Esser

Social Context and Inter-Ethnic Relations: The Case of Migrant Workers in West German Urban
Areas
Author(s): Hartmut Esser
Source: European Sociological Review, Vol. 2, No. 1 (May, 1986), pp. 30-51
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/522455
Accessed: 28-07-2015 23:22 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/522455?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European Sociological Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EuropeanSociologicalReview,Vol.2 No. 1, May 1986
30
? Oxford University Press 1986
Social
of
and
context
migrant
HARTMUT
workers
inter-ethnic
in
West
relations:
German
the
urban
case
areas
ESSER
The importanceof 'social context' for the existence of inter-ethnicrelationsbetween Turkish

'Socialcontext'in
immigrantsandGermaninhabitantsin urbanareas(in Duisburg,WestGermany)is investigated.
this sensehas threedifferentmeanings:the proportionof immigrantsin an urbanarea,the behaviourof the 'other'
ethnicgroupand the expectationsof membersof personalnetworks.It is demonstratedthat aftercontrollingfor
individualcharacteristics,personalnetworksare of overwhelmingimportancein explainingsocial contacts and
ethnicsegmentation,and that the 'objective'characteristicsof the 'social context'and the behaviorof the other
groupareof relativelyminorimportance.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
The study of inter-ethnicrelations deals with a very
general problem in sociology: the formation,
stabilization and change of social relations. The
problem has a well-known feature: social relations
are subject to a 'double contingency', such that
those involved in the relations are at one and the
same time both actors and the object of action,
bearers and objects of orientationsand evaluations,
users of means and themselves means for others,
interpreters of symbols and symbols themselves
(Parsons, 1968: 436; Parsons and Shils, 1962: 14f;
Weber, 1972: 11ff; Simmel, 1908). This double
contingency is not just limited to the relationship
which may exist at any particular time. Rather,
any particular social relationship must be seen as
being embedded in a more or less extensive and
complex framework of relationships, themselves
more or less closely interdependentin such a way
as to hinder, or aid, the inception of other, new
relationships.
In its use as a general hypothesis to guide
research, the concept of the double contingency is
entirely uncontroversial, though the terminology
used is very diverse. However, the approaches to
explanation are more subject to dispute. Can
'sociological' laws sui generis be found for the
formation, stabilization and change of social
relations? Alternatively, are social relations to be

explained as the result of 'individual'motives? Or
do they arise as the result, in most cases the
unintended result, of a process of mutual
perception, of a process in which the possible
consequences of action are evaluated in the context
of other ties, in which expectations and perceptions
change and in which the actors involved each
assess the importance of the relationship for their
goals? In contrast to the sociologistic and
psychologistic approaches first mentioned, the
latter conceptualizationis the one preferredhere.
This approach to explanation is rarely found in
the specific field of the study of inter-ethnic
relations, i.e. these are seldom interpreted as the
unintended result of action oriented to consequences in a situation. In this field there are again
two main approaches which can be distinguished.
On the one hand, there are 'sociological'
conceptualizations. Here, inter-ethnicrelations are
explainedin terms of the structuralattributesof the
system under consideration. 'Race relations' either
belong to the 'Uberbau'of the class system, or are
the result of value and norm systems, or are a relic
of the pre-modern in societies with an advanced
division of labour or, finally, are seen as a stage in
an 'unavoidable' and 'irreversible' race-relations
cycle (cf. Rex, 1970; Shibutani and Kwan, 1965;
EUROPEAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
Blumer, 1965; Park, 1950). On the other hand,

there is an extensive body of work on inter-ethnic
relations in social psychology, and in this, once
again, two focal points can be distinguished.
Firstly, there is the study of the conditions under
which a member of the majority race initiates
inter-ethnicrelations. Here, explanations have been
offered involving 'social distance', 'prejudice' or
'discrimination'.Secondly, there is the study of the
processes of and the conditions for the 'assimilation' and 'integration'-or alternatively the
ethnic
cultural and social segmentation-of
minorities.
Empirical studies have usually been restrictedto
the social psychological approach and thus serve
to exemplify the two main problems of using this
approach. For the most part, these studies concern
themselves exclusively with the individual. An
actor's social setting is not taken into account, even
in respect of his own ethnic group, though this is
the group with which most are continually involved
in their everyday life. And, further, these studies
often exclude from consideration both the
behaviour and the appearance of the other ethnic
group, though this is the group with whose
members the relations under investigation are to be
entered into. However, to criticize these studies for
virtually never examining the process of mutual
adjustment involved in the development of
inter-ethnicrelations would be unjust, because here
of course data from longitudinal studies would be
required and these, for well-known reasons, are
hardly ever obtained.
The study presented here attempts to avoid both
these deficiencies exhibited by the usual contributions to the topic. To this end, both the inception
of inter-ethniccontacts by the native majority, the
reduction in their social distance from (or their
rejection of) the ethnic minority, on the one hand
and, on the other hand, the inception of inter-ethnic
contacts by the minority and their ethnic or
religious segmentation, are analysed at the same
time. The salient features of the social environment
are taken account of in two ways as contributingto
the explanation of the behaviour in question. On
the one hand, the respective 'social milieux' of
intra-ethnicrelations in both groups will be treated
as factors in the explanation. And on the other
hand, 'objective' characteristics of each group are
considered as a determinant of the action of the
REVIEW
31
other group, and the strength of these influences is

studied. The objective characteristics considered
are certain 'collective' characteristics and the
relative number of each group who live in the same
urban territories as are inhabited by members of
the other group.
The background to the study is a process of
ethnic differentiationin West Germany which went
virtuallyunnoticed elsewhere.The process began in
the early 1960s, when workers started to migrate
into West Germany from southern Europe. The
closing of the East-West border in Berlin in 1961
gave the initial impetus to the immigration and it
continued, virtually unchecked, until 1973. During
that period 2.6 million foreign workers were
recruited.However, the total immigrantpopulation
in 1973 amounted to some 4 million. 1973 was a
turning point in as much as in that year, the
so-called Anwerbestop was enacted, which was
intended to prevent any further influx of foreign
workers. Despite this political action, the overall
size of the foreign population continued to rise
steadily, though more slowly, and in 1985, 4.4
million immigrants were resident in the Federal
Republic. However, at the same time, an internal
restructuring of the immigrant population took
place: the proportionof immigrantsin employment
dropped continuously from an initial 65 per cent to
below 40 per cent. This development, caused
mainly by the immigration of dependants, by
children growing up and by the relatively high
fertility of the immigrant community, became
particularlyvisible among the Turks, who by now
had grown to make up a third of all foreigners in
the country. This group, at least, can be regarded
as having established itself permanentlywithin the
social system of the FRG and, defacto and in the
long term, at least, represents a minority with its
own ethnic infrastructure.
One objective of the present paper, is to widen
the social psychological explanation of inter-ethnic
relations to include 'sociological' variables. Multilevel or contextual analysis (in several stages) is the
appropriate technique for this purpose. However,
the overall perspective is a still wider one. The
paper is also intended to put the theoretical
explanation of inter-ethnicrelations (as an example
of social relations in general) on a basis differingin
important respects from both the conventional
sociologistic and the psychologistic ones. Social
32
SOCIAL CONTEXT AND INTER-ETHNIC
processes are the result, though in the end often the

unintended result, of the actions of individuals.
These individuals are orientated in their action to
its consequences and to the situation in which they
find themselves. They take account of their
individual preferences, but within the normative
constraints of membership of a primary reference
group, and within the structurally predefined
opportunities and other constraints which they
face. Since groups, by attributing certain characteristics to each other, in so doing form a
'contextual' determinant of another group's
behaviour, it can be assumed that 'milieux' and
'structural contexts' consist of nothing more than
the characteristics and behavioural patterns of
other persons.
THEORETICAL APPROACHES AND EMPIRICAL

RESULTS IN THE EXPLANATION OF INTERETHNIC RELATIONS
Three approaches to the explanation of the

formation and developmentof inter-ethnicrelations
can be distinguishedin the literatureon this subject
to date. There are sequence and cycle models of the
integration of migrants and ethnic minorities,
approaches involving the so-called contact
hypothesis and, finally, contributions to the
analysis of the links between spatial segregation
and social segmentation.
The sequence and cycle models of inter-ethnic
relations rest on two basic assumptions. Firstly, it
is suggested that inter-ethnic relations exhibit
typical stages in a process of accommodation,
stages which have a fixed order and are
fundamentallyirreversible.The second assumption
is that of a final, predictablestate at which cultural
contacts will reach a full development. Certain
external contingencies may delay, but in the end
cannot prevent,the attainmentof this final state.
This description is intended to refer, firstly to
economic-ecological sequence models, in which the
type of inter-ethnicrelations prevailingis presented
as dependent on the demand for labour in an
economy and on the level of economic competition
between immigrants and particular sections of the
native population. The latter, being economically
determined,is supposed to follow the trend of the
business cycle (Price, 1969: 200ff). Secondly, it
refers to models which postulate sequences such as
RELATIONS
the following. Immigrants are said to go through

