The Xenophobia Through The Social Theory Sociology Essay

In this essay I’d like to analyze the phenomenon of xenophobia in Ukraine. This topic corresponds to the issue of limits of tolerance. To start this paper it’s crucial to define what the tolerance is. Basically tolerance is will or capability to endure, allow and accept the existing opinion or behaviour, which the person dislikes or disagrees with. This definition makes it clear that the ties between two notions of “tolerance” and “xenophobia” are undoubted.

The context, in which the xenophobia is investigated here, is quiet interesting. Ukraine has got its independence in 1991, but before that for almost 400 centuries (with the exception of few years during the interwar period) it was a part of different Russian empires, Polish states and Habsburg Empire. Therefore, the conditions of Ukrainian nation formation were really interesting. To my mind this process is still in progress, that’s why nowadays we have such an interesting case of xenophobia phenomenon there.

The question my essay is going to answer is: What are the reasons of xenophobia in Ukraine?

To answer it I need to fulfill following steps:

1. To review the contemporary approaches to the studying of xenophobia.

2. To analyze the results of two sociological researches on xenophobia in the state in 1995 and 2006.

3. To propose and analyze the reasons of xenophobia in Ukraine.

The structure of my essay is closely related to the steps, which I mentioned above. Therefore, the first part will give the theoretical basis for the data analysis, which will be done in the second part. The third part will be more theoretical as I’m going to find out which reasons play the key role for xenophobia level in Ukraine.

The central place in the logic of my essay is occupied by the results of researches made by Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, one of the leading sociology research agencies in Ukraine. As I mentioned above two researches were made in 1995 and 2006 correspondently. During each of these researches a little bit more than 2000 people were interviewed. The results of these researches are representative for the adult population of Ukraine (18+).

Part 1. Theory overview

1.1. Xenophobia through the social theory

Before turning to statistical data it is crucial to see which theoretical basis this topic has, that’s why I decided to look at xenophobia through the prism of social science theories. The generally accepted content of the notion of “xenophobia” can be expressed by the following theses:

1. This is the condition of fear towards strangers or simply something unknown, unusual and strange;

2. Hatred, intolerance and hostility towards representatives of other races, religion, culture, foreigners or representatives of other regions as well as towards something unknown, unusual and strange. [1] 

This definition proves that the phenomenon of xenophobia has not only individual character, but also has the social nature as it is “made” of social reasons, factors of influence and consequences. Basically, the investigation of xenophobia is grounded on the following sociological concepts and theoretical explications: Other, Strange, identification, ethnocentrism, cultural compatibility, nation and nationalism, collective ideas, tolerance and racism.

The notion of “xenophobia” is ontologically connected to the categories of “Other” and “Strange”. G. W. F. Gegel, E. Gusserl, M. Haidegger and others made a great contribution to the development and investigation of these categories. It is crucial to mention that the Other is not obligatory the Strange. According to G. Simmel, B. Vandelfels and E. Goffman the Strangers are not simply unknown people, but they are uninvited guests in one’s world, who are not going to leave it. They come today to stay here tomorrow, but even if they stay they continue being the strangers. In other words, getting closer physically doesn’t mean becoming closer spiritually. The realization of “Their” existance allows us to constitute ourselves and to isolate our “We” from them. [2] From this point of view xenophobia fits the theory “We (not strange) – They (the Strange)” very well.

The next dimension, which xenophobia can be investigated through, is the concepts of identities. In different times the problem of identity and identification was developed by E. Fromm, G. H. Mead, A. Giddens, E. Erickson, J. Habermas, K. Horney, E. Smith, etc. People have numerous identities, force and volume of which varies depending on different factors. The structure of identity develops during the whole life according to the change of social context. Identification has opposite nature and foreknows the statement that they are different from us. The beginning of xenophobia can be seen when the stating of peculiarity is replaced with hard valuating contrasting (they are worse than we are, we are their victims, etc.). [3] Usually it is connected with the phenomenon of negative identification, when self-affirmation occurs through the humiliation of others. To my mind this approach to xenophobia is very logical and well-grounded.

In time of globalization in contemporary societies the ethnic (national) community predominates in people’s identification. Respectively, the issue of ethnic identity gains a great value and a special status. From this point of view in such a situation ethnic identity causes intolerance towards representatives of other ethnic groups. [4] Here we can see how xenophobia is born as a result of the Other’s deviation from the accepted by majority unitary cultural norm and the xenophobic person considers him/herself to be the standard of this cultural norm.

