Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to European Sociological Review.http://www.jstor.orgSocial 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. 30-51Published by:Oxford University PressStable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/522455Accessed: 28-07-2015 23:22 UTCREFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/522455?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contentsYou 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.jspJSTOR 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.This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEuropeanSociologicalReview,Vol. 2 No. 1, May 1986 30 ?Oxford University Press1986 Socialcontextandinter-ethnicrelations:thecase of m igrant work ersinW estG erm anurb anareas HARTMUTESSER ABSTRACTThe im portance of'social context' fortheexistence ofinter-ethnicrelations b etween Turk ish im m igrants and G erm aninhab itantsin urb anareas(in Duisb urg, W est G erm any) is investigated. 'Socialcontext'in this sense has threedifferent m eanings: the proportion of im m igrants in an urb an area, the b ehaviourof the 'other' ethnic group and the expectations of m em b ersof personal network s.It is dem onstratedthat after controlling for individual characteristics,personal network sare of overwhelm ingim portance in explaining social contacts and ethnic segm entation, and that the 'ob jective' characteristicsof the 'social context'and the b ehaviorof the other group areof relatively m inor im portance. INTRODUCTION The study of inter-ethnicrelations deals with a very generalprob lemin sociology: the form ation, stab ilization and change ofsocialrelations. The prob lemhas a well-k nown feature: social relations are sub ject toa'doub le contingency', suchthat those involved inthe relations are atoneand the sam etim eb othactorsandthe ob ject of action, b earers and ob jects of orientations and evaluations, users ofm eansand them selves m eans for others, interpreters of sym b ols and sym b ols them selves (Parsons, 1968: 436; Parsons and Shils, 1962: 14f; W eb er, 1972: 11ff;Sim m el,1908). Thisdoub le contingency isnot just lim ited tothe relationship which m ay existat anyparticular tim e. Rather, anyparticular social relationship m ust b eseen as b eing em b edded inam oreorlessextensive and com plex fram eworkof relationships, them selves m ore or less closelyinterdependent in such a way asto hinder, or aid, the inception of other, new relationships. Initsuseasa generalhypothesis to guide research, the concept ofthe doub le contingency is entirelyuncontroversial, though the term inology usedis very diverse. However, the approaches to explanation arem ore sub ject to dispute. Can 'sociological' lawssui generis b efoundforthe form ation, stab ilizationand change ofsocial relations? Alternatively, are socialrelations tob e explained asthe result of'individual' m otives? Or do they ariseastheresult,inm ostcasesthe unintended result, ofa process ofm utual perception, ofa process inwhichthe possib le consequences of action are evaluated in the context of other ties, in which expectations and perceptions change andinwhichtheactorsinvolvedeach assessthe im portance ofthe relationship for their goals? Incontrasttothe sociologistic and psychologisticapproaches first m entioned, the latter conceptualization is the one preferred here. This approach to explanation is rarely found in the specific fieldofthe study ofinter-ethnic relations, i.e.theseareseldominterpreted asthe unintendedresultofactionorientedtoconse- quences in asituation. In this field there are again twom ain approaches which canb e distinguished. Ontheone hand, thereare 'sociological' conceptualizations. Here, inter-ethnicrelations are explained in term s of the structuralattrib utesof the systemunder consideration. 'Race relations' either b elong to the 'Ub erb au' of the class system , or are the result of value and normsystem s, or are a relic ofthe pre-m odern insocietieswithanadvanced division of lab our or, finally, are seen as a stage in an'unavoidab le' and'irreversib le' race-relations cycle(cf.Rex,1970; Shib utani and Kwan,1965; This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICALREVIEWBlum er,1965;Park ,1950). Ontheother hand, there isan extensive b ody ofworkon inter-ethnic relations insocial psychology, andin this, once again, twofocal points canb e distinguished. Firstly, there isthe study oftheconditions under whicham em b erofthe m ajority raceinitiates inter-ethnicrelations. Here, explanations have b een offered involving 'social distance','prejudice' or 'discrim ination'. Secondly, there is the study of the processes ofandtheconditionsforthe'assim i- lation'and 'integration'-oralternatively the culturalandsocial segm entation-of ethnic m inorities. Em pirical studies have usually b een restrictedto thesocial psychologicalapproach and thusserve to exem plify the twom ain prob lem s of using this approach. For the m ost part, these studies concern them selves exclusively withtheindividual.An actor's social setting is not tak en into account, even in respect ofhisownethnic group, though this is the group with which m ost are continually involved intheir everyday life. And,further, thesestudies oftenexcludefrom considerationb oththe b ehaviour and the appearance ofthe other ethnic group,though thisisthe group withwhose m em b ers the relations under investigation are to b e entered into. However, to criticize these studies for virtually never exam ining the process ofm utual adjustm ent involvedinthe developm ent of inter-ethnicrelations would b e unjust, b ecause here ofcourse data fromlongitudinal studies would b e required and these, forwell-k nown reasons, are hardly ever ob tained. The study presented here attem pts to avoid b oth thesedeficienciesexhib ited b y theusualcontri- b utions to the topic. To this end, b oth the inception of inter-ethnic contacts b y the native m ajority, the reduction intheirsocialdistancefrom(or their rejection of) the ethnic m inority, onthe one hand and, on the other hand, the inception of inter-ethnic contacts b y the m inority andtheirethnicor religious segm entation, are analysed atthesam e tim e. The salient features of the social environm ent are tak en account of in two ways as contrib uting to the explanation oftheb ehaviour in question. On theone hand, the respective 'socialm ilieux' of intra-ethnicrelations in b oth groups will b e treated asfactorsinthe explanation. Andontheother hand, 'ob jective' characteristics ofeach group are considered asadeterm inant oftheactionofthe other group, and the strength of these influences is studied.The ob jective characteristics considered arecertain'collective'characteristicsandthe relative num b er of each group who live in the sam e urb an territories asare inhab ited b y m em b ers of the other group. The b ack ground tothe study isa process of ethnic differentiationin W est G erm any which went virtually unnoticed elsewhere. The process b egan in the early1960s, when work ers started to m igrate intoW est G erm any from southern Europe. The closing oftheEast-W est b order inBerlin in1961 gave the initial im petus tothe im m igration and it continued, virtually uncheck ed, until 1973. During that period 2.6m illion foreign work erswere recruited. However, the total im m igrantpopulation in1973am ounted tosom e 4m illion.1973 wasa turningpoint inasm uchasinthat year, the so-called Anwerb estop wasenacted,whichwas intended to prevent any further influx of foreign work ers. Despite this political action, theoverall sizeofthe foreignpopulation continuedtorise steadily,though m ore slowly, andin 1985,4.4 m illion im m igrants wereresident intheFederal Repub lic. However, atthesam e tim e, aninternal restructuring ofthe im m igrantpopulation tookplace: the proportion of im m igrants in em ploym ent dropped continuously froman initial 65 per cent to b elow40 per cent.This developm ent, caused m ainlyb y the im m igration of dependants,b y children growingup and b y the relatively high fertility ofthe im m igrantcom m unity, b ecam e particularly visib le am ong the Turk s, who b y now had grown tom ak e up a third ofall foreigners in the country. This group, at least, canb e regarded as having estab lished itself perm anently within the social systemof the FRGand, defacto and in the longterm , at least,represents a m inority with its own ethnic infrastructure. One ob jective ofthe present paper, istowiden the social psychological explanation of inter-ethnic relations toinclude 'sociological' variab les. Multi- level or contextual analysis (in several stages) is the appropriate technique forthis purpose. However, theoverall perspective isastillwiderone.The paper isalsointendedto put thetheoretical explanation of inter-ethnicrelations (as an exam ple of social relations in general) on a b asis differing in im portantrespects from b oththeconventional sociologistic andthe psychologistic ones.Social 31 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSOCIALCONTEXTANDINTER-ETHNICRELATIONS processes are the result, though in the end often the unintended result, oftheactionsofindividuals. These individuals are orientated intheir action to its consequences and to the situation in which they findthem selves. They tak eaccountoftheir individual preferences, b utwithinthenorm ative constraints of m em b ership ofa prim ary reference group, andwithinthe structurallypredefined opportunities andotherconstraintswhich they face.Since groups, b yattrib uting certain charac- teristicstoeach other, inso doing form a 'contextual'determ inantofanother group's b ehaviour, itcanb eassum edthat'm ilieux' and 'structural contexts' consistof nothing m ore than thecharacteristicsandb ehavioural patterns of other persons. THEORETICALAPPROACHESANDEMPIRICAL RESULTSINTHEEXPLANATIONOFINTER- ETHNICRELATIONS Three approaches tothe explanation ofthe form ation and developm ent of inter-ethnicrelations can b e distinguished in the literatureon this sub ject to date. There are sequence and cycle m odels of the integration of m igrants andethnic m inorities, approachesinvolving theso-calledcontact hypothesisand,finally, contrib utionstothe analysis ofthelink sb etween spatialsegregation and social segm entation. The sequence and cycle m odelsofinter-ethnic relations rest ontwob asic assum ptions. Firstly, it is suggested thatinter-ethnicrelationsexhib