an initial phase of isolation from other immigrants
of the same ethnic group, but then to form close
primary group relationships while re-creating
several of their native habits and institutions.
However, after their integration into the legal
system, they then also take up contractual relations
with other groups in the host system, eventually
attaining further forms of incorporation into that
system. These involve the ethnic colony losing its
role as the site of everyday living and, at the same
time, the establishment of competition for scarce
resources at group level (Rex and Moore, 1967:
14ff). In a similar way, the various inter-generational cycle models presume that the integration
process forms a special final stage in the
development of inter-ethnic relations, which
continue through the generations, in a typically
'progressive' way. One particular version of the
cycle model, the so-called race-relationscycle, has
become particularly well known, especially as
developed by Park (1950) and Bogardus (1928).
The main point made in such models is that
inter-ethnic reactions and behavioural patterns
form a typical sequence which eventually leads to a
state in which the various groups have more or less
satisfactorilyadapted to each other.
The main difficulty with these sequence and
cycle models is that they imply the existence of a
mechanism underlying the development of interethnic relations, and thus disguise the fact that they
are (merely) the visible and frequent result of
complex individual processes. These approaches
thus leave implicit the fact that the stages of the
process are reactions of one group to particular
kinds of behaviour by the other. This behaviour in
turn results from the goals of the other group and is
influenced by the discernible reactions of the
original group.
Investigations guided by the so-called contact
hypothesis treat a rather more special problem in
inter-ethnic relations. Under what conditions does
contact with members of the other group lead to
their emotional acceptance or to the reduction of
social distance? A large quantity of empirical
evidence has been gathered on this subject (see
Amir, 1969; or Bullock, 1978 for summaries).The
results show in general that the mere existence of
opportunities for inter-ethnic contacts can foster
their development (as an early study, see Williams,
EUROPEAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
1964: 157). On the other hand, however, mere

interaction, mere contact, by no means necessarily
results in a change in social distance or in attitudes
to the other group.
The initial assumption was that the frequency of
interaction alone would increase mutual attraction
and assist in decreasing social distance. But the
untenability of such a simple relationship has long
been demonstrated (e.g. Cook and Selltitz, 1955;
Zeul and Humphrey, 1971). The reformulationand
qualification undergone by the contact hypothesis
made it evident that inter-ethnicattraction(like the
inception of inter-ethniccontact) must be seen as a
decision made by individuals, one in which they
take account both of the wider setting of their
social relationships and of their personal goals.
This decision is grounded in the experience of such
successful and rewarding goal achievements as
were earlier attained through inter-ethniccontacts,
and in the reinforcements and stimulus generalizations that went with these. Thus inter-ethnic
attraction results from inter-ethniccontacts, only if
they are 'equal-status-contacts' and provided they
are not perceived either as threatening or as
endangering status. Thus attraction might result
from contacts with the elite of the minority or as a
result of contacts involving the successful joint
solution to important problems-dangers faced
together, fighting a common foe together. This
attraction is then reinforced if relevant 'others' in
the environment express approval of the interethnic attraction.If the referencegroup is known to
be positively inclined to inter-ethnic contact, or
especially if 'tolerance' is actually normatively
controlled and expected in the milieu, then a
change of attitude is 'worthwhile',even if the actor
has not himself directly experienceda reward from
the changed attitude (Ford, 1973; Robinson and
Preston, 1976).
Discussion of the contact hypothesis (Cagle,
1973) has convincingly shown that inter-ethnic
relations cannot be explained mechanistically.
They should be treated instead as a special case of
situationally dependent action. Rewarding or
unrewarding experiences in connection with
interaction with members of the other group can
affect attitudes and behaviour changes, but only if
the new attitudes and behaviour patterns are not in
conflict with the attitudes of important reference
persons or with other goals of the actor concerned.
REVIEW
33
The processual nature of inter-ethnic relations,

the alternationof changes in behaviourpatternand
induced reactions in the other group, is particularly
evident in the relationships found by many
researchers to exist between spatial segregation,
social distance and ethnic segmentation. It can be
observed both during the formation of spatial
segregation of ethnic minorities and in the
corresponding increasing social distance between,
and ethnic segmentationof, minority and majority.
'Succession' (as a special case of the formation
of spatial segregation)is a good example of such a
process. When only a few members of a minority
move into an area, the residents do not resist the
infiltration. When the number rises, however,
several things ensue: the minority tend to
congregate and thus to become more visible as a
group, typifications and prejudice increase among
the original residents, their fears of threats and
aggression increase, land values decrease as a
result of the area's loss of attraction for solvent
tenants, the residents begin to move away as its
attractiveness declines and fears of threats
increase, speculators move in and rent the former
residents' houses to members of the minority, thus
accelerating the influx of the minority and hence
furtherincreasingthe willingnessof residentsto sell
up and move out. Spatial segregation can thus be
explained as the result of a process in which
individuals each follow their own interests. The
process results in changes in the conditions for
action of all those involved-changes which are
virtually irreversibleand in no way intended by the
participants in the process (Friedrichs, 1976:
155ff; Esser, 1979: 52ff).
The relationship repeatedly found between
spatial segregation, social distance and ethnic
segmentation can similarly be explained as the
unintendedresult of intentionalaction in a situation
and of the reactions ensuing from that action.
Spatial segregation forms the basis for the
establishment of ethnic institutions. These increase
the visibility of the minority and hence the disquiet
or irritation of the majority, may thus give reason
for and direction to their typifications of the
minority, and can as a consequence lead to
increased segmentation of the minority (Roof,
1972: 394).
This line of argument can be traced back to
Hawley in particular(1944: 674), who stressed the
34
accentuation of ethnic differences as a result, on

the one hand, of increased visibility, and on the
other, of the opportunities existing-as a direct
result of segregation-for upholding a distinct
ethnic culturein the immigrantcolony. Park (1952:
177) argued in a similar vein that residential
proximity of persons belonging to the same ethnic
group and the existence of ethnic institutions in a
district together increase the tendency to intra-ethnic interactions. Increasingly, only persons of the
same category associate with each other (Lieberson, 1963; Breton, 1965) and only they exercise
social control over each other. Thus social distance
to persons belonging to the other category is
developed or maintained. In the end, the spatial
structure of a city will reflect the pattern of social
distance between the ethnic groups.
At this point, mention should also be made of a
macro-sociological aspect of the long-term development of inter-ethnic relations-one that is,
however, merely a consequence of the micro-sociological processes described. This is the formation
of an ethnic stratification system. The inference to
be made from theoretical work on this subject (e.g.
Noel, 1978; Lieberson, 1961; Gordon, 1975;
Shibutani and Kwan, 1965) is that ethnic
stratification systems result from competition
among groups for scarce resources, and from the
differencesin their control over means of exercising
power. Legitimation for these differences in power
is then found on some ascriptive basis, enabling, it
is hoped, the unequal distribution of scarce
resources to continue without conflict. In these
approaches, too, complex 'genetic' processes of
action oriented to interests, of experiences
contingent on action, of changes in motives and of
the structuring of expectations are hidden behind
deceptively clear concepts, such as those of
ethnocentrism,power and competition.
Cases of ethnic stratification can in fact be
explained even without assuming that acts of direct
discrimination occur. Segmentation results in the
formation of self-sufficient sub-cultures, within
which actors 'voluntarily'abstain from attempts at
mobility up into the host culture. This abstention
results from lack of information, from the actors'
regard for their social and normative connections
and from their generally quite realistic-i.e.
negative-assessments of their chances of success
in a non-ethnic career. Thus, individually rational
RELATIONS
action lands them in an 'ethnic mobility trap'

(Wiley, 1967). In this way they cause, unintentionally and in the absence of an open
discrimination, the macro-sociological fact of
ethnic stratification(Esser, 1985).
The question thus arises, in view of the
differences between the various models outlined,
whether they contain any common elements, and
whether an approach can be found which would
integrate the explanation of the different processes
and aspects of inter-ethnicrelations to which they
refer.
SOCIAL DISTANCE AND ETHNIC

SEGMENTATION
All the theoretical models and the empirical

research mentioned so far focus on two basic
processes, which alternately play a part in
determiningthe course of development. These are
the process of increasing social distance on the
part of the majority and the process of ethnic
segmentationon the part of the minority.
The analysis which follows sets out from the fact
that social distance and ethnic segmentation,
though differing as explananda in substance, can
nevertheless both be explained theoretically in a
similar fashion, and also both allow themselves to
be linked to similar constellations of variables. The
common element in the theoretical explanation is
that both social distance and ethnic segmentation
consist of nothing other than the 'rational'
reactions of persons with particular dispositions
and preferences to particular aspects of their
situation. Against this general background, both
phenomena can be explained from three sets of
conditions. The first includespersonality attributes
and such other individual characteristics as are
gained through socialization and are (relatively)
independentof the situation at any particulartime.
The second set consists of the normative control of
behaviour by an actor's reference environment,his
'primary milieu'. The final set refers to the
existence of macro-structural conditions, which
can either serve as opportunities for action, thus
broadening the actor's alternatives for action, or
are experienced as threats and constraints to
opportunities and in this way also channel the
actor's orientations in particulardirections. In the
case of inter-ethnicrelations, two aspects of these
EUROPEAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
macro-structures can be identified. One macrostructural aspect is the existence both of potential
interaction partners belonging to the actor's own
ethnic group and of potential interaction partners
belonging to the other ethnic group. The other
aspect is the (collectively similar) behaviour of
interaction partners of members of each of these
groups. Thus it is clear that in the theoretical
approach adopted here, 'macro-structures' are
always only understood as the presence of and the
behaviourof other acting individuals.
The importance of personality attributes, i.e. of
individual dispositions and abilities, for social
distance and ethnic segmentation has been
suspected, and indeed empirically demonstrated
many times. Of approaches to the explanation of
the formation and social diffusion of 'prejudices'
and 'ethnocentrism',the 'authoritarianpersonality'
approach (and others inspired by this) deserve
particular mention. In the case of explanations of
ethnic segmentation, there is the additional
hypothesis of an influence by 'individual' assimilation variables such as age on immigration,length
of stay or an individual's abilities and knowledge.
In the case of social distance, the rejecting
disposition forms as a reaction to a situation in
which need-fulfillment is continually blocked
('frustration'), in which the ensuing frustration
cannot be overcome through the actor's own
action and which results in the actor projectinghis
suppressed wishes into ethnocentric everyday
theories-which of course have a social origin (cf.
the summary of this approach, followed by Adorno
et al., 1950 and Dollard et al., 1939, in Williams
1964: 84f). In the explanation of ethnic
segmentation,it is assumed that a change in ethnic
identification (as a change in the 'cathexis' of
characteristics of both origin and host cultures)
occurs only after a cognitive, but in particular a
language assimilation has taken place and that this
change is linked to the experience of a successful
mastering of everyday problems by assimilative
behaviour (Richardson, 1967/68). This makes the
finding that both prejudices and ethnic segmentation covary negatively with education and
socioeconomic status comprehensible(Christie and
Cook, 1956; Harding et al., 1969: 28f; Esser,
1982).
Both the theory of the authoritarianpersonality
and the 'individualistic' explanation of ethnic
REVIEW
35
segmentation have not remained unchallenged.

