Migration and Discrimination IMISCOE Short Reader IMISCOE Research Series Rosita Fibbi All Chapter Instant Download

Full download test bank at ebookmeta.
com
Migration and Discrimination IMISCOE Short Reader

IMISCOE Research Series Rosita Fibbi
For dowload this book click LINK or Button below
https://ebookmeta.com/product/migration-and-
discrimination-imiscoe-short-reader-imiscoe-
research-series-rosita-fibbi/
OR CLICK BUTTON
DOWLOAD EBOOK
Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Migration and Religion: IMISCOE Short Reader 1st

Edition Nordin
https://ebookmeta.com/product/migration-and-religion-imiscoe-
short-reader-1st-edition-nordin/
Attachment Theory and Research A Reader 1st Edition

Tommie Forslund Robbie Duschinsky
https://ebookmeta.com/product/attachment-theory-and-research-a-
reader-1st-edition-tommie-forslund-robbie-duschinsky/
The Longman Writer Rhetoric Reader and Research Guide

10th Edition Judith Nadell
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-longman-writer-rhetoric-reader-
and-research-guide-10th-edition-judith-nadell/
The Compact Reader Short Essays by Method and Theme

11th Edition Jane Aaron And Ellen Kuhl Repetto
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-compact-reader-short-essays-by-
method-and-theme-11th-edition-jane-aaron-and-ellen-kuhl-repetto/
Handbook of Research on Discrimination Gender Disparity
and Safety Risks in Journalism 1st Edition Bar Çoban
(Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-research-on-
discrimination-gender-disparity-and-safety-risks-in-
journalism-1st-edition-bar-coban-editor/
Stuttering Meets Sterotype Stigma and Discrimination An

Overview of Attitude Research 1st Edition Kenneth O St
Louis Glen Tellis
https://ebookmeta.com/product/stuttering-meets-sterotype-stigma-
and-discrimination-an-overview-of-attitude-research-1st-edition-
kenneth-o-st-louis-glen-tellis/
His Bride The Complete Short Romance Series Nichole

Rose
https://ebookmeta.com/product/his-bride-the-complete-short-
romance-series-nichole-rose/
Discovering Fiction Level 1 Student s Book A Reader of

North American Short Stories 4th Edition Kay
https://ebookmeta.com/product/discovering-fiction-
level-1-student-s-book-a-reader-of-north-american-short-
stories-4th-edition-kay/
Research Methodologies and Ethical Challenges in

Digital Migration Studies: Caring For (Big) Data? Marie
Sandberg
https://ebookmeta.com/product/research-methodologies-and-ethical-
challenges-in-digital-migration-studies-caring-for-big-data-
marie-sandberg/
IMISCOE Research Series
Rosita Fibbi
Arnfinn H. Midtbøen
Patrick Simon
Migration and
Discrimination
IMISCOE Short Reader
Now accepted for Scopus! Content available on the Scopus site in spring 2021.
This series is the official book series of IMISCOE, the largest network of excellence
on migration and diversity in the world. It comprises publications which present
empirical and theoretical research on different aspects of international migration.
The authors are all specialists, and the publications a rich source of information for
researchers and others involved in international migration studies. The series is
published under the editorial supervision of the IMISCOE Editorial Committee
which includes leading scholars from all over Europe. The series, which contains
more than eighty titles already, is internationally peer reviewed which ensures that
the book published in this series continue to present excellent academic standards
and scholarly quality. Most of the books are available open access.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13502

Rosita Fibbi • Arnfinn H. Midtbøen
Patrick Simon
Migration and
Discrimination
IMISCOE Short Reader
Rosita Fibbi Arnfinn H. Midtbøen
Swiss Forum for Migration and Institute for Social Research
Population Studies Oslo, Norway
University of Neuchâtel
Neuchatel, Switzerland
Patrick Simon
National Institute for Demographic Studies
Paris, France
ISSN 2364-4087 ISSN 2364-4095 (electronic)

ISBN 978-3-030-67280-5 ISBN 978-3-030-67281-2 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67281-2
The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2021. This book is an open access publication.
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit
to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if
changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book's Creative Commons
license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the book's
Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the
permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the
editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Foreword
This book reflects a growing concern in European migration studies. For decades,
migration scholars have studied immigrants’ access to key social domains, such as
education and the labor market, as part of a broader process of integration, often
implicitly assuming that later generations will overcome the barriers opposing their
immigrant parents or grandparents. Today, there is ample evidence that both immi-
grants and their descendants – many of whom constitute what we in this book refer
to as ethno-racial minority groups – face discrimination when trying to access goods
or services in Europe. Efforts to measure and understand the prevalence of discrimi-
nation, as well as concerns over the consequences of such experiences, have resulted
in the fast-growing field of discrimination studies.
We have been part of this development by our own research on ethnic and racial
discrimination, but also by establishing a research cluster devoted to discrimination
studies within the IMISCOE network. Formally established at the 2015 IMISCOE
conference in Geneva, the research cluster Discrimination in Cross-National
Perspective aimed to put this issue front-stage, emphasizing the role of discrimina-
tion in migrants’ and their descendants’ integration processes and in the transforma-
tion of European countries as multicultural societies. By organizing panel sessions
on discrimination in the subsequent IMISCOE annual conferences, we have brought
together scholars from across Europe and North America to engage in critical
debates about methods, theories, results, and interpretations.
The current book is an extension of this endeavor. The book provides a state-of-
the-art overview of the research on discrimination, with a particular focus on dis-
crimination against immigrants and their descendants. Structured as a short reader
available to undergraduate and graduate students, scholars, policy makers, and the
general public, it covers the ways in which discrimination is defined and conceptu-
alized, how it may be measured and theorized, and how it may be combatted by law
and policy. The book also presents recent empirical results from studies on discrimi-
nation across Europe and North America to exemplify how research in this field is
conducted.
This book distinguishes itself from other handbooks in several respects. It is
short and concise. It focuses mostly on the labor market because of major advances
v
vi Foreword
in recent empirical studies in this domain, but empirical examples are also drawn
from studies of discrimination in housing, health, access to social services, and
more generally on the subjective experiences of being a member of discriminated
groups. The reader is further rooted in an interdisciplinary approach, reflecting that
discrimination is studied across the social sciences. Finally, the book has a broad
European scope, mirroring the expanding research on and growing awareness of
discrimination on this side of the Atlantic and reflecting the overall mission of the
IMISCOE network.
We wish to thank the IMISCOE editorial committee for the invitation to write a
short reader on migration and discrimination as part of the network’s new short
book series, and especially the head of the committee, Anna Triandafyllidou, for her
inspiring encouragement. We also wish to thank our respective research institu-
tions – the Swiss Forum for Migration and Population Studies at the University of
Neuchâtel, Institute for Social Research in Oslo and INED in Paris – for allowing us
to find time to work on this book and for funding travel to Oslo and Paris for joint
discussions and stimulating writing sessions.
Neuchatel, Switzerland
Rosita Fibbi
Oslo, Norway Arnfinn H. Midtbøen
Paris, France Patrick Simon

May 2020
Contents
1 Introduction: The Case for Discrimination Research�� 1

1.1 Post-War Immigration and the Ethno-racial Diversity Turn �� 1
1.2 Talking About Discrimination in Europe�� 3
1.3 Who Is Discriminated Against? The Problem with Statistics on
Ethnicity and Race�� 6
1.4 Discrimination and Integration: Commonalities
and Contradictions�� 7
1.5 The Content of the Book�� 9
References�� 10
2 Concepts of Discrimination�� 13
2.1 Direct and Indirect Discrimination �� 14
2.2 Multiple Discrimination and Intersectionality�� 15
2.3 Organizational, Institutional, and Systemic Discrimination �� 16
2.4 Discrimination and Inequality�� 18
2.5 Conclusion�� 19
References�� 19
3 Theories of Discrimination�� 21
3.1 Individual-Level Theories �� 21
3.1.1 Individual Psychological Conflicts �� 22
3.1.2 Individual-Level Factors in the Labor Market:
The Rationale of Gatekeepers�� 23
3.1.3 Intergroup Relations�� 25
3.2 Organizational-Level Theories�� 28
3.2.1 Organizational Procedures: Formalization�� 28
3.2.2 Organizational Mechanisms: Networks as Opportunity
Hoarding �� 29
3.2.3 Organizational Environment: The Regulatory
Framework�� 30
vii
viii Contents
3.3 Structural-Level Theories�� 31

3.3.1 Present as Sediment of the Past�� 31
3.3.2 Cumulative Interrelated Processes�� 33
3.3.3 Institutional Discrimination as a Result
of State Policies and Practices�� 33
References�� 36
4 Methods of Measurement�� 43
4.1 Experiences of Discrimination�� 43
4.2 Attitudinal Studies�� 45
4.3 Studies of Legal Complaints �� 47
4.4 Studies of Residual Gaps�� 48
4.5 Experimental Studies�� 49
References�� 52
5 Discrimination Across Social Domains�� 55
5.1 Systems of Differentiation vs. Systems of Equality �� 56
5.2 Discrimination Research in Systems of Differentiation �� 57
5.3 Discrimination Research in Systems of Equality�� 59
5.4 Implications�� 61
References�� 63
6 Consequences of and Responses to Discrimination�� 65
6.1 Costs of Discrimination�� 65
6.2 Minorities’ Life Chances Reduced �� 66
6.3 Responses to Discrimination and Stigmatization �� 69
6.3.1 Coping and Identity Strategies�� 71
6.3.2 Reactive Ethnicity �� 73
6.3.3 Socio-Cultural Embedding of Minority Responses�� 74
References�� 75
7 Combatting Discrimination�� 79
7.1 Antidiscrimination Legislation �� 80
7.2 Antidiscrimination Policies: Positive Action�� 82
7.2.1 Awareness Raising�� 82
7.2.2 Outreach Programs�� 83
7.2.3 Proactive Policies�� 83
7.2.4 Quantitative Targets and Quotas �� 84
7.3 Promoting Diversity�� 85
7.4 Assessing Antidiscrimination Policies�� 87
References�� 90
Contents ix
8 Conclusion�� 93
8.1 Pervasive, Perpetuating, and Persistent�� 93
8.1.1 Pervasive Presence�� 94
8.1.2 Perpetuating Configuration �� 94
8.1.3 Persistent Pattern�� 94
8.2 Discrimination and Integration Revisited �� 95
8.3 Avenues for Future Research�� 95
References�� 97
Chapter 1
Introduction: The Case for Discrimination
Research
European societies are more ethnically diverse than ever. The increasing migration-
related diversity has fostered dramatic changes since the 1950s, among them the rise
of striking ethno-racial inequalities in employment, housing, health, and a range of
other social domains. The sources of these enduring inequalities have been a subject
of controversy for decades. To some scholars, ethno-racial gaps in such outcomes
are seen as transitional bumps in the road toward integration, while others view
structural racism, ethnic hostility, and subtle forms of outgroup-bias as fundamental
causes of persistent ethno-racial inequalities. These ethno-racial disadvantages can
be understood as evidence of widespread discrimination; however, scholarly debates
reflect striking differences in the conceptualization and measurement of discrimina-
tion in the social sciences.
What discrimination is, as well as how and why it operates, are differently under-
stood and studied by the various scholarships and scientific fields. A large body of
research has been undertaken over the previous three decades, using a variety of
methods – qualitative, quantitative, and experimental. These research efforts have
improved our knowledge of the dynamics of discrimination in Europe and beyond.
It is the ambition of this book to summarize how we frame, study, theorize, and aim
at combatting ethno-racial discrimination in Europe.
1.1 ost-War Immigration and the Ethno-racial

P
Diversity Turn
Even though ethnic and racial diversity has existed to some extent in Europe
(through the slave trade, transnational merchants, and colonial troops), the scope of
migration-related diversity reached an unprecedented level in the period following
World War II. This period coincides with broader processes of decolonization and
the beginning of mass migration from non-European countries, be it from former
© The Author(s) 2021 1