it typicalstages ina process of accom m odation, stages whichhaveafixedorderandare fundam entally irreversib le.The second assum ption is that ofa final, predictab le state at which cultural contactswillreachafull developm ent. Certain external contingencies m aydelay, b ut intheend cannot prevent, the attainm entof this final state. This description isintended to refer, firstly to econom ic-ecological sequence m odels, in which the type of inter-ethnicrelations prevailing is presented as dependent onthedem andforlab ourinan econom y and on the level of econom ic com petition b etween im m igrants and particular sections of the native population. The latter, b eing econom ically determ ined, is supposed tofollow the trend ofthe b usiness cycle(Price, 1969: 200ff).Secondly, it refers to m odels which postulate sequences such as the following. Im m igrants are saidto gothrough an initial phase of isolation fromother im m igrants ofthesam eethnic group, b ut then toformclose prim arygrouprelationships while re-creating severaloftheirnativehab itsandinstitutions. However, aftertheir integration intothe legal system , they then also tak e up contractual relations withother groups inthehost system ,eventually attaining further form s of incorporation intothat system . These involve theethnic colonylosing its role as the site of everyday living and, at the sam e tim e, theestab lishm ent of com petition forscarce resources at group level (Rex andMoore,1967: 14ff). Inasim ilar way, thevarious inter-genera- tional cycle m odels presum e thatthe integration process form sa special final stage inthe developm ent ofinter-ethnicrelations,which continue through the generations, ina typically 'progressive' way. One particular versionofthe cyclem odel, the so-called race-relations cycle, has b ecom e particularly well k nown,especially as developed b y Park(1950) and Bogardus (1928). Them ain point m adeinsuchm odelsisthat inter-ethnicreactionsandb ehavioural patterns forma typical sequence which eventually leads to a state in which the various groups have m ore or less satisfactorily adapted to each other. Them ain difficulty withthese sequence and cycle m odels isthat they im ply the existence ofa m echanismunderlying the developm ent ofinter- ethnic relations, and thus disguise the fact that they are (m erely) thevisib leand frequent resultof com plex individual processes. These approaches thusleave im plicit thefactthatthe stages ofthe process arereactions ofone group to particular k inds ofb ehaviour b y the other. This b ehaviour in turn results fromthe goals of the other group and is influenced b y thediscernib lereactionsofthe original group. Investigations guidedb y theso-calledcontact hypothesis treat arather m ore special prob lemin inter-ethnic relations. Under what conditions does contactwith m em b ers ofthe other group lead to their em otional acceptance ortothereduction of socialdistance?A largequantity of em pirical evidencehasb een gathered onthis sub ject(see Am ir, 1969; or Bullock , 1978 for sum m aries). The results showin general that the m ere existence of opportunities forinter-ethnic contactscanfoster their developm ent (as an early study, see W illiam s, 32 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICALREVIEW1964: 157). Ontheother hand,however, m ere interaction, m ere contact, b y no m eans necessarily results in a change in social distance or in attitudes to the other group. The initial assum ption was that the frequency of interaction alone would increase m utual attraction andassistin decreasing socialdistance.Butthe untenab ility ofsuch a sim ple relationship has long b een dem onstrated (e.g. Cook and Selltitz,1955; Zeul and Hum phrey, 1971). The reform ulationand qualification undergone b y the contact hypothesis m ade it evident that inter-ethnicattraction (lik e the inception of inter-ethnic contact) m ust b e seen as a decisionm ade b yindividuals, oneinwhich they tak eaccountb othofthewider setting oftheir social relationships andoftheir personalgoals. This decision is grounded in the experience of such successfuland rewarding goal achievem entsas were earlier attained through inter-ethnic contacts, andinthereinforcem ents andstim ulus generali- zationsthatwentwiththese.Thusinter-ethnic attraction results frominter-ethnic contacts, only if they are 'equal-status-contacts' and provided they arenot perceived eitheras threatening oras endangering status.Thusattraction m ight result fromcontacts with the elite of the m inority or as a resultofcontacts involving thesuccessful joint solutionto im portantprob lem s-dangers faced together,fighting acom m onfoe together. This attraction isthen reinforced ifrelevant 'others' in theenvironm ent expressapproval oftheinter- ethnic attraction. If the reference group is k nown to b e positively inclinedtointer-ethnic contact,or especially if'tolerance'is actuallynorm atively controlledand expected inthe m ilieu, thena change ofattitude is 'worthwhile', even if the actor has not him self directly experienced a reward fromthe changed attitude (Ford,1973; Rob insonand Preston, 1976). Discussionofthecontact hypothesis(Cagle, 1973) has convincingly shownthatinter-ethnic relationscannotb e explainedm echanistically. They should b e treated instead as a special case of situationallydependent action. Rewarding or unrewardingexperiences inconnectionwith interaction with m em b ers oftheother group can affect attitudes and b ehaviour changes, b ut only if the new attitudes and b ehaviour patterns are not in conflictwiththeattitudes of im portant reference persons or with other goals of the actor concerned. The processual nature ofinter-ethnic relations, the alternationof changes in b ehaviour pattern and induced reactions in the other group, is particularly evidentinthe relationships found b ym any researchers toexistb etween spatialsegregation, socialdistance and ethnic segm entation. It can b e ob servedb oth during theform ationof spatial segregation ofethnicm inoritiesandinthe corresponding increasing socialdistance b etween, and ethnic segm entationof, m inority and m ajority. 'Succession' (asa special caseofthe form ation of spatial segregation) is a good exam ple of such a process. W hen only afew m em b ers ofa m inority m oveintoan area, theresidents donot resist the infiltration.W henthenum b er rises,however, several things ensue:the m inority tendto congregate and thus tob ecom e m ore visib le asa group, typifications and prejudice increase am ong the originalresidents, theirfearsofthreatsand aggressionincrease, landvaluesdecreaseasa result ofthearea's lossofattraction forsolvent tenants, theresidents b egin tom ove away asits attractivenessdeclinesandfearsofthreats increase, speculators m ove in and rent the form er residents' houses tom em b ers of the m inority, thus accelerating theinflux ofthe m inority and hence further increasing the willingness of residents to sell up and m ove out. Spatial segregation can thus b e explained astheresultofa process inwhich individuals eachfollowtheirowninterests.The process resultsin changes intheconditionsfor actionofallthose involved-changes whichare virtually irreversib leand in no way intended b y the participants inthe process(Friedrichs, 1976: 155ff; Esser, 1979: 52ff). The relationshiprepeatedly foundb etween spatialsegregation, socialdistanceandethnic segm entation can sim ilarly b e explained asthe unintendedresult of intentionalaction in a situation andofthereactions ensuing from thataction. Spatialsegregation form stheb asisforthe estab lishm ent of ethnic institutions. These increase the visib ility of the m inority and hence the disquiet or irritation of the m ajority, m ay thus give reason foranddirectiontotheir typifications ofthe m inority, andcanasa consequence leadto increased segm entation ofthe m inority(Roof, 1972: 394). Thislineof argum ent canb etracedb ack to Hawley in particular(1944: 674), who stressed the 33 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSOCIALCONTEXTANDINTER-ETHNICRELATIONS accentuation ofethnicdifferences asa result, on theone hand, ofincreased visib ility, andonthe other, ofthe opportunities existing-as adirect resultof segregation-forupholding adistinct ethnic culture in the im m igrantcolony. Park(1952: 177)argued inasim ilarveinthatresidential proxim ity of persons b elonging tothe sam e ethnic group and the existence ofethnic institutions ina district together increase the tendency to intra-eth- nicinteractions. Increasingly, onlypersons ofthe sam e category associatewith eachother (Lieb er- son,1963;Breton,1965) and onlythey exercise social control over each other. Thus social distance to personsb elonging totheother category is developed orm aintained. Inthe end, the spatial structure ofa city will reflect the pattern ofsocial distance b etween the ethnic groups. At this point, m ention should also b e m ade of a m acro-sociological aspect ofthe long-termdevel- opm ent ofinter-ethnicrelations-onethat is, however, m erely a consequence of the m icro-socio- logicalprocesses describ ed. Thisistheform ation ofan ethnic stratification system . The inference to b e m ade fromtheoretical workon this sub ject (e.g. Noel,1978;Lieb erson,1961;G ordon,1975; Shib utaniand Kwan,1965) isthatethnic stratification system s resultfromcom petition am ong groups forscarce resources, and fromthe differencesin their control over m eans of exercising power. Legitim ation for these differences in power is then found on som e ascriptive b asis, enab ling, it is hoped, the unequal distrib utionofscarce resourcestocontinuewithoutconflict.Inthese approaches,too,com plex'genetic'processes of actionorientedto interests, of experiences contingent on action, of changes in m otives and of the structuring of expectations are hidden b ehind deceptively clear concepts, suchasthoseof ethnocentrism ,power and com petition. Casesofethnicstratification caninfactb e explained even without assum ing that acts of direct discrim ination occur. Segm entation results inthe form ationofself-sufficient sub -cultures, within which actors 'voluntarily' ab stain fromattem pts at m ob ility up intothe hostculture. Thisab stention results fromlack of inform ation, fromthe actors' regard for their socialand norm ative connections andfrom their generallyquite realistic-i.e. negative-assessm ents of their chances ofsuccess inanon-ethnic career. Thus, individually