorder, discontent – a sense of
 growing _chaos_ and increasing  risks -- democratic societies offer opportunities for agents to associate  and to define problem(s), including dangers, and to suggest solutions,  that is to propose a new paradigm _ or activate and adapt a _retired_  paradigm -- defining source(s) of disorder, faillures, and  discontent,  and measures that may be taken. Contemporary society with its perpetual  (and restless) dynamic, transforms people_s conditions providing a rich  soil for the emergence of uncertainty and stress, discontent, resentment and sense of distributive injustice.  These experiences and feelings may be tapped, mobilized by movements and collective agents which define the new problem(s) and their causes and ways to solve them.
 The template of potential danger(s) is activated and given content: who or what is the cause or source of the problems and threats? Why and  how does it happen? How is it to be dealt with? Of course, these explanations and appeals must be articulated in appropriate discourses in time

 and place.They must also connect with some elements of common

 experience in order to be plausible and compelling. Most contemporary forms of, for instance, racism and xenophobia are no longer formulated in Europe in terms of race biological discourses of the inter-war years.

Creative imagination may fill in the template of potential dangers and

 risks. The opportunities for variety and even _collective madness_ are

 particularly advantageous in a
 highly complex, non- transparent world.

 That is, it is difficult to understand, to know, what and who is

 dangerous and why. Certain failures _ for example in connection with an economic crisis, epidemic, natural catastrophe, the  failure of agriculture _ must be attributed to _causes_ or _violators._ For instance, some agent or agents have violated key rules, broken the harmony. The _cause_ or _violator_ must be identified and dealt

with.

In the context of democratic societies, a mobilization around even

 extreme ideas _ possibly dismissed by established political elites and

 experts _ nevertheless provides a certain legitimacy to be heard, to

 participate in framing issues and problems, and suggesting
 solutions. It is in this context that paradigms of _inner_ and/or _outer_ threatening agents or enemies may be  articulated. Dangers and risks are defined, as are their causes. And strategies  to deal with them are implied or also articulated. The Nazi movement attributed, to a greater or lesser extent, many of Germany_s problems to the Jews. They were defined as internal traitors.

Institutional failures may be blamed on _other,_ internal or external

 to the community. This is a magical solution in situations where the

 group, or its leadership, cannot deal with serious economic

 malfrunctioning, health care failures, growing numbers of immigrants, uncertainties about welfare, etc.The community_s security, welfare, and in some cases its very existence, may
 appear  threatened.People may no longer feel as confident in the community, or as obligated to respect its rules of authority and solidarity. Members will recognize less and less _others_ in the group as trustworthy members. There is a sense of potential disintegration. One attractive strategy, as  suggested above, is for political and institutional elites to displace the blame from established institutions and themselves to _the other(s)_.13

 Typically, such labelling can be carried out because the level of

 concern with the _others_ is low and their marginality or weakness

 precludes a credible or effective response. The immediate consequences are much  greater if the critiques and attacks were directed to powerful core groups or
 elites.

In the following sections, two of the major bases of xenophobia and

 otherism in contemporary society are examined further and elaborated. 

 Institutionalized otherism. Here what is of interest are established,

 relatively well-defined forms of institutional discrimination,

 xenophobia, and otherism inherent in arrangements of particular key

 institutions, markets, bureaucracies, and democratic associations which deal with groups or classes of persons defined as problematic, threatening, or
 dangerous; (2) New problems (or old problems experienced in new ways), uncertainty, stress, discontent, and resentment in connection with modern societal developments sets the stage for defining particular others as the source or cause of the problems and specifying actions to be taken, or solutions._ This is often accomplished through  democratic processes (see later). Templates for danger are activated and filled in with one or another form of _otherism._This is the dynamic and sustained source of _otherisms_ in modern societies.

Home