R. Fibbi et al., Migration and Discrimination, IMISCOE Research Series,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67281-2_1
2 1 Introduction: The Case for Discrimination Research
colonies to the former metropoles (from the Caribbean or India and Pakistan to the
UK; South-East Asia, North Africa or Sub-Saharan Africa to France) or in the con-
text of labor migration without prior colonial ties (from Turkey to Germany or the
Netherlands; Morocco to Belgium or the Netherlands, etc.).
The ethnic and racial diversity in large demographic figures began in the 1960s
(Van Mol and de Valk 2016). At this time, most labor migrants were coming from
other European countries, but figures of non-European migration were beginning to
rise: in 1975, 8% of the population in France and the UK had a migration back-
ground, half of which originated from a non-European country. By contrast, in
2014, 9.2% of the population of the EU28 had a migration background from outside
of Europe (either foreign born or native-born from foreign-born parent(s)), and this
share reached almost 16% in Sweden; 14% in the Netherlands, France, and the UK;
and between 10 and 13% in Germany, Belgium, and Austria. The intensification of
migration, especially from Asia and Africa, has heightened the visibility of ethno-
racial diversity in large European metropolises. Almost 50% of inhabitants in
Amsterdam and Rotterdam have a “nonwestern allochthon” background (2014),
40% of Londoners are black or ethnic minorities (2011), while 30% of Berliners
(2013) and 43% of Parisians (metropolitan area; 2009) have a migration back-
ground. The major facts of this demographic evolution are not only that diversity
has reached a point of “super-diversity” (see Vertovec 2007; Crul 2016) in size and
origins, but also that descendants of immigrants (i.e., the second generation) today
make up a significant demographic group in most European countries, with the
exception of Southern Europe where immigration first boomed in the 2000s.
The coming of age of the second generation has challenged the capacity of dif-
ferent models of integration to fulfill promises of equality, while the socio-cultural
cohesion of European societies is changing and has to be revised to include ethnic
and racial diversity. Native-born descendants of immigrants are socialized in the
country of their parents’ migration and, in most European countries, share the full
citizenship of the country where they live and, consequently, the rights attached to
it. However, an increasing number of studies show that even the second generation
faces disadvantages in education, employment, and housing that cannot be explained
by their lack of skills or social capital (Heath and Cheung 2007). The transmission
of penalties from one generation to the other – and in some cases an even higher
level of penalty for the second generation than for the first – cannot be explained
solely by the deficiencies in human, social, and cultural capital, as could have been
the case for low-skilled labor migrants arriving in the 1960s and 1970s. Indeed, the
persistence of ethno-racial disadvantages among citizens who do not differ from
others except for their ethnic background, their skin color, or their religious beliefs
is a testament to the fact that equality for all is an ambition not yet achieved.
Citizenship status may represent a basis for differential treatment. Undoubtedly,
citizenship status is generally considered a legitimate basis for differential treat-
ment, which is therefore not acknowledged as discrimination. Indeed, in many
European countries, the divide between nationals and European Union (EU) citi-
zens lost its bearing with the extension of social rights to EU citizens (Koopmans
et al. 2012). Yet, in other countries, and for non-EU citizens, foreign citizenship
1.2 Talking About Discrimination in Europe 3
status creates barriers to access to social subsidies, health care, specific professions,
and pensions or exposure to differential treatment in criminal justice. In most coun-
tries, voting rights are conditional to citizenship, and the movement to expand the
polity to non-citizens is uneven, at least for elections of representatives at the
national parliaments. Notably, in countries with restrictive access to naturalization,
citizenship status may provide an effective basis for unequal treatment (Hainmueller
and Hangartner 2013). The issue of discrimination among nationals, therefore,
should not overshadow the enduring citizenship-based inequalities.
The gap between ethnic diversity among the population and scarcity of the rep-
resentation of this diversity in the economic, political, and cultural elites demon-
strate that there are obstacles to minorities entering these positions. This picture
varies across countries and social domains. The UK, Belgium, or the Netherlands
display a higher proportion of elected politicians with a migration background than
France or Germany (Alba and Foner 2015). Some would argue that it is only a mat-
ter of time before newcomers will take their rank in the queue and access the close
ring of power in one or two generations. Others conclude that there is a glass ceiling
for ethno-racial minorities, which will prove as efficient as that for women to pre-
vent them from making their way to the top. The exception that proves the rule can
be found in sports, where athletes with minority backgrounds are often well repre-
sented in high-level competitions. The question is how to narrow the gap in other
domains of social life, and what this gap tells us about the structures of inequalities
in European societies.
1.2 Talking About Discrimination in Europe
Discrimination is as old as human society. However, the use of the concept in aca-
demic research and policy debates in Europe is fairly recent. In the case of differen-
tial treatment of ethnic and racial minorities, the concept was typically related to
blatant forms of racism and antisemitism, while the more subtle forms of stigmati-
zation, subordination, and exclusion for a long time did not receive much attention
as forms of “everyday racism” (Essed 1991). The turn from explicit racism to more
subtle forms of selection and preference based on ethnicity and race paved the way
to current research on discrimination. In European societies, where formal equality
is a fundamental principle protected by law, discrimination is rarely observed
directly. Contrary to overt racism, which is explicit and easily identified, discrimi-
nation is typically a hidden part of decisions, selection processes, and choices that
are not explicitly based on ethnic or racial characteristics, even though they produce
unfair biases. Discrimination does not have to be intentional and it is often not even
a conscious part of human action and interaction. While it is clear that discrimina-
tion exists, this form of differential treatment is hard to make visible. The major task
of research in the field is thus to provide evidence of the processes and magnitude
of discrimination. Beyond the variety of approaches in the different disciplines,
however, discrimination researchers tend to agree on the starting point: stereotypes
and prejudices are nurturing negative perceptions, more or less explicit, of individu-
als or groups through processes of ethnicization or racialization, which in turn cre-
ate biases in decision-making processes and serve as barriers to opportunities for
these individuals or groups.
Although the concepts of inequality, discrimination, and racism are sometimes
used interchangeably, the concept of discrimination entails specificities in terms of
social processes, power relations, and legal frameworks that have opened new per-
spectives to understand ethnic and racial inequalities. The genealogy of the concept
and its diffusion in scientific publications still has to be studied thoroughly, and we
searched in major journals to identify broad historical sequences across national
contexts. Until the 1980s, the use of the concept of discrimination was not wide-
spread in the media, public opinion, science, or policies. In scientific publications,
the dissemination of the concept was already well advanced in the US at the begin-
ning of the twentieth century in the aftermath of the abolition of slavery to describe
interracial relations. In Europe, there is a sharp distinction between the UK and
continental Europe in this regard. The development of studies referring explicitly to
discrimination in the UK has a clear link to the post-colonial migration after World
War II and the foundation of ethnic and racial studies in the 1960s. However, the
references to discrimination remained quite limited in the scientific literature until
the 1990s – even in specialized journals such as Ethnic and Racial Studies, New
Community and its follower Journal for Ethnic and Migration Studies, and more
recently Ethnicities – when the number of articles containing the term discrimina-
tion in their title or keywords increased significantly. In French-speaking journals,
references to discrimination were restricted to a small number of feminist journals
in the 1970s and became popular in the 1990s and 2000s in mainstream social sci-
ence journals. The same held true in Germany, with a slight delay in the middle of
the 2000s. Since the 2000s, the scientific publications on discrimination have
reached new peaks in most European countries.
The year 2000 stands as a turning point in the development of research and pub-
lic interest in discrimination in continental Europe. This date coincides with the
legal recognition of discrimination by the parliament of the EU through a directive
“implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of
racial or ethnic origin,” more commonly called the “Race Equality Directive.” This
directive put ethnic and racial discrimination on the political agenda of EU coun-
tries. This political decision contributed to changing the legal framework of EU
countries, which incorporated non-discrimination as a major reference and trans-
posed most of the terms of the Race Equality Directive into their national legisla-
tion. The implementation of the directive was also a milestone in the advent of the
awareness of discrimination in Europe. In order to think in terms of discrimination,
there should be a principle of equal treatment applied to everyone, regardless of
their ethnicity or race. This principle of equal treatment is not new, but it has
remained quite formal for a long time. The Race Equality Directive represented a
turning point toward a more effective and proactive approach to achieve equality
and accrued sensitivity to counter discrimination wherever it takes place.
1.2 Talking About Discrimination in Europe 5
The first step to mobilize against discrimination is to launch awareness-raising

campaigns to create a new consciousness of the existence of ethno-racial disadvan-
tages. The denial of discrimination is indeed a paradoxical consequence of the
extension of formal equality in post-war democratic regimes. Since racism is mor-
ally condemned and legally prohibited, it is expected that discrimination should not
occur and, thus, that racism is incidental. Incidentally, an opinion survey conducted
in 2000 for the European Union Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia
(which was replaced in 2003 by the Fundamental Rights Agency [FRA]), showed
that only 31% of respondents in the EU15 at the time agreed that discrimination
should be outlawed. However, the second Eurobarometer explicitly dedicated to
studying discrimination in 2007 found that ethnic discrimination was perceived as
the most widespread (very or fairly) type of discrimination by 64% of EU citizens
(European Commission 2007). Almost 10 years later, in 2015, the answers were
similar for ethnic discrimination but had increased for all other grounds except gen-
der. Yet, there are large discrepancies between countries, with the Netherlands,
Sweden, and France showing the highest levels of consciousness of ethnic discrimi-
nation (84%, 84%, and 82%, respectively), whereas awareness is much lower in
Poland (31%) and Latvia (32%). In Western Europe, Germany (60%) and Austria
(58%) stand out with relatively lower marks (European Commission 2015).
These Eurobarometer surveys provide useful information about the knowledge
of discrimination and the attitudes of Europeans toward policies against it. However,
they focus on the representation of different types of discrimination rather than the
personal experience of minority members. To gather statistics on the experience of
discrimination is difficult for two reasons: (1) minorities are poorly represented in
surveys with relatively small samples in the general population and (2) questions
about experiences of discrimination are rarely asked in non-specific surveys. Thanks
to the growing interest in discrimination, more surveys are providing direct and
indirect variables that are useful in studying the personal experiences of ethno-racial
disadvantage.
The European Social Survey, for example, has introduced a question on per-
ceived group discrimination (which is not exactly a personal self-reported experi-
ence of discrimination, see Chap. 4). In 2007 and 2015, the FRA conducted a
specialized survey on discrimination in the 28 EU countries, the Minorities and
Discrimination (EU-MIDIS) survey, to fill the gap in the knowledge of the experi-
ence of discrimination of ethnic and racial minorities. The information collected is
wide ranging; however, only two minority groups were surveyed in each EU coun-
try, and the survey is not representative of the population.
Of course, European-wide surveys are not the main statistical sources on dis-
crimination. Administrative statistics, censuses, and social surveys at the national
and local levels in numerous countries bring new knowledge of discrimination,
either with direct measures when this is the main topic of data collection or more
indirectly when they provide information on gaps in employment or education faced
by disadvantaged groups. The key point is to be able to identify the relevant popula-
tion category in relation to discrimination, as we know that ethno-racial groups do
not experience discrimination to the same extent. Analyses of immigrants or the
second generation as a whole might miss the significant differences between –

broadly speaking – European and non-European origins. Or, to put it in a different
way, between white and non-white or “visible” minorities. Countries where groups
with a European background make up most of the migration-related diversity typi-
cally show low levels of discrimination, while countries with high proportions of
groups with non-European backgrounds, especially Africans (North and Sub-
Saharan), Caribbean people, and South Asians, record dramatic levels of
discrimination.
1.3 ho Is Discriminated Against? The Problem

W
with Statistics on Ethnicity and Race
Collecting data on discrimination raises the problem of the identification of minor-

ity groups. Migration-related diversity has been designed from the beginning of
mass migration based on place of birth of the individuals (foreign born) or their citi-
zenship (foreigners). In countries where citizenship acquisition is limited, citizen-
ship or nationality draws the boundary between “us” and “the others” over
generations. This is not the case in countries with more open citizenship regimes
where native-born children of immigrants acquire by law the nationality of their
country of residence and thus cannot be identified by these variables. If most
European countries collect data on foreigners and immigrants, a limited number
identify the second generation (i.e., the children of immigrants born in the country
of immigration). The question is whether the categories of immigrants and the sec-
ond generation really reflect the population groups exposed to ethno-racial discrimi-
nation. As the grounds of discrimination make clear, nationality or country of birth
is not the only characteristic generating biases and disadvantages: ethnicity, race, or
color are directly involved. However, if it seems straightforward to define country of
birth and citizenship, collecting data on ethnicity, race, or color is complex and, in
Europe, highly sensitive.
Indeed, the controversial point is defining population groups by using the same
characteristics by which they are discriminated against. This raises ethical, political,
legal, and methodological issues. Ethical because the choice to re-use the very cat-
egories that convey stereotypes and prejudices at the heart of discrimination entails
significant consequences. Political because European countries have adopted a
color-blind strategy since 1945, meaning that their political philosophies consider
that racial terminologies are producing racism by themselves and should be strictly
avoided (depending on the countries, ethnicities receive the same blame). Legal
because most European countries interpret the provisions of the European directive
on data protection and their transposition in national laws as a legal prohibition.
Methodological because there is no standardized format to collect personal infor-
mation on ethnicity or race and there are several methodological pitfalls commented
in the scientific literature. Data on ethnicity per se are collected in censuses to
describe national minorities in Eastern Europe, the UK, and Ireland, which are the
1.4 Discrimination and Integration: Commonalities and Contradictions 7
only Western European countries to produce statistics by ethno-racial categories

(Simon 2012). The information is collected by self-identification either with an
open question about one’s ethnicity or by ticking a box (or several in the case of
multiple choices) in a list of categories. None of these questions explicitly mention
race: for example, the categories in the UK census refer to “White,” “black British,”
or “Asian British” among other items, but the question itself is called the “ethnic
group question.”
In the rest of Europe, place of birth and nationality of the parents would be used
as proxies for ethnicity in a limited number of countries: Scandinavia, the
Netherlands, and Belgium to name a few. Data on second generations can be found
in France, Germany, and Switzerland among others in specialized surveys with
limitations in size and scope. Moreover, the succession of generations since the
arrival of the first migrants will fade groups into invisibility by the third generation.
This process is already well advanced in the oldest immigration countries, such as
France, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Asking questions about the
grandparents and the previous generations is not an option since it would require
hard decisions to classify those with mixed ancestry (how many ancestors are
needed to belong to one category?), not to mention the problems in memory to
retrieve all valuable information about the grandparents. This is one of the rea-
sons why traditional immigration countries (USA, Canada, Australia) collect data
on ethnicity through self-identification questions.
The discrepancies between official categories and those exposed to discrimina-
tion have fostered debates between state members and International Human Rights
Organizations – such as the UN Committee for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination (CERD), European Commission against Racism and Intolerance
(ECRI) at the Council of Europe, and the EU FRA – which claim that more data are
needed on racism and discrimination categorized by ethnicity. The same applies to
academia and antiracist NGOs where debates host advocates and opponents to “eth-
nic statistics.” There is no easy solution, but the accuracy of data for the measure-
ment of discrimination is a strategic issue for both research and policies.
1.4 iscrimination and Integration: Commonalities