rational actionlandsthem inan'ethnic m ob ilitytrap' (W iley,1967). Inthis waytheycause,uninten- tionally andintheab senceofan open discrim ination, the m acro-sociological factof ethnic stratification (Esser, 1985). The question thus arises, inviewofthe differences b etween thevariousm odelsoutlined, whether they contain any com m on elem ents, and whether an approach canb efound which would integrate the explanation of the different processes and aspects ofinter-ethnicrelations towhich they refer. SOCIALDISTANCEANDETHNIC SEG MENTATION Allthetheoreticalm odelsandthe em pirical researchm entionedsofarfocusontwob asic processes, which alternatelyplay a part in determ ining the course of developm ent. These are the process of increasing socialdistanceonthe part ofthe m ajority andthe process ofethnic segm entation on the part of the m inority. The analysis which follows sets out fromthe fact thatsocialdistanceandethnic segm entation, though differing as explananda in sub stance, can nevertheless b othb e explained theoretically ina sim ilar fashion, and alsob oth allow them selves to b e link ed tosim ilar constellations of variab les. The com m onelem ent inthetheoretical explanation is that b oth social distance and ethnic segm entation consistof nothing otherthanthe'rational' reactionsof persons with particular dispositions and preferences to particularaspects oftheir situation. Against this general b ack ground, b oth phenom ena canb e explained from threesetsof conditions. The first includes personality attrib utes andsuchotherindividual characteristics asare gainedthrough socializationandare (relatively) independent of the situation at any particular tim e. The second set consists of the norm ative control of b ehaviour b y an actor's reference environm ent,his 'prim ary m ilieu'.Thefinalsetreferstothe existenceofm acro-structural conditions, which caneither serveas opportunities for action, thus b roadening theactor'salternatives for action, or are experienced asthreatsandconstraintsto opportunities andinthis way alsochannelthe actor's orientations in particular directions. In the caseofinter-ethnic relations, two aspects ofthese 34 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICALREVIEWm acro-structures canb eidentified. Onem acro- structural aspect isthe existence b oth of potential interaction partners b elonging totheactor's own ethnic group and of potential interaction partners b elonging totheotherethnic group. Theother aspect isthe (collectivelysim ilar) b ehaviour of interaction partners ofm em b ers ofeachofthese groups. Thusitisclearthatinthetheoretical approachadoptedhere, 'm acro-structures'are always only understood as the presence of and the b ehaviour of other acting individuals. The im portance of personality attrib utes, i.e. of individual dispositions and ab ilities, forsocial distanceandethnic segm entation hasb een suspected, andindeed em pirically dem onstrated m any tim es. Of approaches tothe explanation of theform ation andsocialdiffusion of 'prejudices' and 'ethnocentrism ', the 'authoritarian personality' approach (andothers inspiredb ythis) deserve particular m ention. In thecaseof explanations of ethnic segm entation, thereistheadditional hypothesis ofaninfluence b y 'individual' assim i- lation variab les such as age on im m igration,length of stay oran individual's ab ilities and k nowledge. Inthecaseofsocial distance, the rejecting disposition form sasareaction toasituation in whichneed-fulfillm entis continually b lock ed ('frustration'), inwhichthe ensuing frustration cannotb eovercom e through theactor'sown action and which results in the actor projecting his suppressed wishesintoethnocentric everyday theories-whichofcourse have a social origin (cf. the sum m ary of this approach, followed b y Adorno et al., 1950and Dollard et al.,1939, in W illiam s 1964: 84f). Inthe explanation ofethnic segm entation, it is assum ed that a change in ethnic identification (asa change inthe'cathexis'of characteristics ofb oth origin andhost cultures) occurs only after a cognitive, b ut in particular a language assim ilation has tak en place and that this change islink ed tothe experience ofasuccessful m astering of everydayprob lem sb y assim ilative b ehaviour (Richardson, 1967/68). This m ak es the finding thatb oth prejudices andethnic segm en- tation covarynegatively witheducationand socioeconom ic status com prehensib le(Christie and Cook ,1956;Harding et al., 1969: 28f;Esser, 1982). Both the theory ofthe authoritarian personality andthe'individualistic' explanation ofethnic segm entation havenotrem ained unchallenged. Prejudice on the part of the m ajority group and an ethnically inward orientation ofm em b ers ofthe m inority arenot m erelyrelics,psychological ab norm alities or the result of (avoidab le) discrim i- nation, b utcaninsteadeachb e grasped as stem m ing fromconform ity toanorm ative m ilieu. W illiam s (1964:138ff), for instance, points to the evident insufficiency of personalityapproaches com pared with explanations interm sofan influenceof 'prevailingpatterns' ofb ehaviour withina'localclim ateof opinion' ab outrace relations. Sim ilarly, Orpen (1971:218)speak s of the 'crucial role of the cultural m ilieu in shaping the attitude'.These explanations of prejudices and social distance in term s ofnorm s have since b een wellconfirm ed (seeW estie, 1964: 586f, in particular). Inthecaseoftheethnic segm entation of m inorities, too, the efficacy ofnorm ative control hasb eensurm isedand indeed, m uch em pirical support forthe proposition gathered. Norm ative controlsarethesourceofanorientation tothe actor's ownethnic group and also strengthen this orientation againstany 'individual' and cognitive assim ilationtendencies.A change inthisori- entation wouldb ean infringem ent ofsub cultural norm s and can thus only occur if there are other, strong,pressures forsucha change(Bullough, 1966/67;G ordon, 1964: 27f, for exam ple; fora som ewhatdifferent perspective cf.VanDen Berghe, 1982: 250ff).Particularly incaseswhere ethnic m em b ershiprepresents the only b asis for the stab ilizationofan acceptab leidentity, the dependency on grouprecognition andthusthe power oftheactor's ownethnic norm ative m ilieu are that m uch stronger. W here assim ilative m eans of identity m aintenance are availab le, the power of 'ethnic group cohesion'declines considerab ly (Borhek , 1970: 33f). Norm ativem ilieuxandindividual dispositions are always em b eddedinm acro-structures.A m acro-structureisunderstoodinthe present contexttob etheexistenceandthe(covertand overt) b ehaviourof others in the actor's own group. Theexistenceandb ehaviour of persons inb oth groups are im portant inthe explanation ofsocial distance or alternatively of'tolerance' onthe part ofthe m ajority, b ecauseacertainm inim umnum b er of m inority group m em b ers, in relative and 35 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSOCIALCONTEXTANDINTER-ETHNICRELATIONS ab solute term s, is required b efore 'visib ility', com petition, threats or aggressive b ehaviour set in and b efore rejective ideologies com etob e form ed and applied (Noel,1968).'Visib ility' and conspi- cuous segm enting b ehaviour b y the m inority are oftennam edas b eing a trigger for rejective typifications (Shib utani and Kwan, 1965: 48ff). Inone particularway, at least, structural characteristics ofthe m ajority group them selves canb eof im portance asdeterm inantsinthe explanation ofthelevel of prejudice inthissam e group. In a stratification systemclosed to m ob ility, individual frustration willb e high and rejective dispositions can b e expected to increase. Collective experience of threats and aggressive b ehaviour can further lead to the form ation of rejective norm ative m ilieux, which have an effect independently of the experiences or dispositions of anyparticular individual. On the other hand, only when a certain ab solute num b er of m inority group m em b ers are present in everyday territory do opportunities arise fortheinter-ethnic contactswhich then,tak ing accountofthe qualifications introducedinthe m odified contact hypothesis (seeab ove), can lead toareduction of rejection and ofsocial distance. Partofthe em piricalanalysis willhavetob e concernedwith finding outwhateffectthe existenceandtheb ehaviour ofm em b ers ofthe m inority group haveonthesocialdistance fromthe m inority felt b y the native m ajority. Theexistenceandtheb ehaviourofthe respectivegroups areof perhaps even greater im portance for thestab ilization orthe dissolution ofethnic segm entation.Only whenacertain ab solutenum b er of persons ofthesam eethnic group is present doethnicinstitutionsb ecom e viab leandhenceinstitutional segm entation, too, b ecom e possib le.Only thencan segm enting prim ary m ilieux form , whichreinforcethe segm entation b oth indirectly, via the avoidance of assim ilative contacts, and directly, viasocial controland identity form ationin everyday contacts.Ontheother hand,only whenatleast som e of the m ajority group is present is there any chanceofinter-ethnic contact.This provides a goodexplanation forthe relationship, whichhas oftenb een dem onstrated, existing b etween ethnic concentration and segm entation (W illiam s, 1964: 130f; Esser, 1982). Ethnic segm entation is apparently affected not only b y the m ere existence of the m ajority group in a territory b ut also b y their b ehaviour. Solidarity am ong m em b ers of an ethnic group grows through thecollective experience ofacom m on'fate' (W eb er, 1972: 235f) and form s adefence against collectivelyexperiencedinjustice anddiscrim in- ation. This process accounts for the ob served fact that 'ethnicity' m ayre-em erge, evenafter several generations, precisely insuchm inorities ashave experienced long-termcollective deprivation and whose m em b ers have hardly any individual escape routes open to them(Herb erg, 1960). DESIG NOFTHESTUDY Inter-ethnic relations are theunintended result of reciprocal, intentional action b yindividuals, who are at the sam e tim e involved in norm ative m ilieux, in reciprocally constituted m acro-structuresand in their individual b iographies. An em pirical study of the process describ ed would require two extensions tousual surveym ethodology.Firstly, com b ined dataonb othindividual and contextual attrib utes would have tob e gathered. Secondly, longitudinal data on b oth individualand