Prejudiceon the part of the majority group and an
ethnically inward orientation of members of the
minority are not merely relics, psychological
abnormalitiesor the result of (avoidable) discrimination, but can instead each be grasped as
stemming from conformity to a normative milieu.
Williams (1964: 138ff), for instance, points to the
evident insufficiency of personality approaches
compared with explanations in terms of an
influence of 'prevailing patterns' of behaviour
within a 'local climate of opinion' about race
relations. Similarly, Orpen (1971: 218) speaks of
the 'crucial role of the culturalmilieu in shaping the
attitude'. These explanations of prejudices and
social distance in terms of norms have since been
well confirmed (see Westie, 1964: 586f, in
particular).
In the case of the ethnic segmentation of
minorities, too, the efficacy of normative control
has been surmised and indeed, much empirical
support for the proposition gathered. Normative
controls are the source of an orientation to the
actor's own ethnic group and also strengthen this
orientation against any 'individual' and cognitive
assimilation tendencies. A change in this orientation would be an infringement of subcultural
norms and can thus only occur if there are other,
strong, pressures for such a change (Bullough,
1966/67; Gordon, 1964: 27f, for example; for a
somewhat different perspective cf. Van Den
Berghe, 1982: 250ff). Particularly in cases where
ethnic membershiprepresentsthe only basis for the
stabilization of an acceptable identity, the
dependency on group recognition and thus the
power of the actor's own ethnic normative milieu
are that much stronger. Where assimilative means
of identity maintenance are available, the power of
'ethnic group cohesion' declines considerably
(Borhek, 1970: 33f).
Normative milieux and individual dispositions
are always embedded in macro-structures. A
macro-structure is understood in the present
context to be the existence and the (covert and
overt) behaviourof others in the actor's own group.
The existence and behaviour of persons in both
groups are important in the explanation of social
distance or alternativelyof 'tolerance' on the part
of the majority, because a certain minimum
numberof minority group members,in relative and
36
absolute terms, is required before 'visibility',

competition, threats or aggressive behaviour set in
and before rejective ideologies come to be formed
and applied (Noel, 1968). 'Visibility' and conspicuous segmenting behaviour by the minority are
often named as being a trigger for rejective
typifications(Shibutaniand Kwan, 1965: 48ff).
In one particular way, at least, structural
characteristics of the majority group themselves
can be of importance as determinants in the
explanation of the level of prejudice in this same
group. In a stratificationsystem closed to mobility,
individual frustration will be high and rejective
dispositions can be expected to increase. Collective
experience of threats and aggressive behaviour can
furtherlead to the formation of rejective normative
milieux, which have an effect independentlyof the
experiences or dispositions of any particular
individual. On the other hand, only when a certain
absolute number of minority group members are
present in everyday territorydo opportunitiesarise
for the inter-ethnic contacts which then, taking
account of the qualifications introduced in the
modified contact hypothesis (see above), can lead
to a reduction of rejection and of social distance.
Part of the empirical analysis will have to be
concerned with finding out what effect the
existence and the behaviour of members of the
minority group have on the social distance from
the minority felt by the native majority.
The existence and the behaviour of the
respective groups are of perhaps even greater
importance for the stabilization or the dissolution
of ethnic segmentation. Only when a certain
absolute number of persons of the same ethnic
group is present do ethnic institutions become
viable and hence institutional segmentation, too,
become possible. Only then can segmenting
primary milieux form, which reinforce the
segmentation both indirectly, via the avoidance of
assimilative contacts, and directly, via social
control and identity formation in everyday
contacts. On the other hand, only when at least
some of the majority group is present is there any
chance of inter-ethnic contact. This provides a
good explanation for the relationship, which has
often been demonstrated, existing between ethnic
concentration and segmentation (Williams, 1964:
130f; Esser, 1982).
Ethnic segmentation is apparently affected not
RELATIONS
only by the mere existence of the majority group in

a territory but also by their behaviour. Solidarity
among members of an ethnic group grows through
the collective experience of a common 'fate'
(Weber, 1972: 235f) and forms a defence against
collectively experienced injustice and discrimination. This process accounts for the observed fact
that 'ethnicity' may re-emerge, even after several
generations, precisely in such minorities as have
experienced long-term collective deprivation and
whose members have hardly any individualescape
routes open to them (Herberg, 1960).
DESIGN OF THE STUDY
Inter-ethnic relations are the unintended result of

reciprocal, intentional action by individuals, who
are at the same time involved in normative milieux,
in reciprocally constituted macro-structuresand in
their individual biographies. An empirical study of
the process described would requiretwo extensions
to usual survey methodology. Firstly, combined
data on both individual and contextual attributes
would have to be gathered. Secondly, longitudinal
data on both individualand contextual levels would
be required. For the usual reasons, longitudinal
data are not available in the study to be presented
here. However, the attempt was made to develop a
design for a cross-sectional study which would at
least indirectly allow inferences about the
interactivenature of processes of increasing social
distance and ethnic segmentation.
The above theoretical considerations form the
point of departure for the following empirical
investigation. Social distance and ethnic segmentation can each, hypothetically, be traced back to
three different groups of variables: (i) individual
characteristics gained as personality dispositions
and abilities in the progress of an individual
biography; (ii) characteristics of the primary
milieu, i.e. of the normative climate prevailing in
the relevant reference environment; (iii) characteristics of the (territorially predetermined)
macro-structure, in particular the presence of
persons of the same or of the other group and the
behaviour(expression of distance, segmentation)of
those in each of the groups.
If it is assumed that the macro-structure,in a
residential area at least, affects both individual
dispositions (e.g. via perceptions) and the
EUROPEAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
I c liltul
(contact,
.
37
REVIEW
Majority
social distance)
/
\
Inter-ethnic
relations
1
(contact,
segmentation)
Minority
ns
I)
FIGURE1
Theoretical Modelfor the Explanation of Inter-ethniccRelations
normative milieu (e.g. via reactions to existence

and behaviour) in any given primary environment
and if the macro-structureis thereforetreated as an
exogenous variable in the determination of
individual dispositions, primary milieu and interethnic relations, then the result is the very much
simplified,theoretical base model of Figure 1. It is
further assumed that the macro-structure is itself
made up of the actions of the groups themselvessee the dotted arrows.
This model serves as a basis for the following
specification of the objective of the present study.
For each group, individual dispositions, normative
milieux and contextual macro-structuresare to be
empirically investigated as to their relative effects
both on the inception of inter-ethniccontact and on
the extent of social distance or ethnic segmentation. Data are required on both majority and
minority group-data which also allow the
measured characteristics to be assigned to
territories or districts in such a way as to permit
the macro-structural variables (the existence and
behaviour of the other group) to be calculated and
correctly attributed to individuals. Initially, a
simple model of the explanation of inter-ethnic

contact, social distance and ethnic segmentation
will be analysed in which only variables on the
individual level are included. Contextual variables
will then be introducedstepwise into the model.
The approach outlined is thus oriented to
contextual analysis, i.e. to a method of explaining
social processes in which systematic account is
taken of the involvementof actors in their differing
contexts. In the field of inter-ethnic relations, the
study of 'structural effects' has only rarely
extended to empirical work (in contrast with the
case of educational sociology or the study of voting
behaviour, for example). However, in the few
contributions which have been made, the basic
theoretical argument is very clear: individuals do
not act 'in isolation' but orient themselves in their
action (in this case, in making contact, in
expressing social distance, in ethnic segmentation)
to the opportunities they meet with and to the
social controls in their environment.The empirical
result is then explicable as the common result of
individual preferences and resources on the one
hand and of structurallydeterminedopportunities,
38
constraints and controls on the other (for the

explanation of context effects in general see Pappi,
1977: 167f; Hummell, 1972: 133ff).
These relationships between structural conditions and individual preferences have been clearly
demonstrated, for instance by Huckfeldt (1983:
665ff). Rejection of one group by the other
increases with the proportion of the other group in
the territory concerned. Simultaneously, however,
the probability of inter-ethnic contact increases
because the opportunities to initiate contact
increase for both groups. The status of minority
group membership does not necessarily force an
RELATIONS
actor into taking up inter-ethnic contacts, but it