D
and Contradictions
How does research on discrimination relate to the broader field of research on immi-
grant assimilation or integration? On one hand, assimilation/integration and dis-
crimination are closely related both in theory and in empirical studies. Discrimination
hinders full participation in society, and the persistence of ethnic penalties across
generations contradicts long-term assimilation prospects. On the other hand, both
assimilation and integration theory tend to assume that the role of discrimination in
shaping access to opportunities will decrease over time. Assimilation is often
defined as “the decline of ethnic distinction and its corollary cultural and social
difference” (Alba and Nee 2003, 11), a definition that bears an expectation that
migrants and their descendants will over time cease to be viewed as different from
the “mainstream population,” reach parity in socioeconomic outcomes, and gradu-
ally become “one of us.” In the canonical definition, integration departs from assim-
ilation by considering incorporation as a two-way process. Migrants and ethnic
minorities are expected to become full members of a society by adopting core val-
ues, norms, and basic cultural codes (e.g., language) from mainstream society, while
mainstream society is transformed in return by the participation of migrants and
ethnic minorities (Alba et al. 2012). The main idea is that convergence rather than
differentiation should occur to reach social cohesion, and mastering the cultural
codes of mainstream society will alleviate the barriers to resource access, such as
education, employment, housing, and rights.
Of course, studies of assimilation and integration do not necessarily ignore that
migrants and ethnic minorities face penalties in the course of the process of accul-
turation and incorporation into mainstream society. In the landmark book,
Assimilation in American Life, Milton Gordon clearly spelled out that the elimina-
tion of prejudice and discrimination is a key parameter for assimilation to occur; or
to use his own terms, that “attitude receptional” and “behavioral receptional”
dimensions of assimilation are crucial to complete the process (Gordon 1964, 81).
Yet, ethnic penalties are believed to be mainly determined by human capital and
class differences and therefore progressively offset as education level rises, elevat-
ing the newcomers to conditions of the natives and reducing the social distance
between groups. Stressing the importance of generational progress, assimilation
theory thus tends to consider discrimination as merely a short-run phenomenon.
The main blind spots in assimilation and integration theories revolve around two
issues: the specific inequalities related to the ethnicization or racialization of non-
white minorities and the balance between the responsibilities of the structures of
mainstream society and the agencies of migrants and ethnic minorities in the pro-
cess of incorporation. Along these two dimensions, discrimination research offers a
different perspective than what is regularly employed in studies of assimilation and
integration.
Discrimination research tends to identify the unfavorable and unfair treatment of
individuals or groups based on categorical characteristics and often shows these
unfair treatments lie in the activation of stereotypes and prejudices by gatekeepers
and the lack of neutrality in processes of selection. In this perspective, what has to
be transformed and adapted to change the situation are the structures – the institu-
tions, procedures, bureaucratic routines, etc. – of mainstream society, opening it up
to ethnic and racial diversity to enable migrants and ethnic minorities to participate
on equal footing with other individuals, independent of their identities. By contrast,
in studies of assimilation and integration, explanations of disadvantages are often
linked to the lack of human capital and social networks among migrants and ethnic
minorities, suggesting that they have to transform themselves to be able to take full
part in society. To simplify matters, studies of assimilation and integration often
explain persistent disadvantages by pointing to characteristics of migrants and
1.5 The Content of the Book 9
ethnic minorities, while discrimination research explains disadvantages by charac-

teristics of the social and political system.
Both assimilation and integration theories have gradually opened up for includ-
ing processes of ethnicization and racialization and the consequences of such pro-
cesses on assimilation prospects. Most prominently, segmented assimilation theory
(Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Portes and Zhou 1993) shifts the focus away from
migrants’ adaptation efforts and to the forms of interaction between minority
groups – and prominently the second and later generations – and the receiving soci-
ety. In this variant of assimilation theory, societies are viewed as structurally strati-
fied by class, gender, and race, which powerfully influence the resources and
opportunities available to immigrants and their descendants and contribute to shap-
ing alternative paths of incorporation. According to segmented assimilation theory,
children of immigrants may end up “ascending into the ranks of a prosperous mid-
dle class or join in large numbers the ranks of a racialized, permanently impover-
ished population at the bottom of society” (Portes et al. 2005, 1004), the latter
outcome echoing worries over persistent ethnic and racial disadvantage. Another
possible outcome is upward bicultural mobility (selective acculturation) of the chil-
dren of poorly educated parents, protected by strong community ties.
The major question arising from these related fields of research – the literature
on assimilation and integration, on the one hand, and the literature on discrimina-
tion, on the other – is whether the gradual diversification of Europe will result in
“mainstream expansion,” in which migrants and their descendants over time will
ascend the ladders into the middle and upper classes of the societies they live in, or
whether we are witnessing the formation of a permanent underclass along ethnic
and racial lines. This book will not provide the ultimate answer to this question.
However, by introducing the main concepts, theories, and methods in the field of
discrimination, as well as pointing out key research findings, policies that are
enacted to combat discrimination, and avenues for future research, we hope to pro-
vide the reader with an overview of the field.
1.5 The Content of the Book
The literature on discrimination is flourishing, and it involves a wide range of con-

cepts, theories, methods, and findings. Chapter 2 provides the key concepts in the
field. The chapter distinguishes between direct and indirect discrimination as legal
and sociological concepts, between systemic and institutional discrimination, and
between discrimination as intentional actions, subtle biases, and what might be
referred to as the cumulative effects of past discrimination on the present. Chapter 3
reviews the main theoretical explanations of discrimination from a cross-disciplinary
perspective. Mirroring the historical development of the field, it presents and dis-
cusses theories seeking the cause of prejudice and discrimination at the individual,
organizational, and structural levels.
Of course, our knowledge of discrimination depends on the methods of measure-

ment, since the phenomenon is mainly visible through its quantification. Hence,
Chapter 4 offers an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of available methods
of measurement, including statistical analysis of administrative data, surveys among
potential victims and perpetrators, qualitative in-depth studies, legal cases, and
experimental approaches to the study of discrimination (including survey experi-
ments, lab experiments, and field experiments).
Importantly, discrimination does not occur similarly in all domains of social life,
and it takes different forms according to the domain in question (e.g., the labor mar-
ket, education, housing, health services, and public services). Chapter 5 taps into the
large body of empirical work that can be grouped under the heading “discrimination
research” in order to provide some key findings, while simultaneously highlighting
a distinction between systems of differentiation and systems of equality.
What happens when discrimination occurs? Chapter 6 addresses the conse-
quences of unfair treatment for targeted individuals and groups, as well as their
reaction to it. These individual and collective responses to discrimination are sec-
onded by policies designed to tackle discrimination. However, antidiscrimination
policies vary greatly across countries, and Chapter 7 provides an overview of the
different types of policies against discrimination in Europe and beyond, both public
policies and schemes implemented by organizations. The chapter also reflects on
some of the key political and societal debates about the implementation and the
future of these policies. Chapter 8 concludes on the future of discrimination research
in Europe, stressing the main challenges ahead for a burgeoning scientific field.
References
Alba, R., & Foner, N. (2015). Strangers no more: Immigration and the challenges of integration in
North America and Western Europe. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary
immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Alba, R., Reitz, J. G., & Simon, P. (2012). National Conceptions of assimilation, integration, and
cohesion. In M. Crul & J. H. Mollenkopf (Eds.), The changing face of world cities: Young adult
children of immigrants in Europe and the United States (pp. 44–61). New York: Russel Sage.
Crul, M. (2016). Super-diversity vs. assimilation: How complex diversity in majority–minority cit-
ies challenges the assumptions of assimilation. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(1),
54–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2015.1061425.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism: An interdisciplinary theory. Newbury Park: Sage.
European Commission. (2007). Discrimination in the European Union (Special Eurobarometer,
Vol. 263). Brussels: European Commission.
European Commission. (2015). Discrimination in the EU in 2015 (Special Eurobarometer, Vol.
437). Brussels: European Commission.
Gordon, M. (1964). Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and National Origins.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hainmueller, J., & Hangartner, D. (2013). Who gets a swiss passport? A natural experiment in
immigrant discrimination. American Political Science Review, 107(01), 159–187. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0003055412000494.
References 11
Heath, A. F., & Cheung, S. Y. (Eds.). (2007). Unequal chances: Ethnic minorities in Western
labour markets. Oxford: British Academy/Oxford University Press.
Koopmans, R., Michalowski, I., & Waibel, S. (2012). Citizenship rights for immigrants. National
political processes and cross-national convergence in Western Europe, 1980–2008. American
Journal of Sociology, 117(4), 1202–2045. https://doi.org/10.1086/662707.
Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. (Eds.). (2001). Legacies: The story of the immigrant second generation.
Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its vari-
ants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530, 74–96. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0002716293530001006.
Portes, A., Fernández-Kelly, P., & Haller, W. (2005). Segmented assimilation on the ground: The
new second generation in early adulthood. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(6), 1000–1040.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870500224117.
Simon, P. (2012). Collecting ethnic statistics in Europe: A review. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
35(8), 1366–1391. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2011.607507.
Van Mol, C., & de Valk, H. (2016). Migration and immigrants in Europe: A historical and demo-
graphic perspective. In B. Garcés-Mascareñas & R. Penninx (Eds.), Integration processes and
policies in Europe (IMISCOE Research Series). Cham: Springer.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6),
1024–1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870701599465.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 2
Concepts of Discrimination
The principle of equality constitutes the core of contemporary societies. Equality in

dignity and rights provides the foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights from 1948, and the right to equal treatment is the basis of the antidiscrimina-
tion acts that started spreading from the US and the UK in the mid-1960s onwards.
Indeed, equality and discrimination are inherently connected: As legal scholar
Sandra Fredman has pointed out (2011, 4), “classical and medieval societies were
not founded on a principle of equality,” and in these societies, there was no expecta-
tion of equal opportunities. Of course, this was, in practice, not the case in the early
phases of modern societies either. For centuries, many groups – women, slaves, and
racial and religious minorities – were excluded from the liberal rights that white
men enjoyed. However, when the principle of equality was expanded to all groups
and coupled with the prohibition of slavery and unequal treatment, women and vari-
ous minority groups were formally granted the full scope of rights – including the
right to not experience discrimination. Today, as legal scholar Tarunabh Khaitan
(2015, 3–4) has suggested, “a system of law regulating discrimination has become
key to how states define themselves.” Of course, granting members of society for-
mal equality of opportunity does not in itself eliminate inequalities, which have
many roots. However, within the framework of formal equality, what role discrimi-
nation plays in shaping inequality becomes a major question.
Despite the fact that equality of opportunity is a core feature of contemporary
societies, the concept of discrimination remains multifaceted. In the most straight-
forward definition, discrimination is the unequal treatment of similar individuals
placed in the same situation but who differ by one or several characteristics, such as
race, ethnicity, gender, (dis)ability, sexual orientation, or other categorical statuses.
Discrimination may result from an explicit reservation or exclusion based on some
of these characteristics or be the outcome of seemingly neutral rules or procedures
that disproportionally disadvantage certain individuals or groups compared to oth-
ers. These disadvantages might spur from organizational or societal cultures that
favor some groups over others due to historical legacies, laws, or public policies. In
earlier phases of many modern societies, discrimination was grounded in

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67281-2_2
14 2 Concepts of Discrimination
institutionalized ethnic and/or racial segregation, which prevented minority groups

from applying for certain jobs or residing in specific areas (Anderson 2010). Such
legally discriminatory systems were abolished mainly in the 1960s and 1970s. Yet,
more subtle forms of exclusion in the educational system, labor market, criminal
justice system, and public spaces remain the reality for many racialized groups
today (Pager and Shepherd 2008; Reskin 2012).
These different forms of discrimination share two common features. First, dis-
crimination is a matter of comparison: For discrimination to take place, the dis-
criminated individual or group must be treated unfavorably compared to some other
individual or group. Second, the basis for the unequal treatment is ascribed mem-
bership in a certain category that cannot be readily chosen or changed (whether the
ascription reflects the actual identity if the individual is not important). Race, color,
ethnic origin, and national descent constitute the grounds of what we here define as
ethnic and racial discrimination. These categories are part of broader systems of
status inequality, which help constitute the uneven distribution of wealth, power,
and resources in society (Ridgeway 2014). As discrimination often occurs in pro-
cesses of allocation of goods and positions – such as housing or employment – dis-
crimination is fundamentally a matter of access to opportunities, power, and
resources.
This chapter gives an overview of some of the key concepts in the field. It starts
by distinguishing between direct and indirect discrimination in legal definitions.
Next, we define the interrelated concepts of multiple discrimination and intersec-
tionality, which increasingly are used in both legal studies and the social sciences,
before giving an account of the interrelated concepts of organizational, institutional,
and systemic discrimination. The chapter ends by reflecting on the complex rela-
tionship between discrimination and the endurance of categorical inequalities in
societies where all members formally enjoy the principle of equality.
2.1 Direct and Indirect Discrimination
Direct discrimination is equivalent to the straightforward definition of discrimina-

tion. Ethnic or racial discrimination, according to the International Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination from 1965 (The CERD con-
vention), takes place when individuals or groups are treated unequally because of
their race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin. However, “equal treatment
may well lead to unequal results,” as Fredman (2011, 177) points out. Indirect dis-
crimination, therefore, refers to situations where seemingly neutral rules, provisions
of procedures in practice produce disproportionate disadvantages for one category
of individuals or groups compared to others. These two basic concepts – direct and
indirect discrimination – constitute the main definitions in antidiscrimination laws
in the EU, and they are equivalent to the concepts of disparate treatment and dispa-
rate impact discrimination, which are more frequently used terms in the US
(Khaitan 2015).
2.2 Multiple Discrimination and Intersectionality 15
Two important directives at the EU level protect individuals against direct and
indirect discrimination: The Race Equality Directive and The Employment Equality
Framework Directive (see also Chaps. 1 and 6). The predominant conception of
antidiscrimination, which serves as the basis of both the two EU directives, defines
as discrimination both actions, procedures, and provisions that have the purpose of
unequal treatment and those that have differential treatment as an effect. This is
important because it distinguishes discrimination from related concepts, such as
prejudice, stereotypes, and unconscious forms of bias. To be sure, and as we will
return to in the next chapter, discrimination can be caused by prejudice, stereotypes,
or implicit bias. However, discrimination is not an ideology, belief, sentiment, or
bias. It is a form of behavior, procedure, or policy that directly or indirectly disad-
vantages members of certain categories compared to others, simply because they
happen to be members of that category (Fiske 1998). Consequently, defining an
action as discriminatory does not require any underlying intention or motivation
(Khaitan 2015). The concept of indirect discrimination makes this point particularly
clear: By acknowledging that disadvantages may be produced or reinforced even by
neutral rules and procedures, attention is drawn to the fact that unjustified categori-
cal inequalities might occur independently of the intentions of individuals.
2.2 Multiple Discrimination and Intersectionality
In antidiscrimination law, as well as in theoretical and empirical discrimination