contextual levels would b e required. Fortheusual reasons,longitudinal data are not availab le in the study tob e presented here. However, the attem pt was m ade to develop a design foracross-sectional study which would at least indirectly allowinferencesab outthe interactive nature of processes of increasing social distance and ethnic segm entation. Theab ovetheoretical considerations form the point of departure forthe followingem pirical investigation. Socialdistanceandethnic segm en- tation can each, hypothetically, b e traced b ackto threedifferent groups ofvariab les: (i) individual characteristics gained as personality dispositions andab ilitiesinthe progress ofanindividual b iography;(ii) characteristicsofthe prim ary m ilieu, i.e.ofthenorm ative clim ate prevailing in therelevantreference environm ent;(iii) char- acteristicsofthe (territoriallypredeterm ined) m acro-structure, in particular the presence of persons of the sam e or of the other group and the b ehaviour (expression of distance, segm entation) of those in each of the groups. Ifitisassum ed thatthe m acro-structure, ina residential areaat least, affectsb othindividual dispositions(e.g. via perceptions) andthe 36 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICALREVIEWFIG URE1Theoretical Modelfor the Explanation of Inter-ethnic norm ativem ilieu (e.g. viareactionstoexistence and b ehaviour) in anygiven prim ary environm ent and if the m acro-structureis thereforetreated as an exogenous variab leinthedeterm inationof individual dispositions,prim ary m ilieu andinter- ethnic relations, then theresult isthe very m uch sim plified, theoretical b ase m odel of Figure 1. It is further assum ed thatthem acro-structure isitself m ade up of the actions of the groups them selves- see the dotted arrows. Thism odelserves asab asisforthe following specification ofthe ob jective ofthe present study. For each group, individual dispositions, norm ative m ilieux and contextual m acro-structures are tob e em pirically investigated astotheir relative effects b oth on the inception of inter-ethniccontact and on theextentofsocialdistanceorethnic segm en- tation.Dataare required onb oth m ajority and m inoritygroup-data whichalsoallowthe m easuredcharacteristicstob e assigned to territories ordistricts insucha way asto perm it them acro-structural variab les (the existenceand b ehaviour ofthe other group) tob e calculated and correctly attrib utedtoindividuals. Initially, a I c liltul Majority (contact, .social distance) / \ XInter-ethnic relations Minority 1 (contact, segm entation) ns I) c Relations sim ple m odelofthe explanation ofinter-ethnic contact, socialdistanceandethnic segm entation willb e analysed inwhich only variab les onthe individual level are included. Contextual variab les will then b e introduced stepwise into the m odel. The approach outlinedisthusorientedto contextual analysis, i.e. toam ethod of explaining social processes inwhich system atic accountis tak en of the involvem ent of actors in their differing contexts.In thefield ofinter-ethnic relations, the study of'structuraleffects'has onlyrarely extended to em pirical work (incontrastwith the case of educational sociology or the study of voting b ehaviour, for exam ple).However, inthefew contrib utions whichhaveb een m ade, theb asic theoretical argum ent is very clear: individuals do notact 'in isolation' b ut orient them selves in their action(inthis case, in m ak ingcontact, in expressing social distance, in ethnic segm entation) tothe opportunities they m eetwithandtothe social controls in their environm ent.The em pirical result isthen explicab le asthecom m onresult of individual preferences andresourcesontheone hand and of structurally determ ined opportunities, 37 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSOCIALCONTEXTANDINTER-ETHNICRELATIONS constraintsandcontrolsontheother (for the explanation of context effects in general see Pappi, 1977: 167f; Hum m ell, 1972: 133ff). These relationships b etweenstructural condi- tionsand individual preferences have b een clearly dem onstrated, forinstance b y Huck feldt (1983: 665ff).Rejection ofone groupb y theother increases with the proportion of the other group in the territory concerned. Sim ultaneously, however, the prob ab ility ofinter-ethnic contactincreases b ecausethe opportunities toinitiatecontact increase forb oth groups. Thestatusof m inority groupm em b ership doesnot necessarily forcean TABLE1EthnicConcentrationintheDistrictsand Quarte Population) actorinto tak ingup inter-ethnic contacts, b utit doesm ak e thechoice process atthe inception of contact longer. W hen the proportion of the actor's own group in a territory rises, the resistance to the other groupfinallydrops. Orb ellandSherrill (1969:53f) once againclearly dem onstrate the processeslying b ehindsuch relationships. Ifa well-educated white population, e.g. ina sub urb , really feelsthreatened b y the presence ofa coloured m inority in their territory, then they, too, though usually 'tolerant', show a level of rejection equal tothatexhib ited b ypersons oflow educational level in their territory, i.e. usually in a rsinthe Sam ple(ProportionofForeigners intheRelevant G erm ansTurk s ForeignersForeignersForeigners Districtin DistrictQuarterin Quarter Quarterin Quarter %%nO%n 173131638 145235132698 324123459 47124256 5419 647 all50all47 581127957 22562488828 719109409 871410198 113414 1297 all44all53 96813138810 31210241414747 11141115466 1271216199 17155 1889 all50all46 132813193811 4614181420256 158152198 166142297 all562318840 N 200186 38 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICALREVIEWcity centre area. 'Structures' gain their im portance only through their perception as opportunities or as threats referring torelevant processes. Finally, the im portance which the prim ary m ilieu has for social distancehasb eenshown b y Elk inand Panning (1975:170ff).Prim ary m ilieuxare particularly effective when they are within adefined territory and when, at the sam e tim e, there is a high level of identificationwiththe locality. The'costs'of deviancefrom anorm ativem ilieuwhensocial control in the territorially defined prim ary m ilieu is expected areso high thatindividual dispositions lose nearly all their significance. Structures andcontextsarethusnotseenas m echanistic determ inants b ut rather asconditions which the actors (reciprocally) usefor orientation (for criticism ofam echanistic interpretation of context effects, cf.Fischer1977: 141ff). W hen these processes ofintentionalcontext-oriented action, inwhichtheactorsformpart ofeach other's environm ent, leadtoresultswhichare stab le over tim e, then thesecanb eidentified ina cross-sectional study ascorrelationsb etween variab les. DATABASEANDOPERATIONALIZATION The data of the investigation presented here result from a survey of200G erm an and186Turk ish inhab itants ofthe city of Duisb urg in1982.For theoretical reasons,(m ulti-stage) context analysis wasseen as appropriate. Soas to b e ab le to apply this formof analysis, four city districts (Stadtteile) were selected according to the criterion of m axim al contrastintheirvariousethnicconcentrations. W ithin eachofthesefour districts, four quarters were chosen according to the sam e criterion, i.e. so astom axim ize the difference in ethnic concentra- tions b etween the chosen quarters. Finally, in each ofthe resulting 16 quarters, Turk ish and G erm an residents weredrawn atrandomfrom thelistof inhab itants. Peculiarities inthedistrib ution oftheTurk ish respondents, who show a high level of clustering in sm all, well-defined, b lockareas, enab led afurther sub division ofsom eoftheselected quarters. For this group itwasthen possib le todefinethe territorialcontextsat quarter levelevenm ore clearly. In this process the num b er of quarters for the Turk ish respondents rose fromthe original 16 to a total of 23. This procedure nowm adeit possib le b othto ascrib e the 'ob jective' characteristicsof the quarter structureto b oth ethnic groups and also toascrib e the attrib utes ofeach ethnic group tom em b ers of the other group. Thevaluesfortheethnic concentration ofthe chosendistricts were tak en fromofficial statistics pub lished b y the City of Duisb urg. However, the concentration valuesforthose quarters inwhich b othG erm anandTurk ishresidentswere interviewed had tob e calculated froma b lock wise aggregation oftheaddressesoftheinterviewed persons. Thustheconcentrationsascrib edto G erm ans and Turk s at district level are the sam e, whereas at quarter level, where b oth G erm ans and Turk swereinterviewed ina givenquarter, the concentration valuesascrib ed tothetwo groups tendtodiffer owing tothe differing selection of 'quarters' for the two groups (see Tab le 1). For the operationalization of the variab les in the m odel of Figure 1, the two sub populations m ust b e treated separately. The m ain reason for this is that theindividual-level m echanism s responsib le for socialdistanceandethnic segm entation differ in k ind in the two groups. For the native population, theoretical considera- tionsdictate using twovariab les to operationalize individual dispositions. One isan index onwhich authoritarian-ethnocentricattitudes are m easured, theotheranindexforthem easurem entof econom icfrustration. Again forthenative population, thevariab lesinanindividualb io- graphy relevanttothe explanation ofthese individual dispositions are age, educationand incom e. Age groups can b e expected to differ in the historically determ inedsocializationconditions eachhave faced,particularly in respect of authoritarianismandethnocentrism .Itisalso prob ab le thatdifferent levelsofeducationand incom e eachaffect disposition toauthoritarianismand ethnocentrism on the one hand, and the extent of econom ic frustrationon the other. The operationalization ofthe prim ary m ilieu involved the respondent stating whether either his relativesorfriendswould agree tohim orher m ak ing friends with a Turk . These indicators were then com b ined to forman index showing the extent of norm ativecontrol in the prim ary m ilieu. 