Evaluación del contexto
11.2. Evaluación del entorno
Four marginalization variables were created by summing all the scores related to
questions falling under the specific marginalization category, ie. Social marginalization,
cultural marginalization, economic marginalization and political marginalization. .
(Please see the methodology chapter for further information on survey and variables).
Resulting variables are total social marginalization, total cultural marginalization, total
economic marginalization and total political marginalization. Total social
marginalization, total cultural marginalization, total economic marginalization and total
political marginalization are indexes which bring together various indicators that reflect
social, cultural, economic and political marginalization respectively. Total social
marginalization consists of nine indicators that are measured by questions A5 through
A13. Total cultural marginalization includes four indicators which are reflected in
questions A17 through A20. Total economic marginalization is composed of three
indicators, questions A21 through A23; political marginalization includes three indicators
that are measured by questions A24 through A26. For each variable, we produced a bar
scored a particular value of each of the five variables. In each graph, variable values are
reflected on the horizontal axis, while frequencies are reflected on the vertical axis.
Table 6.1 provides group statistics for both countries. By simply looking at the
numbers we can notice that there is a difference between the average scores for each
variable across the country. We can learn more about how they are distributed across
different groups if we look at how they are spread in the graphs.
Table 6. 1 Group Statistics of Marginalization for Germany and the Netherlands
Where do you live? N Mean
Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean Total Social Marginalization Germany 50 30.54 2.99 0.42 The Netherlands 46 25.60 4.24 0.62 Total Cultural Marginalization Germany 53 12.90 1.95 0.26 The Netherlands 53 10.26 1.53 0.21 Total Economic Marginalization Germany 17 9.76 2.63 0.63 The Netherlands 29 8.20 2.51 0.46 Total Political Marginalization Germany 53 10.83 1.94 0.26 The Netherlands 53 8.00 1.68 0.23
Figure 6. 1 Total Cultural Marginalization Indicators
Total cultural marginalization index was created using questions A17, A18, A19
and A20 (Please see the appendix for the questions). If we look at Figure 6.1, we can see
that overall there are higher levels of cultural marginalization (black bars) in Germany.
The modal category in Germany is more to the right in the graph, which shows that the
biggest group in Germany is more culturally marginalized than the biggest group in the
Netherlands. In other words, Milli Gorus members in Germany tend to have higher total
cultural marginalization than Milli Gorus members in the Netherlands.
The questions that were asked for the cultural marginalization variable were
designed to understand if Milli Gorus members are culturally part of the host society,
whether they follow the host country news more often than they follow Turkish news.
The results indicate that the majority of the Milli Gorus members in Germany watch
Turkish channels and read Turkish newspapers more than German channels and Germany
The Netherlands
Bars show counts
7.50 10.00 12.50 15.00 0 5 15 20 F re q u e n c y
newspapers while their Dutch counterparts display an opposite tendency. Milli Gorus
members in the Netherlands tend to watch Dutch channels and follow Dutch news more
often than Turkish channels and news. The German Milli Gorus‟s strong cultural ties with Turkey might be explained by their lack of proficiency in German language
accompanied by their perceived isolation from the German society. Although second and
third generation Turks speak German better than the first generation, the perception that
they are not and will never be part of the German society results in establishing closer ties
to Turkey. Since Germany has officially denied being an immigration country, she
considered Turkish immigrants as “guest worker” who will return to Turkey eventually. Therefore, Germany did not deem it necessary to establish programs that would teach
Turkish workers German. As a result, a majority of the first generation workers did not
learn German. Lack of proficiency in German accompanied by the perception of
exclusion has resulted in their unwillingness to participate in German society culturally.
My second variable is total economic marginalization. Total economic
marginalization index was created using questions A21, A22 and A23 (Please see the
appendix for the questions). Looking at Figure 6.2., we can see that although the
difference between the countries is not as clear as the difference in cultural
marginalization, these are indications that economic marginalization among the Milli
Gorus members is somewhat higher in Germany than the Netherlands. The possible
reason for this pattern might be that since Germany does not allow dual citizenship,
majority of Milli Gorus members do not have German citizenship which makes them
those that were interviewed are unemployed. Of the 45 percent who are employed, 70 of
them are blue-collar workers.
Figure 6. 2 Total Economic Marginalization Indicators
The next index was created using questions A24, A25, and A26 (Please see the
appendix for the questions). Figure 6.3 indicates that the modal category in Germany is
more to the right than the modal category in the Netherlands which shows that the biggest
group in Germany is more politically marginalized than the biggest group in the
Netherlands. Therefore, we can clearly conclude that political marginalization among
Milli Gorus members is higher in Germany than the Netherlands.
6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00
Germany The Netherlands
Bars show counts
Total Economic Marginalization
0 2 4 6 F re q u e n c y
Figure 6. 4 Total Political Marginalization Indicators
This pattern can be explained by the lack of German citizenship among Milli
Gorus members in Germany. Only 25 percent of those Milli Gorus members in Germany
who were interviewed had German citizenship while 88 percent of Milli Gorus members
in the Netherlands had Dutch citizenship. Having citizenship of the host country not only
automatically integrates Milli Gorus members into the political structure of the host
society through voting, it also creates a sense of belongingness and thus results in greater
interest in the political process. German law does not allow dual citizenship for adults,
which leaves its immigrant population which has been living in Germany for more than
forty years without citizenship. The majority of the respondents stated that they did not
want to apply for German citizenship because they did not want to give up their Turkish
nationality since it would mean giving up inheritance rights and right to buy property in
Turkey. Thus, keeping Turkish nationality is a practical and psychological necessity for
6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00
Total Political Marginalization
Figure 6. 3 Total Political Marginalization Indicators
F re q u e n c y Germany The Netherlands Bars show counts
10 15
0 5
them. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, the laws provide the immigrants the right to
retain their first nationality. As a result, 88 percent of Milli Gorus members have Dutch
nationality, which makes them politically less marginalized than their German
counterparts.
Figure 6. 5 Total Social Marginalization Indicators
Total social marginalization index was created using questions A5, A6, A7, A8,
A9, A10, A11, A12 and A13 (Please see the appendix for the questions).The questions
that were asked in this section can be grouped into two. The first group was designed to
understand the perceptions of Milli Gorus members, whether they perceive themselves as
part of German or Dutch society. They were asked to identify themselves with a society
or country. The second group of questions consisted of questions that were less direct
such as how often they meet German/Dutch families, whether they spend more time with
Turkish families etc.
15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00
Germany The Netherlands
Bars show counts
Total Social Marginalization
2 4 6 8 10 F re q u e n c y
Figure 6.4 clearly demonstrates that Milli Gorus members in Germany are
socially more marginalized than Milli Gorus members in the Netherlands. Milli Gorus
members in Germany identify themselves less with German society and more with
Turkey while Milli Gorus members in the Netherlands identify themselves more with
Dutch society and less with Turkey. Milli Gorus in Germany spends less time with
German families while they spend time with Turkish families or Turkish friends from the
mosque almost everyday. They display more skepticism toward the German society
stating that they do not think their rights and interests are protected by German society or
its institutions. In the Netherlands, on the other hand, we see an opposite trend. The
reason for this pattern might be the exclusion of the immigrant communities by the host
societies which are reflected in their immigration and citizenship laws. Germany has
traditionally adopted the argument that she was not an immigration country and
institutionalized this belief with its exclusionary immigration and citizenship laws, which
has created a perception among Milli Gorus members that they were “unwanted” and resulted in a social distance between them and the German society. Despite the recent
changes in perceptions due to September 11th attacks, the Netherlands is still known for
its tolerant approach toward its ethnic minorities among Milli Gorus members. They
consider the rights that are provided to Muslims by the Dutch government such as the
right to establish their own schools, the right to dual citizenship, the Dutch government‟s
willingness to consult Muslim organizations on issues related to Muslims as proofs of
Dutch society‟s respect for Islam. This trust in the host society has created a social environment where Milli Gorus members are willing to interact with the Dutch society
Next I use T-test to assess whether the average level of marginalization relative to
each of the five marginalization dimensions I created is significantly different in the
Netherlands and Germany. Tests results are reported in Table 6.2.
The p value for total social marginalization, total cultural marginalization and
total political marginalization are 0 whereas the p value for total economic
marginalization is .052, meaning that marginalization is significantly higher in Germany
for every dimension except total economic marginalization at .05 level and all variables
would show significant difference at .1 significance level. The sample that I used does
not provide conclusive results for total economic marginalization.