The Institute IEE News Research News: Xenophobia in South Africa
| Research News: Xenophobia in South Africa |
"Determinants of Xenophobia among South African Students in the Self-Declared Rainbow Nation" (Jens Blank and Stefan Buchholz)Since the replacement of the apartheid regime by a democratic government in South Africa, the dominant economic power on the continent has become an attractive destination for millions of (un)documented migrants from the continent. The downfall of neighbouring Zimbabwe especially increased (un)documented migration to South Africa. Estimations about the number of migrants in South Africa vary from 800.000 to an unrealistically high number of 9.000.000. This range of estimated migration numbers creates massive uncertainty within the South African society about the extent of migration. Impressions: South Africa the "Self-Declared Rainbow Nation"
Degree of xenophobia Xenophobia is not a phenomenon that is limited to western countries. Attitude studies and countless assaults against foreign Africans show that a climate of xenophobia has been penetrating the South African society since the end of the Apartheid. Instead of interfering, many South African politicians as well as the media rather intensify the atmosphere of xenophobia. They quote unrealistically high migration numbers and it is also common to use metaphors like "floods" and "waves" to describe the extent of migration. Foreign Africans are also used as scapegoats for the problems of the South African society. Thus African migrants are often generally associated with criminal activities, and not infrequently politicians underline that migrants are a drain on scarce public resources.
Xenophobia is an economic cost factor Xenophobia is often seen as a rather unimportant topic on the political agenda which is related to human rights questions. This assumption neglects the fact that xenophobia also generates economic costs for a society. South Africa needs to attract qualified labour as it is suffering from a shortage of highly skilled labour. Furthermore, studies show that foreign African entrepreneurs provide new jobs by establishing businesses or increasing the aggregate demand as a result of cross-border trading. High levels of xenophobia in the South African society might prevent skilled African migrants from working or doing business in South Africa. Also the pogrom-like rampages against African migrants might tarnish the international reputation of South Africa especially with regard to the forth-coming world cup event of 2010.
Theoretical background In contrast to the degree of xenophobia in the country there is a deficit of South African xenophobia research and, in particular, empirical cause analyses are virtually non-existent. There is hardly a study that refers to sociological or social-psychological prejudice theories to explain xenophobia. Most of the publications available are without any theoretical foundation and if they use quantitative methods, they restrict themselves to univariate, or at the very most to bi-variate statistical analyses.
The main objective of this article is to determine to what extent sociological and social-psychological theories of prejudice can be applied to explain xenophobia within the South African society. The following prejudice theories were incorporated in a heuristic xenophobia model: The concept of relative deprivation: The main assumption of the concept of relative deprivation is that people can feel deprived of goods, power or prestige in comparison with a reference group. It is important to point out that the absolute (factual) level of deprivation is nonrelevant compared to the relative (imagined) deprivation. According to the theory feelings of relative deprivation will lead to frustration, and this in turn leads to conflict or prejudice against outgroups. RUNCIMAN (1972) distinguishes between egoistical and fraternal deprivation. Egoistically deprived persons feel that they are disadvantaged relative to their ingroup. Fraternally deprived persons on the other hand feel that their ingroup is doing worse in relation to a reference group.
According to the realistic group conflict theory (SHERIF 1966) prejudice is a consequence of real or perceived competition for the same resources (e.g. in SA housing, partners and jobs) between two groups. If group interests are incompatible inter-group competition and negative intergroup attitudes will inevitably be the result.
Contact hypothesis The underlying premise of the contact hypothesis is that contact between groups will reduce prejudice. Vice versa, a lack of contact to an outgroup will result in increased prejudice against the outgroup. ALLPORT specified the conditions under which contact to a minority group reduces prejudice: 1. Equal status of the groups; 2. Common goals; 3. Mutual interdependence in reaching the goal; 4. Institutional support (e. g. laws); 5. Frequent contact (1954: 281).
Social identity theory The assertion of the social identity theory (TAJFEL/TURNER 1979) is that people try to achieve a positive social identity to enhance their self-esteem. It is crucial to point out that a positive social identity can be achieved by comparing the ingroup with a relevant outgroup. This in turn will lead to a derogation of the outgroup or of outgroup members. An important aspect of the theory is the assumption that intergroup comparisons are related to the degree of someone's ingroup identification. The higher the importance of the ingroup for the members, the stronger the intergroup differentiation will be. Indeed various empirical studies confirm that patriotism as a measure of ingroup identification is a relevant predictor of xenophobic attitudes. MUMMENDEY et al. show that not all forms of patriotism inevitably lead to outgroup derogation. People can also gain a positive social identity for example by temporal comparisons (2001: 160). Concepts like "blind" and "constructive" patriotism seem to support these assumptions (Schatz et al: 1999).