does make the choice process at the inception of
contact longer. When the proportionof the actor's
own group in a territoryrises, the resistance to the
other group finally drops. Orbell and Sherrill
(1969: 53f) once again clearly demonstrate the
processes lying behind such relationships. If a
well-educated white population, e.g. in a suburb,
really feels threatened by the presence of a
coloured minority in their territory,then they, too,
though usually 'tolerant', show a level of rejection
equal to that exhibited by persons of low
educational level in their territory,i.e. usually in a
TABLE 1 Ethnic Concentration in the Districts and Quarters in the Sample (Proportion of Foreigners in the Relevant
Population)
Turks
Germans
District
Foreigners
in District
Quarter
%
1
45
1
2
3
4
Foreigners
in Quarter
%
73
35
24
7
n
13
13
12
12
all
25
5
6
7
8
81
24
19
7
12
9
10
11
12
68
24
14
7
13
14
15
16
all
28
18
8
6
O%
63
69
45
25
41
4
50
95
82
40
19
34
9
44
7
8
9
10
11
12
all
88
74
46
19
15
8
50
13
14
15
16
17
18
all
56
19
20
21
22
23
38
25
9
9
18
13
14
11
12
all
Foreigners
in Quarter
1
2
3
4
5
6
all
12
8
10
14
all
Quarter
13
14
15
14
n
8
8
9
6
9
7
47
7
8
9
8
14
7
53
10
7
6
9
5
9
46
200
11
6
8
7
8
40
186
EUROPEAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
city centre area. 'Structures'gain their importance

only through their perceptionas opportunitiesor as
threats referringto relevant processes. Finally, the
importance which the primary milieu has for social
distance has been shown by Elkin and Panning
(1975: 170ff). Primary milieux are particularly
effective when they are within a defined territory
and when, at the same time, there is a high level of
identification with the locality. The 'costs' of
deviance from a normative milieu when social
control in the territoriallydefined primary milieu is
expected are so high that individual dispositions
lose nearly all their significance.
Structures and contexts are thus not seen as
mechanistic determinants but rather as conditions
which the actors (reciprocally) use for orientation
(for criticism of a mechanistic interpretation of
context effects, cf. Fischer 1977: 141ff). When
these processes of intentional context-oriented
action, in which the actors form part of each
other's environment, lead to results which are
stable over time, then these can be identified in a
cross-sectional study as correlations between
variables.
DATA BASE AND OPERATIONALIZATION
The data of the investigation presented here result

from a survey of 200 German and 186 Turkish
inhabitants of the city of Duisburg in 1982. For
theoretical reasons, (multi-stage) context analysis
was seen as appropriate.So as to be able to apply
this form of analysis, four city districts (Stadtteile)
were selected according to the criterionof maximal
contrast in their various ethnic concentrations.
Within each of these four districts, four quarters
were chosen according to the same criterion,i.e. so
as to maximize the difference in ethnic concentrations between the chosen quarters. Finally, in each
of the resulting 16 quarters, Turkish and German
residents were drawn at random from the list of
inhabitants.
Peculiarities in the distribution of the Turkish
respondents, who show a high level of clusteringin
small, well-defined, block areas, enabled a further
subdivision of some of the selected quarters. For
this group it was then possible to define the
territorial contexts at quarter level even more
clearly. In this process the number of quarters for
REVIEW
39
the Turkish respondents rose from the original 16

to a total of 23.
This procedure now made it possible both to
ascribe the 'objective'characteristicsof the quarter
structureto both ethnic groups and also to ascribe
the attributes of each ethnic group to members of
the other group.
The values for the ethnic concentration of the
chosen districts were taken from official statistics
published by the City of Duisburg. However, the
concentration values for those quarters in which
both German and Turkish residents were
interviewedhad to be calculated from a blockwise
aggregation of the addresses of the interviewed
persons. Thus the concentrations ascribed to
Germans and Turks at district level are the same,
whereas at quarterlevel, where both Germans and
Turks were interviewed in a given quarter, the
concentration values ascribed to the two groups
tend to differ owing to the differing selection of
'quarters'for the two groups (see Table 1).
For the operationalizationof the variables in the
model of Figure 1, the two subpopulationsmust be
treated separately. The main reason for this is that
the individual-level mechanisms responsible for
social distance and ethnic segmentation differ in
kind in the two groups.
For the native population, theoretical considerations dictate using two variables to operationalize
individual dispositions. One is an index on which
authoritarian-ethnocentricattitudes are measured,
the other an index for the measurement of
economic frustration. Again for the native
population, the variables in an individual biography relevant to the explanation of these
individual dispositions are age, education and
income. Age groups can be expected to differin the
historically determined socialization conditions
each have faced, particularly in respect of
authoritarianism and ethnocentrism. It is also
probable that different levels of education and
income each affect disposition to authoritarianism
and ethnocentrismon the one hand, and the extent
of economic frustrationon the other.
The operationalization of the primary milieu
involved the respondent stating whether either his
relatives or friends would agree to him or her
making friends with a Turk. These indicators were
then combined to form an index showing the extent
of normativecontrol in the primarymilieu.
40
SOCIAL CONTEXT
TABLE
District
RELATIONS
Respondents' Macro-milieu and Macro-reaction of the Other Group in Districts and Quarters (Means)*
Quarter
Macro-milieu
Germans
(distance)
1
2
3
4
8.1
7.7
6.4
7.0
7.3
5
6
7
8
6.6
4-5
5-0
5-1
5.3
6.4
Turks
(segmentation) Quarter
7.6
6.9
5.0
6.2
9
10
11
12
5.7
5.3
4-7
4-7
5.1
6.9
6.4
7.3
7.1
6.9
13
14
15
16
4
AND INTER-ETHNIC
5.7
4.8
3-5
6-1
5.1
6.6
6.4
5.1
4.8
5.7
4.9
4.5
3-9
3.9
4.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
105
Macro-reaction
Turks
(segmentation)
Germans
(distance)
89
11.4
11.7
11.0
10.1
9.5
6-7
6.1
6-2
5.0
6.4
4.1
5.9
9.7
11.1
10-5
11.0
10.9
10-7
8.0
5.6
6.4
3.9
5.3
5.7
105
10.6
109
117
9.0
9.0
11.6
9.4
11.1
10.2
12.9
7.7
10.5
4.6
4.0
5.0
4.6
4.7
5.5
4.3
4.4
4.5
5.6
4.5
2.9
4.7
*Coding is throughout in accordance with the verbal presentation in the text (high values indicate high levels of the respective
characteristic-for instance 'distance' or 'segmentation')
Inter-ethnic relations can be differentiatedinto

inter-ethnic contact and social distance, for the
native population. The extent of inter-ethnic
contact was measured using an index which
combined visits to and by members of the other
group with aquaintanceshipwith immigrants.Two
different constructs were used to measure social
distance. The first was an index, set up according
to the results of a previous confirmatory factor
analysis of all relevant individual indicators, into
which various aspects of a general rejection of
ethnic minorities were compiled (fears of the
country being overrun by foreigners, discrimination in favour of native applicants in job
applications, advocacy of the return of immigrants
to their country of origin). Secondly, an index of
social distance was constructed, setting out from
the well-knownscale developed by Bogardus.
The model to be used for the explanation of
inter-ethnic relations on the part of the Turkish

population derives from the proposition that, of all
dispositions, an individual'slanguage skills are the
ones of primary importance for both ethnic
segmentation and inter-ethnic contact (cf. Esser,
1981, 1982). Language skills were measured using
an index constructed from two indicators:from the
subjective assessment both of active and of passive
linguistic ability. In the light of the empirical and
theoreticalwork cited above, it seems probablethat
age on immigration,length of stay and individuals'
length of schooling would be the most important
features of individuals' biographies. Thus these
three variables were taken account of in the
operationalization of individual biography for the
Turkish population. The extent to which the
Turkish inhabitants are affected by their primary
milieu was measured indirectly. Several questions
had been put on the importance of intra-ethnic
EUROPEAN
TABLE 3
SOCIOLOGICAL
41
REVIEW
Summaryof the Operationalization

of the TheoreticalConstructs
Construct
Variable for
German population
Variable for
Turkish population
biography (individual)
age, education, income
age of immigration,length of stay,

education
dispositions (individual)
authoritarianism/ethnocentrism
economic frustration
language skills
primary milieu
social distance
reference group
importance of relationships with members

of own ethnic group
macro-structure'existence' of
each ethnic group
proportion of foreigners in area
proportion of foreigners in area
- same group macro-milieu
social distance
reference group in area
importance of relationships with

members of own ethnic group
in area
- other group macro-milieu
religious segmentation of Turks

in area
social distance of Germans in area
inter-ethniccontact
visits to home of Turks or by Turk

aquaintances
contacts with German neighbours
social distance
'rejection' index, social distance

(Bogardus)
macro-structure'behaviour'
segmentation
religious segmentation
ethnic identification
contacts, and out of these an index of the

subjective importance of intra-ethnicrelations was
compiled. Since no direct operationalizationof the
primary milieu was available, this operationalization had to be worked with in the analyses
which follow.
In the case of the Turkish immigrants, the
variable 'inter-ethnicrelations' is decomposed into
inter-ethnic contact and ethnic segmentation, just
as was done for the native population. The
operationalizationused for inter-ethniccontacts is
not entirely satisfactory. The only question
included which was of relevance to this was that of
the extent of contact with neighbours. The results
reportedon here must be judged in the light of this
problem. Two different aspects of the extent of
ethnic segmentationin the Turkish populationwere
measured, once again according to the results of a
confirmatoryfactor analysis: the extent of religious
identification,in this case with the Islamic religion,
and the extent of ethnic identification, i.e. with

