to be more homogeneous (0.98-1.07) than the Christians (1.03-1.16). Even though Muslims in Ambon are in the minority, it appears they show the highest support for demonstrations in relation to all measures. Their answers for the parameter also tend to be homogeneous, especially for “support demonstrations that protest against my religious group’s lack of free access to education”, as the standard deviation is only 1.00. In contrast, the lowest support is indicated by the Christians in Yogyakarta, who are considered to be a minority group. Their means ranges from 2.58 to 3.24 and their standard deviation from 0.93 to 1.07, signifying less support than Muslims; and their answers tend to be more diverse, from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
Table 3.5 Mean and standard deviation on demonstrations Demonstrations
Yogyakarta Ambon Total
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Muslims
(N=477) Christians (N=254) Muslims (N=373) Christians (N=348) Muslims (N=844) Christians (N=602)
267. I would support demonstrations that protest against my religious group’s lack of free access to education.
3.46
(1.01) (1.07)2.96 (1.00)3.72 (1.23)3.10 (1.02)3.57 (1.16)3.05 268. I would support
demonstrations that protest against job discrimination against my religious group. 3.53 (.94) 3.24 (.93) (1.04)3.54 (1.09)3.30 (.98)3.54 (1.03)3.27 269. I would support demonstrations that protest against abuse of political power that threatens my religious group. 3.50 (1.05) (1.06)3.09 (1.05)3.69 (1.12)3.38 (1.01)3.58 (1.10)3.26 270. I would support demonstrations to enforce the political influence of my religious group. 3.13 (1.03) (1.00)2.58 (1.11)3.14 (1.11)2.64 (1.07)3.14 (1.06)2.62 271. I would support demonstrations to demand respect for the values of my religious group.
3.73
In general, both Muslims and Christians do not show support for damage to property and harm to others, as shown in table 3.6 below. The range of mean scores is mostly lower than 3.00. Specifically, most of them extremely disagree with supporting harm to others merely to enforce the political influence of their religious groups. The exception is the highest mean score for Muslims in Ambon, which points to 3.21 with standard deviation of 1.41 for the statement that “I would support harm to persons when my religion is deeply insulted.” They tend to agree about this, but their answers are more diverse than those of other groups. The mean for this item is also relatively high for Muslims in Yogyakarta (2.28), where the standard deviation points to 1.13. This tendency shows how essential the meaning of religion is for Muslims, in that they cannot accept their religion being insulted.
3
Table 3.6 The mean and standard deviation on physical and corporal harm Harm to others or property
Yogyakarta Ambon Total
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Muslims
(N=477) Christians (N=254) Muslims (N=368) Christians (N=350) Muslims (N=845) Christians (N=602) 272. I would support harm
to others to enforce free access to education for my religious group.
1.89
(.89) 1.72 (.73) 2.00 (.90) (.90)2.06 1.94 (.89) (.91)1.92
273. I would support the damaging of property to enforce free access to education for my religious group.
1.94
(.88) 1.75 (.73) 2.00 (.94) (.96)2.05 1.97 (.90) (.88)1.92
274. I would support harm to others to obtain more jobs for my religious group.
1.84
(.87) 1.81 (.81) 1.89 (.87) (.93)1.94 1.86 (.87) (.88)1.89
275. I would support the damaging of property to obtain more jobs for my religious group.
2.02
(.91) 2.03 (.91) 1.92 (.88) (1.03)2.05 1.98 (.90) (.98)2.05
276. I would support harm to others to fight abuse of political power against my religious group.
2.05
(.98) 1.92 (.89) (1.08)2.47 (1.05)2.22 (1.04)2.23 (1.03)2.09
277. I would support the damaging of property to fight abuse of political power against my religious group.
2.13 (.99) 1.98 (.92) (1.04)2.27 (1.06)2.18 (1.01)2.19 (1.01)2.10
278. I would support harm to others to enforce the political influence of my religious group.
1.80
(.73) 1.72 (.73) 1.97 (.90) (.85)1.91 1.87 (.82) (.80)1.83
279. I would support the damaging of property to enforce the political influence of my religious group.
1.87
(.80) 1.77 (.76) 1.87 (.84) (.86)1.92 1.87 (.82) (.82)1.86
280. I would support harm to others when my religion is deeply insulted.
2.28
(1.13) (0.87)1.84 (1.41)3.21 (1.11)2.22 (1.34)2.68 (1.03)2.06
281. I would support the damaging of property when my religion is deeply insulted.
2.18
(1.05) 1.84 (.84) (1.35)2.93 (1.04)2.16 (1.25)2.51 (.98)2.03
In contrast with their attitudes, the actual support by respondents for public criticism and demonstration is low both in Ambon and Yogyakarta. Only about 10% of respondents said that they had expressed public criticism and 9% had participated in a demonstration over the past year. Nonetheless, the respondents of Yogyakarta
are more frequently involved in public criticism (58.5%) and demonstrations (70.5%) than those of Ambon who participate in public criticism (42.4%) and demonstrations (57.6%).
3.3.2 Ethno-religious identification
Ethno-religious identification is a cognitive process by which individuals construct the image of themselves from their ethno-religious group membership, along with the values and emotional significance of that group (Gijsberts et al., 2004: 10). Ethno-religious identification stems from social identity theory, which proposes that identification with in-group activities is motivated by a desire to positively differentiate that group from out-groups (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Brown, 1995). In this sense, ethno-religious identification encompasses both ethnic or religious dimensions, and allows individuals to develop a positive image from their in-group while dissociating themselves from the out-groups. Ethno-religious identification is measured by several indicators, adopted from inventories of a previous study with some modifications, and built into the new scale. It encompasses self-definition in relation to ethnic/religious groups, language use, friends by ethnicity/religion and friend preferences, participation in ethnic/religious ceremonies, religious beliefs and practices, and individual affiliation with ethno-religious organizations.
3.3.2.1. Ethnic self-definition
Ethnic identification has four distinct dimensions: ethnic self-labelling or self- categorization, attachment to the ethno-cultural group, evaluation of the ethnic group, and involvement with the group and its cultural practices and customs (Phinney, 1990). While individuals cannot change its basis in genealogical relations, they can deny or choose ethnic group attributes, and can be subjective about their membership of a certain ethnic group. Ethnic groups serve as a point of reference that give individuals a positive image of their identity. Since the category is inherited from blood relations, our measurement asks for parents’ ethnic groups. However, the father’s ethnic group can be different from that of the mother’s in inter-ethnic marriages; to allow for this, individuals could choose the ethnicity of their mother, father or a combination of the two via the question, “To which ethnic group do you consider yourself to belong?”
The question is actually similar to that in Tuti’s questionnaire (2007), but the answer categories were adjusted according to the specific situation of the research areas. Based on the combination of the six big ethnic groups in Yogyakarta and Ambon, we provided twelve ethnic groups in the answer, including Javanese, Sundanese, Madurese, Minangkabau, Ambonese, Bugis, Makassar, Buton, Toraja, Minahasa, Chinese and Batak. In anticipation of other possibilities, the choice of “other” was openly provided.