research, concepts often refer to a specific ground of discrimination, such as “ethnic
and racial discrimination,” “gender discrimination,” or “age discrimination.” In
recent years, however, increasing attention has been directed to the fact that dis-
crimination may be based on multiple grounds. Black women, for example, may
experience discrimination on the basis of both their racial appearance and gender.
Similarly, gay Muslim men may experience discrimination based on their sexual
orientation and religious background. Often, it might be hard to disentangle the
various components of the differential treatment from each other. Such combina-
tions of dimensions of difference are referred to as multiple discrimination or inter-
sectionality (Khaitan 2015, 137). Importantly, dimensions of categorical
differences – such as gender, ethnicity, race, religion, disability, sexuality, and age –
can work together in ways that reinforce, multiply, or neutralize each other, depend-
ing on the context.
According to sociologist Patricia Hill Collins (2015, 2), the term intersectional-
ity “references the critical insight that race, class, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, nation,
ability, and age operate not as unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but as recipro-
cally constructing phenomena that in turn shape complex social inequalities.”
Originating from critical race theory, which criticized traditional feminism and the
women‘s struggle for being concerned with the lives of white women and the civil
rights movement for being predominantly represented by and concerned with the
situation of African American men (cf., Crenshaw 1989), the term intersectionality
has spread globally. Today, intersectionality may refer to a field of study, an analyti-
cal strategy that provides new perspectives on social phenomena, and as critical
practices that inform social movements (Collins 2015). The concept has also had an
important impact on antidiscrimination law in the sense that in the 2000s, in many
countries, various grounds of discrimination have been gathered in comprehensive
laws, replacing previous laws, which targeted singular grounds (Krizsan et al.
2012). In law, however, the term used is often multiple discrimination rather than
intersectionality, yet some legal scholars also refer to intersectional discrimination
(e.g., Fredman 2011, 140).
The term intersectionality was originally coined by the American lawyer, civil
rights advocate and philosopher Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw in the article
“Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex. A Black Feminist Critique
of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics”,
published in University of Chicago Legal Forum in 1989. In this article,
Crenshaw articulates the ideas of Black feminism as a critique of both the
(male-dominated) civil rights movement and the (white female-dominated)
women’s movement. According to Crenshaw, both of these movements tended
to marginalize black women, who experienced the multiple burdens of both
racial and gender subordination. Crenshaw’s ideas has influenced the devel-
opment of antidiscrimination policy and laws in the US and the EU, it has
inspired antiracist and feminist social movements across the globe, and it has
been an important benchmark for the further theorizing of intersectionality in
the humanities and the social sciences, not least in the important work of
scholars such as Patricia Hill Collins and Leslie McCall.
2.3 Organizational, Institutional,

and Systemic Discrimination
These key concepts of discrimination – direct, indirect, and multiple – are often
used somewhat differently by legal scholars and social scientists, partly because
they use the concepts for different purposes. The former needs precise and exhaus-
tive definitions to be able to clarify whether single cases are discriminatory or not.
The latter are more interested in broader patterns of group disadvantage and the role
discrimination plays in creating such disadvantages. Social scientists are typically
also more interested in subtle forms of exclusion that occurs in everyday interaction,
as well as in the historical accumulation of group disadvantage. For these reasons,
social science literature often entails broader conceptualizations of discrimination
than are typically found in legal textbooks.
Since Gordon Allport published his seminal book The Nature of Prejudice
(1954), social psychologists have argued that the formation of “in-group loyalty”
often leads to “out-group rejection” and ultimately to discrimination. As will be
2.3 Organizational, Institutional, and Systemic Discrimination 17
detailed in Chap. 3, this basic insight is often applied to the workplace context, in
which processes of exclusion may occur as members of privileged groups favor co-
members of the same group, while “out-groups” systematically receive fewer
opportunities in terms of training and development, promotions, and work assign-
ments. Such in-group favoritism, in which people give advantages to individuals
similar to themselves, is often referred to as homosocial reproduction (Kanter 1977;
see also Chap. 3).
Organizational cultures may also shape patterns of interaction that over time
exclude non-dominant groups. For example, in an extensive study of employment
and housing discrimination suit files in the state of Ohio, Vincent Roscigno and col-
leagues (Roscigno 2007, 10) argue that discrimination involves much more than
direct exclusion, “it also entails differential treatment once employed or once
housed, where the outcome is status hierarchy maintenance.” Focusing on “in-group
favoritism” and not simply instances of differential treatment at the point of initial
hiring implies that the structures of advantage within organizations also must be
taken into account when considering the dynamics of contemporary
discrimination.
Compared to direct differential treatment at the individual level, these forms of
“systemic” discrimination are harder to prohibit by legislation, which normally pro-
tects individuals from differential treatment by providing the right to complain to a
legal body when discrimination is perceived to have occurred. Due to the limits of
prohibitions, these complaint-based models of antidiscrimination legislation have
been supplemented by proactive obligations to promote equality in many European
countries, as well as in North America. We will return to this development in Chap.
7. For now, it suffices to say that the introduction of proactive means implies, as the
legal scholar Ronald Craig (Craig 2007, 175) has put it, a shift in focus “from the
compensation of individuals for unlawful discrimination to the transformation of
organizational policy, practice, and culture at the workplace.”
Because proactive measures are intended to change organizational culture and
not simply the behavior of single, discriminatory individuals, they are also more
controversial. As pointed out in a classic text by sociologist Robert Merton (1971),
social problems that are direct products of deviant behavior are easy to fight because
they stand in conflict with the existing organization of society. Social problems that
are by-products of social organization, by contrast, tend to remain latent due to the
“normative force of the actual” (Merton 1971, 816). Reducing systemic discrimina-
tion requires a critical evaluation of organizational and administrative structures and
implies that the problem might be the everyday policies of the organization itself.
This represents a major challenge for antidiscrimination legislation because it pre-
supposes a shift – psychologically and politically – which acknowledges that dis-
crimination may be deeply entrenched in everyday practices and existing
organizational cultures. Clearly, it requires a strong will to change such cultural
practices to control biases in, for example, processes of selection, allocation of
goods, and delivery of public services.
Importantly, these forms of organizational or systemic discrimination are not
exclusive to the labor market but may apply to all kinds of institutional
settings – schools, public apparatuses, housing, and criminal justice systems – as

well as to the society at large. Thus, concepts such as “institutional discrimination”
and “structural discrimination” are frequently used to capture the same types of
phenomena. These terms are often used somewhat loosely in the literature and there
are few guidelines in making clear distinctions between the concepts. A useful way
of pinpointing the key content of these concepts, however, is to say that they “refer
to the range of policies and practices that contribute to the systematic disadvantage
of members of certain groups” (Pager and Shepherd 2008, 197; see also Chap. 3).
Particularly in the context of American race relations, structural, systemic, or
institutional discrimination are often used interchangeably with the concept of insti-
tutional racism. Ward and Rivera (2014) define institutional racism as “a self-
perpetuating and opaque process where, either intentionally or unintentionally,
barriers and procedures which disadvantage ethnic minority groups are supported
and maintained.” Indeed, members of minority groups may be disadvantaged not
only because of differential treatment at the individual level, but because they are
part of broader societal structures that over time has come to privilege some groups
over others. Present-day disadvantages that are products of discrimination in the
past – for example, when children of disadvantaged parents face constrained oppor-
tunities due to historical discrimination and segregation but without necessarily
being the subject of direct discrimination themselves – is often referred to as cumu-
lative discrimination (Blank et al. 2004) or über discrimination (Reskin 2012) in the
literature. The idea behind these concepts is to point out the potential feedback
effects by which patterns of disadvantage are transferred across time, domains, and
generations.
2.4 Discrimination and Inequality
The notions of cumulative disadvantage and über discrimination highlight the dif-
ficult relationship between racial and ethnic inequalities in society, on the one hand,
and racial and ethnic discrimination, on the other. From a systems perspective,
many racial and ethnic disparities in residential patterns, education, work, and
health reflect deep-seated disadvantages that are due to different forms of discrimi-
nation, past and present (Anderson 2010; Pager and Shepherd 2008). In the realm of
law, affirmative action has in some places been installed as a legal measure to com-
pensate for such historical (and sometimes continuous) forms of structural discrimi-
nation, for example in the US (slavery and Jim Crow segregation), India (the caste
system), and in South Africa (Apartheid) (Khaitan 2015; see also Chap. 7). In the
social sciences, however, scholars are mostly concerned with distinguishing non-
discriminatory factors that contribute to racial and ethnic disparities (e.g., group
differences in human capital and access to social networks) from discrimination in
access to opportunities. These scholarly efforts, which are obviously important in
disentangling discrimination from legitimate bases of differentiation in access to
resources, are nonetheless focusing exclusively on the individual level and may thus
References 19
contribute to conceal more complex processes of discrimination that shape broader

patterns of inequality.
However, it is not evident whether and how the effects of discrimination may
cumulate over time, not least because traditional research designs measuring dis-
crimination at one point in time and in single domains are not able to grasp the ways
in which race and ethnicity may affect access to opportunity even in the absence of
differential treatment (Reskin 2012). Furthermore, countries differ enormously in
their historical legacies when it comes to experiences of slavery and colonialism,
which arguably offer the strongest cases of historical discrimination. The US does
in some respects constitute an “outlier” in discrimination research due to its history
of slavery and, later on, the Jim Crow system of racial segregation and discrimina-
tion. Yet many European countries’ pasts as colonial powers may clearly also affect
current discourses and ethnic relations, as discussed in Chap. 1. How national histo-
ries affect the actual level of present discrimination have only recently been
addressed by empirical research (Quillian et al. 2019). Suffice to say, this topic
warrants more research: Whether and how racial and ethnic inequalities are repro-
duced across generations, and what role discrimination plays in this process, consti-
tute a major concern in Europe today.
2.5 Conclusion
In the most straightforward sense, discrimination is defined as the unequal treatment

of otherwise similar individuals due to their ascribed membership in a disadvan-
taged category or group. Partly as a response to a marked decrease in the most bla-
tant forms of racism and discrimination, explicitly excluding minorities from access
to housing and jobs, much attention today – in both research and law – focuses on
the more subtle, indirect and covert forms of discrimination, and the extent to which
discrimination contributes to prevailing racial and ethnic inequalities in societies at
large. This is of crucial importance as discrimination continues to shape the access
to power and resources for members of disadvantaged groups, as well as their every-
day experiences and identity constructions. However, the change in focus also opens
up a conceptual landscape that is more complex, more difficult to legislate and
harder to enforce in practice. On top of this complexity comes the difficulties in
identifying discrimination when it occurs, measuring its prevalence, and assessing
its remedies and consequences. The next chapters delve into these important issues.
References
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Anderson, E. (2010). The imperative of integration. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Blank, R. M., Dabady, M., & Citro, C. F. (Eds.). (2004). Measuring racial discrimination. Panel on
methods for assessing discrimination. Washington, DC: National Research Council, National
Academies Press.
Collins, P. H. (2015). Intersectionality’s definitional dilemmas. Annual Review of Sociology, 41,
1–20. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112142.
Craig, R. (2007). Systemic discrimination in employment and the promotion of ethnic equality.
Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. A black feminist critique
of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. In Feminism and the law:
Theory, practice, and criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Legal Forum.
Fiske, S. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), The handbook of Social psychology (pp. 357–411). New York: McGraw Hill.
Fredman, S. (2011). Discrimination law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Khaitan, T. (2015). A heory of discrimination law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Krizsan, A. (2012). In H. Skjeie & J. Squires (Eds.), Institutionalizing intersectionality: The
changing nature of European equality regimes. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Merton, R. (1971). Epilogue: Social problems and sociological theory. In R. Merton & R. Nisbet
(Eds.), Contemporary social problems (pp. 793–845). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Pager, D., & Shepherd, H. (2008). The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in
employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 181–209.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131740.
Quillian, L., Heath, A., Pager, D., Midtbøen, A. H., Fleischmann, F., & Hexel, O. (2019). Do
some countries discriminate more than others? Evidence from 97 field experiments of racial
discrimination in hiring. Sociological Science, 6, 467–496. https://doi.org/10.15195/v6.a18.
Reskin, B. F. (2012). The race discrimination system. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 17–35.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071811-145508.
Ridgeway, C. L. (2014). Why status matters for inequality. American Sociological Review, 79(1),
1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122413515997.
Roscigno, V. J. (2007). The face of discrimination: How race and gender impact work and home
lives. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Ward, J. D., & Rivera, M. A. (2014). Institutional racism, organizations & public policy. New York:
Peter Lang.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 3
Theories of Discrimination
This chapter reviews the main theories developed to explain discrimination.