39 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSOCIALCONTEXTANDINTER-ETHNICRELATIONS TABLE2 Respondents' Macro-m ilieu and Macro-reaction of the Other G roup in Districts and Quarters (Means)* Macro-m ilieuMacro-reaction G erm ansTurk sTurk sG erm ans DistrictQuarter (distance)(segm entation) Quarter(segm entation)(distance) 18.16.61896-7 27.74-5211.46.1 36.45-0311.76-2 47.05-1411.05.0 510.16.4 17.35.361059.55.94.1 57.65.779.78.0 66.95.3811.15.6 75.04-7910-56.4 86.24-71011.03.9 1110.95.3 26.45.11210-75.7 96.95.71310.64.0 106.44.8141095.0 117.33-5151174.6 127.16-1169.04.7 179.05.5 36.95.11810511.64.64.3 136.64.91911.14.5 146.44.52010.25.6 155.13-92112.94.5 164.83.9227.72.9 45.74.3239.410.54.44.7 *Coding is throughout inaccordancewith theverb al presentation in the text (high values indicate high levels ofthe respective characteristic-forinstance 'distance' or 'segm entation') Inter-ethnic relations canb edifferentiatedinto inter-ethnic contactandsocial distance, forthe native population. Theextentofinter-ethnic contactwasm easured using anindexwhich com b ined visitstoand b y m em b ers oftheother group with aquaintanceship with im m igrants. Two different constructswereusedtom easure social distance. The first wasan index, set up according totheresultsofa previousconfirm atory factor analysis ofallrelevant individual indicators, into whichvarious aspects ofa generalrejection of ethnicm inoritieswere com piled(fears ofthe countryb eing overrun b yforeigners, discrim ina- tioninfavourofnative applicants in jobapplications, advocacy of the return of im m igrants totheir country of origin). Secondly, an index of socialdistancewas constructed, setting outfromthe well-k nown scale developed b y Bogardus. Them odeltob eusedforthe explanation of inter-ethnic relations onthe part oftheTurk ish population derives fromthe proposition that, of all dispositions, an individual's language sk ills are the onesof prim aryim portance forb othethnic segm entation andinter-ethnic contact (cf.Esser, 1981,1982). Language sk ills were m easured using an index constructed fromtwo indicators: fromthe sub jective assessm ent b oth of active and of passive linguistic ab ility. In the light ofthe em pirical and theoretical workcited ab ove, it seem s prob ab le that age on im m igration,length of stay and individuals' length of schooling wouldb ethem ost im portant featuresofindividuals' b iographies. Thusthese threevariab lesweretak enaccountofinthe operationalization ofindividual b iography for the Turk ish population. Theextenttowhichthe Turk ish inhab itants areaffected b y their prim ary m ilieu wasm easured indirectly. Several questions hadb een put onthe im portance ofintra-ethnic 40 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICALREVIEWTABLE 3 Sum m aryof the Operationalizationof the TheoreticalConstructs Variab le forVariab le for ConstructG erm an populationTurk ish population b iography (individual)age, education, incom e age of im m igration, length of stay, education dispositions (individual) authoritarianism /ethnocentrismlanguage sk ills econom ic frustration prim ary m ilieusocial distance im portance of relationships with m em b ers reference group of own ethnic group m acro-structure'existence' of proportion of foreigners in area proportion of foreigners in area each ethnic group m acro-structure'b ehaviour' -sam e group m acro-m ilieusocial distance im portance of relationships with reference group in aream em b ers of own ethnic group in area -other group m acro-m ilieu religious segm entation of Turk ssocial distance of G erm ans in area in area inter-ethniccontactvisits to hom e of Turk s or b y Turk contacts with G erm an neighb ours aquaintances social distance 'rejection' index, social distance (Bogardus) segm entation religious segm entation ethnic identification contacts, andoutoftheseanindexofthe sub jective im portance of intra-ethnicrelations was com piled. Since no direct operationalization of the prim ary m ilieuwas availab le, this operational- izationhadtob ework edwithinthe analyses which follow. InthecaseoftheTurk ish im m igrants, the variab le 'inter-ethnicrelations' is decom posed into inter-ethnic contactand ethnic segm entation, just aswasdoneforthenative population. The operationalization used for inter-ethnic contacts is not entirelysatisfactory. The onlyquestion included which was of relevance to this was that of the extent ofcontact with neighb ours. The results reported on here m ust b e judged in the light of this prob lem . Twodifferent aspects oftheextentof ethnic segm entation in the Turk ish population were m easured, once again according to the results ofa confirm atory factor analysis: the extent of religious identification, in this case with the Islam ic religion, andtheextentofethnic identification, i.e.with Turk ish nationality. These aspects were m easured along indiceswhicheachcom b inedseveral individualitem s. The operationalization ofthem acro-structural variab lesrelatestothetwo aspects m entioned ab ove, i.e.totheexistenceandb ehaviour ofthe respondent's own group andthe equivalent characteristics oftheother group. Existence was sim ply m easured b yusing the proportion of foreigners inthe appropriate district and quarter (see Tab le 1). The proportion of native residents is ofcourse sim ply the com plem ent ofthis.The m easurem ent ofb ehaviour wassom ewhatm ore com plex b ecause in this case separate account has tob e tak en of the b ehaviour ofeach group, i.e. of the respondent's own group and ofthe other, and thisb othforG erm ans and Turk s andatdistrict and quarter level.Theb ehaviourofthe respondent's own group wasm easured inb oth 41 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSOCIALCONTEXTANDINTER-ETHNICRELATIONS -0.18 Education Age 0.72\0.83\ FIG URE 2aInter-ethnicRelations of the G erm an Majorityb y 'individual'Characteristics districtsand quartersusing the average inthe prim ary m ilieuofthe appropriate m easure: prim arygroup distanceforthe G erm ans, the im portance ofintra-ethnic contactfortheTurk s. This 'b ehaviour' was toserve as a context variab le m easuring theextentof in-group socialcontrol determ ined m acro-structurally and is, accordingly, term ed 'm acro-m ilieu' for b oth groups. Finally, to m easure whether individuals arealsoaffected b y theb ehaviour oftheother group, the average of Turk s' religioussegm entation inadistrictor quarter wasascrib ed tothenative residents and, correspondingly, the average oftheG erm an respondents' social distance in the appropriate area wasascrib ed totheTurk ish respondents. These variab les are generally term ed 'm acro-reaction' in the following discussion.Thustherearetwo m acro-structural b ehaviour variab les foreachof the two groups: the (hom oethnic) m acro-m ilieuon the one hand and the (cross-ethnic) m acro-reaction on the other. The values of these variab les for each district and quarter are shown in Tab le 2. Itis apparent thatthevaluesofthese m acro-structural variab les inadistrict or quarter will tend roughly tofollow the value ofthe ethnic concentration inthatarea. The higher theethnic concentration, the greater the social distance of the m acro-m ilieuxwillb eandthem ore inwardly oriented. Also, the higher the concentration, the m ore segm ented the Turk ish and the m ore rejecting the G erm an m acro-reactionwill b e. Tab le3sum m arizesthestructureofthe theoreticalconstructsandtheallocationof individualvariab les to these. RESULTS The results of the em pirical analysis are presented inthree stages.First, m odels consisting of individual-level variab lesalonearecheck edfor eachofthetwoethnic groups toseeifthe theoretical relationships presum ed toexistinthe literaturecan b e confirm ed. Secondly, the prim ary m ilieuisintroduced intothe m odels, whichare m odified if necessary, as an additional explanatory variab le.W herethisis done, the relationships foundinthe original m odelareexam inedfor stab ility. Finally, the m acro-structuralvariab les are introduced, b oth to study their effects and to checkon the stab ility of the effects of the prim ary m ilieu and, once m ore, onthe stab ility ofthe original, individual-levelvariab les. The initial em pirical analysis, ofthe individual- level variab les alone, offerssom econfirm ation of the im portance ofindividual dispositions forthe explanation of inter-ethnic relations, at least for the native m ajority.However, theauthoritarian/eth- nocentric disposition isthe only decisive influence 0.67 42 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICAL REVIEWAge of im m igration Religious --0.4628-8 segm entation -046 - 0.11 Length of stay ----- Language -Inter-ethnic 031 sk illscontacts 0.30 .v36 \ -^^^^'^^^n ^^^^ Education \-0. Ethnic v1'-E0 .64 m esegm entation FIG URE2b Inter-ethnicRelations of the Turk ishMinorityb y 'Individual'Characteristics inthe explanation b othofthe inception of inter-ethnic contact, of rejecting attitudes toward theTurk ishresidentsinanareaandofsocial distance. Thelevel ofeconom icfrustration inthe native population isofno significance whatever. Another im portant finding isthat when authorita- rianism /ethnocentrismisincludedinthe m odel, thenfewdirecteffectsof b iographical and dem ographic variab les rem ain, and those which do rem ainare only weak . Age retainssom e significance forthe inception ofinter-ethnic contacts, age and (low) education for rejection, and (low) education forsocialdistance. Itis apparent thatm aterial status (incom e) isofnoim m ediate im portance forthe inception ofinter-ethnic relations.Inthe explanation of rejection and distance, inter-ethnic contactsstillrem ain quite im portant, evenwhenothervariab lesarecon- trolled for. This can b e judged, at this stage at least, as som e confirm ation of the contact hypothesis (in its verysim pleform ). Itrem ainstob e seen, however, whether this relationship holds up when other variab les are introduced. In short: authoritarian/ethnocentric dispositions, whicharethem selves age- oreducation-deter- m ined, aretheb est predictors ofinter-ethnic relations (contact, rejection, social distance) in the caseofthe m ajority group. Socioeconom ic status and econom ic frustrationare rather insignificant in com parison, when authoritarianism /ethnocentrismiscontrolled for.Inter-ethnic contactitself hasa certain dim inishing effect on rejective attitudes and onsocialdistance. Theseresults are presented in Figure 2a, in which only the em pirically significant relationships ofthe properly m odified b ase m odel are shown. Them odelsin Figures 2aand2b containthe path coefficients which resulted after the necessary m odel fitting had b een carried out; i.e. the m odels are prim