Turkish nationality. These aspects were measured
along indices which each combined several
individualitems.
The operationalization of the macro-structural
variables relates to the two aspects mentioned
above, i.e. to the existence and behaviour of the
respondent's own group and the equivalent
characteristics of the other group. Existence was
simply measured by using the proportion of
foreigners in the appropriate district and quarter
(see Table 1). The proportion of native residents is
of course simply the complement of this. The
measurement of behaviour was somewhat more
complex because in this case separate account has
to be taken of the behaviour of each group, i.e. of
the respondent's own group and of the other, and
this both for Germans and Turks and at district
and quarter level. The behaviour of the
respondent's own group was measured in both
42
RELATIONS
-0.18
Education
0.67
Age
0.72\
FIGURE 2a
0.83\
Characteristics
Inter-ethnicRelationsof theGermanMajorityby 'individual'
districts and quarters using the average in the

primary milieu of the appropriate measure:
primary group distance for the Germans, the
importance of intra-ethnic contact for the Turks.
This 'behaviour'was to serve as a context variable
measuring the extent of in-group social control
determinedmacro-structurallyand is, accordingly,
termed 'macro-milieu'for both groups. Finally, to
measure whether individuals are also affected by
the behaviour of the other group, the average of
Turks' religious segmentation in a district or
quarter was ascribed to the native residents and,
correspondingly, the average of the German
respondents' social distance in the appropriatearea
was ascribed to the Turkish respondents. These
variables are generally termed 'macro-reaction'in
the following discussion. Thus there are two
macro-structural behaviour variables for each of
the two groups: the (homoethnic) macro-milieuon
the one hand and the (cross-ethnic) macro-reaction
on the other. The values of these variables for each
district and quarterare shown in Table 2.
It is apparent that the values of these
macro-structuralvariables in a district or quarter
will tend roughly to follow the value of the ethnic
concentration in that area. The higher the ethnic
concentration, the greater the social distance of the
macro-milieux will be and the more inwardly
oriented. Also, the higher the concentration, the
more segmentedthe Turkishand the more rejecting

the German macro-reactionwill be.
Table 3 summarizes the structure of the
theoretical constructs and the allocation of
individualvariablesto these.
RESULTS
The results of the empirical analysis are presented

in three stages. First, models consisting of
individual-level variables alone are checked for
each of the two ethnic groups to see if the
theoretical relationships presumed to exist in the
literaturecan be confirmed. Secondly, the primary
milieu is introduced into the models, which are
modified if necessary, as an additionalexplanatory
variable. Where this is done, the relationships
found in the original model are examined for
stability. Finally, the macro-structuralvariables are
introduced,both to study their effects and to check
on the stability of the effects of the primary milieu
and, once more, on the stability of the original,
individual-levelvariables.
The initial empirical analysis, of the individuallevel variables alone, offers some confirmation of
the importance of individual dispositions for the
explanationof inter-ethnicrelations, at least for the
native majority. However, the authoritarian/ethnocentric disposition is the only decisive influence
43
EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
Religious
Age of immigration
--0.4628
--8
0.11
-046
Length of stay ----031

Education
.v36
segmentation
Languageskills
\
\-0..64
v1'-E0
Inter-ethnic
contacts
-^^^^'^^^n
m e
0.30
^^^^
Ethnic
segmentation
Characteristics
Relationsof the TurkishMinorityby 'Individual'
FIGURE2b Inter-ethnic
in the explanation both of the inception of

inter-ethnic contact, of rejecting attitudes toward
the Turkish residents in an area and of social
distance. The level of economic frustration in the
native population is of no significance whatever.
Another important finding is that when authoritarianism/ethnocentrism is included in the model,
then few direct effects of biographical and
demographic variables remain, and those which do
remain are only weak. Age retains some
significance for the inception of inter-ethnic
contacts, age and (low) education for rejection, and
(low) education for social distance. It is apparent
that material status (income) is of no immediate
importance for the inception of inter-ethnic
relations. In the explanation of rejection and
distance, inter-ethnic contacts still remain quite
important, even when other variables are controlled for. This can be judged, at this stage at least,
as some confirmationof the contact hypothesis (in
its very simple form). It remains to be seen,
however, whether this relationship holds up when
other variables are introduced.
In short: authoritarian/ethnocentricdispositions,
which are themselves age- or education-determined, are the best predictors of inter-ethnic
relations (contact, rejection, social distance) in the
case of the majority group. Socioeconomic status
and economic frustrationare ratherinsignificantin
comparison, when authoritarianism/ethnocentrism
is controlled for. Inter-ethnic contact itself has a
certain diminishingeffect on rejective attitudes and
on social distance. These results are presented in

Figure 2a, in which only the empiricallysignificant
relationships of the properly modified base model
are shown.
The models in Figures 2a and 2b contain the
path coefficients which resulted after the necessary
model fitting had been carried out; i.e. the models
are primarily descriptive, missing paths merely
mean that no relationship was to be found
empirically between the variables concerned.
However, the theoretical assumption was that any
causal relationship between the exogenous variables and the variablesin the 'inter-ethnicrelations'
complex would only be indirect. Ahis hypotdesis
could not be confirmed for the native majority
(Figure 2a) but could for the Turkish minority
(Figure 2b).
For the explanation of the inception of
inter-ethniccontact and the ethnic segmentationon
the part of the Turkish residents of a quarter,
biographic variables turn out to be merely
indirectly relevant-via their effect on language
skills. Apart from this indirect effect, they can be
entirely neglected (on this cf. the earlier results in
Esser, 1981, 1982). The only effect on inter-ethnic
contact of real significance comes, hardly
surprisingly, from the level of language skills,
which is gained individually. Language skills also
have a strong influence on religious segmentation
and a slightly weaker but still significant effect on
ethnic segmentation. In contrast, a very important
influence on the latter type of segmentation is the
44
RELATIONS
4 The Influence of the Primary Milieu for Inter-ethnic Relations of the German Majority and the Turkish Minority:
Standardized Regression Coefficients; (1) 'Individual' Variables only; (2) Inclusion of 'PrimarYMilieu'
TABLE
German majority
Education
Age
Author./Ethnoc.
Contact
Primary Milieu
R
Turkish minority
Language skills
Contact
Primary Milieu
R
Inter-ethniccontacts
(2)
(1)
-0-13*
-0.23*
-0.04
-0-13
0-31
-0.34*
0-43
Social distance
(1)
(2)
-0.18*
-004
0-35*
-0.24*
0.22*
-0-10
0.52*
0.70
0.56
Inter-ethniccontacts
Religious segmentation
0-30*
0.27*
-0.28*
-0-11
0-30
-01l3*
0-32
0-33
-0.20*
-006
0.32*
0.45
Rejection
(1)
(2)
-0.24*
0.16*
0-40*
-0.13*
-0.13*
0-07
0.32*
-0-01
0.43*
0.75
0.66
Ethnic identification
-0 14*
-0.30*
0-36
-0-06
-0-25*
0.35*
0.49
*Statistically significant at the 5% level
existence of inter-ethniccontacts, whereas this is of

very little significance for religiosity. The model
modified in accordance with these empiricalresults
is shown in Figure 2b. The power of linguistic
comprehension to shape identity evidently has the
strongest influence on inter-ethnic relations in the
case of the Turkish minority, both directly and as
mediated by inter-ethniccontacts.
The results gained up to now through a
'conventional' analysis which uses variables at
individual-levelonly can be summarizedas follows.
The ethnic segmentation of the Turkish minority is
the result of a lack of cognitive abilities, both
directly and indirectly affected by biographical
chance occurrences. In contrast, social distance on
the part of the German majority is to be explained
primarily from authoritarian and ethnocentric
evaluations and emotions acquired in the course of
individual biography (the distributionaccording to
age and education is particularly clear) but not in
the first instance as reaction to economic
frustrationor low social status (for more detail on
this cf. Hill, 1984: 366ff). The effect of education,
too, as an indicator for the aquisition of complex
and tolerance-producingcognitive structuresseems
only weak or indirect in effect, according to these
results.
How do the relationships discovered on this
basis change when characteristics of the primary