To my opinion it’s time to turn to the theories of ethnocentrism and cultural compatibility. The notion of “ethnocentrism” was introduced by L. Gumplowicz and was defined as the reasons, which make every people believe that it occupies the highest place not only among the contemporary peoples and nations, but also comparing to all peoples of the past. [5] For ethnocentrism it is typically:

1. To accept own group as a standard for the evaluation of other groups (“own” is always right, natural and the best). It causes group’s inner consolidation;

2. To recognize the other groups as worse ones. It’s accompanied by hostility, distrust and disrespect to the members of other groups.

These tendencies can exist separately from each other, but for xenophobia the last feature is obligatory condition. So, this is how xenophobia can be studied from the ethnocentrism point of view.

Considering xenophobia it’s important to stress that xenophobic world-view includes negative collective ideas, social stereotypes and prejudices. The stereotypes can have neutral or even positive character, but xenophobia is a consequence of negative stereotypes only. These negative stereotypes influence much the formation of social consciousness, defines the disfigured way of social and cross-cultural communication. This phenomenon is common for individuals and social groups. Therefore, to understand xenophobia it is crucial to investigate the stereotypes of social environment, but not the individual’s prejudice. From the point of xenophobia it’s more logical to speak about collective ideas (the notion proposed by E. Durkheim). [6] 

During the end of 19th – beginning of 20th centuries the racial myths became a part of nationalistic arguments. Therefore, the overview of approaches to investigate xenophobia won’t be full without turning to theory of nations and nationalism.

Diverse understanding of nation is expressed in different approaches of understanding of nationalism. In contemporary tradition of national studies nationalism is characterized as either neutral, or good, and only sometimes as negative phenomenon. The discussion around the question of nation and nationalism still takes place. But there is no doubt that the radical aggressive manifestation of nationalism (chauvinism) is one of xenophobia types.

For sure, xenophobia should be considered in terms of bipolarity, when its other pole is the phenomenon of tolerance. One of the ways to analyze xenophobia is to observe its opposite side. The notion of “tolerance” was discussed in works of M. Weber, G. W. F. Gegel, T. Hobbes, J. Locke and others. The real revolution of tolerance theory was made by the theory of personal autonomy of J. St. Mill. He claimed the authority of individual freedom. An individual is absolutely sovereign in his actions. His/her freedom can be limited if his actions harm or trouble other members of society. Starting from the times when this theory was elaborated the principle of personal freedom became the basis of toleration and human rights in liberal theory. [7] 

Thereby, this overview provides an understanding of existing approaches to investigate xenophobia as social phenomenon. I named and discussed briefly basic theories to approach intolerance expressed in xenophobia. The concepts of Other, Strange, identification, ethnocentrism, cultural compatibility, nation and nationalism, collective ideas, tolerance and racism constructed the basis for further investigation of the issue I’m interested in. For me the central place in this overview is taken by “identity” and issues related to it. In this essay we are going to see how human (social) identity influences xenophobia in Ukrainian case. Nevertheless, I would assume that all named above theories are applicable for the case, which is discussed in this paper, but I’m going to stress on the most important just for that very case of Ukraine.

Part 2. Analysis of empirical data

2.1. Bogardus scale

It’s important to describe Bogardus scale briefly as this method was used for the researches, results of which are going to be discussed in this paper. The testing scale of xenophobia was named after its creator Emory S. Bogardus. It was elaborated to estimate willingness of people to take part in social contacts on different levels with representatives of varying social groups (for instance, different ethnic, racial and socio-lingual groups, sexual minorities, etc). [8] 

The Bogardus scale asks how close people would accept the representative of each group, which research interested in (the answer 1.00 represents no social distance at all as it’s the closest possible social contact):

– to accept as family member (no social distance);

– as the close friends;

– as neighbors;

– as colleague;

– as the citizens of the same country;

– as the visitors of the country, where responder is coming from;

– the responder wants to exclude this person from his/her country. [9] 

The Scale of Xenophobia proposed by Bogardus is based on the method of cumulating as the respondent’s answer, the social distance, which the respondent chooses, means that he/she also accepts bigger social distances (according to the scale) with a member of social group, which he-she asked about. This method was criticized much, because it simplified the meaning of different social contacts, because family relations as well as close friendship can’t be compared to interactions of far-away type. Nevertheless, this scale started being used in 1925 and is still used. This is not the only way to measure social distance, but it was applied for the researches, which are discussed in this paper.