arilydescriptive,m issingpathsm erely m eanthatno relationship wastob efound em pirically b etweenthevariab lesconcerned. However, the theoretical assum ption was that any causal relationship b etweenthe exogenous vari- ab les and the variab lesin the 'inter-ethnicrelations' com plex would only b eindirect. Ahis hypotdesis couldnotb econfirm ed forthenative m ajority (Figure2a) b utcouldfortheTurk ish m inority (Figure 2b ). Forthe explanation ofthe inception of inter-ethniccontact and the ethnic segm entation on the part oftheTurk ishresidentsofa quarter, b iographic variab lesturnouttob e m erely indirectly relevant-viatheireffecton language sk ills. Apart fromthis indirect effect, they canb e entirely neglected (on this cf.the earlier results in Esser,1981,1982). The only effect on inter-ethnic contactofreal significancecom es,hardly surprisingly, from thelevelof languagesk ills, which is gained individually. Language sk ills also havea strong influence on religious segm entation and a slightly weak er b ut still significant effect on ethnic segm entation. In contrast, a very im portant influence onthe latter type of segm entation isthe 43 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSOCIALCONTEXTANDINTER-ETHNICRELATIONS TABLE4The Influence of the Prim ary Milieu forInter-ethnic Relations of the G erm an Majority andtheTurk ish Minority: Standardized Regression Coefficients; (1) 'Individual' Variab les only; (2) Inclusion of'Prim arYMilieu' G erm an m ajority Inter-ethnic contactsSocial distanceRejection (1)(2)(1)(2)(1)(2) Education-0.18*-004-0.24*-0.13* Age -0-13*-0.040.16*0-07 Author./Ethnoc.-0.23*-0-130-35*0.22*0-40*0.32* Contact-0.24*-0-10-0.13*-0-01 Prim ary Milieu-0.34*0.52*0.43* R0-310-430.560.700.660.75 Turk ish m inority Inter-ethniccontacts Religious segm entation Ethnic identification Language sk ills0-30*0.27*-0.28*-0.20*-014*-0-06 Contact-0-11-006-0.30*-0-25* Prim ary Milieu-01l3*0.32*0.35* R0-300-320-330.450-360.49 *Statistically significant at the 5% level existence of inter-ethnic contacts, whereas this is of very little significance for religiosity. Them odel m odified in accordance with these em pirical results isshownin Figure 2b .The power of linguistic com prehension to shape identity evidently has the strongest influence oninter-ethnic relations in the caseofthe Turk ish m inority, b oth directly and as m ediated b y inter-ethniccontacts. Theresults gainedup tonow through a 'conventional' analysis whichusesvariab lesat individual-level only can b e sum m arizedas follows. The ethnic segm entation of the Turk ish m inority is theresultofalack of cognitiveab ilities, b oth directly and indirectly affected b yb iographical chance occurrences. In contrast, social distance on the part of the G erm an m ajority is to b e explained prim arily from authoritarianandethnocentric evaluations and em otions acquired in the course of individual b iography (the distrib ution according to age and education is particularly clear) b ut not in thefirstinstanceasreactiontoeconom ic frustration or lowsocial status (for m ore detail on this cf. Hill, 1984: 366ff). The effect of education, too, asan indicator for the aquisition of com plex and tolerance-producingcognitive structuresseem s only weakor indirect in effect, according tothese results. Howdothe relationships discoveredonthis b asis change when characteristics ofthe prim ary m ilieuareintroducedintothem odelas operationalizations oftheexistenceofsocial control b y theim m ediate reference environm ent? Theresults give an unam b iguous answer: tak ing account of the m ilieux in the prim ary environm ent (distance or segm entationrespectively)changes the relationships found, drastically insom ecases.As showninTab le4, explained varianceis significantly increasedinall cases, the only exceptionb eing the inception ofinter-ethnic contact b y the Turk ish im m igrants. W hen account is tak en of the prim ary m ilieu, all theeffectsof dem ographic variab les onallthree aspects ofinter-ethnic relations considered i.e.on contact,rejection anddistance disappear nearly com pletely inthe native population. The effect of inter-ethniccontactisnowalsoreducedtoa negligib le value.Oftheindividual-level variab les, authoritarianism /ethnocentrismaloneretainsa stab le influenceof its own alongside that exerted b y the prim ary m ilieu. Turning now to ethnic relations in the case of the im m igrants, whilethe prim ary m ilieuhasa relatively weakeffect on contact b ehaviour, it does have am uch stronger one on religious and ethnic identification. However, thestructure ofeffects found originally(language oncontactsand 44 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICALREVIEWTABLE5aMean Differences b y Districtand Quarterfor Inter-ethnic Relations of the G erm an Majority: (1) Raw Differences; (2) Differences Adjusted forCom position Effects DistrictQuarterInter-ethniccontactSocial distance Rejection (1)(2)(1)(2)(1)(2) 1-0.010.099.637.654.072.04 20.450.786.613.693301.04 3-084-068-429-6.931.660.27 140.35-0.010.410.14-0923.00-0.790.80-2.002.00-2.190.30 50.070.398.945.934.842.03 60.990.92-395-0.39-0.700.26 7-0.31-056-9-32-7.49-493-2.84 280.220.180.290.220.23-0.880.78-0.893.551.243.230.98 9-024-0441.772.24-1.47-058 100.20-0.041671.41-0.63031 11-056-0.792841.720.480.89 312-0.51-0.25-0.36-0.36-1161.32-1081.062.660.131.920.63 130.530.450.151.36-0.78-0.06 14-0.22-0.051811.680.22-056 150.06-004-7.62-5.58-3.56-2.12 4160.060.10-0.160.14-6.62-3.13-2.41-1.01-6.49-2.69-3.42-1.50 eta.b eta0.280.120.320.100.420.190.320.080.430.250.250.13 religious identification, contactsonethnicidenti- fication) islittle changed after theintroduction of the 'prim ary m ilieu' variab les. Thus W illiam s' early results (1964:89ff), which heusedto rejectpurely'individualistically' form ulatedtheories of inter-ethnic relations, can b e given clear confirm ation. Both social distance and ethnic segm entation result only toasm all extent fromthe dispositions held b y an individual. They areratherthe consequence of sub cultural, norm ative m ilieux, in which particularim ages and patterns ofactionm aintainthem selves through reciprocal confirm ationandsocialcontroleven when they run contrary toindividual experiences and dispositions. 'Distance' and 'prejudice'are, lik e 'ethnic identity',sim ply tak enfor granted in everyday life and thus neither the result of deviance nor of any k ind of'pathology'. The question tob eanswered nowiswhether m acro-structuralfactors in the environm ent are of any im portance alongside the influences shown to exist at individual and m ilieu level. The characteris- ticsofthem acro-structural surroundings con- sidered are them ere existence (ethnic concentra- tion) oftheother group ina territory, andthe b ehaviour of the actor's own and the other group. Forstatistical reasons, notallthe possib le operationalized contextvariab lescanb eintro- ducedintothem odel sim ultaneously. Context chacteristicsatthesam elevelof aggregation usually exhib it such a high level of m ulticollinearity thatthestatistical separation of specific effects is rendered im possib le(Boyd and Iversen, 1979: 63ff). Thevariab les hereareno exception. The reduction of the set of possib le context variab les to anum b eram enab letostatistical analysis was guided b y theconsideration thatthehom oethnic m acro-m ilieuxand the visib ility of the b ehaviourof theotherethnic group, asfeaturesofthe m acro-structure, m anifestthem selvesm oreat quarter level than atdistrict level. Thus, for b oth thesecontext variab les,only onelevelof aggregation(thequarter) wasusedinthe estim ation ofcoefficients. However, theeffectof ethnicconcentrationis investigated b othfor quarters and districts. This is possib le b ecause the 45 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSOCIALCONTEXTANDINTER-ETHNICRELATIONS TABLE 5b Mean Differencesb y Districtand Quarterfor Inter-ethnicRelations of the Turk ish Minority:(I) Raw Differences; (2) DifferencesAdjustedforCom positionEffects DistrictQuarterInter-ethnic contact Religious segm entation Ethnic segm entation (1)(2)(1)(2)(1)(2) 1-0.25.-0021.361070-23-008 20.130.311.991.822.662.62 3-0-24-0.130.210.051.41-116 40.040.14-068-077-0-48-046 50.210.18-0.51-0.43-1.03-082 160.160-000.130.110-130.470.190.32-0.140.330.020.22 7-0.84-0.770.420.19-0.00-079 80.000.000.990.991.861.76 90.210.330.210.120.731-03 100.00-0.19-0.010.181.571.68 110.180.12-0010.090.460.64 212-0-84-0.14-0.69-0.14-0.870.12-118-0.09-0640.68-1.440.56 13-0.83-076-0.590.370.66-0.11 14-013-0.02-0.820.652.862.70 15-0.79-0.65-0.01-0311.861.15 160.320.13-1.46-1.20-2-64-2.20 170.880.87-1.41-1.24-2.54-1.73 318-0.13-0.17-0.02-0-130.32-0.140.19-0.23-1.03-0.24-1.18-0.37 190-380.220.190.42-070-025 201.041.00-034-0100.021-00 210.880.69-1.14-0.77-1.48-0.77 220.16-0.06-115-0.80-1.00-0.76 423-0.380.39-0.540.21-0.51-0.55-0.41-023-1.64-0-98-1.92-0.52 eta.b eta0.480.210.430-150.500-220.440.140.490-210.460-15 design of the study k ept the m ulticollinearity of the twocontext levels very lowin this case (cf. Tab le 1). Anadditionalcontextualcharacteristic was usedinthe operationalization ofthe'existence' aspect ofthem acro-structure (as part ofthe opportunity structureforinter-ethnic relations). Thisis the-perceived-presence ofTurk sor G erm ans inthehouse lived in b y the respondent, whether G erm an or Turk ish. Inordertodem onstratethe possib le conse- quences of neglecting im portant variab les, b ut also to investigate the stab ility oftheeffectsofthe variab les already studied, the effects of the context variab les will also b e presented b y first excluding, then including, the prim ary m ilieu. However, individual-levelvariab les are included throughout. This procedure iscarried outfor all three aspects ofinter-ethnic relations, forb oth groups, and for eachofthedescrib ed operationalizations of supposed m acro-structuraleffects. So as toshow up clearly the overall relationship b etween m acro-structuralconditions and inter-eth- nic relations, them eandifferencesb etweenthe relevant variab les, forG erm ans and Turk s inthe four districts and inthe16 (23)quarters, will b e presented b efore the effects of specific variab les 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 segm entation generally lower in areas with a lower concentration of Turk s (Tab les 5a and 5b ). Afirst step inthe investigation ofwhether the effectofthem acro-structure has any sub stantial effect isthe