Anomia Anomia can be described as a state of perceived normlessness of a society which is due to rapid social change. Anomic persons tend to perceive their society as insecure as well as unreliable and therefore they evaluate the society in general as negative. Foreign Africans are salient examples for the negatively evaluated social change within the society. This results in an incorrect causal attribution. Due to their salience, foreigners are hold responsible for the negative outcomes of social change (in SA e.g. crime, AIDS, unemployment) (STOLZ 2000: 150 pp.).
Method: Participants: In an explorative study a total of 411 South African students from Cape Town aged between 18 and 30 were interviewed in 2005. Indicator Items and statistical analysis: Different indicator items (4 point likert scaled) were used to measure the latent variables. Reliability and factor analysis were performed to concentrate the indicator items to the essential factors. Tab. 1 shows one example indicator item and reliability coefficient for each latent variable. Multiple regression analysis (OLS) was applied in order to test the theoretically derived heuristic model.
Results:  Figure 1 gives an overview of the distribution on the prejudice scale within the sample population. The histogram illustrates that the prejudice scores are distributed approximately normally. The mean value of the distribution is 12,65 (±5,64). The prejudice scale was regressed on the predictor variables. The regression results for each predictor are displayed in Table 2 which also shows that all predictor variables explain 22% (p < .001) of the variance of attitudes towards foreign Africans. Tab. 2: Regression results  In consideration of the distinct variability of social systems and the rather homogeneous sample population, values of this dimension can be interpreted as acceptable. Looking at each predictor separately the results - ordered by beta-weight strength - show that blind patriotism (beta=0.294), positive patriotism (beta=-0.172), contact to African foreigners (beta=-0.158) perception of competition (beta=0.142), and anomia (beta=0.117) are relevant predictors of xenophobic attitudes against foreign Africans among students from Cape Town. It should be noted that white students are significantly less xenophobic compared to the coloured reference group (beta=-0.146). In contrast, inconsequential predictors are direct competition, individual and fraternal deprivation. The additional added control variables "education of the parents" and "social class of the family" also failed to reach statistical significance.
Conclusion: diversity and tolerance leads to more positive attitudes towards foreign Africans. This kind of patriotism is probably not interlinked with intergroup comparisons and outgroup derogation, but rather with before and after apartheid-time comparisons. By contrast, undifferentiated patriotism is associated with xenophobic attitudes against foreign Africans. Unfortunately, within the scope of empirical investigations, the question can not be resolved as to what extent the South African "identity-building process" after 1994 contributed to the formation of undifferentiated forms of patriotism.
The empirical findings for contact are consistent with the theoretical assumptions and many other empirical findings worldwide. Contact to outgroups reduces prejudice.
It is interesting to note that "perceived" competition is a relevant predictor of prejudice whereas direct "egoistical" competition is non relevant. This underlines the assumption that societal multipliers should rather avoid giving the impression that South Africans and foreigners compete for the same scarce resources.
Anomia is a weak but significant predictor of xenophobic attitudes against foreign Africans. Anomic respondents tend to be more xenophobic. However, these results should be interpreted with caution, as the sample is obviously not representative for the whole of the South African population. More research needs to be undertaken to clarify the degree and determinants of xenophobic attitudes in South Africa. A recourse to European research findings and the adoption of recently developed concepts like group-based enmity would give further insight into the mechanisms that lead to xenophobic attitudes within the South African society. This would also make it possible to analyse inter-race relations within the South African society. References: MUMMENDEY, A.; Klink, A.; BROWN, R. (2001): Nationalism and Patriotism: National Identification and Outgroup Rejection. In: British Journal of Social Psychology, No. 40: 159-172
RUNCIMAN, W. G. (1972): Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-Century England. Harmondsworth, Middlesex u.a.: Penguin Books SCHATZ, R.; STAUB, E.; LAVINE, H. (1999): On the Varieties of National Attachment: Blind Versus Constructive Patriotism. In: Political Psychology, Vol. 20, No. 1: 151-174 SHERIF, M. (1966): Group Conflict and Cooperation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul STOLZ, J.(2000): Soziologie der Fremdenfeindlichkeit. Frankfurt, New York: Campus TAJFEL, H.; TURNER, J. C. (1979): An Integrative Theory of Intergroup conflict. In: Austin, W. G.; WORCHEL S. (Eds.): The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole: 33-47 |