2.2. Xenophobia in Ukraine. General overview

To make the general overview of xenophobia in the country the best way is to see the dynamics of xenophobia rates change in time. Let’s see the Figure 1, which represents the table comparing the xenophobia index in Ukraine in 1995 and 2006.

It’s obvious that in Ukraine the xenophobia index towards all ethnic, ethnic-lingual and racial groups presented in the table increased. Hierarchy of “dislikes” almost didn’t change except of Americans, intolerance towards who increased of 0.9 points.

Ethnic/Racial/Ethnic-lingual Group

1995

2006

Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians

1,72

2,06

Russian-speaking Ukrainians

1,84

2,23

Russians

2,05

2,39

Jews

3,71

4,13

Polishes

3,82

4,37

Germans

3,92

4,56

Americans

3,72

4,63

Black people

5,01

5,42

Figure 1. The xenophobia index in Ukraine towards several ethnic/racial/ethnic-lingual groups. 1995 and 2006. [10] 

The table also shows that the highest rate of intolerance was towards black people, the members of different racial group, both in 1995 and in 2006. Intolerance rates towards the representatives of different ethnic groups, which are culturally distant (Americans and Europeans), are a bit lower comparing to the black people. The smallest social distances are towards ethnically and culturally close ethnic groups. To observe the real picture of xenophobia it is crucial to consider the following percentage of those, who according the researches’ results wanted the member of other nations to become the member of their families. So, 59% of Ukrainian population want to accept Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainian as a family member, 13% of responders said “yes” to accepting Americans as their families and only 5% considered as possible to include a black person to their family. Moreover, the percentage of those, who wouldn’t let the representatives of the named above groups in Ukraine, makes the picture even more impressive: 0,5% of responders don’t want to see Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians in Ukraine (!), 9% are against Americans presence in the state and 21% of population said “no” to black people’s arrival to Ukraine. [11] 

There are some basic theories of xenophobic dislikes. So I’m going to see in which ways the xenophobia is usually explained by the theorists of this phenomenon in Europe and the USA.

According to Theodor W. Adorno intolerance is an element of authoritarian system, which depresses personality and makes people seek for some objects to wreak their anger on. But this theory has nothing in common with image of “scapegoat”, because this object should be historically grounded and perform as incontestable element of tradition and it has to be defined quite well by the existing well-known stereotypes [12] . He created this theory regarding anti-Semitism and ethnical prejudice in authoritarian societies. Investigating post-war intolerance in the USA and Germany he didn’t probably realize the topicality of his invention for the “democratic” Eastern Europe in 1990s and even 2000s.

Another theory, which can be relevant for the Ukrainian case and is worse to be considered, is economic theory. Its explanation is quiet different, but fits Ukrainian reality for my mind. Gordon W. Allport argued that prejudice increases when the members of different unequal ethnic and racial groups contact each other, when one group dominates the other one. It means that not every experience of contact with representatives of other ethnical groups leads to decreasing of stereotypes. In other words the experience of interaction between members of different ethnic/racial groups is positive and successful if only they are equal by social status and they do not compete against each other. [13] 

The theory of cognitive-linguistic orientation stresses on the fact that stereotypes are to simplify the communication inside the social group and to strengthen sense of belonging to this social group between its members. This rule especially works during the radical social change periods, when group interests and mechanism of group protection form. [14] 

Three theories were proposed, which to my mind explain xenophobia in Europe and the USA well. Moreover, it fits Ukrainian case as Ukraine belongs to post-authoritarian states of Eastern Europe, which face a lot of difficulties on the way of following the democracy and improving democratic values in societies, that’s why we can assume that “authoritarian personality”, who is intolerant to “others”, is still widespread. Following the second theory we can also suppose transformation of economy to lead to phobia increase on the ground of economical competition. The opening of Ukrainian market after the years of closed plan economy faced and is facing resistance from ordinary Ukrainian. I’m sure that low living standard caused by economical instability and weak economy of Ukraine led to the fear of new economic reality, which is followed by intolerance increase.

Unfortunately any comparisons of Ukraine to other states are senseless as Ukrainian xenophobia situation is quite different because of intolerant attitude of Ukrainians towards each other and even themselves. This peculiarity makes me look deeper for other possible reasons of xenophobia in Ukraine; otherwise the reasons named above would be enough.