adjustm ent of the m ean differences to 46 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICALREVIEWTABLE6Macro-structural Effects onInter-ethnicRelations intheG erm an Majority andintheTurk ish Minority: Standardized RegressionCoefficients;(1) IndividualLevelandMacro-structural EffectsOnly;(2)IndividualLevel, Macro-structuraland Prim ary Milieu Effects G erm an m ajority Inter-ethnic contactSocial distance Rejection (1)(2)(1)(2)(1)(2) Education-0-10-0-00-0.19*-0-11 Age -0-12-0-010.15*0.07 Author./Ethnoc.0.26*-0.16*0.31*0.21*0.38*0.32* Contacts-0.27*-0-13-0.15*-0-03* Prim ary Milieu-0.43*0.46* 0-41* Ethnic concentration at level of -house-0-12-0-10-003-0-020.000-01 -quarter 0.010.010-100.110.030.03 -district-0-07-0-04-0-11-0.09-0.03-0-01 Macro-m ilieu-0-24*-0.110.29*0.140.23*0.09 Macro-reaction-0-14-0-110.000-020-000.02 R0-370.500.520-630-690-75 Turk ish m inority Inter-ethnic contact Religious segm entation Ethnic segm entation Language sk ills0-22*0.21*-0-20*-015*-0-07-0.02 Contacts-0-06-0-04-0-23*-0-21* Prim ary Milieu-0-060.33*0.34* Ethnic concentration at level of -house-0-32*-0.32*-0.05-0-08-0-03-0-01 -quarter-0.01-0.010.32*0-34*0.21*0-23* -district0-030.030.120-130.110.11 Macro-m ilieu-0-09-0.070-090-050.130-02 Macro-reaction0-050.060.110-110.120.12 R0.460.460.450.530.450.54 *Statistically significant at the 5% level tak eaccountof com positioneffects, i.e.soasto controlfor possib lesystem atic distrib utions of individualswithrelevantcharacteristics.The results ofthe adjustm ent yield inform ation ab out them axim umeffecta particular m acro-structural variab le m ight still have, aftertheeffectsof individual-levelvariab les haveb een controlled for (Boyd and Iversen, 1979: 9ff;Schuessler, 1970: 209ff). Stab lem acro-structuraleffectscan only b e assum ed ifthe adjustm ent leadsat them osttoa sm all decrease in the m ean differences. The test for thisisa com parison ofetaandb eta.Such individual-levelvariab les as the ab ove analyses had showntob eofcausalrelevanceweretak en account of as covariates in the adjustm entprocess. For the native population, the prim ary m ilieu was includedasacovariateinthecaseofb oth inter-ethnic contactand ofsocial distance; social distance required the inclusion of authoritarianism / ethnocentrism as well, whereasthevariab le 'rejection'required thefurtherinclusionof education, giving three covariates in this case. For theTurk ish m inority, language sk ills and prim ary m ilieuwereincludedinthe adjustm ent ofb oth inter-ethniccontacts and religious segm entation. In thecaseofethnic segm entation, thecovariates usedwereinter-ethnic contactsandthe prim ary m ilieu. The differences in the m eans are seen to b e all higher for the Turk ish population than for the G erm ans and also they hardly drop on adjustm ent at all. This suggests that if the m acro-structurehas any effect worth m entioning, this will only b e found am ong the Turk ish respondents. 47 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSOCIALCONTEXTANDINTER-ETHNICRELATIONS TABLE7Macro-structural Effects onthe Determ inants of Inter-ethnic Relationsin the G erm an Majority and in the Turk ish Minority: Standardized Coefficients; (I) Individual Level Effects Only; (2) Individual and Macro-structural Effects G erm an m ajorityAuthoritarianism /EthnocentrismPrim ary m ilieu (1)(2)(1)(2) Education-0.20*-0.17*-0-23*-0.22* Age 0.41*0.40*0.18*0.18* Status-0-22*-0.19* Author./Ethnoc.0.24*0.23* Ethnic concentration at level of -house-0.09-0-07 -quarter-0.120.11 -district0.070.01 Macro-m ilieu0.10 Macro-reaction0-130.08 R0.480-510-590.61 Turk ish m inorityLanguage sk ills Prim ary m ilieu Education0.36*0.33*-0-27*-0.24* Age of im m igration -0.46*-0-46* Length of stay 0-31*0.32* Ethnic concentration at level of -house-0.10-0.10 -quarter0.00 -0-05 -district-0.18*-0-06 Macro-m ilieu-0.18* Macro-reaction-0.06-0-07 R0.590.680.270.30 *Statistically significant at the 5% level The adjustm ent tak esaccount only ofoverall m acro-effects. W hat, now, is the em pirical strength ofthe specific effects of m acro-structuralvariab les whoseexistencewas hypothesized earlier?The results are easily sum m arized. There are only two effectsstab le enough and largeenough tob e m entioned (see Tab le 6). Them ere availab ility of G erm an interaction partners in the sam e house or quarter is evidently of considerab le im portance for the Turk ish m inority in their inter-ethnicrelations. The inter-ethnicrelations with the Turk ish m inority reported b y the G erm an m ajority can b e explained using only the distance m ilieu inthe quarter asa specific m acro-structural variab le (m acro-m ilieu). The onlyrem aining effect worth noting is that the concentration ofTurk ish residents in a house is of significance fortheTurk sin respect oftheir inter-ethnic contact; incontrastitisthe concentration of foreigners at quarter level which isof im portance for religious andethnic segm entation. The corresponding effectsrem ain stab le even when prim ary m ilieu istak en account of. Thesituationinthenative population is som ewhat different. Heretheeffectoftheethnic m acro-m ilieuinthe explanation ofinter-ethnic contacts of rejection and social distance disappears whenthe prim ary m ilieuistak enintoaccount. Before the introduction of the prim ary m ilieu, this variab le had had quite a significant effect. Aresultcom m ontob oth groups isthata reciprocal orientation to the b ehaviour of the other group can b e neglected asa determ inantof ethnic segm entation andofsocialdistance.There isno evidenceofsocialdistance b eing areactionto ethnic segm entation orofethnic segm entation b eing areaction to expressions ofsocial distance. However, the coefficients, though not statistically 48 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICALREVIEWsignificant, do have the sign expected in theory, so that it can b e said that distance m ilieux, high ethnic concentration andcultural conspicuousness ora clim ateinadistrict favouring the rejection of im m igrants dohavea tendency tohinder inter-ethnicrelations. In com parison with b oth the individual-level effectsandthose specific tothe prim arygroup, these reciprocal reactioneffects m ust b e judged negligib ly sm all. Afinal point is that, for thenative population, inter-ethnic contactsloseall their effect whenall the context variab les are introduced, and that in the caseof im m igrants, language sk illsb ecom eless im portant the m ore context effects are introduced. However, the prim ary m ilieu retains its dom inance forb oth groups in affecting allvariab les studied (an exception is im m igrants' inter-ethnic contact). To com plete the analysis, a furthercheckshould b em ade astowhether m acro-structuralvariab les m ight have an indirect effect on the explanation of inter-ethnic effects, in particular, whether they m ight effect the central determ inantsof inter-ethnic contact, distance and segm entation. These determ i- nantsare authoritarianism /ethnocentrism , lan- guage and prim ary m ilieu. An em pirical analysis (Tab le 7), in which first the individual-levelthen the contextual determ inantsof the respective variab les arecontrolled for, oneafter another, showsthat therearenoindirectcontexteffectsof any significance. The only effectworth m entioning is thatofthedistricton im m igrants'language learning (see further Esser, 1982,1984). It rem ains to point out which are the individual determ inants ofthe prim ary m ilieu. Forthenative population, fourvariab les determ ine m em b ership ofa high- distance prim ary m ilieu tom uch the sam e extent. Theseare age,education, individualauthorita- rianism /ethnocentrismand-unexpectedly, con- sidering the results up till now--econom icstatus. The foreigners' individual educational level isthe only effecton m em b ership of intra-ethnically oriented prim ary m ilieux. Howthese (statistical) correlationsaretob e explained-perhaps selectiveeffects operate to determ ine who m oves away fromand who stays in a typicalprim arym ilieu,perhapsascriptive processes orsocialization and b iographical effects arise fromthe m em b ership of particular reference groups, etc.-hasto rem ain an open question here. It should, however, b em entioned thatindividual discrim ination inb oth casesfavours the m em b er- ship of rejectingprim ary m ilieuxandofones orientatedto the ethnic culture. W hen all the specific effects of the m acro-struc- tural variab les arelook edat together, thentheir effects on inter-ethnicrelations can b e traced b acktotwodifferent casesofnatives and im m igrants. FortheG erm an m ajority thereisalm ostno m acro-structural effectoninter-ethnic contacts, rejection anddistance. However, fortheim m i- grants, it is the m ere presence of G erm ans orfellow countrym en in house or quarter which determ ines theextent oftheir inter-ethnic contactsand their religious andethnic segm entation. Thusthe tendency found already inthe analysis of individual-level variab les isfurther strengthened, i.e.thereadinessof foreigners totak e up inter-ethnic relations ism orea question oftheir learned cognitive ab ilities andofthe opportunity structure oftheir residential environm ent, whereas for the natives individualem otions and dispositions andthenorm ativem ilieuintheirresidential environm ent play am uch greater role. Or, extrem elyb riefly, inter-ethnic relationsareevi- dently a question of opportunity forthe Turk s, whereas for the G erm ans they are m ore a question of em otions and norm ative control. ONTHEIMPORTANCEOF'SOCIALCONTEXTS' INTHEEXPLANATIONOFINTER-ETHNIC RELATIONS The em pirical resultshavedem onstratedthe param ount im portance of norm ative controls in the respective ethnic prim ary m ilieu, for the inception ofinter-ethnic contactsand for social distance on the part ofthe m ajority, and for segm entation on the part of the m inority. However, contrary to the original suppositions, the m acro-structurehas b een showntohave hardlyany effectatallinthe explanation of inter-ethnicrelations. The only sign of effects of any significance was in the case of the local m acro-m ilieu (such as a 'clim ate' of rejection of foreigngroups inawider territory-b efore controlling for the influence of the prim ary m ilieu), though if this has an effect at all then it is only for the m ajority; and, for the m inority, the structureof m ere opportunity(such astheexistenceof m em b ers of the other ethnic group