milieu are introduced into the model as
operationalizations of the existence of social
control by the immediate reference environment?
The results give an unambiguous answer: taking
account of the milieux in the primary environment
(distance or segmentationrespectively)changes the
relationships found, drastically in some cases. As
shown in Table 4, explained variance is
significantly increased in all cases, the only
exception being the inception of inter-ethnic
contact by the Turkishimmigrants.
When account is taken of the primarymilieu,all
the effects of demographic variables on all three
aspects of inter-ethnic relations considered i.e. on
contact, rejection and distance disappear nearly
completely in the native population. The effect of
inter-ethnic contact is now also reduced to a
negligible value. Of the individual-levelvariables,
authoritarianism/ethnocentrism alone retains a
stable influenceof its own alongside that exerted by
the primarymilieu.
Turningnow to ethnic relationsin the case of the
immigrants, while the primary milieu has a
relatively weak effect on contact behaviour,it does
have a much stronger one on religious and ethnic
identification. However, the structure of effects
found originally (language on contacts and
EUROPEAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
45
REVIEW
5a Mean Differences by District and Quarterfor Inter-ethnic Relations of the German Majority: (1) Raw Differences;
(2) Differences Adjusted for Composition Effects
TABLE
District
Inter-ethniccontact
Quarter
Social distance
Rejection
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
1
2
3
4
-0.01
0.45
-084
0.35
-0.01
0.09
0.78
-068
0.41
0.14
9.63
6.61
-429
-092
3.00
7.65
3.69
-6.93
-0.79
0.80
4.07
3 30
1.66
-2.00
2.00
2.04
1.04
0.27
-2.19
0.30
5
6
7
8
0.07
0.99
-0.31
0.22
0.18
0.39
0.92
-056
0.29
0.22
8.94
-395
-9-32
0.23
-0.88
5.93
-0.39
-7.49
0.78
-0.89
4.84
-0.70
-493
3.55
1.24
2.03
0.26
-2.84
3.23
0.98
9
10
11
12
-024
0.20
-056
-0.51
-0.25
-044
-0.04
-0.79
-0.36
-0.36
1.77
167
284
-116
0.13
-058
031
0.89
1.92
0.63
13
14
15
16
0.53
-0.22
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.45
-0.05
-004
-0.16
0.14
0.15
181
-7.62
-6.62
0.28
0.12
0.32
0.10
0.42
eta.beta
religious identification, contacts on ethnic identification) is little changed after the introduction of
the 'primarymilieu'variables.
Thus Williams' early results (1964: 89ff), which
he used to reject purely 'individualistically'
formulatedtheories of inter-ethnicrelations, can be
given clear confirmation. Both social distance and
ethnic segmentation result only to a small extent
from the dispositions held by an individual. They
are rather the consequence of subcultural,
normative milieux, in which particularimages and
patterns of action maintain themselves through
reciprocal confirmation and social control even
when they run contrary to individual experiences
and dispositions. 'Distance' and 'prejudice'are, like
'ethnic identity', simply taken for granted in
everyday life and thus neitherthe result of deviance
nor of any kind of'pathology'.
The question to be answered now is whether
macro-structuralfactors in the environment are of
any importance alongside the influences shown to
exist at individual and milieu level. The characteristics of the macro-structural surroundings con-
1.32
2.24
1.41
1.72
-108
-3.13
1.36
1.68
-5.58
-2.41
0.19
0.32
1.06
-1.47
-0.63
0.48
2.66
-1.01
-0.78
0.22
-3.56
-6.49
0.08
0.43
-2.69
-0.06
-056
-2.12
-3.42
-1.50
0.25
0.25
0.13
sidered are the mere existence (ethnic concentration) of the other group in a territory, and the
behaviour of the actor's own and the other group.
For statistical reasons, not all the possible
operationalized context variables can be introduced into the model simultaneously. Context
chacteristics at the same level of aggregation
usually exhibit such a high level of multicollinearity
that the statistical separation of specific effects is
rendered impossible (Boyd and Iversen, 1979:
63ff). The variables here are no exception. The
reduction of the set of possible context variables to
a number amenable to statistical analysis was
guided by the consideration that the homoethnic
macro-milieuxand the visibility of the behaviourof
the other ethnic group, as features of the
macro-structure, manifest themselves more at
quarter level than at district level. Thus, for both
these context variables, only one level of
aggregation (the quarter) was used in the
estimation of coefficients. However, the effect of
ethnic concentration is investigated both for
quarters and districts. This is possible because the
46
RELATIONS
MeanDifferencesby Districtand QuarterforInter-ethnicRelationsof the TurkishMinority:(I) Raw Differences;

(2) DifferencesAdjustedforComposition
Effects
TABLE 5b
District
Inter-ethnic contact
Quarter
Ethnic segmentation
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
(2)
1
2
3
4
5
6
-0.25
0.13
-0-24
0.04
0.21
0.16
.-002
0.31
-0.13
0.14
0.18
0.13
0.11
1.36
1.99
0.21
-068
-0.51
0-13
0.47
107
1.82
0.05
-077
-0.43
0.19
0.32
0-23
2.66
1.41
-0-48
-1.03
-0.14
0.33
-008
2.62
-116
-046
-082
0.02
0.22
7
8
9
10
11
12
-0.84
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.18
-0-84
-0.14
0.42
0.99
0.21
-0.01
-001
-0.87
0.12
0.19
0.99
0.12
0.18
0.09
-118
-0.09
-0.00
1.86
0.73
1.57
0.46
-064
0.68
-079
1.76
1-03
1.68
0.64
-1.44
0.56
13
14
15
16
17
18
-0.83
-013
-0.79
0.32
0.88
-0.13
-0-13
-0.59
-0.82
-0.01
-1.46
-1.41
0.32
-0.14
0.37
0.65
-031
-1.20
-1.24
0.19
-0.23
0.66
2.86
1.86
-2-64
-2.54
-1.03
-0.24
-0.11
2.70
1.15
-2.20
-1.73
-1.18
-0.37
19
20
21
22
23
-0.55
0.42
-010
-0.77
-0.80
-0.41
-023
-070
0.02
-1.48
-1.00
-1.64
-0-98
-025
1-00
-0.77
-0.76
-1.92
-0.52
0.49
0-21
0.46
eta.beta
0-00
-0.14
-0.77
0.00
0.33
-0.19
0.12
-0.69
-0.17
-076
-0.02
-0.65
0.13
0.87
-0.02
0-38
1.04
0.88
0.16
-0.38
0.39
0.22
1.00
0.69
-0.06
-0.54
0.21
0.19
-034
-1.14
-115
-0.51
0.48
0.21
0.43
0-15
0.50
design of the study kept the multicollinearityof the

two context levels very low in this case (cf. Table
1). An additional contextual characteristic was
used in the operationalization of the 'existence'
aspect of the macro-structure (as part of the
opportunity structure for inter-ethnic relations).
This is the-perceived-presence
of Turks or
Germans in the house lived in by the respondent,
whether German or Turkish.
In order to demonstrate the possible consequences of neglecting important variables, but also
to investigate the stability of the effects of the
variables already studied, the effects of the context
variables will also be presented by first excluding,
then including, the primary milieu. However,
individual-levelvariables are included throughout.
This procedure is carried out for all three aspects
0-22
0.44
0.14
0-15
of inter-ethnic relations, for both groups, and for

each of the described operationalizations of
supposed macro-structuraleffects.
So as to show up clearly the overall relationship
between macro-structuralconditions and inter-ethnic relations, the mean differences between the
relevant variables, for Germans and Turks in the
four districts and in the 16 (23) quarters, will be
presentedbefore the effects of specific variables are
analysed. Quite clear relationships are found,
especially at the level of the quarters.On the whole,
inter-ethnic contact is greater, social distance and
ethnic segmentationgenerally lower in areas with a
lower concentrationof Turks (Tables 5a and 5b).
A first step in the investigation of whether the
effect of the macro-structure has any substantial
effect is the adjustmentof the mean differences to
EUROPEAN
TABLE
SOCIOLOGICAL
47
REVIEW
6 Macro-structuralEffects on Inter-ethnicRelations in the German Majority and in the TurkishMinority:
Standardized Regression Coefficients; (1) Individual Level and Macro-structural Effects Only; (2) Individual Level,
Macro-structural
andPrimaryMilieuEffects
German majority
Education
Age
-0-12
0.26*
Author./Ethnoc.
Contacts
Primary Milieu
Ethnic concentration at
level of
- house
-quarter
-district
Macro-milieu
Macro-reaction
Social distance
(2)
(1)
-0.16*
Turkish minority
Rejection
(1)
(2)
-0-10
-0-00
-0.19*
0.15*
-0-11
0.07
0.31*
-0.27*
0.21*
-0-13
0.46*
0.38*
-0.15*
0.32*
-0-03*
0-41*
-0-01
-0.43*
Language skills
Contacts
Primary Milieu
level of
- house
-quarter
-district
Macro-milieu
Macro-reaction
R
Inter-ethniccontact
(2)
(1)
-0-12
0.01
-0-07
-0-24*
-0-14
-0-10
0.01
-0-04
-0.11
-0-11
-003
0-10
-0-11
0.29*
0.00
-0-02
0.11
-0.09
0.14
0-02
0.00
0.03
-0.03
0.23*
0-00
0-01
0.03
-0-01
0.09
0.02
0-37
0.50
0.52
0-63
0-69
0-75
Inter-ethniccontact
0-22*
-0-20*
-0-06
-0 15*
-0-04
0.33*
-0-07
-0-23*
-0.02
-0-21*
0.34*
-0.05
0.32*
0.12
0-09
0.11
0.45
-0-08
0-34*
0-13
0-05
0-11
0.53
-0-03
0.21*
0.11
0.13
0.12
0.45
-0-01
0-23*
0.11
0-02
0.12
0.54
0.21*
-0-06
-0-32*
-0.01
0-03
-0-09
0-05
0.46
-0.32*
-0.01
0.03
-0.07
0.06
0.46
Ethnic segmentation
take account of composition effects, i.e. so as to

control for possible systematic distributions of
individuals with relevant characteristics. The
results of the adjustment yield information about
the maximum effect a particular macro-structural
variable might still have, after the effects of
individual-levelvariables have been controlled for
(Boyd and Iversen, 1979: 9ff; Schuessler, 1970:
209ff).
Stable macro-structural effects can only be
assumed if the adjustment leads at the most to a
small decrease in the mean differences.The test for
this is a comparison of eta and beta. Such
individual-levelvariables as the above analyses had
shown to be of causal relevance were taken
account of as covariates in the adjustmentprocess.
For the native population, the primary milieu was
included as a covariate in the case of both

inter-ethnic contact and of social distance; social
distance requiredthe inclusion of authoritarianism/
ethnocentrism as well, whereas the variable
'rejection' required the further inclusion of
education, giving three covariates in this case. For
the Turkish minority, language skills and primary
milieu were included in the adjustment of both
inter-ethniccontacts and religious segmentation.In
the case of ethnic segmentation, the covariates
used were inter-ethnic contacts and the primary
milieu. The differences in the means are seen to be
all higher for the Turkish population than for the
Germans and also they hardly drop on adjustment
at all. This suggests that if the macro-structurehas
any effect worth mentioning,this will only be found
among the Turkishrespondents.
48
SOCIAL CONTEXT
AND INTER-ETHNIC
RELATIONS
7 Macro-structural Effects on the Determinants of Inter-ethnic Relations in the German Majority and in the Turkish
Minority: Standardized Coefficients; (I) Individual Level Effects Only; (2) Individual and Macro-structural Effects
TABLE
German majority
Education
Age
Status
Author./Ethnoc.
level of
- house
-quarter
- district
Macro-milieu
Macro-reaction
R
Authoritarianism/Ethnocentrism
(2)
(1)
-0.20*
0.41*
-0.17*
0.40*
0.48
-0.09
-0.12
0.07
0.10
0-13
0-51
Turkish minority
Education
Age of immigration
Length of stay
level of
- house
-quarter
- district
Macro-milieu
Macro-reaction
R
Primary milieu
(1)
(2)
-0-23*
0.18*
-0-22*
0.24*
-0.22*
0.18*
-0.19*
0.23*
-0-07
0.11
0.01
Language skills
0.36*
-0.46*
0-31*
0.33*
-0-46*
0.32*
0.59
-0.10
0.00
-0.18*
-0.18*
-0.06
0.68
0.08
0.61
0-59
Primary milieu
-0-27*
-0.24*
-0.10
-0-05
-0-06
0.27
-0-07
0.30
The adjustment takes account only of overall

macro-effects. What, now, is the empirical strength
of the specific effects of macro-structuralvariables
whose existence was hypothesized earlier? The
results are easily summarized. There are only two
effects stable enough and large enough to be
mentioned (see Table 6). The mere availability of
German interaction partners in the same house or
quarter is evidently of considerable importance for
the Turkish minority in their inter-ethnicrelations.
The inter-ethnicrelations with the Turkishminority
reported by the German majority can be explained
using only the distance milieu in the quarter as a
specific macro-structural variable (macro-milieu).
The only remaining effect worth noting is that the
concentration of Turkish residents in a house is of
significance for the Turks in respect of their
inter-ethnic contact; in contrast it is the
concentration of foreigners at quarter level which
is of importance for religious and ethnic

segmentation. The corresponding effects remain
stable even when primary milieu is taken account
of.
The situation in the native population is
somewhat different. Here the effect of the ethnic
macro-milieu in the explanation of inter-ethnic
contacts of rejection and social distance disappears
when the primary milieu is taken into account.
Before the introduction of the primary milieu, this
variablehad had quite a significanteffect.
A result common to both groups is that a
reciprocal orientationto the behaviour of the other
group can be neglected as a determinantof ethnic
segmentation and of social distance. There is no
evidence of social distance being a reaction to
ethnic segmentation or of ethnic segmentation
being a reaction to expressions of social distance.
However, the coefficients, though not statistically
EUROPEAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
significant, do have the sign expected in theory, so

that it can be said that distance milieux, high ethnic
concentration and cultural conspicuousness or a
climate in a district favouring the rejection of
immigrants do have a tendency to hinder
inter-ethnicrelations. In comparison with both the
individual-level effects and those specific to the
primary group, these reciprocal reaction effects
must be judged negligibly small.
A final point is that, for the native population,
inter-ethnic contacts lose all their effect when all
the context variables are introduced,and that in the
case of immigrants, language skills become less
important the more context effects are introduced.
However, the primary milieu retains its dominance
for both groups in affecting all variables studied
(an exception is immigrants'inter-ethniccontact).
To complete the analysis, a furthercheck should
be made as to whether macro-structuralvariables
might have an indirect effect on the explanation of
inter-ethnic effects, in particular, whether they
might effect the central determinantsof inter-ethnic
contact, distance and segmentation.These determinants are authoritarianism/ethnocentrism, language and primary milieu. An empirical analysis
(Table 7), in which first the individual-levelthen the
contextual determinantsof the respective variables
are controlled for, one after another, shows that
there are no indirect context effects of any
significance. The only effect worth mentioning is
that of the district on immigrants' language
learning (see furtherEsser, 1982, 1984). It remains
to point out which are the individual determinants
of the primary milieu. For the native population,
four variables determine membership of a highdistance primary milieu to much the same extent.
These are age, education, individual authoritarianism/ethnocentrism and-unexpectedly, considering the results up till now--economic status.
The foreigners' individual educational level is the
only effect on membership of intra-ethnically
orientedprimarymilieux.
How these (statistical) correlations are to be
explained-perhaps selective effects operate to
determinewho moves away from and who stays in
a typical primary milieu, perhaps ascriptive
processes or socialization and biographical effects
arise from the membership of particular reference
groups, etc.-has to remain an open question here.
It should, however, be mentioned that individual
REVIEW
49
discriminationin both cases favours the membership of rejecting primary milieux and of ones
orientatedto the ethnic culture.
When all the specific effects of the macro-structural variables are looked at together, then their
effects on inter-ethnicrelations can be traced back
to two different cases of natives and immigrants.
For the German majority there is almost no
macro-structural effect on inter-ethnic contacts,
rejection and distance. However, for the immigrants, it is the merepresence of Germansorfellow
countrymen in house or quarter which determines
the extent of their inter-ethnic contacts and their
religious and ethnic segmentation. Thus the
tendency found already in the analysis of
individual-level variables is further strengthened,
i.e. the readiness of foreigners to take up
inter-ethnic relations is more a question of their
learned cognitive abilities and of the opportunity
structure of their residentialenvironment,whereas
for the natives individualemotions and dispositions
and the normative milieu in their residential
environment play a much greater role. Or,
extremely briefly, inter-ethnic relations are evidently a question of opportunity for the Turks,
whereas for the Germans they are more a question
of emotions and normativecontrol.
ON THE IMPORTANCE OF 'SOCIAL CONTEXTS'

IN THE EXPLANATION OF INTER-ETHNIC
RELATIONS
The empirical results have demonstrated the

paramountimportanceof normativecontrols in the
respective ethnic primary milieu, for the inception
of inter-ethniccontacts and for social distance on
the part of the majority, and for segmentation on
the part of the minority. However, contrary to the
original suppositions, the macro-structurehas been
shown to have hardly any effect at all in the
explanation of inter-ethnicrelations. The only sign
of effects of any significancewas in the case of the
local macro-milieu(such as a 'climate' of rejection
of foreign groups in a wider territory-before
controlling for the influence of the primarymilieu),
though if this has an effect at all then it is only for
the majority; and, for the minority, the structureof
mere opportunity (such as the existence of
members of the other ethnic group in the territory).
It is particularly surprising that the distance and
50
SOCIAL CONTEXT AND INTER-ETHNIC RELATIONS
segmentation of the groups identifiablelocally is of

virtually no significance in the explanation of
inter-ethnic relations of the groups. Various
individual-leveldispositions and skills are of some
importance. These are authoritarianism/ethnocentrism in the native majority on the one
hand-these being biographically acquired; and
language skills in the Turkish minority on the
other-these being dependent on the contingencies
of the migrationprocess or career.
Finally it should be pointed out once again that
the direct influence of inter-ethnic contact on the
reductionof distance and segmentationis only very
small. Further analyses, not documented here, in
which several rather special sets of conditions were
tested, under which inter-ethnic contacts might
have some significance also proved negative, i.e.
also failed to offer any support for the 'contact
hypothesis'.
It is thus possible to say in summary that, at
least at present, the relations between immigrants
and Germans in city territories are relatively little
determined by reciprocal, mutually oriented
'reactions', whether these consist in hostility to
foreignersas a reaction to cultural differencesor in
culturalostentation as a reaction to discrimination.
Distance and segmentation feed mainly on the
intra-ethnicmilieu and thus express less an external
distance as an internally controlled conformity to
everyday cultural matters. In mutual isolation,
distance and segmentation are cultivated, but these
are not so much directed against the other group
as an expression of normative conformity to the
actor's own group on the one hand (true in
particular of the native population) or lack of
opportunity to de-segment (particularly true of
immigrants).
However, a socio-ecological regularity in the
distribution of macro-milieux and of opportunity
structures must also be taken account of.
High-distance and segmented milieux covary
unmistakably on an ecological level with ethnic
(immigrants') concentration and thus with the
number of opportunities for inter-ethnicrelations.
The conclusion this suggests is that in territories
with a high ethnic concentration a polarization of
the milieux and of the individual readiness for
action is to be expected. In areas with high ethnic
concentrations, high-distance primary milieux are
frequently to be found (without this distribution
being caused, directly at least, either by ethnic

concentration or by the behaviour of the
immigrants!). At the same time, the number of
opportunities for inter-ethnic relations in the high
concentration territories is necessarily small. The
result is that, for the native majority, everyday
contacts with immigrants via primary milieu
influences, which would otherwise occur, do not
(cf. Hill, 1984: 366ff) and the Turkish minority,
simply for lack of opportunity to do otherwise in
their everyday territory, remain within their own
ethnic group. The cultural and ethnic polarization
is thus not the result of mutual reactions but arises
on the basis of group-specificgoals and conditions
for action, and these are mainly oriented to
relationships and problems within the actor's own
ethnic group.
REFERENCES
AdornoT W, Frenkel-Brunswik
E, LevinsonD J, SanfordR
N. (1950): The AuthoritarianPersonality,New York:
Harper& Brothers.
Amir Y. (1969): 'The Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic
Relations',PsychologicalBulletin,71:319-342.
BlumerH G. (1965):'Industrialisation
and RaceRelations',in
Hunter G (ed): Industrialisationand Race Relations,
London and New York: Oxford University Press:
220-253.
BogardusE S. (1929/30):'A RaceRelationsCycle',American
Journalof Sociology,35: 612-617.
Borhek J T. (1970): 'Ethnic Group Cohesion',American
Journalof Sociology,76: 33-46.
Boyd L H Jr, Iversen G R. (1979): ContextualAnalysis:
Concepts and Statistical Techniques,Belmont, Cal.:
Wandsworth
PublishingCompany.
Bullock C S III. (1978): 'Contact Theory and Racial
ToleranceamongHigh School Students',School Review,
86: 187-216.
Breton R. (1965): 'InstitutionalCompletenessof Ethnic
Communitiesand the PersonalRelationsof Immigrants',
AmericanJournalof Sociology,70: 193-205.
Cagle L T. (1973): 'InterracialHousing:A Reassessmentof
the Equal-StatusHypothesis', Sociology and Social
Research,57: 342-355.
Christie R, Cook P. (1958): 'A Guide to the Published
LiteratureRelatingto AuthoritarianPersonalityThrough
1956',Journalof Psychology,45: 171-199.
Cook S W, SelltitzC. (1955):'SomeFactorsWhichInfluence
the AttitudinalOutcomesof PersonalContacts',InternationalSociologicalBulletin,7: 51-58.
DollardJ, MillerN E, Doob L W, MowrerO H, SearsR R.
(1939): Frustrationand Aggression,New Haven,Conn.:
YaleUniversityPress.
Elkin S L, PanningW H. (1975): 'StructuralEffects and
IndividualAttitudes:Racial Prejudicein EnglishCities',
PublicOpinionQuarterly,39: 159-177.
EUROPEAN
SOCIOLOGICAL
Esser H. (1979): 'Raumliche Segregation, ethnische Schichtung und die Assimilation von Wanderern', in Hamm B
(ed): Lebensraum Stadt. Beitrdge zur Sozialokologie
deutscher Stddte, Frankfurt und New York: Campus:
48-74.
(1980): Aspekte der Wanderungssoziologie, Darmstadt
und Neuwied: Luchterhand.
(1981): 'Aufenthaltsdauer und die Eingliederung von
Wanderern. Zur theoretischen Interpretation soziologischer "Variablen"', Zeitschriftftur Soziologie, 10: 76-97.
- (1982): 'Sozialrdumliche Bedingungen der sprachlichen
Assimilation von Arbeitsmigranten', Zeitschrift fur
Soziologie, 11: 279-306.
-- (1984): 'Ghettoisierung und sprachliche Assimilation', in
Rosch M (ed): Ausldndische Arbeitnehmer und Immigranten-Sozialwissenschaftliche
Beitrage zur Diskussion
eines aktuellen Themas, Weinheim: Beltz: 61-84.
(1985): 'Soziale Differenztierung als ungeplante Folge
absichtsvollen Handelns: Der Fall der ethnischen
Segmentation', Zeitschriftfur Soziologie, 14: 435-449.
Fischer C S. (1977): Networks and Places. Social Relations in
the Urban Setting, Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press: 1-16.
Ford W S. (1973): 'Interracial Public Housing in a Border
City: Another Look at the Contact Hypothesis', American
Journal of Sociology, 78: 1426-1447.
Friedrichs J. (1977): Stadtanalyse. Soziale und rdumliche
Organisation der Gesellschaft, Reinbek: Rowohlt.
Gordon M M. (1964): Assimilation in American Life. The
Role of Race, Religion and National Origins, New York:
Oxford University Press: 3-40.
- (1975): 'Toward a General Theory of Racial and Ethnic
Group Relations', in Glazer N and Moynihan D (eds):
Ethnicity. Theory and Experience, Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press: 84-110.
Harding J. (1954): 'Prejudice and Ethnic Relations', in
Lindzey G (ed): Handbook of Social Psychology, Reading,
Mass.: Addison Wesley.
Hawley A H.
(1944): 'Dispersion versus Segregation:
Apropos of a Solution of Race Problems', Papers of the
Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, 30:
667-674.
Hill P B. (1984): 'Raumliche Nahe und soziale Distanz zu
ethnischen Minderheiten', Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 13:
363-370.
Huckfeldt R R. (1983): 'Social Contexts, Social Networks and
Urban Neighbourhoods: Environmental Constraints and
Friendship Choice, American Journal of Sociology, 89:
651-669.
Hummell H J. (1972): Probleme der Mehrebenenanalyse,
Stuttgart: Teubner.
Lieberson S. (1961/2): The Impact of Residential Segregation
on Ethnic Assimilation, Social Forces, 40: 52-57.
- (1963): Ethnic Patterns in American Cities, New York:
Free Press: 6-70.
Noel D L. (1968): 'A Theory of the Origin of Ethnic
Stratification',Social Problems, 16: 157-172.
Orbell J M, Kenneth S S. (1969): 'Racial Attitudes and the
Metropolitan Context: A Structural Analysis', Public
Opinion Quarterly, 33: 46-54.
REVIEW
51
Orpen C. (1971): 'Prejudice and Adjustment to Cultural

Norms Among English-Speaking South Africans', The
Journal of Social Psychology, 77: 217-218.
Pappi F U. (1977): Sozialstruktur undpolitische Konflikte in
der Bundesrepublik. Individual- und Kontextanalysen der
Wahlentscheidung.Koln (unpublished).
Park R E. (1950): Race and Culture, Glencoe, I11: Free
Press.
- (1952): Human Communities, Glencoe, I 1: Free Press.
Parsons T. (1968): 'Social Interaction', in Sills D L et al. (ed):
International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 11,
New York u.a.: Macmillan: 429-441.
Parsons T, Shils E A (eds): Toward a General Theory of
Action, New York: Harper & Row.
Price C A. (1969): 'The Study of Assimilation', in Jackson J A
(ed): Migration, Cambridge: 181-237.
Rex J. (1970): 'The Concept of Race in Sociological Theory',
in Zubaida S (ed): Race and Racialism, London u.a.:
Tavistock Publications: 35-55.
Rex J, Moore R. (1967): Race, Community and Conflict. A
Study of Sparkbrook. London: Oxford University Press.
Robinson J W, James D P. (1976): 'Equal Status Contact and
Modification of Racial Prejudice: A Reexamination of the
Contact Hypothesis', Social Forces, 54: 911-924.
Roof W C. (1972): 'Residential Segregration of Blacks and
Racial Inequality in Southern Cities: Toward a Causal
Model', Social Problems, 19: 393-407.
Schuessler K. (1971): Analyzing Social Data, Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Shibutani T, Kwan K. (1965): Ethnic Stratification. A
Comparative Approach, New York and London: Macmillan.
Van Den Berghe P. (1981): The Ethnic Phenomenon, New
York and Oxford: Elsevier.
Westie F R. (1966): 'Race and Ethnic Relations', in Faris R E
L (ed): Handbook of Modern Sociology, Chicago: Rand
McNally: 576-618.
Weber M. (1972): Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Tiibingen:
Mohr-Siebeck, 5th edition.
Williams R M Jr. (1964): Strangers Next Door. Ethnic
Relations in American Communities, New Jersey:
Englewood Cliffs.
Wiley N F. (1970): 'The Ethnic Mobility Trap and
Stratification Theory', in Rose P I (ed): The Study of
Society, New York, Free Press 1, 2nd edition, 397-408.
Zeul C R, Craig R H. (1971): 'The Integration of Black
Residents in Suburban Neighborhoods: A Re-examination
of the Contact Hypothesis', Social Problems, 18:
462-474.
AUTHOR'S ADDRESS
Hartmut Esser. Zentrum fur Umfragen, Methoden und
Analysen (ZUMA) e.V. P. 0. Box 5969, 6800 Mannheim
1, West Germany.
Manuscript received: 3 April, 1985.

Esser

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Esser

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social Context and Inter-Ethnic Relations: The Case of Migrant Workers in West German Urban

EuropeanSociologicalReview,Vol.2 No. 1, May 1986

? Oxford University Press 1986

The importanceof 'social context' for the existence of inter-ethnicrelationsbetween Turkish

relations? Alternatively, are social relations to be

Blumer, 1965; Park, 1950). On the other hand,

other group, and the strength of these influences is

SOCIAL CONTEXT AND INTER-ETHNIC

processes are the result, though in the end often the

THEORETICAL APPROACHES AND EMPIRICAL

Three approaches to the explanation of the

the following. Immigrants are said to go through

1964: 157). On the other hand, however, mere

The processual nature of inter-ethnic relations,

SOCIAL CONTEXT AND INTER-ETHNIC

accentuation of ethnic differences as a result, on

action lands them in an 'ethnic mobility trap'

SOCIAL DISTANCE AND ETHNIC

All the theoretical models and the empirical

segmentation have not remained unchallenged.

SOCIAL CONTEXT AND INTER-ETHNIC

absolute terms, is required before 'visibility',

only by the mere existence of the majority group in

Inter-ethnic relations are the unintended result of

Theoretical Modelfor the Explanation of Inter-ethniccRelations

normative milieu (e.g. via reactions to existence

simple model of the explanation of inter-ethnic

SOCIAL CONTEXT AND INTER-ETHNIC

constraints and controls on the other (for the

actor into taking up inter-ethnic contacts, but it

city centre area. 'Structures'gain their importance

DATA BASE AND OPERATIONALIZATION

The data of the investigation presented here result

the Turkish respondents rose from the original 16

Inter-ethnic relations can be differentiatedinto

inter-ethnic relations on the part of the Turkish

Summaryof the Operationalization

age, education, income

age of immigration,length of stay,

importance of relationships with members

proportion of foreigners in area

proportion of foreigners in area

- same group macro-milieu

importance of relationships with

- other group macro-milieu

religious segmentation of Turks

social distance of Germans in area

visits to home of Turks or by Turk

contacts with German neighbours

'rejection' index, social distance

contacts, and out of these an index of the

and the extent of ethnic identification, i.e. with

SOCIAL CONTEXT AND INTER-ETHNIC

districts and quarters using the average in the

more segmentedthe Turkishand the more rejecting

The results of the empirical analysis are presented

EUROPEAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Length of stay ----031

in the explanation both of the inception of

on social distance. These results are presented in

SOCIAL CONTEXT AND INTER-ETHNIC

*Statistically significant at the 5% level

existence of inter-ethniccontacts, whereas this is of