2.3. Xenophobia in Ukraine: internal dimension

The results of the researches, which are discussed in this paper, were also analyzed on the basis of the geographical division. Usually Ukraine is divided into two ethnic-lingual parts – East and West, but KIIS divided it into 5 sub-regions (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Map of Ukraine: this dimension is used for data analysis in 2006. 2 orange parts are Ukrainian-speaking and 3 blue sub-regions are mostly Russian-speaking. [15] 

The detailed analysis of ethnic evaluations and attitudes, which were made on the basis of this research’s results (see the Figure 3), declared that Eastern and Western parts of Ukraine differ from each other by the level and character of xenophobia attitudes. From the table presented below it is possible to see that the level of xenophobia is higher among the Western Ukrainians than among the population of Eastern Ukrain. The table, which shows the xenophobia rate by large Ukrainian ethnic-lingual groups, is also presented below (see Figure 4). This table as well as the previous one shows the percentage of respondents who agree to accept the representative of these large ethnic-lingual groups as a family member. The lower the percentage is, the higher rate of xenophobia is.

to accept as a family member

West, %

W.-C., %

E.- C., %

South, %

East, %

Ukrain.-speaking Ukrainian

58,5

65

57,5

58

52

Rus.-speaking Ukrainians

27

62

57

65,5

62

Russians

19

52

55

58

62

Jews

7

15

10

23

11

Figure 3. Willingness to accept representative of large ethnic-social groups as a family member by regions (2006). [16]     

to accept as family member

All respondents of 2006, %

U-s Ukrainians, %

R-s Ukrainians, %

Russians, %

Ukrain.-speaking Ukrainian

59

60

61

53

Rus.-speaking Ukrainian

55

42

64

67

Russian

49

33

56

74

Jew

14

9

17

20

Figure 4. Willingness of large Ukrainian ethnic-lingual groups to accept the representative of these groups as a family member (2006). [17] 

     So, according to these tables the highest level of intolerance towards related cultural and ethnic groups is in the Western Ukraine and among Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians. The data of the Institute of Sociology of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine claims that the situation was the same in 1992 [18] . The highest xenophobia rate in this region and among this group of Ukrainians is towards Jews and Russians comparing to the other ethnic-lingual groups. The tables’ data also show that both groups of Ukrainians, Ukrainian-speaking and Russian-speaking, has a low-level tolerance towards the members of their own groups. Only 60-64% of respondents agree to accept a member of their ethnic-lingual group as a family member.

Thereby, in this part the results of researches made by KIIS in 1995 and 2006 were analyzed. The general overview of xenophobia level in Ukraine indicated the most tolerated and not tolerated groups. From this point of view Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians were the most tolerated group in Ukrainian society, but black people were tolerated much less. In general during 1995-2006 the level of xenophobia increased much. I turned to three theories to ground the xenophobia: Adornos’ “depressed personality” theory, economic and cognitive-linguistic theories. Post-socialist depression, the fear of new economic realities and low economic development of country (causing the low standard of living), dominance of stereotypes in interaction/communication with representatives of other ethnic and racial groups represent main social reasons for high level of xenophobia in a country. The increase of it can be explained by long-term no change in socio-economic situation in the state. Of course, these theories explains partly the xenophobia in Ukraine, but to my mind Ukrainian case needs detailed individual approach as it has peculiarities. The Ukrainian xenophobia peculiarity is xenophobia inside dominant national community. According to KIIS data of 2006 there is xenophobic tension between Ukrainian-speaking and Russian speaking groups of Ukrainians. Moreover, there is xenophobia inside each of these groups towards the members of each of them. This part of the paper declared the low level of tolerance in Ukrainian society towards all possible ethic-lingual/ethnic/racial groups.

To my mind there are three different ways to explain this phenomenon of intolerance in the Western Ukraine.

Part 3. Theoretical argumentation of research results

3.1. Structural theory

The first explanation is based on the structure of people’s settlements as from this point of view the Western Ukrainian region is quite different from the Eastern part. Statistics are quite interesting, they show that half of the Western population lives in countryside, but only 10% of Eastern Ukrainians live in villages. [19] It’s crucial to emphasize that difference between the urban and rural areas is still very big in the meaning of education and wealth. In some villages it is even hard to get access to the basic school education. The villagers are less educated than townsmen are, that’s why it’s possible to assume that the level of education is higher on the East than on the West of Ukraine. This can partly explain the xenophobia level differences in both regions of Ukraine. This approach was called structural (the structure of settlements) by sociologists [20] .