Mirroring the historical development of the field, while reflecting a theoretically
systematic approach (Pager and Shepherd 2008; Reskin 2003), the chapter adopts
an approach by analytical scales to present and discuss theories of discrimination.
The first section presents theories seeking the cause of prejudice and discrimination
at the individual level, the second section focuses on organizational mechanisms
and the third on structural determinants.
3.1 Individual-Level Theories
Defined as a behavior or a decision based on ascriptive characteristics such as race

or ethnic background, discrimination differs from stereotypes and prejudices, which
are mental representations summarizing the evaluation of groups. Stereotypes rep-
resent the cognitive component of such mental representations or attitudes, while
prejudices describe the affective component at the roots of a biased behavior disad-
vantaging individuals based on their group membership or minority position. In the
words of Gordon Allport, a stereotype is “an antipathy based on faulty and inflexible
generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a
whole or toward an individual because he is a member of that group” (1954, 9). Yet,
attitudes are at the core of individual-level explanations of why discrimination
occurs. As such, they are prominently discussed in this first section.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67281-2_3
22 3 Theories of Discrimination
3.1.1 Individual Psychological Conflicts
Early theories located the motives for discrimination in the character and personal-
ity of individuals (Fiske 1998). In this perspective, internal motivations of actors are
seen as rooted in individual psychological conflicts and in intrapsychic factors, such
as negative attitudes against minority groups. Adorno’s theory of the authoritarian
personality (Adorno et al. 1950) is iconic for highlighting intrapsychic factors as
causes of blatant discrimination. Echoing Freud’s psychoanalysis, this theory argues
that individuals inclined to conservatism, nationalism, and fascism tend to develop
a rigid personality, think in rigid categories, express conventional beliefs, and often
identify with and submit themselves to authority figures. According to Adorno, indi-
viduals with authoritarian personalities develop aversion toward differences to their
own values and norms and thus express an overt negative attitude toward minor-
ity groups.
Though very prominent in the 1950s, the authoritarian personality theory, in its
original form, is today considered outdated, notably because it fails to account for
observed changes in prejudice and discrimination over time. However, in the field
of political psychology, there has recently been a renewed interest in this theory
(Funke et al. 2016). The association between authoritarianism and prejudice indeed
seems to be driven by collective rather than an individual threat (Pettigrew 2016).
In the 1960s, conceptualization of prejudice gradually changed. While it used to
be understood as a psychopathological expression among traditionally minded, con-
servative, and educationally disadvantaged individuals, it increasingly came to be
seen as rooted in socio-psychological processes of social cognition, group dynamics
and socialization among ordinary people (Dovidio et al. 2010; Dovidio 2001). With
the rise of the civil rights movement and the ensuing promotion of non-discrimination
(Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the US and the Race Relation Act of 1965 in the UK),
overt expressions of prejudice declined (Schuman et al. 1997). However, it was sup-
planted by subtle forms of discrimination, consistently observed in North America
and in a number of Western European countries (Pettigrew and Meertens 1995).
Such subtle discrimination is characterized by ambivalence: majority group mem-
bers may publicly profess equality while still holding negative attitudes toward
minority members in the private sphere, and biases against out-groups might even
be implicit or unconscious. They express themselves in non-verbal behavior, less
friendly attitudes in interaction with minority groups and aversion toward them
(Dovidio et al. 2002).
A range of theories, mainly deriving from the US context, emphasized this tran-
sition from overt to more covert or subtle forms of discrimination, such as symbolic
racism (Sears and Henry 2003) and modern racism (McConahay 1986). Both of
these theories take as their point of departure the conflicting and often ambivalent
attitudes of majority group members: humanitarian sympathy for underprivileged
persons often goes hand in hand with the blaming of the victims for failing to com-
ply with individualistic values. In this perspective, minority members are resented
as they are deemed to ostensibly disregard traditional conservative values (e.g., a
3.1 Individual-Level Theories 23
Protestant work ethic) and to make unjustified and excessive claims. Conservatism
manifests itself with support for the existing power relations in society and with
opposition to policy measures in favor of minority groups.
Aversive racism theory (Gaertner and Dovidio 1986) also deals with subtle,
ambivalent attitudes, but focuses on the ambiguities among liberal-minded majority
members. While professing equality, those majority individuals still hold conflict-
ing, non-conscious negative feelings about minorities; the resulting discomfort,
anxiety, and fears lead to an aversion of contact. Consistent with their non-racist
self-image, liberal-minded majority individuals refrain from acting in overtly dis-
criminatory ways; yet, coherent with their unconscious negative attitudes resulting
from socialization, they are likely to avoid situations where they come into contact
with members of minority groups and tend to refrain from supporting equalizing
policies.
Contemporary, subtle forms of discrimination rest on the dissociation between
inclusive egalitarian attitudes and unconscious pervasive bias, between controlled
responses and automatic responses that can be attributed to immediate associations
with an evaluative content. Implicit biases may operate unconsciously to influence
behavior. This dissociation model stimulated important methodological develop-
ments (Greenwald et al. 1998), suggesting that self-report methods are appropriate
for the measure of explicit attitudes but unsuitable for implicit attitudes. Indeed, this
research has demonstrated that self-reports and implicit measures of stereotyping
and prejudice are largely uncorrelated (Dovidio et al. 2015, 5).
The subtle character of contemporary bias and the impact of implicit attitudes are
further at the roots of theories of “color-blind racism” (Bonilla-Silva 2003). To
address the effects of implicit bias, well-meaning majority people may emphasize
common group identity in a color-blind approach to diversity: they treat individuals
as equally as possible, without considering their race, culture, or ethnicity, in order
to foster positive intergroup relations. However, common group identity is related to
color-blind assimilation ideologies, so that the minority group is expected to con-
form to dominant norms and values. Color-blind policies tend to preserve white
privilege and to maintain minority disadvantages. Stressing color-blindness proves
to be a strategical tool: it reinforces hierarchical relations between groups, benefit-
ing high-status majority group members. The other downside of this frame is that it
limits awareness of social inequalities, thus it might hamper effective action to
address those issues through social change.
3.1.2 I ndividual-Level Factors in the Labor Market:

The Rationale of Gatekeepers
Much research on discrimination aims at understanding the role of differential treat-

ment in the marketplace, such as labor markets, housing markets or the consumer
markets (see Chap. 5). While psychologists have approached such market
discrimination with the study of stereotypes and attitudes, economists have devel-
oped specific theoretical frames to account for discrimination, distinguishing
between taste-based and statistical discrimination. In his seminal book, The
Economics of Discrimination (1957), Becker, for example, discusses the economic
effects of racial discrimination in the US labor market. In this book, Becker defines
overt racism as individuals’ aversion for interracial contact and qualifies it as a
“taste” for discrimination. According to Becker, racial discrimination is the result of
employers’ willingness to pay for not being associated with African Americans –
either by rejecting the most productive candidates or by offering a reduced income.
In this theoretical model, discrimination is explained with reference to direct racial
animus among employers because the behavior lacks “objectivity.” Rational behav-
ior is deemed to be based on considerations about productivity alone, and discrimi-
nation is thus a result of employers acting based on subjective preferences. As such,
an underlying assumption in Becker’s theory is that discriminatory employers over
time will be crowded out of the labor market because their behavior lowers
productivity.
In contrast to the assumption that discrimination and productivity are mutually
exclusive, economic models of statistical discrimination, originating from the work
of Phelps (1972) and Arrow (1973), rest on the idea that discrimination is a way of
managing the imperfect information that characterizes hiring decisions and wage
setting in the labor market. According to Phelps, “the employer who seeks to maxi-
mize expected profit will discriminate against blacks or women if he believes them
to be less qualified, reliable, long-term, etc. on the average than whites and men,
respectively, and if the cost of information about the individual applicants is exces-
sive” (Phelps 1972, 659). In the absence of full information, race, ethnicity, and sex
will be used as proxies for productivity. According to this theory, risk-aversive
employers will hire the candidate who is ascribed membership to the group that has
the highest average productivity – presumably whites and men.
The main difference between taste-based and statistical discrimination is the
notion of rationality (Midtbøen 2014). Excluding the most productive job applicant
on the grounds of race or sex is economically inefficient, while hiring decisions
based on estimates of group productivity are assumed to be rational (although still
discriminatory) responses to the uncertainty and lack of full information character-
izing hiring decisions in the labor market. The employer may reject a suitable can-
didate because of statistical discrimination, but this cost is traded off against the cost
of (trying) to find out the real productivity of all candidates. Both uncertainty and
lack of information are inevitable parts of recruitment processes, and a characteris-
tic of organizational behavior as such (Stinchcombe 1990). Nevertheless, an unclear
aspect of statistical discrimination models is the question of accuracy in employers’
beliefs about average group productivity, which relies heavily on stereotypes. Both
Phelps (1972) and Arrow (1973) are somewhat vague on this point, indicating – per-
haps – that their models allow for employers’ beliefs about blacks and women to be
inaccurate depictions of reality and still be “rational” in some sense. Statistical dis-
crimination might thus involve some sort of racist beliefs, even though employers
do not consider that they mobilize stereotypes against ethno-racial minorities

or women.
To clarify this point, other economists define statistical discrimination as a situ-
ation where employers act on the basis of “true stereotypes” (Schwab 1986, 228),
arguing strongly that average differences in productivity between whites and
blacks, or between men and women, actually exist on average and that this differ-
ence is the basis of discrimination (Aigner and Cain 1977). Moreover, an entire
branch of the economics literature is concerned with so-called employer learning
(e.g., Altonji and Pierret 2001; Farber and Gibbons 1996). These scholars acknowl-
edge that statistical discrimination may be based on outdated beliefs about group
productivity, but argue that employers who have positive experiences with stigma-
tized minority groups will update over time their beliefs to be in accordance with
empirical realities (Farmer and Terrell 1996). By effect of a similar learning pro-
cess, economists would assume that in the long-term employers would better master
how to identify the productive candidates, thus reducing statistical discrimination
(Midtbøen 2014).
Many sociologists have criticized economic models of statistical discrimination,
questioning the idea of accuracy in beliefs about group productivity (e.g., Bielby
and Baron 1986; Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs 1999), along with the assumption
that employers update their views of racial minorities when new and positive infor-
mation is provided (Pager and Karafin 2009). The idea that employers are guided by
“true stereotypes” stands, for example, in striking contrast to the definition of preju-
dice as “an exaggerated belief associated with a category” (Allport 1954, 191; Fiske
1998). Indeed, important qualitative work both in the US context (e.g., Kirschenman
and Neckerman 1991; Moss and Tilly 2001; Shih 2002; Waldinger and Lichter
2003) and in Europe (Friberg 2012; Midtbøen 2014) demonstrates that employers
use race and ethnic background as proxies of productivity, but that their views of
minority applicants often are based on crude stereotypes. In this regard, England
(1992) has made a useful distinction between statistical discrimination, on the one
hand, and “error discrimination,” on the other, arguing that the latter refers to dis-
criminatory practices guided by erroneous estimates of group averages, typically
based on stereotypes about blacks or women. Importantly, however, the notion of
error discrimination shares with statistical discrimination the view that employers
do not necessarily have a general distaste against particular groups per se, but rather
act in a discriminatory way “in an effort to hire a more productive workforce”
(England 1992, 60).
3.1.3 Intergroup Relations
While discrimination is often theorized as part of decision-making processes at the

individual level, collective phenomena such as stereotypes and prejudices, and their
diffusion or change, are also part of the dynamics between individuals and groups.
In everyday life, actors inevitably classify people into social categories where new
information is assigned to existing categories. This categorization process is useful
and even necessary to orient oneself in an environment rich in stimuli, information,

and events. However, information confirming one’s own conviction tends to be
stored, while those contradicting convictions tend to be disregarded, as it disrupts
routine and means additional cognitive effort (Nickerson 1998). Categorization
assigns individuals to social groups; it often entails the division of social space in an
“in-group,” which includes the actor of categorization, as opposed to an “out-
group.” Categorization relies on stereotyping, an inevitable by-product of normal
cognitive processes. Stereotypes are “pictures in our heads,” according to the famous
definitions by Lippmann (1922).
Through categorization, interpersonal behavior becomes intergroup behavior. An
individual’s self-image results from both personal identity (i.e., what distinguishes
one individual from all others) and social identity, the part of the self-concept
derived from the consciousness of belonging to one or more groups. According to
social identity theory, individuals look for a positive social identity (Tajfel and
Turner 1979). As social identity is influenced by group membership, people tend to
judge positively the group they belong to and compare it advantageously in relation
to out-groups. The preference for the in-group improves the individual’s social iden-
tity; the identification with the in-group leads to favor it over out-groups, which is
often called “in-group favoritism.” A group can maintain its higher status by giving
privileged treatment to in-group members and reducing access to resources to out-
groups. Experimental evidence shows that the simple fact of categorization may
arouse intergroup tension between two groups of people randomly assigned to each
group who share a common task (Tajfel et al. 1971).
While intergroup contact can lead to stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination
of the out-group, contact theory argues that it may also lead to decreasing prejudice
and conflict between majority and minority group members. According to Allport
(1954, 281), “[prejudice] may be reduced by equal status contact between majority
and minority groups in the pursuit of common goals. The effect is greatly enhanced
if this contact is sanctioned by institutional supports (i.e., by law, custom, or local
atmosphere), and provided it is of a sort that leads to the perception of common
interests and common humanity between members of the two groups). Against
Allport’s assumption that ethnic antagonism is primarily “a product of fears of the
imagination,” other authors identify the source of intergroup attitudes and conflict
in functional relations between groups and their competition for scarce resources
(Katz 1991). When the interests of the groups are interdependent, the group mem-
bers are supportive and cooperative with each other; when the interests of one’s own
group and the other groups are in conflict, competition arises. Negative attitudes
toward out-groups originate from a feeling of threat (LeVine and Campbell 1972;
Esses et al. 2005). Indeed, threat theory is a staple in research on attitudes to immi-
grants and their descendants.
Realistic conflict theory states that the higher the competition over limited
resources, the higher the prejudice and the hostility between groups (Sherif 1966).
Integrated threat theory extends the threat derived from the competition on tangible
resources like safety, health, economy, and well-being, to the threat perceived on
symbolic interests of the in-group, its beliefs, attitudes, and morals, thus echoing
social identity theory (Stephan and Renfro 2002). Such threats may target the per-
son or the whole group. A threat is a subjective perception: it does not need to be
real. Such perception may, therefore, be constructed by media and public discourse
(Brug et al. 2015). The attention to non-economic threats, such as identities, values,
and beliefs, has enhanced the threat theory. According to this strand of the literature,
the labor market considerations play a less significant role in shaping attitudes
toward immigration when values and beliefs are accounted for (Hainmueller and
Hopkins 2014).
How attitudes and behavior are linked is a much debated and controversial ques-
tion. The assumption of a mechanical relationship, supposing that human action is
the direct product of conscious mental states, is surely too simple and misleading.
In a classical experiment, LaPiere (1934) documented that the articulation of racist
attitudes does not need to convert in discriminatory treatment. The weak correspon-
dence between explicit attitudes and behavior is confirmed in numerous studies
(e.g., Pager and Quillian 2005; Blommaert et al. 2012). In contrast to the study of
LaPiere, however, the disconnection goes more often in the direction of an apparent
lack of prejudice and de facto discriminatory decisions. The affective dimension of
prejudice (emotional prejudice) is found to be a better predictor of discriminatory
behavior than cognitive dimensions (Talaska et al. 2008). The predictive validity of
implicit associations as well as their link to discrimination outcomes are also a mat-
ter of controversy (Rooth 2010; Oswald et al. 2013; Dovidio et al. 2015; Carlsson
and Agerström 2016; Bertrand and Duflo 2016).
In the seminal article “Attitudes vs. Actions”, sociologist Richard LaPiere

