Summary of the Sinus-Milieu Based Study on Discrimination in Everyday Life

1 Summary of the Sinus-Milieu based Study on Discrimination in Everyday Life Key results of a qualitative and quantitative baseline study on the perception of discrimination and anti-discrimination policy in Germany Tasks and methodology of the study This social science research project, carried out by the Heidelberg-based Si- nus-Institut on behalf of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, aimed to obtain an empirically sound overview of the thematic field of discrimination and protection from discrimination as perceived by the public. The focus was on understanding how the different groups and milieus of society handle the subject, what fields of action and actors they see and what they expect from anti-discrimination policies. The study population was the German-speaking residential population from age 18 years. The methodology combined qualitative and quantitative ap- proaches in an effort to map the subject in a holistic and sufficient manner. The results are statistically representative in terms of both contents and quantity. Following a pilot study to identify the aspects and differentiations that are relevant from the population’s perspective, a broad-based qualitative psychological survey was carried out to ascertain perceptual patterns and attitudes among all population groups and analyse them in depth (20 several- hours creative workshops), a complementary exploratory study with individuals affected by discrimination (40 biographical in-depth interviews) and a representative survey (2,610 individuals) to obtain robust representative data on the opinion distribution among the population and in the various milieus. Data collection took place between July 2007 and April 2008. The final study report was submitted in July 2008. To facilitate practical application of the findings to the various target groups, the research project “Discrimination in Everyday Life” generally relied on a socially differentiating perspective. This is because there is no one public attitude towards discrimination; instead, a broad spectrum of perspectives and ways of experience, norms, conventions and motives are linked to the subject and lead to highly different tendencies to act, depending on the individual’s basic orientation and lifestyle. Both in the qualitative research steps and in quantification, therefore, the target group-approach of Sinus-Milieus® -was employed - a proven, practical planning instrument that has been used by industry and service companies as well as policy-makers and other public clients since the early 1980s. 2 Ranking of discrimination as a topic The majority of German citizens do not feel that the topic of discrimination and equal treatment and/or the promotion of disadvantaged groups in our society has particular urgency. Levels of public attention to and outrage over the topic are rather low. In the context of discrimination and disadvantages, issues relating to the welfare State, such as the sustainability of the social se- curity systems and social justice in Germany are mentioned first and - unlike the protection of the groups mentioned in the General Equal Treatment Act (Allgemeines Gleichbehandlungsgesetz - AGG) cited as the foremost political tasks by large parts of the population. Specifically, while the characteristics which the AGG mentions as grounds of discrimination can be spontaneously recalled - in addition to many others - many respondents only see it as a genuine concern of theirs to protect the corresponding groups if these are persons with disabilities and (in some in- stances) women and elderly persons. As most respondents are not personally affected by discrimination on grounds of race, colour, ethnicity, religion or philosophy, or sexual identity, they tend to offer only boilerplate statements if it comes to the protection from discrimination, if at all. The common attitude is that “charity begins at home”, often followed by the argument that globali- sation has led to stiffer competition in our society. At the same time, both those affected by discrimination and the large majority of the non-affected denounce the increasing egoism in German society and the absence of human kindness, the lack of common spirit, the rampant loss of respect and consid- eration, and generally an aggressive atmosphere and excessive competitive- ness. Only 15% of the population can be said to make up the hard core of equality champions. These are the respondents who strongly disagree with the statement “I think that there is no need for anti-discrimination policy” (40% overall agreed with the statement). The potential for social progress on this matter probably lies in the large group of those who reluctantly agree (49%), presenting themselves at least as “somewhat interested” in this topic. In this group - that has hardly any distinctive profile in terms of gender, age and ed- ucation -, just as in that of “highly interested” respondents, society’s lead milieus (“established”, “postmaterialist” milieus and “modern performers”) as well as the young milieu of “experimentalists” are clearly overrepresented. Consequently, the group most likely to fight against discrimination and disadvantages - at least verbally - seems to the social elites. In the traditional milieus (“traditionals”, “GDR nostalgists”) as well as in the modern lower class milieus ("consumer materialists", "hedonists"), the opposition to seeing disadvantaged persons afforded protection from discrimination tends to be very fierce (unless they count themselves among this group). In this segment, the issue of discrimination is primarily seen against the backdrop of one’s own affectedness or neediness. They see themselves as socially disadvantaged - women even more so than men - and demand that society protect them from discrimination and, above all, improve their material resources. In this context, they perceive themselves in competition with the classical “marginalised groups”, especially the migrants who, at present, are widely held to be favoured by the State. 3 The middle class has highly ambivalent attitudes towards the subject of discrimination. No other milieu offers such a wide discrepancy between lip service to the protection from discrimination and tolerance towards disadvantaged groups on the one hand and chauvinist attitudes (especially among men) and fierce exclusion impulses on the other. Frequently employed mech- anisms to cope with this conflict are antagonism and denial. The State and policy-makers that make "life hard" for the citizens by imposing endlessly new regulations and constraints on them (e.g. the AGG) are scapegoated to cope with their frustration. In its perception of social reality, the “bourgeois middle class“ milieu is massively biased by status problems and fears of social decline. The more uncertain the times, the harder the milieu tries, on the one hand, to assert its position through the will to perform and the willingness to adapt and, on the other, to distance itself from marginalised groups and to set themselves off from the losers and downwardly mobiles. Which groups are seen as disadvantaged? The answers to the question of which people are disadvantaged in our society are highly diverse and focus not so much on the groups explicitly mentioned in the AGG than on the myriad ways of material discrimination. First and foremost, it is the group of socially vulnerable persons that is considered to be disadvantaged. Overall, respondents are able to recall a broad spectrum of socially or eco- nomically disadvantaged groups which reveals that the German population is keenly aware of unequal treatments, being essentially committed to the ideal of (material) equity and welfare, but also prone to denying other forms of discrimination. Of the groups mentioned in the AGG, persons disadvantaged on grounds of their ethnic origin, disability or age are the most likely to be cited. The other groups are relatively less likely to be spontaneously recalled. Incidentally, the results of the qualitative surveys show that awareness of disadvantaged groups is strongly correlated with their media presence and, as such, also subject to the volatile cycle of newsworthiness. Moreover, they reveal that the spontaneous mention of a group may not be equated with the level of vulnerability ascribed to it. Only discrimination against persons with disabilities and elderly persons is considered a problem of social urgency. In the representative survey, these two were the only groups for which more respondents agreed that “more should be done” for them than respondents agreeing with “less” or “nothing should be done” for them. Attitudes towards the groups protected under the AGG Overall, the equal treatment of disadvantaged group in society is not considered a high-priority topic. However, the willingness to address it is not dis- tributed equally, but varies from one group to another. The younger, more educated and socioculturally modern an individual and the more solid their social status, the more open they are towards the problem of discrimination. In addition, the priority and focus of the topic of discrimination also vary from one social milieu to another. 4 The fewest prejudices and negative opinions in connection with the groups protected under the AGG are found in the young milieus of “modern performers” and “experimentalists” who reject the common deprecation of all matters not “normal” and stand up against the “pigeonholing” that is rife in our society. The “post materialist“ lead

Load more