The lower toleration level in rural areas can be also grounded on economic factors. During the independence period the economic situation became much worse in countryside comparing to cities. Here we can go back to T. W. Adorno’s theory about “depressed personality”. In contemporary Ukrainian village we have classical case, when people being unsatisfied with their life blame other people in their misfortune. In Western Ukrainian case Jews, Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians are blamed. On the East of Ukraine traditionally (from the USSR times) they blame Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians and foreigners from the West.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that economic factor-based explanation is not enough. The Western Ukrainian case turns to the deeper historical and cultural roots of this phenomenon. Western Ukrainians have already got the image of enemy, they hand this image down from parents to children. In the situation of radical social change they use it more actively. Of course, the image I’m speaking about is embodied in a Russian. This image is very well supported by the stereotypes. Russian is a symbol of “enslavement” of Soviets’ times (the attitudes to this on the East is much differs).

I propose to take a look at the table, which is to present the xenophobia rates in Western and Eastern cities and villages. This will make it clearer if this difference between both regions’ xenophobia depends more on structural or historical/cultural reasons

Ethnic or Ethnic-lingual group

Western region

Eastern region

City

Village

City

Village

Ukrainian-speaking Ukrainians

2,33

2,02

1,97

1,82

Russian-speaking Ukrainians

3,38

3,48

1,61

1,61

Russians

3,67

3,86

1,61

1,44

Figure 5. Xenophobia rate in Ukrainian city and village by regions

(researches for 2005 and 2006). [21] 

The data from the table testify against the structural theory but not at all as we can mention the small difference between the city’s and the village’s xenophobia rates. It is also easy to notice that city and village from one region have more in common in their attitudes than villagers and townsmen from different parts of Ukraine.

3.2. Insecure majority

To explain the phenomenon of xenophobia in both large Ukrainian ethnic-lingual groups I’d like to turn to the theory presented by K. Liebkind in 1996 [22] . According to Liebkind’s point of view minorities and majorities can be observed through the dimension into secure and insecure in order to investigate the way how minorities get along together with majority. I think that Ukrainian case fits in with this theory much.

This theory sees two types of majorities and minorities in this perspective. The group of insecure majority is defined by the defensive internal identity, which is constructed on strong ethnic or national basis. Interacting with minority usually insecure majority declines their demands.

Secure majority’s identification is vice-versa constructed on weak ethnic or national basis; moreover, it doesn’t accent its own identity much. Obviously, this kind of majority respects the rights of minorities more and tries to fulfill their demands while including them into the society where they rule.

The other side of this “coin” is minorities. Insecure minorities are opposite to insecure minorities, which were presented above. This group has a very weak ethnic or national basis, that’s why their identifications construction goes beyond the scope of their group. In the case of insecure minority the assimilation is widespread while including them into the society ruled by majority. For the representatives of insecure minority the community of majority is the standard, which they strive for. In case, if assimilation as the only possible method of insecure minority inclusion fails, this group is supposed to be marginalized.

The secure minority position is simpler as they admit their own particularity and wants to be recognized by the social majority. Its inner identification is built on the strong ethnic or national ground. [23] 

By-turn she noted that this scheme allows to invent different combinations of its components. He also mentioned that “this distinction of majorities and minorities has another consequence while forming new states. If, for example, a secure minority happens to create its own state, it’s more likely that this minority will become an insecure intolerant majority.” [24] 

Turning to Ukrainian case after the analysis of this scheme I realized that from the point of view of these categories in Ukraine we deal with two groups, one of which is insecure majority on the Western part of Ukraine, and another group is secure majority of the South-East of the country. Of course, this distinction is far from perfect as I assume there are no pure categories in real life, but anyway for the purposes of this essay I’m able to make some generalizations on the basis of contemporary Ukrainian socio-political life.

In XIX century the leaders and inspirers of Ukrainian national building considered the Western Ukraine to be Ukrainian Piedmont as Ukrainian national building was mostly promoted by Lviv. The national idea was the thing, which the West carried all the time in the interest of whole contemporary Ukraine. Even now this region is highly nationalistic (I will turn to this issue in the next part). As it was said above the identification of Western Ukrainians is based on high national profile. The radical right parties are highly popular there (this fact also has some correlation with xenophobia rate). It can be explained by historical path of this region.

The situation is much different on the East. I consider Eastern Ukraine to be secure majority. It means that population of this region has no strong nationality-based identity, because its identity is citizenship-based (I will turn to this later in the next part). Eastern Ukrainians never cared much about the Ukrainian nationalism, b