showed that there is “no necessary correlation between speech and action”
(1934, 231). The study took the form of an experiment where LaPiere traveled
with a Chinese couple through the US in the 1930s, at a time of widespread
bigot attitudes against “Orientals.” Only in one out of 251 instances did hotel
managers refuse the couple accommodation. To provide a comparison
between this (at the time) accommodating behavior and reported attitudes,
LaPiere questioned 6 months later the same managers whether they would be
willing to accommodate distinguished Chinese guests. Their response was
overwhelmingly negative; only in one case, the answer was positive.
Brought together, individual theories seek an explanation for the phenomena of

discrimination in the personal, internal motivations of perpetrators or in the pro-
cesses assumed to be similar across countries and therefore universally valid
(Guimond et al. 2014). Yet, as we saw, the association of motives and behavior is not
straightforward. Underlining the difficulties of measuring motivations, Reskin
(2003) recommends shifting the emphasis from individual beliefs and attitudes to
the in-depth analysis of social mechanisms; that is, processes that mediate the link
between internal states and discriminatory behavior. Many of such social mecha-
nisms are found at the organizational level.
3.2 Organizational-Level Theories
Interpersonal and intergroup encounters always take place in socially structured

contexts, making necessary an enlargement of scope to the meso-level of the orga-
nizational environment. Organizations – linking the micro and the macro social
level – are key structural contexts shaping inequality (Baron and Bielby 1980).
Mediating the impact of the individual-level mechanism of discrimination such as
cognitive bias and stereotypes of the actors, organizational arrangements govern the
extent to which ascriptive characteristics become relevant in determining social out-
comes via the distribution of opportunities and rewards. An example in the labor
market illustrates this mediating function. Organizational rules influence the degree
to which recruiters are informed of ascriptive characteristics, which in turn influ-
ence selection-behavior. Facing incomplete information about candidates, recruiters
interpret “signals,” notably of ascriptive nature, as decision-making tools. Blinding
information is, therefore, a tool to curb the impact of unwanted bias. Studying
recruitment of musicians in US orchestras, Goldin and Rouse (2000) demonstrated
that the adoption of new organizational rules, here “blind auditions,” explained
30–50% of the increase of women among new hires. Organizational practices are
shaped by societal mechanisms; as such, they might be seen as “the immediate
causes of variation in ascriptive inequality” (Reskin 2003, 12).
Tilly (1998) emphasizes the importance of organizational dynamics in creating
and maintaining group boundaries. Moreover, he develops an organizational account
of “categorical inequalities” (i.e., inequalities across groups of people on the basis
of rigid social categories such as gender, race, and immigrant status). According to
Tilly, inequalities are not caused by attitudes and beliefs but by the organizational
structures and the matching of the exterior (i.e., social) categorical distinctions, to
interior organizational distinctions, such as jobs. Interior job distinctions are socially
more powerful and generate larger inequalities when they overlap with exterior and
culturally legitimate social categories. Distinctions between categories (e.g., men
and women, white and black, citizens and non-citizens) are used to both distribute
and legitimate inequality. Two complementary mechanisms are primarily responsi-
ble for inequalities across social categories: Exploitation, which amounts to unequal
distribution of rewards proportionate to value produced, and opportunity hoarding,
which amounts to excluding others from access to resources (e.g., jobs). The dura-
bility of inequalities depends on their organizational anchoring.
3.2.1 Organizational Procedures: Formalization
Studying the organizational determinants of recruitment has a long history in socio-

logical research. In his famous theory of the modern bureaucracy, Weber (1946), for
example, argues that formalized procedures constrain managerial discretion. Merton
(1957), too, emphasizes how formal procedures in bureaucracies ensure control
3.2 Organizational-Level Theories 29
over effective decision-making. In the essay “Bureaucratic Structure and

Personality,” he notes that “specific procedural devices foster objectivity and restrain
the ‘quick passage of impulse into action’” (Merton 1957, 195).
Organizational and psychosocial theories indicate that the formalization of
recruitment and promotion through bureaucratic practices is most likely to counter
bias and discretionary decisions in access to employment, as they mediate the
impact of individual-level mechanisms (Reskin 2000). Bielby makes this argument
most clearly. He argues that “the impact of gender and racial stereotyping on judg-
ments about individuals can be minimized when judgments are based on timely and
relevant information; when decision makers evaluate that information consistently
with respect to clearly articulated criteria; and when a mechanism exists for holding
decision makers accountable for the process they have used and criteria they have
applied in making their judgments” (Bielby 2000, 124). Following structural theo-
rists of inequality, mainstream policy recommendations promote formalization of
procedures as the proper organizational remedy to harness biased behavior.
However, analyses of observational data measuring the impact of bureaucratic
approaches casts doubts on their overall efficacy, suggesting that some approaches
being more effective than others (Sturm 2006; Kalev et al. 2006). Controlling man-
agers’ discretion and bias proves counterproductive as it may stir resistance and
may have adverse effects. In their studies aimed at assessing the effectiveness of
antidiscrimination organizational policies, Dobbin and Kalev (2013) and Dobbin
et al. (2015) identify the creation of formal organizational responsibility in charge
of developing equal opportunity programs ensuring internal compliance to the regu-
latory frame as crucial tools to enhance the diversity of the workforce. Transparency
of the allocation process and open accountability for the decisions proved also
effective in increasing diversity.
3.2.2 rganizational Mechanisms: Networks

O
as Opportunity Hoarding
Because of their mediating role, organizational structures may attenuate categorical

distinctions – as with formalized procedures – or indeed accentuate them. This is the
case when employees’ referrals are used largely in the recruitment process. While
cost-effective and promising a better fit of newcomers in the workforce, this practice
of activating internal networks, however, might prove to be a mechanism for ensur-
ing in-group preference and promoting “homosocial reproduction” (Kanter 1977),
whereby the dominant group favors and gives advantages to individuals carrying
their ascriptive characteristics, in terms of ethnic background, racial appearance,
and sex.
Resorting to networks to fill a position amounts to monopolization of resources
by the established group to the detriment of “outsider” groups. Such referral prac-
tices result in the exclusion of categorically distinct others from jobs: as a
mechanism of “opportunity hoarding” (Tilly 1998), it powerfully contributes to the

reproduction of existing inequalities. Boulton (2015) provides an empirical exam-
ple of this mechanism with his qualitative analysis of three large advertising agen-
cies and their practices in the allocation of highly sought-after internships, which
constitute a crucial point of entry into the labor market. Under the cover of color-
blind meritocracy, influent players place friends and relatives, thus ensuring the
material advantage of the established racial group.
As aptly noticed (Voss 2010), this mechanism is close to Weber’s idea of social
closure. Networks are effective ways in not only gaining access to employment (as
well as housing or services), but also in securing further education, informal men-
toring, and other tools leading to career advancement. Although apparently neutral,
activation of networks results in powerful instruments of cumulative (dis-)advantage.
3.2.3 Organizational Environment:

The Regulatory Framework
Organizational practices are shaped by societal mechanisms. The mediating func-

tion of organizations derives also from the fact that they represent the implementing
level of general policy orientations. Describing the history of corporate policies and
tools in the US, Dobbin and Kalev (2013) illustrate how the macro regulatory frame
was responsible for the implementation of antidiscrimination policies at the corpo-
rate level and influenced the way those policies evolved over time. In the UK, the
institution of the Commission for Racial Equality in 1976, on the basis of the Race
Relation Act, has progressively made the regulatory framework for businesses and
public services more precise and stringent. In the EU, the 2000 Directive “imple-
menting the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or
ethnic origin” (2000/43/CE) and the one “establishing a general framework for
equal treatment in employment and occupation” (2000/78/CE) have similarly
shaped the regulatory frame inspiring national legislation influencing organizational
setups (see Chap. 7).
While the analysis of the regulatory frame has stimulated a vast literature, the
impact of its enforcement is less developed. A crucial issue in this respect is how
extensively and effectively the regulatory frame succeeds in preventing discrimina-
tion. Assuming that employers discriminate, consciously or unconsciously, as long
as this is de facto possible, Petersen and Saporta (2004) shift their analysis to the
conditions under which discriminatory practices in hiring, salary, promotion, or
departures are more expected to occur. Analyzing the whole career development of
employees in a large US service organization, they find that the hiring process
appears as presenting the widest “opportunity structure for discrimination.” It is the
most exposed to risks of discrimination because this is where the chance of employ-
ers being “caught in the act” is most limited (see also Bendick Jr. and Nunes 2012,
242–243).
3.3 Structural-Level Theories 31
While Petersen and Saporta analyze the room left uncovered by the regulatory
frame, Hirsch (2009) focuses on the mechanisms ensuring efficacy to such a frame.
Studying the direct impact and indirect pressure of legal and judicial enforcement of
antidiscrimination legislation in the US, she shows that the case-by-case regulatory
approach is not directly effective on the sanctioned discriminatory companies. Yet,
sanctions exert an indirect pressure by creating a normative environment promoting
gender and racial equality: “the driving force of the law is not sanctions but the legal
environment they create” (Hirsch 2009, 245). However, gender desegregation has
proven more sensitive to this normative pressure than race desegregation, as enforce-
ment efforts in the latter respect lack sustained political support in comparison with
those for sex desegregation (Hirsch 2009, 268). In the EU, the implementation of
the directives at the corporate level is quite limited. With these insights in mind, it is
not surprising that in their meta-analysis Zschirnt and Ruedin (2016) reported no
difference in levels of hiring discrimination before and after the introduction of the
EU directives.
Becoming aware of the mediating role of organizations has a bearing on the
research agenda on discrimination: insights from social psychological research on
prejudice and stereotypes are thus coupled with sociological research on the dynam-
ics of organizations and institutions, providing analyses in which the organizational
contexts of discrimination are moved to the forefront of this field of research. Yet, in
turn, organizations are situated in larger social, economic, political, and legal envi-
ronments exerting a powerful influence on the organizational settings.
3.3 Structural-Level Theories
Structural discrimination shifts the attention precisely toward such broader societal
structures. The contextual dimension neglected in early theories (Fiske 1998) pro-
vides tools to understand variations in discrimination across time and space and the
way it is produced and reproduced by institutions. Compared to individual and orga-
nizational theories, a structural discrimination approach expands the analysis of dis-
crimination usually confined to one domain and a point in time in the two significant
directions of time and scope (Pager and Shepherd 2008). Time, by emphasizing the
production and reproduction of inequality into enduring self-perpetuating phenom-
enon through racial bias. Scope, by transcending unequal treatment in a specific
domain, and paying attention to the interrelations among various domains affecting
the entire society.
3.3.1 Present as Sediment of the Past
The advantages of one individual or group over another accumulates over time,
reinforcing disparities so that the inequality of this advantage grows over time.
Merton (1968) speaks in this regard of the “Matthew effect,” referring to the
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
u
s
t
a
n
s
i
n
i
s
i
ä
v
a
a
t
t
e
i
t
a
2
1
r
a
n
t
u
n
e
n
l
i
i
v
i
1
1
v
i
l
l
a
n
e
n
r
ö
i
y
1
0
1
v
a
n
h
a
s
i
l
k
k
i
h
u
i
v
i
5
0
P
ä
ä
s
u
m
m
a
5
2
6
0
Tästä näemmä mitä talolliset poikamiehet, näillä seuvuin

vaatteisiinsa tarvitsevat. Oikialla arvaamalla ja avisionissa myömällä
taitaisi näienki pääsumma nosta noin kahteen sataan ruplaan.
N:o 4.
Sotkamon pitäjän entinen kirkkoherra, Tohtori Frosterus vainaja,
kirjottaa Kajanin läänistä ja sanoo niittyin olevan pieniä palasia,
sopimattomasti hajalla ja kaukana. Se kylläki on tosi, niinkun
seuraavastaki Sutelan talon niittyin luettelosta Lentualta Sotkamosta
näemmä. Sama luettelo on nimi nimeltä otettu Talon
arviolaskukirjasta toimitettu s. 5 Syyskuusa 1833.
Niityn Ala.
Kuormaa. Rukoja.
A. Joka toinen vuosi lyötäviä
niittyjä.
1 Pitkäniitty 4. 8.
2 Pitkäniitynsuo 6.
3 Pykälänala 3.
4 Heinälipukka 6.
5 Hemälipukan suo 5.
6 Wasarasuo 1.
7 Petäikkösuo 3.
8 Lipukkasuo 4.
9 Ikosenpuro 1. 6.
10 Nuolisuo 6.
11 Haukkalampi 1. 2.
12 Puhakkapuronsuo 2.
13 Housusaari 2.
14 Levälahti 3.
15 Soposenniemen kaarre 3.
16 Wenginsuo 4.
17 Rytijoensuu sahiin asti 2.
18 Petäjajoki 4.
19 Palosuo 4.
20 Kaihlalahti 3.
21 Lehtovaaran kuohu 3.
22 Iso Kuivaperä 2.
23 Housusaari 2.
24 Matalalahen saari 2.
25 Hoikkajoen tausta 1. 8.
26 Teirifuo 3.
27 Honkavaaran kuohu 2. 4.
28 Särkisuo 6.
29 Kettusärkännärö 6.
30 Likolahti 3.
31 Lehonlahti 4.
32 Särkipuronsuu 5.
33 Liukkaniemi 2.
34 Särkilammin luhta 1. 2.
35 Soienvaaransuo 1. 8.
36 Hiiren- eli Kotijoki 1. 8.
Wälisumma 72. 4. 36 2
B. Joka vuosi lyötäviä niittyjä,

Wälisumma 36 2
37 Pykäläjoki 3
38 Haukkalamminpuro 2
39 Hoikkajoki 4
40 Konttikorpi 1 8
41 Honkavaaranpuronsuu 3
42 Kettusärkänpuronhaara 1
43 Särkipuro 5
44 Hoikkajoki (vanhasta niitystä
aikain Hoikkajärveen asti) 1 8
Summa 48 8
Oikein suostumalla muistelemma näitä monia yhen talon kehnoja,
vähä antamia niittyjä ja taitaisimma saaha vielä enemmin ouostua,
jos tietäisimmä mikä matka talosta näihin useasti puolen kuorman
alasiin niittyhin tulee. Kahta ja kolmeaki penikulmaa ei pietä
tavattoman pitkänä niittymatkana. Muuten asia ei ole niinkän outo
sille, joka tuntee, kuinka Kajanilainen rahvas tahtoo niittynsä
valmiina luonnon antamasta. Taitais vaan moni päättää, näillä
seuvuin ei olevan niittytiluksia. Siinä erehtyisivät. Niittytiluksia on
liiaksiki. Usiampain taloin ympäristöllä ja lähellä on maita, joista
työllä ja vaivalla saataisi paljo parempia niittyjä, kun mitä loittona ja
hajalla käyään tekemässä. Mutta sihen vaaittaisi, kun sanottu, työtä
ja vaivaa. Näistä päästäksensä astuu Kajanilainen penikulma
matkoja hajanaisista niityistänsä muutamia karjan elätteeksi kehnoja
korsia kokoamaan. Waan kun luonto itsestään ei vuosisatoja halki
piä näitäkän yksiä niittyjä kasvavina, niin valitetaan, että ajat
muuttuvat ja etteivät enää niitytkän kasva kun ennen. Siitä ei kysytä,
jos kuinka paljo ympärillä seisoo kauniita paikkoja, jotka tekemällä ja
raivamalla kasvaisivat runsaan heinän. Peräti unehuksiin näyttää
rakkailla maamiehilläni seuraava totuus jääneen: nil sine magno
notura labore dedit mortalibus. Kuitenki on luonnon armeliaisuus niin
paljo meille antanut, että pitäisi hävetä, enemmän pyytää.
***mesta 22 Maaliskuuta 1836.
— — Mehiläisessä olen lukenut ensimmäisen suomenkielisen

kokeen sanain eli Nimukkain siottelemisesta (declinatio). Muut siinä
saattaa olla miten tahansa, vaan viiennen ja yheksännen sian pitäisi
kaikite päätyä kirjamella n, joka on somin ja tavallisin äänetön
päätekirjain, niinkun sanat: Mehiläinen, pulpunen, Piipponen,
siitonen, kaljunen, Nikkanen j.n.e. näyttävät. Syy sihen, että teiän
Siotelmissa n on mainittuin siain päätteistä tullut pois jäämään, on
luultavasti joku halullinen taipumus niin niitä ja välistä muitaki
Suomen sanoja kirjottaa, kun Wienan eli Arkangelin Suomalaisissa
sanotaan, sillä he sanovatki nikkane, siitone, kaljune, eikä Nikkanen
j.n.e. Neljännen sian päätteen pitäisi olla te eli hte eikä teiän tavalla
tse. Muuten ovat neljäs ja viies sia vähemmin tavallisia paitsi
Monikossa ja sentähenpä saisi Yksikkö olla kahta siaa vähempi. —
——
(Lisää toiste).
Itkuvirsistä Wenajän Karjalassa.
Toissa keväinä Rukavaaran Bogostalla (eli kirkolla) Wenäjän

Karjalassa käydessäni keräsin pirtillisen naisia laulamaan
itkuvirsiänsä. Rukavaara, myös Rukajärveksi toisinaan nimitetty, on
Suomen rajalta, Nurmeksen ja Lieksan (eli Pielisjärven) pitäjästä,
noin 15 penikulmaa itäkaakkoista suuntaa, Repolan Bogostan
takana ja pian keskimatkalla Pomentsan linnaan mennessä
Repolasta lähtien. Iso, eläjä kylä, kaheksalla kymmenellä talolla,
sanotaan ensimmäiset asujat sihen Suomesta Wiipurin läänistä
tulleen. Waan näin kerrotaan siitä asiasta. Wihollisen Wiipurin linnaa
kauan piirittäessä ja talonpoikain ei mistänä Suomenlahden rannoilta
suolaa saaden, lähti eräs heistä kuuden poikansa kanssa, säkit
seljässa, Wienameren rannalle suolaan. Palatessaan sattuvat
Rukavaaran poikki käymään, joka sillon oli synkkänä erämaana.
Waan kuitenki silmänsä määrältä ulomma luoden katsovat ihaniksi
alallista järveä ja muita tienollisia seutuja. Niin kalastamassa käyden,
sillä kalastusvärkittä he eivät niin pitkälle matkalle lähteneetkän,
löysivät järven kalaseksi. Tästä pani paikan isä mieleensä tuumalla,
vaimonensa ja muun perehenensä kotimaalta sihen asumaan
muuttauta. Sillä vihollisen vainossa kodin hävittyä, toki suurta työtä
ei ollu'kan muuttotavaroista. En tiedä mitä muuta lie tehnyt, paikan
jälle löytääksensä, vaan runosta, jolla koki sen luontoa kuvailla, ovat
Rukavaaralaisten ikiperinnöksi jääneet seuraavat sanat
menehtymättä:
Rukavaara ruskia, lompakko korkia, vesi alla valkia.
Sen itse paikasta; — itkuvirsiksi siellä ja muualla

greikanuskolaisissa Suomalaisissa sanotaan senlaisia laulelmia,
joita surutiloissa, esimerk. kuoleille; tytön miehelle mennessä,
vanhempansa, heimonsa ja muut tuttavansa hyvästi jättäen;
kautasille matkoille lähäettäissä; sotamiehiksi vietäissä ja kaikissa
ylen huolettavista retkissä lauletaan eli, kuni sanovatki, itketään.
Tämä itku käypi niin karkialla, oikein karvoille käyvällä, läpi ruumiin ja
jäsenten vihlasevalla äänellä, että vielä vuodenki päästä sitä
muistellessani olen kun säykähyksissä. Sanoista, joita itkuvirsissä
käytetään, olisi erilausumisensa. Usiammat niistä ovat peräti toista
laatua, kun mitä muissa laulelmissa ja pakinoissa olet kuuleva, jonka
tähden eräs mies niiltä seuduin, minun häntäi niistä kysyttyäni,
vastasi: "a elä sie lähe heiän (akkamäen) pakinoilla, ei heillä oo
sanoissahe' mitänä oppie; ilman aikojahe' juorutah', mitä suuhu'
sattuu. Sen mie olen heillä sanont, enkä uso, hot sanokaat ne
opituita olevan", joka tavallisella meidän puheella olisi: elä sinä lähde
heidän pakinoille, ei heillä ole sanoissansa mitänä oppia; ilman
aikojaan juoruvat, mitä suuhun sattuu. Sen minä olen heille sanonut,
enkä usko, jos sanokoot ne opituita olevan. Waan minäpä taasen en
usko tämän miehen lausetta todeksi. Sillä ilman sitä, että hän,
samate kun monella muullaki miehellä on tapana, taisi lukea
kaikkiaki naisväen tietoja ja oppeja ei minkän verosiksi, päättäisin
itse itkuvirsien oudommista sanoista, ne polvi polvelta tytön äitiltänsä
oppineen, eikä itsestään suuhun sattumia olevan. Toiset varsin
ovatki sanoneet, olevan niiden Karjalan alkukieltä. Waan niin ollen,
jopa kyllä olisiki kieli siitä ajasta muuttunut, jona tavallinen puhe olisi
niiden mukanen ollut. Runon laadusta ovat ne peräti poikkeavaiset.
Niin mainitulla tuumalla naisten keskelle Rukavaarassa jouduttuani

ja kynä kädessä pöydän ääressä istuessani, oli kyllä kymmenenki,
jos ei usiampata, naista ympärilläni. Muutamilla oli heillä kuoseli (eli
keträvärkki värttinän kera), jonka kotoa lähtiessään olivat matkaan
ottaneet, sillä laulun ohessa keträillä, toiset kutoivat sukkaa ja
mutamilla oli ompelotyötä käsillä; joutilasta ei ketänä. Niin töitensä
ohessa sanelivat itkumirsiänsä sana sanalta minun pumakalle
(paperille) pistää ja välistä nousi pieni kapina, millon mistä, kullon
kusta sanasta, jonka toiset sanoivat eritavallansa. Tämä kuitenkan ei
olisi minua työssäni haitannut, vaan mikä lie eräälle nuoremmalle
naiselle päähän pistänyt, rupesi yhtäkkiä kaikesta kurkusta itkemään
virttänsä, että oikein kammotti kuullakseni. "Elä joutavia, elä joutavia,
heitä poiges, heitä jo poiges" kuulu joka haaralta toisten suusta,
vaan kerran intouneena ei heittänyt. Siinä sainki, mitä onkielin, toden
perästä kuulla virttä itkettävän, mutta mielelläni olisin hänelle
kahdenkertasesti maksanut, jos kuni käskivät toiset, olisi pikemmin
itkustansa herennyt. Kyllä puolen tiimaa tuskautti kamalalla itkulla
korviani, itkun ohessa millon minki kaulaan sylensä kamahutellen,
sillä erilläanpä ei itketä'kän, vaan aina toista kaulasta halaten. Kun
viimmenkän heitti, sain edellistä kirjottamistani muutamilla uusilla
loruilla lisätä, vaan pimiän tullen, ei paljolla. Tällä päivällä menetin
heille itkuvirsistään neljän rupilan paikkoin, melkeinpä joutavasta,
sillä minkä sain, tuskin luen omani kirjotusvaivanikan veroseksi,
koska ei ollu'kan heissä oikein älyllisen pakinan antajata. Tokko
antaisit, lukia, neljää kopeikkaakan, jos paljonki saisit tämmöistä
pakinata, jota mainittua kirjottamistani myöten nyt sinullenki palasen
näytteeksi panen. (Tytölle itkee emo, miehelle lähtiessä).
"Kantamaiseni kana! sinun kallishyväseni kaottelin. Waalimoiseni
valkiejouseneni! sinulla vaalehie siipisulkasie varoikse vartuttelin.
Walkiehyväseni vaalimoiseni! sinulla vallan vaalimie laaittelin, vallan
vähässä aikasessa. Olovahyväseni ottamaiseni! sinulla ottomie
oimon laaittelin, oimon vähässä aikasessa. Kallishyväseni
kantamaiseni! kantamie aion laaittelin, aion vähässä aikasessa.
Armas hyväseni! sinun armahasti akkiloitsin, aion vähässä
aikasessa. Ennen valkiehyväseni valkehen syntysen valmistaisin.
Ennen kaksie, kallehethyväseni! kaunehie syntysie kaunisteleisin.
Armahani, aimoseni! armahie asetuksie myöten assuttuasi, sintson
omusie myöten siivon lähettyäsi — ka aion olevie suurie sintson
ovusie. En voi tämäaikusie suurie kaihosie kaksitoistakymmenillä
kanapolkumaisilla kannatellaksen."
(Lisää toiste).
MEHILÄINEN W. 1836.
Lokakuulta.
Wiisaampansa vieressä yötä maannut.
Isä neuo poikoansa,

Wanha vaivansa näköä,
Kun kuki sukimojahan,
Itse ilmoin luomiahan:
"Poikueni nuorempani,
Lapseni vakavampani!
Jos sinun halu tulevi,
Naia mielesi tekevi,
Nouse aivon aikasehen,
Aivon aika huomenessa,
Katsele kyleä myötesi,
Kuss on savu ensimmäinen,
Siitä naios poikueni."
Nousi aivon aikasehen,

Aivon aika huomenessa;
Kävi kymmenen kyleä,
Katseli taloja myöten:
Savun saarelta näkevi,
Tulen niemen tutkamesta.
Käypi tietä, astelevi

Neien kuulusan kotihin,
Eikä kuultu koirakkana,
Eikä haukkujat havattu.
Tyttö pääty leipomassa,

Neitonen taputtamassa.
Sano neito, noin nimesi:
"Ellos konsana, jumala,
Suo kotia koiratonta,
Lapsitonta ikkunoa;
Mi sinä lietki miehiäsi,
Ku kylän käviöitäsi,
Nenätön talohon tullut!"
Niin sano sanansa poika;

"Missäpä on taattosesi?"
Neiti virkko, noin nimesi:

"Äsken taatto työlle lähti,
Eestakasin astumahan."
"Miss' on maammosi oleva?"
"Maammo on pantu paimeneksi
Kisoille kesällisille."
"Missä vielä vellesiki?"
"Welli paljo pakkoavi,

