Abstract
Contemporary political philosophers debate the degree to which multiculturalism, with its emphasis on collective justice principles, is compatible with Western liberal societies’ core ideologies based on individual justice principles. Taking on a social psychological perspective, the present study offers a cross-national, multilevel examination of the asymmetric compatibility hypothesis, according to which majority and ethnic minority groups differ in the association between support for individualized immigration policies (based on individual justice principles) and support for multiculturalism (based on collective justice principles). Using data from Round 7 of the European Social Survey (N = 36,732), we compared minority and majority attitudes across 1) countries with stronger versus weaker equality policies at the national level (a Migrant Integration Policy Index [MIPEX] sub-dimension indicator), and 2) Western and post-communist European countries. In line with the asymmetric compatibility hypothesis, ethnic minorities perceived significantly less incompatibility between individual and collective justice than majorities. This majority-minority asymmetric compatibility was stronger in Western countries compared to post-communist European countries. Moreover, in Western countries and in countries with stronger equality policies, ethnic minorities generally supported multiculturalism to a greater extent than majorities. Overall, these findings suggest that deep-seated ideological orientations of national contexts shape minority and majority justice conceptions and hence, also, multicultural attitudes. Implications and future research directions are discussed.
Highlights
A key issue in contemporary debates on immigration concerns the compatibility between a liberal emphasis on justice between individuals (“individual justice principles”) and a multicultural emphasis on justice between groups (“collective justice principles”)
Taking on a social psychological perspective, the present study offers a cross-national, multilevel examination of the asymmetric compatibility hypothesis, according to which majority and ethnic minority groups differ in the association between support for individualized immigration policies and support for multiculturalism
Using European Social Survey (ESS) 2014 data, this study looks at how majority and minority groups differ in the association they demonstrate between their support for individualized immigration policy and their support for multiculturalism
Summary
A key issue in contemporary debates on immigration concerns the compatibility between a liberal emphasis on justice between individuals (“individual justice principles”) and a multicultural emphasis on justice between groups (“collective justice principles”). We examine the role played by group membership and societal characteristics in shaping these views on justice. Previous research conducted in Switzerland suggests that, in general, national majorities (i.e., Swiss nationals in this context) are more likely to consider meritocratic principles and multiculturalism to be at odds with each other. In other words, they are more likely to believe immigrants should be selected based on their personal characteristics and qualifications in such a way that expresses prejudice towards immigrants (or to oppose such selection criteria in order to embrace immigration). The present study sought to examine these group differences by comparing minority and majority perspectives in multiple Western and post-communist European countries that varied in their political approaches to managing immigration
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