in the territory). Itis particularly surprising thatthedistance and 49 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsSOCIAL CONTEXTANDINTER-ETHNIC RELATIONS segm entation of the groups identifiab le locally is of virtually no significance inthe explanation of inter-ethnicrelationsofthe groups. Various individual-level dispositions and sk ills are ofsom e im portance. Theseare authoritarianism /ethnocen- trism inthenative m ajority ontheone hand-these b eingb iographically acquired; and language sk illsintheTurk ish m inority onthe other-these b eing dependent on the contingencies of the m igration process or career. Finally it should b e pointed out once again that thedirect influence ofinter-ethnic contactonthe reduction of distance and segm entation is only very sm all.Further analyses, notdocum ented here, in which several rather special sets of conditions were tested, underwhichinter-ethnic contacts m ight havesom e significance also proved negative, i.e. alsofailed tooffer anysupport forthe'contact hypothesis'. Itisthus possib le to say in sum m ary that, at leastat present, the relations b etween im m igrants and G erm ans in city territories are relatively little determ ined b yreciprocal,m utually oriented 'reactions', whethertheseconsistin hostility to foreigners as a reaction to cultural differences or in cultural ostentation as a reaction to discrim ination. Distanceand segm entation feed m ainly onthe intra-ethnicm ilieu and thus express less an external distance asan internally controlled conform ity to everyday culturalm atters.Inm utual isolation, distance and segm entation are cultivated, b ut these are notsom uch directed against the other group asan expression ofnorm ative conform ity tothe actor'sown group ontheonehand (true in particular ofthenative population) orlack of opportunity to de-segm ent(particularly trueof im m igrants). However, a socio-ecologicalregularity inthe distrib ution ofm acro-m ilieux andof opportunity structuresm ustalsob etak enaccountof. High-distance and segm ented m ilieux covary unm istak ab ly onan ecological levelwithethnic (im m igrants') concentrationandthuswiththe num b er of opportunities forinter-ethnic relations. Theconclusionthis suggests isthatinterritories with a high ethnic concentration a polarization of them ilieuxandoftheindividual readinessfor action istob e expected. In areas with high ethnic concentrations, high-distance prim ary m ilieux are frequently tob efound (without thisdistrib ution b eingcaused,directly atleast,either b y ethnic concentrationor b y theb ehaviourofthe im m igrants!). Atthesam e tim e,thenum b er of opportunities forinter-ethnic relations inthe high concentration territories is necessarily sm all. The resultis that, forthenative m ajority, everyday contactswith im m igrants via prim ary m ilieu influences, whichwouldotherwise occur,donot (cf.Hill, 1984: 366ff) and theTurk ish m inority, sim ply for lack of opportunity todootherwise in their everyday territory, rem ain within their own ethnic group. The cultural and ethnic polarization is thus not the result of m utual reactions b ut arises on the b asis of group-specificgoals and conditions for action,andtheseare m ainly orientedto relationships and prob lem s within the actor's own ethnic group. REFERENCES AdornoT W , Frenk el-BrunswikE, LevinsonD J, SanfordR N. (1950): The Authoritarian Personality, NewYork : Harper & Brothers. Am irY. (1969): 'TheContact Hypothesis inEthnic Relations',PsychologicalBulletin,71:319-342. Blum erH G . (1965):'Industrialisationand Race Relations', in Hunter G(ed): IndustrialisationandRace Relations, LondonandNewYork :Oxford University Press: 220-253. Bogardus E S. (1929/30): 'A Race Relations Cycle', Am erican Journal of Sociology, 35: 612-617. BorhekJT. (1970): 'Ethnic G roup Cohesion',Am erican Journal of Sociology,76: 33-46. Boyd LH Jr, Iversen G R. (1979): Contextual Analysis: Concepts andStatistical Techniques,Belm ont, Cal.: W andsworth Pub lishingCom pany. BullockCSIII. (1978): 'Contact Theory andRacial Tolerance am ong High School Students',School Review, 86: 187-216. Breton R. (1965): 'Institutional Com pleteness ofEthnic Com m unitiesand the PersonalRelationsof Im m igrants', Am ericanJournal of Sociology, 70: 193-205. Cagle L T. (1973): 'Interracial Housing: AReassessm entof the Equal-Status Hypothesis', Sociology andSocial Research, 57: 342-355. Christie R,Cook P. (1958): 'AG uide tothePub lished Literature Relating to Authoritarian PersonalityThrough 1956',Journal of Psychology, 45: 171-199. CookS W , SelltitzC. (1955): 'Som eFactorsW hichInfluence the AttitudinalOutcom esof Personal Contacts',Interna- tional SociologicalBulletin, 7: 51-58. Dollard J, MillerN E, DoobL W , MowrerO H, Sears R R. (1939): Frustrationand Aggression, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Elk in S L,Panning W H. (1975): 'StructuralEffects and IndividualAttitudes:Racial Prejudice in EnglishCities', Pub lic OpinionQuarterly, 39: 159-177. 50 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and ConditionsEUROPEANSOCIOLOG ICALREVIEWEsserH. (1979): 'Raum liche Segregation, ethnischeSchich- tung unddieAssim ilationvon W anderern', inHam m B (ed): Leb ensraum Stadt. Beitrdge zur Sozialok ologie deutscher Stddte, Frank furtundNewYork : Cam pus: 48-74. (1980):Aspek te der W anderungssoziologie, Darm stadt und Neuwied: Luchterhand. (1981): 'Aufenthaltsdauer unddie Eingliederung von W anderern.Zurtheoretischen Interpretationsoziologi- scher "Variab len"', Zeitschriftftur Soziologie, 10: 76-97. - (1982): 'Sozialrdum liche Bedingungen der sprachlichen Assim ilationvon Arb eitsm igranten',Zeitschriftfur Soziologie, 11: 279-306. -- (1984):'G hettoisierung und sprachliche Assim ilation', in RoschM (ed): Ausldndische Arb eitnehm er und Im m igran- ten-SozialwissenschaftlicheBeitrage zurDisk ussion eines ak tuellen Them as, W einheim : Beltz: 61-84. (1985): 'Soziale Differenztierung als ungeplante Folge ab sichtsvollenHandelns:DerFallderethnischen Segm entation', ZeitschriftfurSoziologie, 14: 435-449. Fischer C S. (1977): Network s and Places.SocialRelations in theUrb an Setting,Chicago andLondon: University of Chicago Press: 1-16. FordW S. (1973): 'Interracial Pub lic Housing inaBorder City: Another Lookat the Contact Hypothesis', Am erican Journal of Sociology, 78:1426-1447. FriedrichsJ. (1977):Stadtanalyse. Sozialeundrdum liche Organisation der G esellschaft, Reinb ek : Rowohlt. G ordonMM. (1964): Assim ilationinAm erican Life. The Role ofRace, Religion andNational Origins, NewYork : Oxford University Press: 3-40. - (1975): 'Toward a G eneral Theory of Racial and Ethnic G roupRelations', inG lazerNand Moynihan D (eds): Ethnicity.Theory and Experience,Cam b ridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press: 84-110. Harding J. (1954):'Prejudice andEthnic Relations', in Lindzey G(ed): Handb ookof Social Psychology, Reading, Mass.: Addison W esley. Hawley AH. (1944):'Dispersion versus Segregation: Apropos ofaSolutionofRace Prob lem s', Papersof the MichiganAcadem yofScience,Artsand Letters, 30: 667-674. HillPB. (1984): 'Raum licheNaheundsozialeDistanzzu ethnischen Minderheiten', Zeitschrift furSoziologie, 13: 363-370. Huck feldt R R. (1983): 'Social Contexts, Social Network s and Urb an Neighb ourhoods:Environm ental Constraintsand FriendshipChoice,Am ericanJournal ofSociology, 89: 651-669. Hum m ellHJ. (1972): Prob lem eder Mehreb enenanalyse, Stuttgart: Teub ner. Lieb erson S. (1961/2): The Im pact ofResidential Segregation on Ethnic Assim ilation, Social Forces, 40:52-57. - (1963): Ethnic Patternsin Am erican Cities, NewYork : Free Press: 6-70. NoelDL. (1968): 'A Theory ofthe Origin ofEthnic Stratification',Social Prob lem s, 16: 157-172. Orb ell J M,KennethSS. (1969): 'RacialAttitudesandthe Metropolitan Context:AStructural Analysis', Pub lic Opinion Quarterly, 33: 46-54. Orpen C. (1971):'Prejudice and Adjustm ent toCultural Norm s Am ongEnglish-Speak ing SouthAfricans',The Journal of Social Psychology, 77: 217-218. Pappi FU. (1977): Sozialstruk tur undpolitischeKonflik te in der Bundesrepub lik . Individual- und Kontextanalysen der W ahlentscheidung. Koln (unpub lished). Park RE. (1950): RaceandCulture,G lencoe,I11:Free Press. - (1952): Hum an Com m unities, G lencoe, I1: Free Press. Parsons T. (1968): 'Social Interaction', in Sills DL et al. (ed): International Encyclopediaof theSocialSciences,11, NewYorku.a.: Macm illan: 429-441. Parsons T, ShilsEA (eds): TowardaG eneral Theory of Action, New York : Harper & Row. Price C A. (1969): 'The Study of Assim ilation', in Jack son J A (ed): Migration, Cam b ridge: 181-237. RexJ. (1970): 'The Concept ofRace in SociologicalTheory', inZub aidaS (ed): RaceandRacialism ,Londonu.a.: TavistockPub lications: 35-55. Rex J, MooreR. (1967):Race,Com m unity and Conflict. A Study of Spark b rook . London: Oxford University Press. Rob inson J W , Jam es DP. (1976):'Equal Status Contact and Modification ofRacial Prejudice: AReexam ination of the Contact Hypothesis', SocialForces, 54: 911-924. RoofW C. (1972): 'Residential Segregration ofBlack sand Racial Inequality inSouthernCities:TowardaCausal Model', Social Prob lem s, 19: 393-407. SchuesslerK. (1971):Analyzing SocialData,Boston: Houghton Mifflin Com pany. Shib utani T,KwanK. (1965): Ethnic Stratification. A Com parative Approach, NewYork andLondon:Mac- m illan. VanDen Berghe P. (1981): The Ethnic Phenom enon, New Yorkand Oxford: Elsevier. W estie F R. (1966): 'Race and Ethnic Relations', in Faris R E L (ed): Handb ookof Modern Sociology,Chicago: Rand McNally: 576-618. W eb erM. (1972):W irtschaft und G esellschaft,Tiib ingen: Mohr-Sieb eck , 5th edition. W illiam sRMJr. (1964):Strangers NextDoor.Ethnic RelationsinAm erican Com m unities, New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs. W iley NF. (1970): 'TheEthnic Mob ilityTrap and Stratification Theory', inRosePI (ed): The Studyof Society, New York , Free Press 1, 2nd edition, 397-408. ZeulCR,Craig RH. (1971): 'The Integration ofBlackResidents in Sub urb an Neighb orhoods: ARe-exam ination oftheContact Hypothesis', Social Prob lem s,18: 462-474. AUTHOR'SADDRESS Hartm utEsser.Zentrum fur Um fragen, Methodenund Analysen(ZUMA) e.V.P.0.Box 5969, 6800Mannheim1, W est G erm any. Manuscript received: 3 April, 1985. 51 This content downloaded from 132.248.132.248 on Tue, 28 Jul 2015 23:22:17 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions