Social inclusion policy effects on democratic satisfaction in Europe: a catalyst of polarization threating the identities of privileged social groups.

IF 2 Q2 SOCIOLOGY
Frontiers in Sociology Pub Date : 2025-06-04 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fsoc.2025.1567394
Ibrahim Olayinka Akinyemi, Martin Groß, Volker Lang
{"title":"Social inclusion policy effects on democratic satisfaction in Europe: a catalyst of polarization threating the identities of privileged social groups.","authors":"Ibrahim Olayinka Akinyemi, Martin Groß, Volker Lang","doi":"10.3389/fsoc.2025.1567394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study analyses the influence of inclusive policies on the democratic satisfaction of different social groups. It draws on social identity theory to explain how inclusive policies can contribute to conflicts and polarization in attitudes between social groups. More specifically, inclusive policies aim to improve the rights and social recognition of disadvantaged groups while they reduce the privileges of groups traditionally recognized as superior. Consequently, we expect that democratic institutions (as the providers of these policies) either get support or disproval from the respective social groups for inclusive policies-causing related increases and decreases in the democratic satisfaction of the respective groups. Using longitudinal data from European Social Survey (rounds 1-10) and additional country level data, we test how socially inclusive policies affect differences in democratic satisfaction between disadvantaged and privileged groups in four policy areas: (1) religious freedom, (2) inclusion of migrants, (3) equal treatment of homosexuals, and (4) gender equality. Except for gender equality policies, our findings support our hypothesis: socially inclusive policies lead to less democratic satisfaction for groups traditionally recognized as superior while the democratic satisfaction of formerly disadvantaged groups increases. These changes in democratic satisfaction indicate that inclusive policies lead to gains in equal social recognition (Isothymia) for some but at the same time are considered a threat to privileged social recognition (Megalothymia) by others. With respect to support for (democratic) political institutions inclusive policies are therefore a \"double-edged sword\" and need to be implemented with care. However, given comparatively strong inclusive policies regarding religious freedom and migrant integration our analyses also indicate convergence in democratic satisfaction between disadvantaged and privileged social groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":36297,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Sociology","volume":"10 ","pages":"1567394"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12174112/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1567394","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study analyses the influence of inclusive policies on the democratic satisfaction of different social groups. It draws on social identity theory to explain how inclusive policies can contribute to conflicts and polarization in attitudes between social groups. More specifically, inclusive policies aim to improve the rights and social recognition of disadvantaged groups while they reduce the privileges of groups traditionally recognized as superior. Consequently, we expect that democratic institutions (as the providers of these policies) either get support or disproval from the respective social groups for inclusive policies-causing related increases and decreases in the democratic satisfaction of the respective groups. Using longitudinal data from European Social Survey (rounds 1-10) and additional country level data, we test how socially inclusive policies affect differences in democratic satisfaction between disadvantaged and privileged groups in four policy areas: (1) religious freedom, (2) inclusion of migrants, (3) equal treatment of homosexuals, and (4) gender equality. Except for gender equality policies, our findings support our hypothesis: socially inclusive policies lead to less democratic satisfaction for groups traditionally recognized as superior while the democratic satisfaction of formerly disadvantaged groups increases. These changes in democratic satisfaction indicate that inclusive policies lead to gains in equal social recognition (Isothymia) for some but at the same time are considered a threat to privileged social recognition (Megalothymia) by others. With respect to support for (democratic) political institutions inclusive policies are therefore a "double-edged sword" and need to be implemented with care. However, given comparatively strong inclusive policies regarding religious freedom and migrant integration our analyses also indicate convergence in democratic satisfaction between disadvantaged and privileged social groups.

社会包容政策对欧洲民主满意度的影响:威胁特权社会群体身份的两极分化的催化剂。
本研究分析包容性政策对不同社会群体民主满意度的影响。它利用社会认同理论来解释包容性政策如何导致社会群体之间的冲突和态度两极分化。更具体地说,包容性政策旨在提高弱势群体的权利和社会认可度,同时减少传统上被认为是优越群体的特权。因此,我们预计民主机构(作为这些政策的提供者)要么得到各自社会群体对包容性政策的支持,要么不赞成,从而导致各自群体对民主满意度的相关增减。利用欧洲社会调查(第1-10轮)的纵向数据和其他国家层面的数据,我们测试了社会包容性政策如何影响弱势群体和特权群体在四个政策领域的民主满意度差异:(1)宗教自由,(2)移民包容,(3)同性恋平等待遇,(4)性别平等。除了性别平等政策,我们的研究结果支持我们的假设:社会包容性政策导致传统上被认为是优越群体的民主满意度降低,而以前处于不利地位的群体的民主满意度增加。这些民主满意度的变化表明,包容性政策使一些人获得了平等的社会认可(等理想状态),但同时也被另一些人认为是对特权社会认可(巨大理想状态)的威胁。因此,在支持(民主)政治制度方面,包容性政策是一把“双刃剑”,需要谨慎实施。然而,考虑到有关宗教自由和移民融合的相对强大的包容性政策,我们的分析也表明,弱势和特权社会群体之间的民主满意度趋同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Frontiers in Sociology
Frontiers in Sociology Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
198
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信