Äiän ottavi vähällä."
Niin tuli kotihin poika,

Itse tuon sanoiksi virkko:
"Jo kävin mä, taattoseni,
Nousin aivon aikasehen,
Kävin kymmenen kyleä,
Katselin taloja myöten,
Kusta savu ensimmäinen:
Näin mä savun ensimmäisen,
Savun saarella palavan,
Tulen niemen tutkamessa.
Menin mä sihen talohon,
Eikä mua koirat kuultu,
Eikä haukkujat havattu.
Siin' oli tyttö leipomassa,
Neitonen taputtamassa,
Sanan virkko, noin nimesi:
'Ellös konsana, jumala,
Lapsitonta ikkunoa;
Ja mi sinä lietki miehiäsi,
Ku kylän käviöitäsi,
Nenätön talohon tullut!'
"Niin mä siitä, taattoseni, katsoin, jotta huima eikö oo." — "Huima

sie oot itse, vastasi taatto. Hään kun rupesi leipomaan, heitti vaatteet
vähemmäksi, arveli ei tulevan ketänä. Niin kun tuli vieras, oisi
hänellä ollut parempi, jos oisi ollut koira talossa; se oisi haukkunut.
Taikka jos oisi ollut lapsi ikkunassa, se oisi sanonut: tulee vieraita.
Taikka jos oisit nenäsi sintsissä niistänyt, hään siitä oisi kuullut ja
ennättänyt vaatetta päälleen saaha, eikä oisi häpiä vähistä vaatteista
tullut. Sentähen hään sanoiki:
"Ellös konsana, jumala,

Lapsitonta ikkunoa;
Nenätön tulit talohon."
"A mitä vielä pakisi neito?" — "A kun kysyin mie häneltä taattoa,
niin vastasi:
Äsken taatto työlle lähti

Eestakasin astumahan.
Kun maammoa kysyin, sano:
"Maammo on pantu paimeneksi

Kisoille kesällisille."
Ja kun siitä kysyin vielä velleäki, lausu:
"Welli paljo pakkoavi,

Äiän ottavi vähällä.
Niin mie siitä katsoin, taattoseni, jotta vaan huima onki tyttö." —
"Huima sie oot itse, sano taasenki taatto, kun et älynnyt tytön
lauseita. Sano olevan taattonsa eestakasin astumassa, a sillon
taatto kyntämässä; maammonsa sano kesällisiä kisoja paimentavan,
a sillon maammo lapsisaunassa ja vellensä äiää vähällä ottamassa,
a velli ongella. Niin mene sie toiste sihen taloon, siitä saat viisaan
naisen, jo tuon pakinoistaanki ymmärrän."
Meni toiste poika, teki kaupan, sai tytön, toi kotiinsa. Niin siitä
lähettiin metsälle isä poikanensa. Päivän raattua, yöksi kotiin
astuessa sano isä:
Jo oisit jaloki poika,

Kun mulle jalan hakisit."
Hullujaan haastavan ajatteli poika. Käyään, astutaan, sano taasen

ukku:
"Jo oisit jaloki poika,

Kun tekisit tien lyhemmän."
Ajateli taasenki poika: hullujaan pakajaa. Oli aikoa vähäsen, lausu

ukko:
Kun käteni katkoaisit."
Eikö ainaki hullujaan houraile isä arveli poika. Niin vielä vähän
käytyä, vanha lausu:

Kun multa kallon katkoaisit."
Ei olevan oikialla tuumalla, arveli poika.
Tullaan kotiin, mennään maata. Siinä vuoteellaan pa'istaan nuori

pari päivyisistä asioista. Sano poika: "mi lie tullut taatolleni, ei ollut
oikialla älyllä." Waimo: "a mi hänessä?" — "A niin pakasi laittomia
puheita illalla kotiin astuessamme." — "A mitä pakisi?" — "A sanopa
esinnä:

Kun mulle jalan hakisit.
Siitä vähän käytyä, astuttuamme, taasen sano:

Kun tekisit tien lyhemmän.
Niin siitäi pikkuruisen matkattuamme, lausu kolmannekseen:

Kun käteni katkoaisit.
Ja viimmesekseen pakasi:

Kun multa kallon katkoaisit.
Niin ainaki ne minusta olivat, jotta hullu hään eilen oli, min Jumala
eille'päin antanee." — Niin sano vaimo: "ukko ei ollut hullu, kun et
itse ennemmin. Tieät, kun vanha iltapäivässä alkaa väsyä ja toivoo
komatta jalkaa, niin oisit hänelle sauan metsästä leikannut; kun
tietänsä lyhentämään toivoi, niin sillon oisit maailman asioita
haastellut. Waan kun halasi käsiänsä katkoamaan, oisit sie kintaat
ottanut, ne hänellä alko jykiäksi käyä ja kun vielä tahto kalloansaki
katkoamaan, lakkinsa olisi sinun kannettavaksi antanut, niin oisi se
hänestä kepiämpi tullut."
A jo päivällä jälkeen mennää metsälle, raataan, astutaan illaksi

kotiin. Wähä matka tultua, sano poika: "eikö ala vaivuttaa taattoa" ja
keikkasi sauan metsästä; se hyvä isästä. Niin taasen vahäsen
astuttua rupesi kaikenlaisia maailman asioita haastelemaan; hyvä
seki. Matkataan eilte, kysäsi poika: "eikö ala kintaat jykiäksi taaton
kantaa käyä?" — otti ne, se isän mieleen. Niin vielä käytyä
pikkuruisen sano: "ettekö antaisi minulle lakkianne, niin tulisi, se
kepiämpi teistä?" — Otti lakinki, a hyvä seki isästä. Niin kotiin
saahessa lausu isä pojalle "a jo nään, poikaseni, viisaampasi
vieressä oot yötä maannut.
Jälkimaine. Tämä tarina on Wenäjan puolelta saatu ja tähän

yksillä sanoilla pantu, kun kerrottiinki. Ilman Suomalaisia tarinoita
tähän asti on ylen vähä koottu. Taitaisivat kuitenki olla siitä armosta,
että ansaitsisivat tulta kootuksi samalla huolella, kun moni muuki
kansa on tarinoitaan jälkimuistoon korjaillut. Niistä vaan olisi
kotvaksiki kerätessä työtä, sillä halki maan muistellaan niitä pian
äärettömästi ja useimmiten erilaatusia itsekullaki paikalla.
Nuotta'ankkurista.
Soisin Suomeni hyväksi,

Kaupunkini kaunihiksi,
Miehet muutkin verrakseni,
Poikani paremmakseni;
Että uusia etuja 5
Ajateltaisi aluti
Töissä työläissä avuksi,
Talonpojan tarpehiksi.
Wiel' on mielessä minulla

Wanhan aikanen asia, 10
Kun en saanut sauontani
Luotohon lujasti kiinni.
Aalto se ajo venettä,
Wiskasi vihuri viimmen
Apajalta aivotulta 15
Toisen, kolmannen kohalle.
Perävaaria pelotti,
Hirvitti se hiienlailla,
Ehkä äänellä isolla
Toru toisessa nenässä, 20
Ite noitu nostimilla,
Ajalla saman apajan.
Tuot'on tehty tuo ikänsä

Eikä tuosta tuohon tultu;
Kyllä kynsiä kolotti 25
Syksykauet katkerasti,
Puristaissa jäistä puuta;
Kiireisti kiroki pääsi,
Wielä viisiki välistä,
Ajalla yhen apajan. 30
Miehet muutkin, jos minäkin,

Tuskahikehen tulimma
Kiireissä kesämänöissä,
Parven aikana paraassa.
Parvet ne pakeni kauas; 35
Ei saanut syvälle mennä
Syvän synnyn tietämäta.
Waikka vartta jatkettihin,
Pitkä salko sauomeksi;
Ei se seisonut selällä, 40
Lieoilla lahen vesillä.
Niitä olen nuorra nähnyt,

Joita vanhana valitan;
Eikä miestä maassa ollut,
Joka ymmärsi jotakin 45
Avuksi tämän asian.
Sa'an yheksän alussa

Kerran yksi kelpomiesi
Kahteli Halkokarissa,
Hahen perällä havahti 50
Wärkin vähä mahtavamman,
Joka hahet hallihtepi,
Laivat laineissa pitäpi.
Ajatteli ihtellänsä:
Eikös vihko viskattava, 55
Eli raskas rautahäkki,
Auttaisi apajamiestä,
Kalamiestä kannattaisi;
Koska suuret suolalaivat,
Ankarat sota'alukset, 60
Haminoissa hallitahan,
Walkamoissa vallitahan.
Jopa kanto rautakangin

Sillä reisulla rekeensä;
Kohta tultua kotihin 65
Työnsi rauan rautiolle,
Puhu selmästi sepälle,
Haasto tuota Häyriselle:
"Käännä kanki kaksin kerroin,
Keitä kiinni kolmin kerroin; 70
Ite ymmärrät paremmin,
Kuinka pitimet pitäpi
Warustaman varren päähän."
Seppä seiso ja käveli

Wähän ajan arvelussa, 75
Pisti piippuhun tupakan,
Lyötti kangin kappaleiksi,
Kaivo kuonat ahjostansa,
Käski veivata vipua,
Löyhytellä liehotinta. 80
Alko kiitäillä kipunat
Yli ahjon aikalailla,
Waan ei Häyrinen hätäillyt,
Lyytinen lymyhyn mennyt,
Kipunoita kiitäviä, 85
Säkeniä siitäviä.
Kuluessa kuuen tiiman,

Ruokavälin väistyessä,
Kalu kaluksi rupesi,
Juuri aivan ankkuriksi. 90
Naapurit ne ensin nauro,

Kyläkunta kummitteli,
Tuota turhaksi kaluksi;
Joku joukossa sanopi:
"Elkääpä mitänä miehet. 95
Jos on jokusen hyväksi
Arvattu tämä asia."
Muuan kulki maita myöten,

Toiset juoksit jäitä myöten,
Kahen puolin Sankaria, 100
Kahtomaan sitä kalua,
Mikä konsti Koivulassa,
Saatu Sonkarin kylässä,
Kun ne seilaavat selällä,
Saavat aikohin apajan 105
Lieoilla lahen vesillä,
Kovilla karinenillä.
Sepät seurasi perässä

Migration and Discrimination IMISCOE Short Reader IMISCOE Research Series Rosita Fibbi All Chapter Instant Download

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Migration and Discrimination IMISCOE Short Reader IMISCOE Research Series Rosita Fibbi All Chapter Instant Download

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Migration and Discrimination IMISCOE Short Reader IMISCOE Research Series Rosita Fibbi All Chapter Instant Download

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Full download test bank at ebookmeta.

Migration and Discrimination IMISCOE Short Reader

For dowload this book click LINK or Button below

Download More ebooks from https://ebookmeta.com

Migration and Religion: IMISCOE Short Reader 1st

Attachment Theory and Research A Reader 1st Edition

The Longman Writer Rhetoric Reader and Research Guide

The Compact Reader Short Essays by Method and Theme

Stuttering Meets Sterotype Stigma and Discrimination An

His Bride The Complete Short Romance Series Nichole

Discovering Fiction Level 1 Student s Book A Reader of

Research Methodologies and Ethical Challenges in

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13502

ISSN 2364-4087 ISSN 2364-4095 (electronic)

Oslo, Norway Arnfinn H. Midtbøen

Paris, France Patrick Simon

1 Introduction: The Case for Discrimination Research���������������������������� 1

3.3 Structural-Level Theories�������������������������������������������������������������������� 31

1.1  ost-War Immigration and the Ethno-racial

© The Author(s) 2021 1

1.2 Talking About Discrimination in Europe

The first step to mobilize against discrimination is to launch awareness-raising

second generation as a whole might miss the significant differences between –

1.3  ho Is Discriminated Against? The Problem

Collecting data on discrimination raises the problem of the identification of minor-

only Western European countries to produce statistics by ethno-racial categories

1.4  iscrimination and Integration: Commonalities

ethnic minorities, while discrimination research explains disadvantages by charac-

1.5 The Content of the Book

The literature on discrimination is flourishing, and it involves a wide range of con-

Of course, our knowledge of discrimination depends on the methods of measure-

The principle of equality constitutes the core of contemporary societies. Equality in

© The Author(s) 2021 13

institutionalized ethnic and/or racial segregation, which prevented minority groups

2.1 Direct and Indirect Discrimination

Direct discrimination is equivalent to the straightforward definition of discrimina-

2.2 Multiple Discrimination and Intersectionality

In antidiscrimination law, as well as in theoretical and empirical discrimination

2.3 Organizational, Institutional,

settings – schools, public apparatuses, housing, and criminal justice systems – as

2.4 Discrimination and Inequality

contribute to conceal more complex processes of discrimination that shape broader

In the most straightforward sense, discrimination is defined as the unequal treatment

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

This chapter reviews the main theories developed to explain discrimination.

3.1 Individual-Level Theories

Defined as a behavior or a decision based on ascriptive characteristics such as race

© The Author(s) 2021 21

3.1.1 Individual Psychological Conflicts

3.1.2 I ndividual-Level Factors in the Labor Market:

Much research on discrimination aims at understanding the role of differential treat-

do not consider that they mobilize stereotypes against ethno-racial minorities

3.1.3 Intergroup Relations

While discrimination is often theorized as part of decision-making processes at the

and even necessary to orient oneself in an environment rich in stimuli, information,

In the seminal article “Attitudes vs. Actions”, sociologist Richard LaPiere

Brought together, individual theories seek an explanation for the phenomena of

3.2 Organizational-Level Theories

Interpersonal and intergroup encounters always take place in socially structured

Oslo, Norway Arnfinn H. Midtbøen

Paris, France Patrick Simon

1 Introduction: The Case for Discrimination Research�� 1

3.3 Structural-Level Theories�� 31

1.1 ost-War Immigration and the Ethno-racial

1.2 Talking About Discrimination in Europe

1.3 ho Is Discriminated Against? The Problem

1.4 iscrimination and Integration: Commonalities

1.5 The Content of the Book

2.1 Direct and Indirect Discrimination

2.2 Multiple Discrimination and Intersectionality

2.3 Organizational, Institutional,

2.4 Discrimination and Inequality

3.1 Individual-Level Theories

3.1.1 Individual Psychological Conflicts

3.1.2 I ndividual-Level Factors in the Labor Market:

3.1.3 Intergroup Relations

3.2 Organizational-Level Theories

3.2.1 Organizational Procedures: Formalization

3.2.2 rganizational Mechanisms: Networks

3.2.3 Organizational Environment:

3.3 Structural-Level Theories

3.3.1 Present as Sediment of the Past